An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

John Kotarski and Bob Miller of the city’s public art commission presented images of a revised design for public art on the East Stadium bridge, a $400,000 project that includes columns of louvered glass panels on the bridge as well as underneath it, along South State Street. The artist – Catherine Widgery, who’s based in Massachusetts – had changed her original proposal at the request of a selection committee. The public art commission is seeking feedback on this new design, including at a public forum on Monday, April 21 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.

The public art commission likely will vote on a recommendation at its April 23 meeting. The proposal would then be forwarded to the city council for approval.

Also heading to city council is the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House, which planning commissioners voted to recommend on April 1. The plan involves major renovations to the existing building at 314 S. Fourth Ave., which most recently housed the Dream Nite Club that closed in 2012. The renovations include adding a second-floor mezzanine level to the front of the building.

Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect, Stephen Fry, indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. “Ruth’s Chris is about a known and consistent dining experience,” Fry said, “and we just don’t feel we can control it out there.”

Fry also reported that the restaurant will likely be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building. “So we’re going to activate the street with humans that are dressed up and looking good,” he said.

Commissioners also reviewed proposed ordinance revisions related to drive-thrus, and recommended that the city council approve the changes. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

In addition, the changes would require that drive-thru projects obtain a special exception use from the planning commission, and would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House

The planning commission’s April 1 agenda included review of the site plan for Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

Proposed facade of Ruth’s Chris Steak House at 314 S. Fourth Ave.

The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. An open space in front of the building – about 220 square feet – would also be filled in as part of the new addition.

The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The property owner is Dean Zahn Properties in Saline. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report]

The recommendation of approval is contingent on addressing the following issues: (1) a discrepancy in the property legal description; (2) a license agreement for emergency egress across the front of the Fourth & William parking structure; and (3) construction of one bicycle parking space in the Fourth & William parking structure or payment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to install the space.

Because the site is within the D-1 zoning district, it’s exempt from vehicle parking requirements. No outdoor dining is proposed.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this project. The planning staff recommended approval of the site plan.

This would be the first Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Ann Arbor. The chain is based in Florida, with locations nationwide.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Fire, Water

Wendy Woods asked about fire suppression, pointing to comments in the staff report:

If an automatic sprinkler system is not being required by the Building Official, there will be no fire department connection (FDC) on this building, making the location of the FDC in relation to a supporting fire hydrant null. However, should a sprinkler system be installed, according to City Standards, the FDC is required within 100 feet of a supporting hydrant. With that said, the hydrant located on the southwest corner of E. Liberty and S. Fourth Ave is approximately 135-150 feet from the proposed FDC for Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. This does not meet City Standards.

If the building was to be suppressed, in the interest of public safety and welfare, and adding an additional hydrant in order to meet the 100 foot requirement negatively impacts other aspects of the street layout and accessibility of parking and pedestrian traffic, then the current distance from the E. Liberty/S. Fourth Ave. hydrant to the proposed FDC would be considered acceptable in the Fire Marshal’s review.

Stephen Fry of Concept Design, the Grand Rapids firm that’s designing this building, said there was a question about whether building code required this renovation to include an automatic sprinkler system, because there isn’t going to be a change of use – it was a restaurant, and it will remain a restaurant. After talking to city building officials, Fry said, he believes a fire suppression system will be required. It will add more than $100,000 to the project, he said.

Stephen Fry of Concept Design, a Grand Rapids architectural firm that’s designing the Ann Arbor Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

That requirement might also entail putting in another fire hydrant, Fry added, but he’s been working with the fire department and believed they were close to agreeing that existing fire hydrants in the area will suffice. However, he said, “if they want one, then we’ll provide it.”

Sabra Briere asked Fry to explain the emergency egress issue. Currently, Fry replied, there’s a five-foot-wide egress area on the southeast corner of the site. Because the building will have a second floor, it needs a second means of egress that goes to the public right-of-way, he explained. Fry didn’t want to put an exit along the front of the building, so he’s planning to tuck it onto the building’s south side. To do that, a revocable easement from the city needs to be obtained. If the city ever revokes the easement, he said, then the restaurant would need to install an exit door on the front. “It’s a technical issue that we need to legally take care of,” Fry said.

Bonnie Bona asked about stormwater management, saying it’s nice when an existing building can contribute to the “first flush” stormwater treatment. She asked how it would be done – would they cut through the slab and install an infiltration system? Fry responded by saying that “this building is in a significant state of disrepair.” Between 50-100% of the floors will be removed, and most of the building will be gutted. The back doors don’t open, so they’ll be putting in new doors. If they need to make the door big enough to bring in large concrete basins, “that’s what we’ll do,” he said.

The concept is that the roof water will be fed from the roof directly to two tanks buried below the floor in the rear of the building, near the alley. The tanks will slow down the runoff rate from stormwater that flows from the roof, before entering the city’s stormwater system. If the rainfall is too fast for the tanks to contain, the water will overflow into the stormwater system.

Bona asked what the potential is for actual infiltration. Fry said he had mixed emotions about this approach, saying that he knows the city’s engineering staff really wants to locate infiltration tanks on the site. “But this is a 66-year-old building,” Fry said, “and architecturally, I’m a little bit concerned about inducing water around foundations that have been there that long, that I don’t know what condition they’re in.” There are impervious surfaces in every direction for miles, he noted. “It makes me architecturally nervous about the structure,” he said.

Fry hopes to reach a compromise with the city about how to handle the infiltration. Given the age of the building, the current proposal “is just asking for trouble,” he said. An architect typically has three problems, Fry added: “Water, water and water.” Part of the process will entail excavating that part of the building to see what’s there, he noted. Until that happens, it’s hard to know what they’re dealing with. “The commitment is there for [stormwater] detention,” he said. “We’ll do our best for infiltration.”

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Design

Woods asked if the rendering of the building would actually be what the structure looked like after it was built. Fry replied that it would be very close to that. Adding a second floor will make the building “feel more at home in a very large monumental sort of neighborhood,” he said. “This is a tough street.”

Bonnie Bona.

Fry said he had to convince investors to even look at the building. The location includes a lot of bus traffic but no other retail, he noted. So Ruth’s Chris will be a good transitional use, because it’s a destination restaurant and doesn’t rely on foot traffic as much, he said. They can control what happens inside the building, Fry added, so what’s going on outside isn’t as important.

Bona noted that the proposal is a fairly small second-floor addition to a downtown building. Current downtown zoning doesn’t allow for a one-story building if it’s new construction, she said. Is there any potential for further additions on top of the existing building? Fry replied that the existing building won’t support a second floor, so they’ll be building new support structure for the addition. The design is also nearly the maximum allowable square footage that doesn’t require an elevator, which would be a significant cost, he said.

Fry also reported that a single-floor roof allows for economical kitchen venting – that’s one reason why this building was chosen. He noted that some of the investors didn’t even want to add any second floor, but Fry thought it was the only way to make the restaurant successful. “The private dining sector in this town seems to be very strong, and Ruth’s Chris is certainly a player in that,” he said.

Bona thought the second-floor facade added a lot to the streetscape. She appreciated that it would be a real second floor, saying that there’s a restaurant nearby with a second floor “that’s just open space to the first floor. It’s basically a fake second floor.” [She was referring to Tios, at 401 E. Liberty.]

Regarding the streetscape, Bona asked Fry for his thoughts on the use of the sidewalk. Fry noted that there’s some broken concrete that needs to be repaired. He said the restaurant would be a good neighbor for that area, and would likely make seasonal changes to the planters in front of the building. The restaurant is very serious about having a valet service, Fry added, “so we’re going to activate the street with humans that are dressed up and looking good.”

The sidewalk is only 12 feet wide, Fry noted, so there’s not a lot of room. The restaurant would likely go along with whatever improvements are proposed for that block. There’s a lot of activity on the sidewalk during the day, but the restaurant doesn’t intend to be open for lunch initially, Fry said. He added that the restaurant hopes to bring more activity at night, so lighting will be critical to make the sidewalk safe.

Paras Parekh asked about the potential for outdoor seating. There’s no restaurant policy against it, Fry replied, but “we do not think it’s appropriate for this location.” The sun never hits that east wall, he said, and it’s difficult for the restaurant to control the outdoor setting. “Ruth’s Chris is about a known and consistent dining experience,” Fry said, “and we just don’t feel we can control it out there.” He wasn’t sure there’d be room for tables anyway, given the valet service.

Kirk Westphal.

Kirk Westphal followed up, asking whether the design would be flexible enough to allow outdoor seating in the future, if the restaurant decided to do that. There’s nothing to preclude it, Fry replied. He noted that the Ruth’s Chris in Grand Rapids has a really nice sidewalk in front and is in a location with a nice environment, so there is outdoor dining. “If there’s a need, we will certainly evaluate that,” Fry said.

The restaurant’s biggest concern is the bus traffic on Fourth Avenue, which causes significant noise, Fry told commissioners. There’s also not a lot to look at, he added – just the wall of the federal building across the street. Westphal noted that the buses stop running at night.

Diane Giannola wondered if the architect had considered having a rooftop deck. Yes, Fry said, but again it came down to whether the restaurant could control the outside environment. There would be kitchen exhaust and other noise, he said, so it didn’t seem to make sense at this location.

Ken Clein said he’d like to see outdoor dining too, but agreed that it probably wasn’t the best location to do that. As a destination restaurant, Clein thought it was a good use of the site, especially considering that it’s been vacant for a long time. “I’m a vegetarian, and I’m still supportive of it,” Clein joked. Fry replied that there’d be options for vegetarians, too.

Clein, who is also an architect, asked about the building materials, which Fry described. There would be some tweaks to respond to recommendations from the city’s design review board regarding the colors of the facade, Fry said. “It all needs to reflect quality and craftsmanship – that’s the idea.” The company doesn’t dictate the design of the franchises, he added, so every building is unique. Fry said he designed the Ruth’s Chris restaurant in Grand Rapids too, which is located inside the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Misc.

Responding to a query from Woods, Fry said that the bicycle parking in the Fourth & William structure is visible from the sidewalk.

City planner Matt Kowalski.

Briere asked if a citizens participation meeting had been required for this project. No, Fry replied, but they did mail out some notifications to surrounding property owners. There were no responses.

Jeremy Peters asked about the staff memo regarding a discrepancy in the property line. The current legal description does not include the western 8 feet at the back of the property, adjacent to the alley. City planner Matt Kowalski explained that it appears to be a clerical error when the deed was drawn up more than 60 years ago. There’s no question about who owns it – it’s clearly part of the lot, he said.

Fry added that it can’t be changed without filing a lawsuit, and that’s being done. “I understand that our odds are extremely high that it’s going to go through,” he said, because the owner has been paying taxes on that portion of the property for decades.

Westphal asked about shielding noise from the restaurant’s mechanical systems. Fry indicated that the noise would be very similar or less than previous restaurants located in that same building. The kitchen, which was built for Maude’s restaurant, is huge, Fry said.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the city’s challenge is that it’s difficult to enforce the noise standards – especially after equipment has been installed – other than sending police to respond to complaints. Fry noted that the site is surrounded by a parking structure to the south, a surface parking lot to the north, and an alley on the west. The noise would be shielded in the front by the new second floor addition, he said. Westphal suggested exploring quieter models of mechanical systems, if possible.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes

Commissioners considered several amendments to the city’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

In introducing the proposal, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that planning commission chair Kirk Westphal had requested that staff look into these changes. The issue has been around for a long time, she said.

Since the changes were first considered in 2007, the city’s South State Street corridor plan has been approved, Rampson noted. [It was added to the city's master plan in 2013.] There’s been discussion about how to make the city’s major commercial corridors more pedestrian friendly, she said, by bringing buildings closer to the front of properties and reducing the impact of vehicles. So it made sense to bring forward these proposed revisions related to drive-thrus, she said.

Rampson pointed out that these changes would not preclude having drive-thrus in office, C2B or C3 zoning districts. Rather, it would give planning commissioners the opportunity to look at the layout of the site, though there are some design restrictions. For example, the ordinance revisions would prevent a drive-thru window from being located between a sidewalk and the main building.

These proposed changes, coupled with revisions that the city made two years ago in the off-street parking ordinance, should help minimize the impact of a drive-thru, Rampson said.

