Stories indexed with the term ‘parking requirements’

At its April 2, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved the policy by which the minimum required parking component of developments in the downtown D1 and D2 zoning districts can be satisfied off-site from the development. The city is using the acronym CIL for “contribution in lieu” to describe the option. The idea could be familiar to some readers as PILOP, or “payment in lieu of parking.” The sole vote against the resolution came from Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

If not provided on-site, the policy allows some of the minimum required parking spaces to be provided with one of two basic strategies: (1) commit to a 15-year contract with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to purchase monthly permits … [Full Story]

At its March 5, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council gave initial approval to changes to its off-street parking code.

The first change reduces the exceptions allowed for front open space parking for sites that have more than one front lot line. Currently, a site with three frontages can have a parking area for two of the frontages – between the building face and the public right of way. The code revision would limit parking areas to a single frontage.

The second change would require that any new driveways serving drive-up windows in the front open space of a site be no wider than 12 feet and provide a raised sidewalk with bollards where the sidewalk crosses a drive-up lane. The … [Full Story]

At its regular meeting on April 21, Ann Arbor’s planning commission voted 6-3 to recommend to city council that it approve the City Place project proposed along Fifth Avenue. It was the fourth time that developer Alex de Parry had brought the project before the planning commission. The first proposal was a conditional rezoning, while the second two proposals were planned unit developments – which are also rezoning proposals. The proposal sent to city council on Tuesday night did not require any changes or variances from the property’s current R4C zoning – it’s thus what’s commonly referred to as a “by right” project.

No one in the room on Tuesday seemed particularly fond of the project, from neighbors to planning commissioners. Even the developer emphasized that it was not his preferred project to build. If planning commissioners were unenthused about the project, why did a majority of them vote for it? Conversely, if it’s a “by right” project, how could three commissioners vote against it, instead of following Tony Derezinski, city council’s representative to the commission, who stated flatly: “I feel constrained to follow the law.”

On Tuesday evening, commissioner Eric Mahler couched the answer to the first of these questions in terms of chickens – the kind that come home to roost. As for the second question, the legal basis of dissenting commissioners could be playfully paraphrased as this: All those chickens that come home to roost will have no place to park their cars. [Full Story]