Finally, the changes would also give the planning commission the discretion to reject a drive-thru proposal, if it’s in a location that commissioners feel isn’t appropriate, Rampson noted. The intent is to give commissioners the tools they need to make sure a drive-thru works on a particular property, she said.

The biggest impact will likely be on banks that are built in the future, Rampson said, because currently regulations related to drive-thrus haven’t applied to banks at all.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this item.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Definition, Use

Ken Clein asked whether these revisions would impact car washes. No, Rampson replied, because car washes are considered a separate use. She noted that in C2B districts, car washes, automobile service stations and filling stations are allowed as special exception uses.

Wendy Woods.

In the definition of a drive-thru, Clein wondered whether the word “motor” should be added in front of “vehicle” – in case some “intrepid entrepreneur” wanted to have a bicycle or skateboard drive-thru at some point. Rampson noted that the definition describes “customers who remain in their vehicle.” She thought it would be hard to say that someone is “in a skateboard” or “in a bike.” There are also motorized bicycles, she noted.

But Rampson agreed that Clein’s suggestion to add the word “motor” would allow more clarity. If someone proposed a different kind of drive-thru – or a walk-up window, for example – she didn’t think the city would be concerned about that.

Clein proposed an amendment to add the word “motor” to the definition. The revised definition would state: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their motor vehicle during the course of the transaction.”

Bonnie Bona agreed that there would be no problem with a walk-up or bike-up window, because those wouldn’t cause conflicts with sidewalks and pedestrians.

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Wendy Woods noted that there are drive-thru funeral homes, including some in Detroit. That’s another kind of use, though she hoped it wouldn’t come to Ann Arbor. She asked whether the ordinance needed to mention that use.

Rampson replied that the advantage of the proposed approach is that the drive-thru is associated with many different uses. It’s only the drive-thru component that would trigger the special exception use requirement.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Past Projects

Bona asked Rampson to share an example that had been discussed at the ordinance revisions committee – a drive-thru on Plymouth Road, near the Holiday Inn North Campus hotel. In that project, the back doors of the building faced Plymouth Road, Bona noted. How would the proposed ordinance revisions have helped the planning commission deal with that project?

Paras Parekh.

[Bona was referring to a project that the planning commission recommended for approval at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. The retail development – called The Shoppes at 3600 – is located at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23.]

Rampson told commissioners that if the proposed ordinance revisions had been in place at that time, the project would have required the commission to grant a special exception use. The drive-thru could not be located between the main building and a public right-of-way. For that project, the window was actually located on the side of the building, Rampson noted, so it wasn’t between the main building and the sidewalk. Commissioners had been more critical of the exiting driveway that led around the back of the building, between the building and the Plymouth Road sidewalk.

However, Rampson said, commissioners could have applied other standards of the special exception use to require modifications to the project.

Rampson also pointed to the drive-thru at the Tim Horton’s on Ellsworth Road, which planning commissioners recommended for approval on March 6, 2012. In that case, the drive-thru window is facing Ellsworth. So if the proposed ordinance revisions had been in place at that time, the city would have required that the building or the window be reoriented.

Woods noted that other drive-thru projects have created problems, like the Walgreens at the corner of Washtenaw and Huron Parkway. It’s very difficult to use the drive-thru, she said, because of traffic coming in from Huron Parkway. And pedestrians “pretty much take their life in their own hands when they want to cross the street to get over there,” she added.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Special Exception Use

Bona said the special exception use allows the developer to be creative about how to solve the problem. She indicated that she preferred this approach, rather than requiring specific design restrictions. The intent is to not prioritize cars over the pedestrian experience, she said.

Jeremy Peters agreed, saying that the standards outlined in the special exception use might yield better designs. He said he was a fan of taking this approach, instead of banning drive-thrus completely. Businesses that have the need for a drive-thru still have that option.

Responding to a query from Kirk Westphal, Rampson said that if existing drive-thrus need renovations that require an administrative amendment to the site plan or planning commission approval, it’s considered a pre-existing, special exception use. But if a project requires going to city council to get site plan approval, then the special exception use would need to be re-established by the planning commission.

Ken Clein agreed that the special exception use was a good tool for this purpose. It raised the bar a little, in terms of the planning commission’s expectations, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the ordinance revisions. The proposal will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Stadium Bridge Artwork

John Kotarski, vice chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, gave a presentation to commissioners about the proposed artwork for East Stadium bridge. Also on hand were AAPAC chair Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

John Kotarski, vice chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. Seated in the background are AAPAC chair Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for public art on the East Stadium bridge in Ann Arbor. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it’s presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Kotarski reviewed the process, which started in November 2011. The goal had been to unify the East Stadium bridge overpass and the South State Street underpass, and connect to the neighborhoods. The artwork was intended to connect with different modes of transportation, to be viewed by people walking, biking or in cars. A total of 32 proposals had been originally received.

Kotarski said AAPAC “constantly” is asked the question: Why not pick a local artist? “The short answer is the city attorney said we can’t,” Kotarski told commissioners. The city can’t have an open competition and restrict artists to only ones who live in this area, he said. However, he added that AAPAC did extensive outreach to local artists, contacting local organizations and asking them to spread the word about the request for proposals. Seven Michigan artists presented proposals, but none were selected as finalists.

Although Widgery’s work stood out in many ways, Kotarski said, the selection panel wanted her to refine it. For example, her original proposal called for 12 four-by-six-foot acrylic/aluminum or glass banners etched with images of trees, to be hung from existing lightpoles on the bridge. It would have required the lightpoles to be reinforced in some way. The panelists also wanted a more dramatic structure, Kotarski said.

Widgery’s new design for the bridge features stand-alone, louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass. The panels are lit, so that the etchings stand out at night, Kotarski explained.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Kotarski noted that he and Miller will be making similar presentations at a public forum and at meetings of local groups like the planning commission. The public forum will be held on Monday, April 21 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

AAPAC will review the input and likely vote on a recommendation for the project at its April 23 meeting, Kotarski said. That recommendation would then be forwarded to the city council for approval. The hope is to have the artwork installed by the fall of 2014 or early spring of 2015.

Kotarski concluded by saying that “not one penny of the money spent on this artwork could be spent on potholes. This is a completely different fund.” He said the money to fix potholes comes from state revenue, not local taxes. “So this is not art versus potholes – I want to assure you of that,” he said.

The funds for the East Stadium bridge artwork are from the city’s former Percent for Art program, which the city council eliminated at its June 3, 2013 meeting. The project’s budget had been approved prior to the council’s decision to suspend funding for new projects. That decision occurred on Dec. 3, 2012.

The specific Percent for Art money for this project comes from street millage revenues. The Percent for Art funding mechanism set aside 1% for public art from the budget of each of the city’s capital projects, such as street work.

Stadium Bridge Artwork: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere confirmed with John Kotarski that the structures would be lit from below. She wondered if the lighting would be solar-powered. Bob Miller replied that the city is getting estimates from the electrician, but the structures won’t be lit with solar power. Briere asked if it would connect with the same electrical system that’s heating the stairs coming up to the bridge from South State. Miller wasn’t sure.

Sabra Briere.

When Briere expressed disappointment that the lighting wouldn’t be solar, Miller said that it would be possible, if the city wanted it.

Miller highlighted the fact that these structures will be on both the east and west ends of the bridge – along the north side.

Ken Clein said he’d seen the previous designs, and thought this version was a great improvement. The lighting makes a big difference. He thanked AAPAC for its work.

Briere noted that the structures on the bridge are adjacent to sidewalks, and thus are removed from traffic. Miller replied that a previous iteration had positioned the structures in a landscaped area on the east end. But feedback from neighbors, who didn’t want the landscaping disturbed, resulted in moving the structures out of that area, but next to the sidewalk.

Briere hoped there would be less risk of vehicular accidents in the proposed location. Miller replied: “I didn’t know there was a risk to begin with.”

Briere said there are always risks, so she wanted to make sure the structures were separated from traffic.

Kirk Westphal asked about maintenance costs, citing the example of a car hitting one of the structures. Miller replied that the artist has been asked to provide a maintenance schedule. That will be part of the final proposal.

Westphal asked if there would be a plaque identifying the artist. Aaron Seagraves indicated that there would be a plaque of some sort.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Meeting Schedule

Commissioners were asked to approve their meeting schedule for fiscal 2015, which runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [.pdf of meeting schedule]

Ann Arbor planning commissioners.

The planning commission meetings are held on Tuesdays. During the week of an election, the meetings are typically rescheduled for a Thursday. However for the next fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2014, the planning staff is recommending that the planning commission meetings be moved to Wednesday after an election, rather than to Thursday.

Sabra Briere asked whether there would be any conflicts with Wednesday meetings. Briere said she was thinking about all the neighborhood and citizen meetings that occur on Wednesdays, and trying to determine “how to adjust my mental schedule.” Planning manager Wendy Rampson thought they’d encounter the same potential conflicts on Thursdays. There are only a limited number of options, she noted, and the staff tries not to conflict with other city boards and commissions.

Rampson reported that city staff hadn’t anticipated the Tuesday, May 6 election. [The election is being held for the sole purpose of voting on a transit tax, which was put on the ballot by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.] The elections staff will be using the hallways outside of council chambers on May 6, she noted. The planning staff felt that there would likely be too much noise, so they’ve scheduled the May 6 meeting to be held in the Washtenaw County boardroom, at 220 N. Main St.

That change of venue will get planning commissioners accustomed to the new location, Rampson said. Later in the calendar year, their meetings will be held at that location while asbestos abatement occurs on the second floor of city hall, where the council chambers are located.

Outcome: Commissioners approved their meeting schedule.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. No one spoke during public commentary on April 1.

Communications & Commentary: City Council

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the city council’s April 7 agenda will include the joint resolution regarding the former Edwards Brothers property, which planning commissioners passed at their March 18, 2014 meeting.

The resolution included recommendations on uses for the site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. The intent is to encourage representatives from the city and UM to discuss their mutual interests in that area – weighing the university’s need to expand its facilities against the city’s interest in strengthening its tax base.

Issues include the possible private development of the section that fronts South State, impact on the park-and-ride lot in that area, and the extension of Oakbrook Drive from South State to South Main, through UM property. The council will be considering the same resolution.

The council’s April 7 agenda will also include the planning commission’s resolution about the use of the Library Lane surface, which commissioners also approved on March 18, 2014. That resolution will be attached to the agenda as an item of communication, Rampson said.

Communications & Commentary: ZORO

Wendy Rampson reported that the city attorney’s office and city planner Alexis DiLeo have been working on the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project. “I just thought you’d be excited to hear that,” she joked. There’s still a lot of work to be done, but the staff is trying to move it forward, she added.

ZORO began in 2009. The goal is to do a comprehensive review of 11 chapters of the city code that are related to development, and to present the material in a more concise, user-friendly way, clarifying terminology, and eliminating inconsistencies and outdated material. The project is being overseen by the city attorney’s office, with support from planning staff and work by an outside consultant. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald is the lead staff person for ZORO.

At a Jan. 7, 2014 planning commission work session, Rampson had reported that the project had been stalled for about six months. The slow progress has been a point of frustration for commissioners over the years.

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Zoning

Bonnie Bona reported that the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) is working on revisions to the downtown zoning ordinance. The planning commission had made recommendations about the revisions at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. Those recommendations were subsequently approved by the city council on Jan. 21, 2014, when the council directed the planning commission to craft the corresponding zoning ordinance language to reflect the recommendations.

The ORC started with the rezoning of property at Main and William to D2, Bona said, and that will be on the planning commission’s agenda in May. The next piece is to look at the area north of Huron Street, including potentially rezoning some sites and adjusting the overlay district in that area.

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

Ken Clein, who represents the planning commission on the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, reported that the DDA is kicking off its streetscape framework project. He’ll be representing the planning commission as part of that effort. [The DDA board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.]

Ken Clein.

In response to a query from Wendy Woods, planning manager Wendy Rampson said the framework will include an economic evaluation of the use of sidewalks – whether it’s for dining, outdoor sales, or other activities. The intent is to help provide better guidance about what should be allowed on the sidewalks.

Related to downtown sidewalks, Sabra Briere said she keeps hearing from constituents about problems with handicapped accessibility. In many locations, it’s difficult or impossible for someone in a wheelchair to maneuver, she said. Many times, outdoor seating is marked off with a fence that blocks access at a handicapped parking spot, Briere noted. Any time there are barriers put in place unknowingly, “we’re making a mistake,” she said.

The city should be really sensitive to the situation, so she hoped that Clein could bring that up as the streetscape project moves forward.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters, Paras Parekh, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

If approved by the city council, the amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus. Commissioner Jeremy Peters noted that he preferred the approach of requiring a special exception use, rather than an outright prohibition of drive-thrus.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

This brief was filed from the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Action directing the planning commission to start crafting ordinance language came at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. The session included a public hearing, with a dozen people speaking generally in support of the proposed revisions. Many speakers urged the council to make additional revisions – for example, looking at the South University area, Thayer Street, and additional sections of East Huron. Several people also supported additional recommendations that were made by the Near Downtown Neighborhood Group. [.pdf of Near-Downtown Neighborhood Group letter]

The issue of design guidelines and the design review board was also raised during the public hearing. Some people argued that the design review process should have more “teeth.” But Tamara Burns, an architect and chair of the city’s design review board, told the council that the board does not support tying the award of premiums to compliance with the recommendations of the design review board. She advocated for revising the design guidelines and updating the process for the design review.

David Blanchard, chair of the city’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB), also spoke at the hearing. He wanted to keep the idea of affordable housing alive, and supported a diversity of housing choices for different income levels. He urged the planning commission to work with HHSAB to make affordable housing a reality in Ann Arbor.

The amendments made during the meeting were in large part additions to the original resolution, and addressed concerns raised during the public hearing. In addition to the original resolution’s directions, amendments were made to direct the planning commission to (1) consider rezoning Huron Street from Division to Fourth Avenue to conform with the East Huron 1 character district, and consider incorporating 25-foot minimum side setbacks and 10 foot front setbacks where feasible in the East Huron 1 Character District; and (2) to consider whether other D1-zoned areas, which do not have buffering from adjacent residential neighborhoods, including some areas of South University and Thayer Street, should be rezoned to D2.

A date certain was also added by which the planning commission is to report to the council on all its work on this issue. That date is Oct. 20, 2014, which is the council’s second meeting that month.

The one part of the original resolution that was separated out from the direction to the planning commission to begin implementation was this: “Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.” That point was left in the resolution, but language was added to recognize the objections to it that were heard from the city’s design review board during the public hearing. The revised text stated: “Council requests that the planning commission review and consider methods to achieve compliance with core design guidelines in a manner that achieves design review board support, …”

After the planning commission completes the next phase of their work – to develop the ordinance language – the city council will need to give final approval of the changes. Both of the next steps – by the planning commission and the city council – will include public hearings.

In general, the recommendations forwarded by the planning commission to the council for consideration on Jan. 21 aimed to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods. The planning commission had voted on the recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting

Three of the recommendations related to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.

Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage. Those recommendations were: (1) Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts – a recommendation that was somewhat softened through an amendment by the council at its Jan. 21 meeting; (2) Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing; (3) Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms; (4) Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

By way of additional background, a downtown zoning evaluation began last year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13. That direction was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1, 2013.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

The commission continued the public hearing and debated most of these recommendations at its Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. The group did not tackle the most controversial item that night: Possible changes to the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William.

On Dec. 3, commissioners picked up the topic and heard from three people during the ongoing public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main. Following that, the commission’s discussion focused on 425 S. Main, as well as revisiting a recommendation related to the design guidelines.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “Feedback on Downtown Zoning Continues“; “Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase“; “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review”; ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward” and “Downtown Zoning Review to Wrap Up Soon.”

Details of the council’s deliberations on Jan. 21 are reported in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

City planning manager Wendy Rampson and Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, at a Jan. 7, 2014 working session in the basement of city hall. (Photos by the writer.)

Planning manager Wendy Rampson gave the mid-year update, reporting on items that were moving ahead, delayed or stalled. Some projects – like the downtown zoning review – had taken more time than anticipated, she reported. That meant some other projects didn’t get as much attention. [.pdf of work plan status report]

Two projects on the work plan have been completed: (1) an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, and (2) the second-year update to the capital improvements plan (CIP). Other work – like the years-long effort to reorganize the city’s zoning ordinances, known as ZORO, continues to languish. That project is being overseen by the city attorney’s office, with support from planning staff.

Based on feedback from the four commissioners at the working session, as well as input from other commissioners via email, some items on the work plan will be tweaked.

City staff have drafted an action plan to implement goals of the city’s sustainability framework, which was approved last year. Planning commissioners are interested in moving that forward.

Commissioners also expressed interested in forming a new committee to explore the impact of pending changes to mandated floodplain insurance, with a cross-section of representatives from planning, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office, the city’s historic district commission and local creekshed groups.

In addition, Rampson was asked to explore the possibility of forming a joint planning commission with representatives from the four jurisdictions along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor – the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Pittsfield Township. A right-of-way report for that corridor will be completed soon, which will be reviewed by the commission.

Commissioners also directed Rampson to develop a list of pros and cons for eliminating drive-thrus as a by-right option in certain zoning districts, and instead requiring developers to seek a special exception from the planning commission in order to build one. Some commissioners think that drive-thrus – especially for fast food restaurants – make an area less pedestrian-friendly. Also of concern are the emissions generated from idling vehicles.

More immediately, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee will be reviewing recommendations from an advisory committee on R4C/R2A residential zoning. There will also likely be work on ordinance revisions for downtown zoning, depending on what direction is given by the city council. A set of recommendations already approved by planning commissioners is on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

Work Plan Overview

Each year, the planning commission sets a work plan, prioritizing initiatives and long-term projects that they’ll work on with staff during the city’s fiscal year, which runs from July 1 through June 30. For fiscal 2013-2014, commissioners developed a work plan in June of 2013, which was formally approved at their June 18, 2013 meeting.

At the commission’s Jan. 7, 2014 working session, Kirk Westphal, who chairs the group, reported that the commission’s executive committee had met to review the work plan and get an update on the status of various projects that the planning staff is undertaking. The intent was to review these projects at the working session and see if any priorities have shifted. The city is about halfway through its fiscal year.

The work plan has two main sections: (1) items related to master planning, and (2) items related to ordinance revisions or implementation. [.pdf of work plan status report]

Several items in the work plan haven’t moved forward as quickly as expected, according to city planning manager Wendy Rampson. The review of downtown zoning had been “all consuming” during the first six months of the fiscal year, she noted, and the ongoing R4C/R2A zoning review had also taken up considerable time. Neither of those efforts have produced anything tangible yet, she added, “but all of the discussion that’s gone on in the community has resulted in some consensus-building in that area.”

Rampson told commissioners that she was looking for direction about where the planning staff should put its energy in the next six months. The commission will also hold a retreat in the spring to look at priorities for next year.

The work plan also will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting of the full planning commission. Only four commissioners attended the Jan. 7 working session.

Master Planning

Under the category of master planning, the planning commission’s work plan has two main projects: (1) developing an action plan for the city’s existing sustainability framework; and (2) corridor projects on Washtenaw Avenue and North Main Street.

Master Planning: Sustainability Framework Action Plan

The planning commission and city council had approved a sustainability framework last year, adding it as an element of city’s master plan. The framework has 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. City staff have drafted an action plan to implement the goals of that framework. [.pdf of draft action plan]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the staff made some good progress on drafting the action plan over the summer, but now “it’s basically stopped.” The two staff members who had taken the lead on it – Jamie Kidwell and Jill Thacher – got pulled into other projects, she said.

The draft action plan hasn’t yet been circulated to the three groups that were involved in developing the sustainability framework: The planning, energy and environmental commissions. If there’s interest in prioritizing this project, getting feedback from these commissions would be the next step, Rampson said.

The intent of the action plan is to take each goal of the sustainability framework and pick one to three items that could be implemented throughout the organization.

For example, under the category of integrated land use, one of the goals from the framework is: “Encourage dense land use and development patterns which draw people downtown and foster an active street life, contribute to its function as an urban residential neighborhood and support a sustainable transportation system.” Two action items have been drafted to help achieve that goal:

Develop a reuse strategy for end of life, vacant city-owned properties in and near downtown.

Implement the recommendations of the Connecting William Street effort, once adopted.

By way of background on Connecting William Street, at its March 5, 2013 meeting, the planning commission voted to add the Connecting William Street report as a resource document. However, the city council has not taken any action regarding that effort, which was undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the direction of the city council.

Action items for other land use goals include implementing recommendations of the South State Street corridor study and the North Main/Huron River corridor task force, continuing participation in Reimagine Washtenaw, and implementing appropriate city code revisions related to the R4C/R2A zoning review.

Kirk Westphal noted that the sustainability framework represents the highest priorities of several city commissions, and it made sense to him to finish the project by completing the action plan. “So even if we’re not always on the same page, at least we’re in the same pamphlet,” he joked.

In response to a query from Paras Parekh, Rampson said the action plan would be a working document. If approved, the staff would review progress on these items each year.

Rampson said it’s possible to link almost everything that the planning commission works on to the sustainability action plan. The Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project, for example, is linked to economic health and public engagement – the idea that there’s a clear understanding of the rules for development.

Jeremy Peters supported working on the action plan, saying it’s a point of pride if someone can look at work on the sustainability goals and say, “This is why I want to live in Ann Arbor. This is why I want to start my business in Ann Arbor.”

Diane Giannola urged each of the commissions to focus on the action items that are most relevant to their work. She was worried that it would be difficult to reach consensus on all of the action items.

Rampson said she’d schedule a time for the planning commission to discuss how to move forward, possibly at a working session in February.

Master Planning: Washtenaw Avenue, North Main Corridors

Wendy Rampson noted that two projects related to central corridors – Washtenaw Avenue and North Main – are on track.

Planning commissioner Paras Parekh.

The North Main/Huron River corridor task force had completed its work in the summer of 2013. The question for commissioners is whether they want to do a full-blown corridor study for North Main, as they did for South State Street, Rampson said.

Paras Parekh noted that there had been a lot of ideas about North Main, calling it a “vital part of the city.” He thought the commission should make a decision about what to do with the task force report, one way or another. Diane Giannola observed that a full-blown corridor study, like the one that was done for South State Street, is intense and would require a lot of work. Rampson pointed out a similar study for North Main would likely be less intense, because the North Main/Huron River corridor task force has already done a lot of public engagement and research. “It gives us a bit of a jump start,” Rampson said.

Regarding the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, the planning commission was briefed about Reimagine Washtenaw at a working session in December of 2013. The commission will need to decide what it wants to do next, regarding recommendations for that project.

Rampson reported that a Washtenaw Avenue right-of-way study being conducted by Smith Group/JJR would be completed soon. She suggested that the planning commission could look at how the right-of-way recommendations would impact potential redevelopment along Washtenaw Avenue. That corridor passes through four jurisdictions: the city of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township, and the city of Ypsilanti. Rampson noted that the biggest challenge for Ann Arbor’s section is that it’s the widest part of the corridor. Any changes that would narrow the road would affect the service drives, which include parking areas.

Because the Reimagine Washtenaw recommendations will be coming soon, that’s probably the most timely project for implementation, Rampson said.

Parekh confirmed with Rampson that the changes would happen incrementally over the next few years, as properties get redeveloped. Owners would not be required to conform the existing buildings and setbacks to new zoning, for example. Although major changes would not happen immediately, Rampson noted that some property owners are interested in redevelopment. She cited the owners of the Victory Inn at 3750 Washtenaw Ave. near the US-23 interchange, saying they’ve come in to talk with planning staff about redeveloping that site.

It’s important that new requirements are in place so that when redevelopment does occur, it can conform to what the city and other jurisdictions would like to see along Washtenaw Avenue, Rampson said. Changes in transit will also impact some of the corridor improvements. “This is real planning – when you’re looking so far into the future,” she added. In addition to some of the “problem-solving” projects on the planning commission’s work plan, it’s good to have a longer-term project as well, Rampson told commissioners.

Kirk Westphal confirmed with Rampson that it would be possible to have a joint planning commission for the corridor, with representatives from each jurisdiction. He wondered if creating that would be the best first step. Rampson noted that state law governs the formal process of setting up a new joint planning commission. She pointed out that once it’s created, it has to be sustained – so the question is whether there’s enough energy among all the jurisdictions to do that. Responding to another question from Westphal, Rampson said a joint planning commission doesn’t preclude the formation of a corridor improvement authority (CIA).

Rampson reported that a joint technical committee – composed mostly of staff from the four jurisdictions, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation – continues to meet monthly. Their work has been driven by the right-of-way study, so after that the committee “will have to figure out what our reason for being is,” she said.

Also, there’s some funding from the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development’s Sustainable Communities planning grant for public art in the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, Rampson said, and Deb Polich of the Arts Alliance is working on that. Polich is also participating in the joint technical committee.

The involvement of elected officials in this project has started to wane, Rampson reported. The staff has also tried to get merchant associations involved, she added, but it’s been difficult along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor. The core businesses for the Washtenaw Avenue Merchants Association are Hiller’s grocery, Paesano restaurant, and Wheels in Motion, Rampson said, but she wasn’t sure how active the group is.

Rampson said she’d follow up with Nathan Voght of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development, who is providing staff support for Reimagine Washtenaw, to explore a possible joint planning commission.

Master Planning: Completed Projects

Rampson noted that two projects on the work plan in the master planning category have been completed: (1) an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan; and (2) the second-year update to the capital improvements plan (CIP).

The planning commission approved an update to the non-motorized transportation plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. The document includes sections on planning and policy, as well as recommendations for short-term and long-term projects, such as bike boulevards, crosswalks, sidewalks and larger efforts like the Allen Creek greenway and Border-to-Border Trail. The city council subsequently approved the update as well. Items in the city’s master plan must receive approval from both the planning commission and the council.

The council does not approve the CIP – as that’s the planning commission’s purview. But the city council has budgetary control over the plan. Commissioners approved the 2015-2020 CIP at their Dec. 3, 2013 meeting, and it was forwarded to the council as an information item.

The CIP is a supporting document for the city’s master plan, and the city council bases its capital budget on the CIP. It includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of staff memo and CIP for FY 2015-2020] Most of this year’s updates relate to FY 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. This year reflects the first-time inclusion of projects undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations

Several items on the work plan relate to ordinance revisions, including reviews of downtown zoning and R4C/R2A residential zoning, the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project, and possible ordinance changes related to floodplain issues.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Downtown Zoning

The recommendations regarding changes to downtown zoning were originally due to the city council by October 2013. The planning commission had finished that work and approved the set of recommendations on Dec. 3, 2013. Wendy Rampson reported that the recommendations will be on the city council’s Jan. 21 agenda. “So we’re making progress on that, but it’s slow,” she said.

Kirk Westphal noted that even if the council signs off on the recommendations, then the planning commission gets “restarted” as they work with staff to develop actual ordinance revisions that implement the recommendations.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: R4C/R2A

Amendments to the city’s R4C/R2A zoning were scheduled to be completed by March of 2014, but that project isn’t moving ahead as quickly as planned, Rampson reported. She noted that a final report will be submitted soon by an advisory committee, and at that point the planning commission will need to decide what to do next. [.pdf of final advisory committee report]

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

A review of these residential zoning ordinances has been in the works for several years. An advisory committee was originally established by the Ann Arbor city council in 2009. Its purpose was to give input as the planning commission developed recommendations for what some city staff have called a “broken” zoning district. The committee’s original recommendations were delivered to the commission in 2012, and planning commissioners adopted their own set of recommendations for the council in April of 2013.

Although there was considerable overlap, the planning commission’s recommendations diverged from the advisory committee in some significant ways. Some advisory committee members felt their work had been cut short and that the final report presented to the planning commission on behalf of the committee did not fully reflect the committee’s consensus. They also wanted to weigh in on some of the commission’s recommendations, including a proposed “group housing” overlay district.

So the city council reconstituted the advisory committee in the summer of 2013, with slightly different membership. The group met four times, then created a new report for the planning commission to consider.

Most recently, planning commissioners were briefed on the advisory committee’s report at a Dec. 10, 2013 working session. For background, see Chronicle coverage: “R4C/R2A Zoning Proposals Reviewed.”

On Jan. 7, Diane Giannola said that she and Bonnie Bona are interested in making some proposals related to the R4C zoning ordinance, like making it easier to convert garages into “carriage houses,” for example.

The next step will be for the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee to look at all of the recommendations for the R4C/R2A zoning, and decide how to move forward. It’s possible that a new set of recommendations would be brought forward to the full planning commission. Ultimately, the city council would need to give direction on how the planning commission should proceed in developing actual revisions to the zoning ordinances.

The advisory committee’s final report will be part of the planning commission’s Jan. 23 meeting agenda.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Citizen Participation Ordinance

An evaluation of the city’s citizen participation ordinance was due to be completed by October 2013, but hasn’t made much progress. Rampson said that Angeline Lawrence of the city’s planning staff has written a memo with suggestions about how to improve the city’s citizen participation. So Rampson would like to review that with the commission’s citizen outreach committee. Members of that committee are Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh and Jeremy Peters.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: ZORO

ZORO stands for Zoning Ordinance Reorganization. It’s a project that began in 2009. The goal is to do a comprehensive review of 11 chapters of the city code that are related to development, and to present the material in a more concise, user-friendly way, clarifying terminology, and eliminating inconsistencies and outdated material.

The chapters being reorganized by ZORO are:

• Chapter 26: Solid Waste
• Chapter 47: Streets and Curb Cuts
• Chapter 55: Zoning
• Chapter 56: Prohibited Land Uses
• Chapter 57: Subdivision and Land Use Regulations, and the attached Land Development Regulations
• Chapter 59: Off-Street Parking
• Chapter 60: Wetlands Preservation
• Chapter 61: Signs and Outdoor Advertising
• Chapter 62: Landscaping and Screening
• Chapter 63: Soil Erosion, Sedimentation Control and Storm Water Management
• Chapter 104: Fences

Don Elliott of the consulting firm Clarion Associates was hired by the city to do the initial work, and presented a draft report about two years ago. Since then, it has been worked on by planning staff and the city attorney’s office, which is overseeing the project. Over the years, planning commissioners have expressed frustration that ZORO hasn’t been completed. At the commission’s April 23, 2013 retreat, for example, it was a topic of discussion.

On Jan. 7, Rampson reported that ZORO has made no progress in the last six months.

Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office, who’s point person for the project, was originally scheduled to give commissioners a ZORO update at a Jan. 14 working session. However, a special meeting of the planning commission was convened on that night instead, for the purpose of holding closed session with McDonald to discuss attorney-client privileged information. That is one of the exemptions allowed under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Floodplain Ordinance/Insurance

Rampson told commissioners that it looked like FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) was going to delay moving to mandating market rate flood insurance, “so that gives us a little breathing room.”

By way of background, at its March 5, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council gave final approval to an ordinance change that will adopt a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the city. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) makes flood insurance available for properties in participating communities – Ann Arbor is a participant. If a building has a federally-backed mortgage and it’s located within the “1% annual change floodplain” (previously called the “100-year floodplain) then flood insurance is required.

Ann Arbor’s previous FIRM dated from Jan. 2, 1992. In 2004, the FEMA began a map revision process for Washtenaw County. Various drains in the city were re-analyzed, using updated data, and on July 27, 2007, FEMA issued preliminary maps. After required public review, appeal and revisions, on Oct. 3, 2011, FEMA issued a letter with a final determination, indicating that the new maps would become effective on April 3, 2012. [.pdf of Oct. 3, 2011 letter] [.pdf of Dec. 20, 2011 reminder letter]

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Compared to the previous 1992 maps, 321 parcels are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain. However, 116 parcels that were previously not analyzed as in a floodplain are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. Building-wise, 452 structures are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain, while 88 buildings are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. [See also Chronicle coverage: "Column: Digital Information Flood."]

Federal legislation passed in 2012 – the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act – will result in dramatic rate hikes for flood insurance, because federal subsidies will be eliminated. However, implementation of those increases has been delayed.

On Jan. 7, Rampson explained that the plan is to incorporate changes into the city’s flood and zoning ordinances that reflect the insurance risk factor. The primary changes will relate to the flood ordinance, which isn’t the planning commission’s purview. However, any zoning changes would come through the planning commission.

Historic structures have been exempt from regulations related to floodplains, Rampson said. But now, any structure in a floodplain must carry flood insurance, and the rates are expected to increase significantly. The deeper a property is into the floodplain, the higher the insurance rates would be. That might result in disinvestment within those areas, she said, or possibly owners would elevate buildings, which would change the character of a neighborhood. [If a structure is elevated above the flood depth, its insurance rates would be lower.] It’s primarily the impacts on historic districts that the city staff felt should be addressed by possible zoning ordinance changes.

Rampson suggested that the effort should be coordinated with the historic district commission. The question is whether the HDC would come up with a new set of standards for dealing with historic structures in a floodplain. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards don’t really address it, she said. Rampson noted that the HDC has been briefed on this issue by city planner Jill Thacher, “so they already understand that this will be a problem.”

Diane Giannola proposed putting together a committee to tackle this issue, and include former planning commissioner Evan Pratt, who is now Washtenaw County’s water resources commissioner. Other members could be pulled from the HDC, the planning commission, the zoning board of appeals, and local creekshed associations. Giannola noted that Pratt has extensive background on this issue.

Rampson asked about priorities. If planning commissioners want the staff to work on this project, what other project will be moved to a lower priority? Giannola recommended holding off on launching a North Main corridor study, and that the floodplain project should take priority over that.

Rampson reported that Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater & floodplain program coordinator, had briefed the city council on this issue last year. He had anticipated that the council would provide direction on what steps to take next, but that hasn’t happened yet. Giannola didn’t think that councilmembers understood the implications of the flood insurance rates on historic districts.

Rampson said she’d work on pulling a committee together to work on this issue. Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Jeremy Peters volunteered to serve.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Redevelopment Ready

The city council – at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – authorized the city to participate in the Michigan Economic Development Corp.’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program. The planning commission had been briefed on the program at a Sept. 10, 2013 working session.

The program was originally developed by the nonprofit Michigan Suburbs Alliance, and later acquired by the state through the MEDC. [Both organizations have local connections. The suburbs alliance is led by Conan Smith, an Ann Arbor resident who also is an elected official serving on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. MEDC's CEO is Michael Finney, former head of Ann Arbor SPARK.]

The program is viewed as a tool to help communities put in place elements that would allow redevelopment to happen. Those things include master plans that are clear about what community expectations are for new developments, and zoning that reflects those expectations in a very specific way. It means that when developers look at a specific property, they’ll be able to know exactly what they can do. The program includes a list of best practices focused on six categories: (1) community plans and public outreach; (2) zoning policy and regulations; (3) development review process; (4) education and training; (5) redevelopment ready sites; and (6) community prosperity (economic strategies, marketing and promotion). [.pdf of best practices document]

In March of 2013, the MEDC announced that 8 communities – including Ann Arbor – had been selected for the program’s first round to receive a formal Redevelopment Ready Communities evaluation. If the city completes this evaluation successfully, Rampson said, then it would be certified as a “Redevelopment Ready” community. The state has indicated that communities with this certification could receive priority points on grants from MEDC and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA).

On Jan. 7, Rampson reported that the city is moving forward more slowly than expected, and will probably get started on the certification process in March. That had originally been the timeframe for expected completion of the certification.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Sign Ordinance

A project to revise the city’s sign ordinance is on the work plan for completion by June of 2014. Rampson reported that the staff is waiting for funding to pay for a consultant before that work can start.

Potential Future Projects

In addition to the projects already underway, Wendy Rampson provided an updated list of potential projects that planning commissioners have previously indicated an interest in pursuing:

• Economic development initiatives
• Student neighborhood property conditions/enforcement in R4C
• Southeast area neighborhoods visioning
• “Mixed use” overlay amendment
• Neighborhood outreach/engagement
• Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance amendments
• “Age-Friendly” master plan and ordinance amendments
• Non-motorized plan implementation/pedestrian safety & sidewalk initiatives (with systems planning unit)
• Lowertown land use amendments
• Ordinance amendment to make all drive-thrus special exception uses
• High school student representation on the planning commission

Potential Future Projects: Drive-Thrus

Diane Giannola asked what the impetus was to look at eliminating the current by-right use of drive-thrus. It’s come up in discussions about corridor improvements, Rampson replied. One of the challenges in encouraging major corridors to be less auto-friendly is that the city keeps getting proposals for drive-thru restaurants, like Tim Hortons, she said. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed “by right” on any property that’s zoned C3 (fringe commercial). It’s particularly an issue along Washtenaw Avenue, where most of the property is zoned C3.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Kirk Westphal noted that most restaurant proposals include drive-thrus. “It’s just a cash box in a busy corridor,” he said, “but it makes everything around it not walkable.” To him, it’s a broader question of looking at which parts of the city could evolve into a “walkable node.” If those areas are identified, then the city could ban drive-thrus there. In the meantime, changing the ordinance to require a special exception use for a drive-thru seemed like a good safeguard, he said, so that the planning commission could make a decision on a case-by-case basis.

In response to a query from Paras Parekh, Rampson explained the process for changing the ordinance. Language for an ordinance revision would be drafted by city staff and reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee. The planning commission would hold a public hearing on it, vote on a recommendation, then send that recommendation to city council. The council would need to approve any ordinance change.

Rampson noted that some cities have banned drive-thrus completely. With a special exception use, it would allow drive-thrus under certain conditions. Those conditions would need to be articulated.

In addition to restaurants, other businesses that use drive-thrus include banks and pharmacies, Rampson noted.

Based on the interest that commissioners were indicating, Rampson said the planning staff would add it to their work plan and draft some ordinance language for commissioners to review.

Diane Giannola and Jeremy Peters asked for an analysis for making this change. “You’ll have landowners and business owners and franchisees up in arms, so it would be good to see some pros and cons,” Peters said. Giannola cautioned that eliminating drive-thrus might result in the need for more parking.

Westphal responded, saying that it might result in fewer fast food restaurants coming to town. “I don’t know that McDonald’s would build a new restaurant if they couldn’t include a drive-thru,” he said. “So that’s one question: Do we have enough drive-thrus?”

Rampson added that from a sustainability perspective, vehicle emission from idling at drive-thrus is an issue. The air quality issue has caused some communities to ban drive-thrus.

Present: Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Bonnie Bona, Ken Clein, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor city council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. The typical Tuesday meeting has been shifted to Thursday to accommodate scheduling changes related to the Jan. 20 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan and Ken Clein sign papers attesting that these high school students had attended the Nov. 19 meeting. The class assignment did not require that the students stay for the entire meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. (Photos by the writer.)

Planning commissioners made decisions on the majority of recommendations for revising the city’s downtown zoning ordinance, but adjourned after midnight before completing their final resolution for city council. Though they did not formally vote to postpone action on the resolution, the item will be taken up again at the commission’s Dec. 3 meeting. [.pdf of revised draft recommendations to be considered on Dec. 3]

Generally, the changes reflect a downzoning in some locations in an attempt to lessen the impact of development on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

A public hearing on the downtown zoning review drew seven speakers, all of whom had previously addressed the commission on this topic. Andy Klein – one of the owners of a site at the southeast corner Main and William, which is being considered for downzoning – spoke against rezoning that property, calling himself the “lone dissenter.” Other speakers at the hearing were in favor of downzoning in general, including at that site. The recommendation for that property – possibly one of the most controversial – was not debated or acted on by commissioners at their Nov. 19 meeting.

Attached to the commission’s Dec. 3 agenda was a communication from Scott R. Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, written on behalf of KRG Investments, the owners of the Main and William property. It suggests a third option to consider as a compromise, and indicates that Bonney will attend the Dec. 3 meeting to make a presentation about this proposal in person. [.pdf of Bonney's letter]

After the planning commission finalizes and approves its resolution regarding these downtown zoning recommendations, the resolution will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The intent is for the council to review the recommendations and give direction to the commission about which recommendations to implement.

At that point, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee would work with city planning staff to craft actual ordinance language. Any specific ordinance changes would be reviewed by the full commission and ultimately would require city council approval before taking effect. That process would include additional opportunities for public input.

In addition to downtown zoning, three other projects were on the Nov. 19 agenda. Commissioners recommended approval of a proposal to build two restaurants adjacent to Macy’s at Briarwood Mall. They also recommended approval of a four-story addition to the existing two-story building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor, known as the Montgomery Building. The expansion will create 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units.

One project that didn’t move forward was a proposed expansion of Germain Motors – the former Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street. Owner Steve Germain and his daughter Jessica Germain attended the meeting and described the growth of their business, with a 55% increase in combined sales compared to last year. They indicated that expanded showrooms and additional parking and vehicle display areas are needed to accommodate future growth. However, planning staff recommended postponement to address several outstanding issues, and commissioners acted on that advice.

Downtown Zoning Review

A downtown zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13 that was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations, which served as the basis for the Nov. 19 discussion. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

Commissioners made several amendments during their deliberations on Nov. 19, and adopted the following recommendations, which will likely be part of the final resolution to the city council. In general, the changes reflect a downzoning in an attempt to lessen the impact of development on adjacent residential neighborhoods:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.
• Revise the premium conditions to require compliance with Design Review Board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.
• Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies, and workforce housing.
• Review options in D1 and D2 districts with the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects or through other funding mechanisms.
• Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium.”
• Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

The only draft recommendation that was not discussed on Nov. 19 was for a parcel located at the southeast corner of Main and William (425 S. Main). A surface parking lot and a building that currently houses DTE offices are located there.

Commissioners are expected to weigh two options for that site at their Dec. 3 meeting: (1) Rezone the parcel from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District; or (2) Change the maximum height in the Main Street Character District to 100 feet when within 20 feet of a residential zoning district and add a tower diagonal maximum and/or “shadow setback” requirement to limit shading on adjacent residential properties.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “Feedback on Downtown Zoning Continues“; “Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase“; “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review”; and ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward.”

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing

The public hearing on the downtown zoning review drew seven speakers – all but one in favor of downzoning. All of them had previously addressed the commission on this topic.

Ray Detter said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council. The group based its support of the 2009 zoning revisions on the goal of minimizing the negative impact of downtown development on neighbors in terms of height, scale, shading and harm to natural and historic resources, he said. In general, Erin Perdu has done a good job of summarizing the community’s view, Detter told commissioners.

Detter noted that at the Nov. 12 working session, which he and several others attended, they were pleased that the planning commission was supportive of changes to the three locations where the city “made past zoning mistakes,” he said. The advisory council believes the Ann Street lot should be downzoned from D1 to D2, as it’s clearly an interface area across the street from historic properties in the Old Fourth Ward, he said. But it’s also true that D2 zoning should be used for the property south of Ann Street all the way to North Fourth Avenue, he added.

From left: Ray Detter, Jeff Crockett and Chris Crockett.

Detter said the advisory council was also pleased that the commission supported decreasing the allowable height of property between Campus Inn and Sloan Plaza from 150 feet to 120 feet, and to use diagonals, setbacks, stepbacks, and a shadow setback requirement to eliminate shading. There should also be at least a 25-foot separation between Sloan Plaza and any development next to it, he said. The advisory council supported rezoning the other parcels on the north side of East Huron between North Division and North Fifth – from 180 feet to 120 feet with possible diagonals, setbacks and stepbacks. That includes the Ahmo’s site, he noted, and the property management office next to Ahmo’s. The 120-feet zoning change should also be extended to include the northeast corner of North Fourth, where a former gas station is located.

Detter said there were cheers during the Nov. 12 working session when it seemed that commissioners agreed that the property at the southeast corner of Main and William should be rezoned from D1 to D2. Apparently that’s still open to discussion, he noted, but the downtown citizens advisory council definitely supports D2 on that entire site. He encouraged commissioners not to give premiums to things that the community doesn’t want – like student housing – but instead to give premiums to features that the community supports, like more open space and affordable housing. Also, the advisory commission supports giving no approvals or premiums unless the development follows recommendations of the design review board, which he said should include a member of the historic district commission.

Jeff Crockett supported what Detter had said, and added that he’s been pleased with the process in that it reflects community input. He encouraged the city in the future to look carefully at the landmark tree ordinance and toughen it up. He liked the idea of D2 on the William and Main site, and also supported creating shadow setbacks as well as a review of premiums every two to five years.

Chris Crockett also thanked the commission for reviewing A2D2, especially in proximity to residential areas. She noted that although the property at Main and William is viewed as a gateway to the city, it’s also adjacent to a residential area and D2 zoning there is as valid as any. She was happy that the commission is reconsidering the use of premiums. People hadn’t understood the ramifications of the original zoning, she said, and didn’t realize that the city would end up with “essentially dormitories.” The premiums haven’t led to good architecture or good development, she said. The city also needs affordable housing, to make sure there’s a good urban mix.

Eleanor Linn told commissioners she hadn’t seem the most recent draft of recommendations before she wrote her comments, so some of the things she was asking them to consider are things that are now in the recommendations. She read her statement, which noted that she lives near the 13-story Landmark “private student dormitory” at South University and Forest. She’s learned something about the problems of high-rise buildings invading residential neighborhoods, she said. Large setbacks are crucial, and she supported 40-60 foot setbacks where D1 or D2 zoning abuts residential zoning. D1 buildings are far too tall to ever abut residential areas. She wants lower height limits where D2 abuts residential, and she hoped the city would review other vulnerable parcels that aren’t included in this current review. She also thinks it’s necessary to reinstate the cash-in-lieu option for affordable housing, if it’s legally possible.

Marc Gerstein also read a statement that had been prepared before he’d seen the updated recommendations. He also lives near South University and Forest, and urged that no D1 zoning should abut residential areas. He supported rezoning the Main and William parcel to D2, and lowering the height limit on the parcel next to Sloan Plaza with bigger side setbacks. He supported shadow setbacks and other requirements that would reduce the impact of D1 and D2 zoning on residential areas. There should always be an interface between D1 parcels and residential areas, and the city should re-examine areas where this occurs – like on the north side of Willard, between East University and South Forest. He also wanted protections for Hill Auditorium and Burton Tower, which are across from D1 zoning on Thayer Street.

Andy Klein, one of the owners of the property at the southeast corner of Main and William.

Andy Klein introduced himself by saying he was the “lone dissenter.” He’s one of the owners of the property at Main and William, where the DTE building is located. It’s interesting to hear other people’s comments about property that you’ve spent millions of dollars on, he said. He respects the concerns that have been voiced, but there’s no pressure to make any changes on the site. It’s been owned by his family and other investors for over 30 years, Klein said, “and that’s the way it’s going to stay.” Whatever they do with the site in the future will respect the residents and protect the property value, he said, and would be something that the city would be proud of.

Reducing the zoning from D1 to D2 is a “Draconian measure,” Klein said, and is a response to other buildings that have been developed in an “untasteful way.” Every other corner of that intersection is zoned D1, he noted. Lowering the height by 40% could be an option, and adding a diagonal requirement is a flexible solution, he said. “I just don’t think that solutions that are so harsh that they really destroy the potential development of a key site in the city makes a lot of sense.”

Klein noted that his voice is the only one on his side. He can’t come to every meeting and he doesn’t have a group of people to argue vehemently on his behalf. “But my voice is important,” Klein said. His family and other investors have contributed millions of dollars to the city’s tax base, and continue to do so. He urged commissioners not to impose D2 zoning at the site.

[Attached to the commission's Dec. 3 agenda was a communication from Scott R. Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, written on behalf of KRG Investments, the owners of the Main and William property. It suggests a third option to consider: Keep the D1 zoning on that site, but reduce the maximum height to 122 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 50% of the maximum diagonal dimension of the site. The letter, which includes diagrams showing the impact this proposal, indicates that Bonney will attend the Dec. 3 meeting to make this presentation in person.] [.pdf of Bonney's letter]

The last speaker Doug Kelbaugh, who said he was speaking as a private citizen. [Kelbaugh is a professor at the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning.] It’s been a “very productive if tedious process for you,” he told commissioners, but he was in favor of continuing it in some way. He knew there were no additional funds for consultants, but he hoped the commission would ask the city council for more funding to continue the zoning review beyond the current scope.

In particular, he hoped they could look at extending some of their “wise decisions.” For example, he hoped to extend the zoning changes next to Sloan Plaza, with lower height limits, all the way along the north side of Huron to Main Street, or perhaps even further west to Ashley or First. The changes at Division and Ann should also be extended all the way to Main Street or further, he said. Other edges of the downtown – like the church site at Huron and State Street, and the block of Thayer – need to be re-examined, where D1 zoning hits the UM campus. Kelbaugh hoped the city could find the wherewithal to continue its zoning review.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Affordable Housing

The commission considered this draft recommendation regarding affordable housing:

• Revise the affordable housing premium so that the provision of affordable housing or a contribution-in-lieu of affordable housing is mandatory for receiving any premiums in the D1 or D2 districts.

In reviewing the proposed recommendations at the start of the Nov. 19 discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the draft recommendation to add a contribution-in-lieu as an option for the affordable housing requirement was seen as problematic by the city attorney’s office. Any type of in-lieu-of payment is very difficult in Michigan because the state statute does not clearly indicate that it can be done, she reported. It’s more straightforward with elements like parking, she added. But with affordable housing, it’s harder to draw a connection between the need for affordable housing in one location, and addressing that need through a payment to the affordable housing trust fund, which can be used to support affordable housing anywhere in the city, not just downtown. The commission could still include it in their recommendations, she said, but as it moves to city council, it might be tempered by advice from the city attorney.

Kirk Westphal highlighted a communication regarding a more detailed recommendation that had been approved by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). It was included as part of the planning commission’s meeting packet. [.pdf of HHSAB recommendation] The HHSAB recommended modifying the premiums to require building affordable housing or making a cash-in-lieu contribution to affordable housing, and included a detailed formula for calculating contributions:

(i) For purposes of obtaining any premium listed in (_______) above, developments less than 400 FAR shall provide 10% of the total square footage as dwelling units affordable to very low income households. Projects exceeding 400 but less than 700 FAR shall provide 15% of the total square footage as dwelling units affordable to very low income households.

(ii) Payment in Lieu Formula, Discretion of City Council to Allow. Dwelling units affordable to very low income households shall be provided by the development of units on-site, or through an affordable housing contribution “in lieu of” units. The amount shall be set consistent with a “payment in lieu” formula set by recommendation of the HHSAB annually by the end of March each year and submitted to City Council for approval or rejection.

(iii) Calculation for Pro Rata Amounts. When the affordable housing requirement results in a fractional unit, the fractional unit shall be converted to an affordable housing contribution in lieu of units, using the following formula: the fraction shall be multiplied by the per-unit affordable housing contribution as determined by the formula adopted annually by City Council.

(iv) Recommendation of Planning Commission, Approval of City Council required. For each proposed development utilizing a premium to exceed base FAR, the Planning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and City Council, in its sole discretion, may approve or deny payment of an affordable housing contribution in lieu of all or part of units on site.

Westphal wondered whether commissioners would be able to “button down” the legal issue that night related to the contribution-in-lieu approach to affordable housing. Rampson indicated that it would not be possible to determine that at the meeting. She also didn’t think the issue could be handled in isolation from other recommendations.

From left: Ken Clein, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Rampson and Bonnie Bona.

Sabra Briere asked Rampson is there’s any scenario that she’s heard the city attorney support when it comes to cash-in-lieu for affordable housing. Rampson noted that the planned unit development (PUD) approach includes a contribution-in-lieu option. That’s possible because a PUD is “a very special animal under state law,” she said.

But in a standard zoning district, the only requirement for affordable housing is if a developer wants to secure premiums. The question becomes whether there’s a nexus between that requirement and making a payment into a fund that won’t necessarily result in what you’re looking for – affordable housing in the downtown. So one possibility might be to create a separate fund to be used only for affordable housing downtown, Rampson said. But according to the city attorney’s office, even that might not be sufficient, she added.

“Any time you’re asking people for money in exchange for approval of zoning, there is some discomfort about that,” Rampson said. It’s different when you ask for requirements like parking or landscaping, she said. Requiring affordable housing is a bit of a stretch in Michigan, she noted, but it’s the contribution-in-lieu option that becomes really problematic.

Ken Clein said he’s in favor of affordable housing downtown, but he pointed out that you can build a lot more affordable housing outside of the downtown, where land prices are lower. Rampson replied that if you require contributions to affordable housing that can be spent outside of the downtown, you’d be creating an island in the downtown where affordable housing isn’t deemed appropriate – that’s one way of looking at it, she said.

Briere noted that at the Nov. 18 city council meeting, the council had revised the ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Starting in FY 2016, the DDA will put aside $300,000 annually to use on affordable housing within the DDA’s boundaries or within a quarter mile of those boundaries. It will be challenging, Briere said, but the goal is to encourage affordable housing downtown. She wondered if the zoning could require affordable housing as a gateway for getting a housing premium.

Rampson replied that because seeking a premium is optional, that might be possible. Briere pointed out that it might then discourage the development of housing altogether.

Bonnie Bona felt that the most effective approach to affordable housing is when it’s part of a mixed-income development. If the city collects affordable housing funds and steers those funds toward property that’s less valuable, “we’re actually segregating,” she said. The gap in housing options is big enough that it requires multiple approaches, Bona said. She wondered if the recommendations to the council can include a recommendation to look more deeply into this issue, working with the city’s housing and human services advisory board.

Later in the meeting, Bona proposed a revised recommendation: “Review options for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects and through a fund, with the assistance of the housing and human services advisory board.”

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Sabra Briere, who also serves on the city council representing Ward 1.

Paras Parekh asked whether they needed to specify D1 and D2 districts, or whether the recommendation was for the whole city. Bona felt it’s an issue for the entire city, but the downtown zoning review is why it’s being addressed. She didn’t want to be restrictive.

In response to another query from Parekh, Bona said the phrase “mixed-income projects” is to prevent segregating affordable housing into one location. “We don’t want housing projects, if we can help it,” she said.

Wendy Woods was concerned about including a reference to the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). She didn’t feel the recommendations should be so specific at this point. She made a motion to strike that reference from the recommendation.

Ken Clein said he didn’t feel strongly about it, noting that the commission can always consult with other entities if it wants to. But if the recommendation specifies the HHSAB, he wondered whether they should also specify consulting with the city attorney’s office. The suggestion elicited a laugh from commissioners. Clein said his point is that the recommendation might be getting “too in the weeds” by specifying who they’ll consult.

Rampson noted that HHSAB did provide very specific feedback to the commission regarding the affordable housing issue.

Bona thought that including a reference to HHSAB acknowledges that the commission has received that feedback, and that it’s important. Affordable housing also is a complicated topic – much more so than something like LEED certification, she said. Affordable housing has been a problem for centuries, Bona added, and the city doesn’t seem to be any closer to a solution.

Outcome on amendment to strike the reference to HHSAB: It failed on a 1-8 vote, with support only from Wendy Woods.

Commissioners also discussed the phrasing “and through a fund.” Bona said she’d stayed away from saying “payment-in-lieu” because of concerns that the city attorney’s office had raised.

Clein suggested using the phrase “or through other funding mechanisms” instead. It was accepted by Bona as a friendly amendment.

Another amendment was suggested by Woods, to add “D1 and D2 districts.” Bona said she wanted to leave it vague. She pointed out that the title of the overall resolution is “Recommended Downtown Zoning Amendments.” She thought that adding D1 and D2 would be redundant, and noted that it’s not included in the other recommendations.

Woods pointed out that earlier in the evening, commissioners had discussed concerns about possibly locating affordable housing outside of the downtown. That’s why she wanted to be more specific.

Outcome on amendment to add D1 and D2: It passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Bonnie Bona and Jeremy Peters. Sabra Briere was out of the room during the vote.

The final revised recommendation states:

Review options in D1 and D2 districts with the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects or through other funding mechanisms.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to make this recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Residential Premiums

Commissioners discussed how to combine these two separate items from the draft resolution:

• Reduce the residential use premium from 0.75 sf to 0.25 sf per square foot of residential use to encourage the use of other premiums.
• Include other types of premiums in addition to the ones currently available.

The consensus was to make the first recommendation less specific, and to include several examples of the types of premiums that commissioners would like to see. Affordable housing was left out in favor of a broader goal of workforce housing.

Jeremy Peters suggested a premium of the shadow setback, but when planning manager Wendy Rampson asked whether commissioners wanted that as a premium or a requirement, the consensus initially was to recommend shadow setbacks as a requirement.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Ken Clein suggested making LEED silver certification as a premium. Rampson reminded commissioners that LEED certification is already included as an A2D2 premium – silver, gold and platinum certification can result in additional floor-area ratio (FAR). Only two projects so far – at 618 S. Main and 624 Church St. – have proposed using LEED certification as a premium, she reported. And because the developer of 618 S. Main subsequently scaled back that project, that premium isn’t needed. There are also energy efficiency “points” that are required as a gatekeeper to securing premiums.

Bonnie Bona counseled against being too specific at this point regarding LEED certification, and suggested a more general recommendation of increasing the energy efficiency requirements as a premium.

Sabra Briere noted that the LEED premium is the only one that comes with a penalty. That is, if you get a premium to build additional FAR on the premise that the building will be LEED-certified, but it doesn’t achieve that status, then there’s a financial penalty. “I’m not going to even try to replicate the incredibly complex equation that nobody understood sitting around the table except maybe the person who was proposing it – and maybe not,” she said. But it reminded her that when the city grants premiums, there’s an expectation that the city will reap a benefit. One option would be to look at applying a cash penalty for other premiums that aren’t met. She described her suggestion as “a very unformed thought.”

Later in the discussion, Briere pointed out that the directive from council was not to rewrite the zoning ordinance at this point. It was to make broader recommendations. What’s needed is for the council to clearly define the problems that it wants the planning commission to address, and at that point the commission can work on revising the ordinance. Getting into details at this point could really bog down the work, she said.

Rampson cautioned that if the commission sent recommendation to the council that are too general, the subsequent direction from council might not be clear. Briere countered that if the planning commission is too specific, it could result in some councilmembers pushing back because they don’t like the specifics. Briere indicated that if the commission looks like it’s done all the work, that’s not a good approach.

Rampson also pointed out that if more options are provided as premiums, it might dilute the ability to encourage any one particular goal, like residential development.

The final revised recommendation states:

Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies, and workforce housing.

Outcome: This recommendation was passed unanimously.

Briere suggested eliminating another recommendation related to residential premiums, which she felt could be addressed elsewhere:

• Revise the residential use premium to be more specific about the types of units that will be eligible for premiums.

Bona agreed, saying she was very opposed to having premiums for specific unit types that could be reconfigured soon after a building is constructed. The buildings need to be designed to be flexible, if they’re going to last a long time, she added. One possibility is to require that developers show the interior design during the site plan phase, to show that the interior could be flexible, she said.

Clein agreed with Bona, saying it would be very difficult to enforce any kind of interior requirement.

Outcome: This recommendation was eliminated on a 7-2 vote, over dissent by Eleanore Adenekan and Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – East Huron

Commissioners discussed two related draft recommendations for the East Huron area:

• Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District to 120 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum and/or “shadow setback” requirement to limit shading on adjacent residential properties.
• Rezone the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue from E. Huron 2 Character Overlay District to East Huron 1 Character Overlay District.

Wendy Rampson explained that if these recommendations are approved, the height limits for properties adjacent to city hall and the University of Michigan Credit Union site – currently a parking lot off of Ann Street, next to city hall – would be reduced from 180 feet to 120 feet.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Kirk Westphal clarified with Rampson that owners of those properties weren’t interviewed for this zoning review. He said he wouldn’t be comfortable making the changes proposed for the East Huron 1 Character District, adding that it’s beyond the scope of the council directive.

Diane Giannola said she’s not in favor of shadow setbacks. She wondered how it would affect property rights. Shadows come from everything, including trees, she said, “and when you own property, you don’t necessarily own the sun.” The concept is way too vague, she added, and she’d rather see diagonals used to address the issue of shadowing.

Jeremy Peters didn’t think it was fair to talk about trees in this context. It’s clear that the shadow setbacks refer to buildings, he said. He didn’t support removing it.

Sabra Briere voiced concern over investments that people make in solar panels and alternative energies that rely on solar gain. What happens when something happens next door that shades the investment? It’s a different set of property rights at stake, she said, compared to the rights that Giannola mentioned. Briere supported the idea of shadow setbacks, because the city is encouraging alternative energy investments and they need to be protected. “We have to come up with a way to balance the individual’s rights with the community’s rights,” Briere said.

Westphal was cautious about introducing a completely new tool at this point, and would prefer to stick to responding to the council’s charge.

Paras Parekh wondered why the shadow setbacks were only proposed for the East Huron 1 Character District, and not elsewhere. On philosophical grounds, he had concerns about requiring something in one part of the city that wasn’t required anywhere else.

Rampson noted that Briere’s concerns are more related to solar access law, and the shadow setback requirement wasn’t intended to regulate solar access. The reason Rampson included a mention of shadow setbacks in the draft was because commissioners had discussed the issue at the Nov. 12 working session. It was specified for that particular part of town because of D1 zoning that abuts residential neighborhoods located to the north, “which is probably the worst shadow configuration that you could get,” Rampson said. Perhaps there’s a better term to use instead of shadow setbacks, she added.

Ken Clein agreed that solar access rights are best left for longer-term study.

Bonnie Bona noted that this section of East Huron is the only area where D1 zoning is directly adjacent to residential. She described this part of the downtown zoning as a “major flaw” in the final A2D2 zoning. She thinks an interface district is needed around the entire downtown, but “we need it here more than anywhere.” Especially in the winter, there’s a lot of shade. If the shadow setback isn’t included, Bona said she’d then support rezoning that area to D2. She noted that the Sloan Plaza site could also be built to a greater height, which would impact the residential neighborhood to the north.

Briere cautioned against rewriting the East Huron 1 Character District – in terms of height and shadow setback. That’s too ambitious to do on the fly at midnight, she said. Instead, Briere proposed recommending that the East Huron 1 Character District be revised.

After further discussion – which included distinguishing between “setback” and “step-back” – commissioners reached a compromise wording:

Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.

Outcome: The revised recommendation was unanimously approved.

Regarding the draft recommendation to rezone the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue from East Huron 2 Character Overlay District to East Huron 1 Character Overlay District, commissioners were reluctant to make that specific recommendation at this time. Clein noted that it wasn’t part of the charge from the city council. Westphal said he’d be willing to strike it.

Clein and Peters both suggested that instead of this recommendation, the commission should create a separate recommendation that would focus on review of additional sections of the downtown.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to strike the draft recommendation to rezone block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Review of Other Areas

Ken Clein proposed adding a new recommendation to request that the planning commission review any area where D1 zoning directly abuts or is within 25 feet of residential or historic districts, and to review whether those areas should be rezoned to D2 or whether to modify the zoning in these sensitive areas.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Ken Clein, who is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects.

Sabra Briere noted that one area where D1 abuts an historic district is on Main Street. About a third of the block between Liberty and William is not in an historic district, and is zoned D1. “The day that someone proposes a 180-foot tall building [there] is a day that this body will … hear from the public about problems with that,” she said. Briere noted that other areas have been mentioned by members of the public as problematic, including Thayer Street, South University, and some parts of Forest, for example. She supported Clein’s recommendation.

Diane Giannola felt that if any area abutting an historic district must be rezoned, then there likely won’t be any D1 zoning downtown – because there are so many parts of downtown that are designated historic districts. Jeremy Peters noted that Clein was suggesting only to review those areas, not to actually make recommendations at this point.

Wendy Rampson clarified that the current review already includes all the areas where D1 directly abuts residential. The review does not include areas that abut historic districts, she added.

Giannola thought Clein’s proposal was outside of the council’s charge, and that it would require an entirely new study, starting the process all over again. Bonnie Bona also said she didn’t support the proposal.

Briere noted that the planning commission and council have heard from people who want the city to review all character districts. It’s true that it wasn’t in the council’s charge to the commission, she said, but people have brought it up. She suggested recommending that the council consider whether all the areas that aren’t zoned D2 need to be re-evaluated.

Rampson pointed out that the planning commission and staff spent six years creating the A2D2 zoning, which was just adopted in 2009. “If you are really opening the door to rethinking all of the character districts, are you really ready to say that’s a priority, given your work program – to revisit everything in the downtown?”

Briere said the only way to get more specific direction from council is to put a resolution on the council agenda, which she was reluctant to do. Instead, she wants to take a “deep dive” into the Redevelopment Ready project, to see if the city’s existing ordinances match its master plans. She’d also like to get the ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project completed, before taking on something else. She said she was struggling to find a way to indicate that the commission has heard the problems that people have raised.

Wendy Woods noted that for sites next to the University of Michigan, it didn’t make sense to be overly concerned about zoning. “The university can change what it has on campus next year, if they want to. We could be worried about shadowing Hill Auditorium, and it could be gone – because that’s the reality.” She thought the commission should focus on what it was asked by council to do.

After some additional discussion, Clein offered to withdraw his proposal.

Outcome: Clein withdrew his proposed recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Other Recommendations

Two draft recommendations were accepted without substantive discussion:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• Revise the premium conditions to require compliance with Design Review Board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Adjournment

At about 12:30 a.m., commission chair Kirk Westphal said he wasn’t prepared to tackle the remaining draft recommendations. He offered to entertain a motion to adjourn.

Outcome on adjournment: The motion passed 8-1, over dissent from Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Final Public Commentary

After adjournment, Westphal realized he had omitted the final public commentary. The only person remaining was Ray Detter, who told commissioners: “I’ve got a lot to say, but you’re not really interested in hearing it.”

Germain Motors Expansion

Earlier in the meeting, commissioners discussed a proposal to expand two buildings and the parking area for Germain Motors – the former Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street. Planning staff had recommended postponement, to allow the owners to address staff feedback on the project.

Aerial view of Germain Motors site, outlined in green. South State Street is on the left (west) side of this property. Expansion is proposed for the two smaller buildings on the north and center of the site that fronts South State.

The proposal calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces.

The owner also wants a variance from Chapter 62 (landscaping) to eliminate the requirement for interior depressed landscape islands in the car inventory and display areas.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. In a staff memo, city planners called the project an upgrade to the appearance of the site, but also cited several concerns.

The work would result in the loss of three out of four landmark trees on the property, to be mitigated by planting 11 additional trees. City staff were concerned by that reduction in landmark trees, as well as by the proposed request for planting fewer interior landscaping trees. Another concern was the additional amount of impervious surface that would be created by this expansion.

That was also an issue cited by the Malletts Creek coordinating committee, a group that includes representatives from the city, the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, the Huron River Watershed Council, and Pittsfield Township. That committee, which is focused on improving the condition of the Malletts Creek watershed, felt that a variance might be justified or mitigated only if the project included offsetting stormwater management on the site – such as green roofs, sand filters, or other low-impact development techniques.

Germain Motors Expansion: Public Hearing

Four people – all affiliated with Germain Motors and its proposed expansion – spoke during a public hearing on the project.

John Oney of Architectural Alliance, the architect for an expansion of Germain Motors – formerly the Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street.

John Oney of Architectural Alliance in Worthington, Ohio, gave an overview of the project. He said it’s their goal to work through any issues and hopefully agree to any conditions that the city deems to be appropriate so that the project can move forward as quickly as possible.

The existing site was “piece-mealed together,” Oney said, so they’d like to develop a comprehensive master plan to upgrade the buildings to the new “image requirements” of the auto manufacturers, to address the working needs of the business as it expands, and to improve the State Street corridor and the dealership’s customer experience. The new design is intended to provide connecting pedestrian walkways throughout the campus, as well as additional landscaping and upgraded building materials, he said.

Oney showed some architectural renderings of the buildings, then introduced Steve Germain. He said Germain had taken “a leap of faith here in these uncertain economic times to acquire the dealership and make some significant improvements.”

Steve Germain, owner of Germain Motors, began by introducing his daughter, Jessica Germain. He told commissioners that they live in Columbus, Ohio, “but don’t hold that against me, please.” He noted that Jessica Germain is a 2004 graduate of the University of Michigan, with strong ties to this community. One of her responsibilities is to help manage this region, and he said he was proud of her work.

Germain described how his business had acquired most of the assets of Howard Cooper Imports about a year ago, noting that Cooper has been a member of this community for over 45 years. They purchased the three dealerships on South State Street, and the rights to four franchises. They took over a business with a great reputation both in the industry and in this community, he said. The business employs 92 people, Germain reported, saying it was an honor to carry on a tradition with such wonderful employees in a vibrant market.

In order for the business to continue to grow and prosper, Germain added, they need to do three things. They need to upgrade the facilities to meet the requirements of the manufacturers. They need to provide ample, safe and convenient parking to enhance the customer experience and allow the business to create more jobs. Third, he said, they need to maximize their storage capacity and grow their inventory to meet the market demand.

Jessica Germain then reviewed the sales for the past 10 months. She said the business has achieved significant growth, beyond industry averages. Ann Arbor’s demographics align with Honda’s target buyers for fuel-efficient and economic products, she said. Honda sales from January through October of 2013 have exceeded last year’s sales by 31%.

Volkswagen sales are up 40% compared to last year, she reported, and sales for Audi have increased 76%. The business services both the Ann Arbor and Toledo markets for the luxury brand of Porsche, Germain said, and sales have increased 89% in 2013 compared to the first 10 months of 2012. In the sale of pre-owned (used) cars, sales are up 108% in 2013.

Jessica Germain and Steve Germain of Germain Motors.

Strengthening the inventory for new and pre-owned sales gives the business an opportunity and range of price points to provide in this market, she explained. Overall, they’ve seen a 55% increase in combined sales, but she said the business still hasn’t met the requirements and expectations of manufacturers. Germain Motors aspires to exceed those requirements, she added.

Steve Germain spoke again, saying that when they acquired the business in September 2012, they soon realized that the potential in this market with these brands would require that they expand the inventory. Their first thoughts were for off-site storage, he said, but it’s not recommended because of the costs involved in security, fencing and shuttling cars back and forth. They also considered a parking deck, but the cost at about $18,000 per space would put the total cost at over $3.6 million. He indicated that the proposal that was before the planning commission is the best approach.

Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering, the project’s civil engineer, noted that there are three issues that the planning staff raised. One is the increased amount of impervious surface. The city also would like to add additional landscaping islands and address some stormwater management issues. The landscaping islands that the city is requiring are located in the storage area, Wanty said, but he argued that the requirement of landscaping islands should apply to parking for the public, not for storage.

Regarding staff concerns over a “heat island effect,” Wanty noted that over 50% of the vehicles sold are lighter in color – silver and white – and these cars would be parked there 24/7. He contended that the site plan exceeds the city’s requirements for interior landscape island area by 2,300 square feet. Wanty noted that the soil is mostly clay, so the landscape islands don’t really result in infiltration. The site has a very good stormwater management system, he said. He described the system, and noted that it meets the county water resources commissioner’s standards.

Germain Motors Expansion: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked about the requested landscape modifications, and wanted to know whether there are any alternatives if the required landscaping can’t be provided on site – such as planting trees at another location. City planner Matt Kowalski replied that there’s an option of planting trees to mitigate the removal of landmark trees, but it has to occur on public land and meet other standards, such as proving that the mitigation can’t occur on site. The city’s natural features coordinator didn’t feel Germain Motors had met that requirement, he said. This applies only to mitigation trees, Kowalski noted. There are no options like that for trees required under the city’s landscaping ordinance, other than a variance.

Bona pointed out that 103 trees are required to be planted, but the proposal calls for planting 95 – eight trees short of the requirement.

Bona asked about the extension of the parking 32 feet toward State Street, on the south side of the site. Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering replied: “That is not parking. That is display.”

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona, and city planner Matt Kowalski. Kowalski was recently elected to the Dexter city charter commission.

Bona referred to the presentation that Kowalski had given earlier in the meeting, which included a slide that showed cars parked on the lawn. “I can’t let that go,” Bona said. She asked whether the business is proposing to pave that area. Yes, Wanty replied. Are those cars allowed to be parked there now? she asked. “They’re not there,” Wanty said. Kowalski noted that the cars were parked there that morning, prompting Steve Germain to call out: “But they won’t be there tomorrow.”

“This is a huge amount of parking,” Bona said, so the total number of required trees and the depressed landscape islands need to be provided. She understands that their business requires a lot of parking, and that the site is sloped so there area certain areas where parking can’t be located. Because the parking doesn’t directly benefit the public, she said, “I think you have even more of a responsibility to help Tree City plant urban trees in areas that are impervious.” She wouldn’t be voting in favor of a variance. “You’ve got to do your fair share.”

Sabra Briere said she wanted to echo Bona’s comments, saying that an area to display vehicles is still parking. Adding impervious surface impacts the Malletts Creek area, especially since that area has clay soil and the Malletts Creek system is already overwhelmed, Briere said. For her, the big issue is that there will be a lot of polluted water running off that surface.

Ken Clein asked whether other dealerships in town have asked for variances to not put in landscape islands and trees. Kowalski wasn’t sure how many dealerships are left in Ann Arbor. There’s Varsity Ford, but that dealership hasn’t done any recent renovations, he said. There was a Fiat dealership project, but no variance had been requested for that. [Planning commissioners had recommended approval of the Fiat project on West Stadium Boulevard at their Aug. 21, 2012 meeting.]

Clein said he agreed that the requirement for landscape islands shouldn’t be waived, and that the full amount of trees should be planted to mitigate the removal of landmark trees. Otherwise, it would seem like the city is giving the business a free pass, he said. The purpose of planting trees isn’t just because Ann Arbor is Tree City, he said, but because it helps mitigate the impact of climate change a little. “Those eight trees may not save the world, but those eight trees done again and again and again may help,” Clein said.

Paras Parekh asked why the business didn’t feel that the eight trees could be added to the site. Wanty replied that the trees could probably be squeezed onto an area on the site’s slope, but vegetation is already located there and it’s “like a jungle.” Putting in more trees would disturb the existing vegetation, he said, and create the potential for erosion. He noted that the city requires the mitigation trees to be interior to the site, not on the perimeter.

Rick Meader, a landscape architect with Washtenaw Engineering, came to the podium. He said the landmark trees are only characterized as landmark in aggregate. They aren’t “big, majestic oaks,” he said. Three of them are box elders that are being replaced with better trees, he said, including oaks and tulip trees.

In response to a query from Kirk Westphal, Kowalski said the business submitted one alternative plan, which included a parking structure on the lower level of the site. It didn’t result in any landmark trees being removed. Westphal wondered if there were a middle option, in order to preserve the trees but still provide the amount of desired parking. Kowalski replied that there might be other options – such as quadruple stacking – but probably anything would require some sort of variance.

Westphal wondered if quadruple stacking was possible. Wanty said they didn’t look at that option, and it would entail re-aligning the aisles and spaces. It was something they could look at, he said.

Wendy Woods noted that the Malletts Creek coordinating committee had suggested some options, like the use of green roofs and other low-impact development techniques. She wondered whether the business would consider any of these.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters.

Wanty replied that the site currently drains into a sediment forebay, then into a wetland, then into a second wetland – before it enters Malletts Creek. It’s a good system to break down any oils, he said, and there’s very little silt or sediment that comes off of the site. The new cars don’t leak the fluids that older cars would leak, he noted. “So we’ve really got a clean site here,” Wanty said. That’s why they felt that additional stormwater management wasn’t necessary.

John Oney indicated that a green roof had been considered, but it wasn’t economically feasible so they didn’t pursue it.

“So it looks like what we have is a difference of opinion,” Woods said. Kowalski clarified that the site plan meets the stormwater management requirements. That shouldn’t be confused with a separate issue, he said – the landscaping requirements, and the functions that the interior landscape islands serve.

Bona took issue with Oney’s contention that a green roof isn’t economically feasible. She recommended that he contact A3C Architects, who’ve been monitoring the temperature of their roof – a black section, a white section and a green section. The amount of heat that’s retained from their green roof in the winter, and the amount of heat that’s not absorbed in the summer, significantly reduces the building’s heating and air-conditioning costs, Bona said. A green roof is not just for the environment, she added. There are strong reasons why that greenery moderates the temperature of the roof.

Jeremy Peters echoed some of the previously stated concerns about runoff and water quality. As someone who previously lived near Malletts Creek, he agreed with the coordinating committee’s suggestions. He also agreed with Bona’s suggestion to look at installing a green roof.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Germain Motors proposal.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a four-story addition to the existing two-story building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor. It’s known as the Montgomery Building, because from the late 1920s until 1960 it housed a Montgomery Ward’s department store.

The plan calls for creating 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units.

Aerial view of the Montgomery building (indicated with crosshatches) at 210 S. Fourth Ave. in downtown Ann Arbor.

City planner Matt Kowalski gave the staff report. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. The footprint of the existing building won’t change, and the ground floor would remain commercial space. Current tenants include Salon Vertigo and Bandito’s Mexican Restaurant. The top floor will include a stair/elevator lobby, restroom, wet bar, and access to several roof decks. Part of the fifth-floor roof will be covered in vegetation as a green roof.

The third-floor addition will be set back 11 feet from the existing building’s facade. The fourth floor will be set back an additional nine feet.

Because the building is located in an historic district, it required a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s historic district commission. The HDC granted that certificate at its Sept. 12, 2013 meeting.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density. According to a staff memo, eight footing drain disconnects will be required.

According to a report from the July 10, 2013 citizen participation meeting, the units will be marketed to “anyone who wants to live downtown.” If approvals are received, construction is expected to begin next summer.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth: Public Hearing

Three people spoke during a public hearing on this project. Luke Norman, who lives on South Fourth Avenue, wondered if there would be any affordable housing in this development.

Brad Moore, the project’s architect, told commissioners that the project would rejuvenate the building. The plan is to completely reconstruct the facade and give it a look that’s “more characteristic of its heyday,” he said, while adding some additional stories to increase the amount of downtown residential space.

Rendering of proposed Montgomery Building addition.

The hope is to also increase the amount of retail space along that section of Fourth Avenue, he said, in conjunction with the development at Fourth and Liberty. [Moore is also the architect for an expansion project on the adjacent property – a three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth, which will create six residential units. That project received a recommendation of approval from planning commissioners at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting but still needs city council approval.]

The proposed setbacks of the upper floors are intended to prevent a feeling of the building encroaching on the street, Moore said. He said he had additional information if the commissioners had any questions.

Ray Detter noted that the downtown citizens advisory council had looked at this project. The proposed changes will be a marvelous addition to that block, he said, and it’s a positive direction to restore something that’s part of the city’s past and will be part of its future. The advisory council strongly supports the addition of mixed-income housing in that part of the downtown, Detter said.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by taking up a question asked during public commentary: Is there any affordable housing in this project? Brad Moore replied that there’s nothing that would be dedicated affordable housing, but there are some studio apartments – at about 500 square feet apiece – that would have a lower rent than the other units, because of the smaller size. The one-bedroom apartments will average about 750-800 square feet, and the two-bedroom units will be about 950 square feet.

Brad Moore, architect for the Montgomery Building expansion.

Bona said it would be nice to get some market-rate affordable units rather than subsidized affordable housing. She hoped that if the project is forwarded to the city council for approval, it would include pricing for the various units, relative to income levels. For example, would someone who makes 80% or 60% of the area median income be able to afford the rent?

Bona then asked about the building in relation to neighboring parcels. Moore explained that a portion of the building on the north and south sides will be built up to the property line. Bona wondered how it was possible to put in windows there, considering the fact that the building adjacent to this proposed expansion could also add additional floors someday.

Moore said that the developer will be applying for a variance from the building board of appeals in order to install windows on walls that aren’t set back from the property line. He indicated that a city building official has told him that it’s been the city’s practice to grant such a variance for a limited quantity of windows, with the caveat that additional fire sprinklers must be installed to prevent fire from shooting out the windows into the adjacent building.

There’s also the understanding that if the adjacent building increases in height, the windows would be blocked in, Moore said. There are other opportunities for light in the units, so the windows on those sides would be “supplemental,” he said.

Ken Clein confirmed with Moore that the windows on the property line would be non-operable. He also asked about exterior materials that will be used. [Clein is an architect, and typically asks about exterior materials.] Moore explained that some of the color choices were made in response to feedback from the historic district commission.

Wendy Woods asked about the west side of the building, facing a back alley. The units on that side have balconies over the alley – what would those balconies be facing? Moore replied that most of the buildings on the other side of the alley are three stories high. So balconies on the Montgomery Building’s second and third floors would be looking across the alley at other residential units. Moore confirmed for Woods that the trash pickup and recycling takes place in that alley.

In response to another query from Woods, Moore reported that the studio apartments will be in the building’s southwest corner.

Clein asked about the first floor “arcade,” and wondered if that configuration would remain. Moore noted that the arcade walkthrough ceased to exist 10 years ago, when the hair salon expanded across the back of the building. The rear entrance from the alley serves only the hair salon and as an emergency exit. He said there’s been no commitment to a specific layout, so it’s possible that they could reestablish the arcade walkthrough.

Diane Giannola asked if there would be any coordination in the construction of this project and the adjacent expansion at the corner of Fourth and Liberty.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

It’s possible, Moore replied, though he noted that the buildings have separate ownership. The merchants on that street are sensitive about the sidewalks being closed all summer, so there’s an effort not to do that, he said. It depends on the timing of the construction for each project, however.

Jeremy Peters said he’s glad to see a project that could revitalize an area that seems to need some help. He liked the fact that the design would evoke the building’s historic facade, and was happy to see more density in the downtown core.

Bona asked about the building’s mechanicals. She said one deficiency in the city’s zoning code is a lack of requirements to screen the mechanical units. When screening does occur, it sometimes looks worse than just leaving the mechanicals exposed, she said.

Moore explained that there would be a screen of the rooftop mechanicals, behind the penthouse. The building will likely use a heat-pump system, he said, so that the only equipment mounted on the roof will be a boiler and a chiller. There will be a parapet around the perimeter of the roof that’s about two feet tall, and the mechanical screen will rise above that, but will be unenclosed at the top.

Bona wondered what it would look like if someone were to look down onto the roof from a taller building. Moore indicated that there might be room for potential solar panels toward the back of the roof, but three sides in front will have a green roof, wrapping around patios.

Sabra Briere asked about the noise that would be generated by the mechanicals. She hears from people about the noise caused by such heating and cooling elements, especially from residents whose units back up to shared alleys. Moore said he hoped the screening would address that to some extent. He didn’t know how many decibels the equipment would generate. Briere hoped he would keep the noise factor in mind as the project moved forward.

Clein noted that from his experience, most modern boilers and chillers are fairly quiet. [Clein is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects.] Condensers and pressers tend to make a lot of noise, he observed – but those won’t be used in this project. He wondered whether the mechanicals include an emergency generator. Moore replied that the generator will likely be located in the basement.

A slide from the city planning staff’s presentation showing a photo of the 1960 fire at the Montgomery Building on South Fourth Avenue.

Wendy Woods noted that fires had occurred in both the Montgomery Building and the adjacent Running Fit structure – was it the same fire? No, Moore replied. The fire at the Running Fit building pre-dated the Montgomery Building fire, which occurred in 1960. He noted that in doing historic research for this project at the Bentley Historical Library, he was amazed by how many buildings had burned in Ann Arbor. “It seemed to be a big problem,” he said.

Kirk Westphal said people were pleased that the building design respected the historical context. Referring to the city’s master plan, Westphal noted that it strongly encouraged active uses on the ground floor. He asked if the owners were willing to abide by those desires. “Absolutely,” Moore replied.

Westphal also asked about the contractor that would be used for this project – did they use local labor? Moore wasn’t certain but thought that they did. He noted that the contractor is a firm based in Ypsilanti.

Clein pointed out that despite the questions from commissioners, this is the kind of development that’s needed downtown and he hasn’t heard many people object to the project.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the site plan, which will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants

Planning commissioners were also asked to recommend approval of a site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. [.pdf of development agreement] The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Angeline Lawrence gave the staff report. The proposal calls for building two new freestanding restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. Bicycle parking will be added to the north and west entrances to Macy’s.

The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff have subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning is needed.

The city’s planning staff previously had recommended postponement in order to allow the developer to deal with some outstanding issues related to zoning, landscaping, easements and utilities. Those issues are now resolved, according to staff.

For example, concerns had been raised about the location of the area for trash and recycling. That area has been reconfigured and approved by the city’s solid waste staff. Also, plans were eliminated for a new detention pond on the northeast corner of the mall site, based on a recommendation by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. Instead, an existing detention pond on that site will be dredged and retrofitted.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Public Hearing

The only speaker during the public hearing for this project was Scott Richardson, representing the Briarwood Mall owners. He noted that he and the project’s engineer were on hand to answer any questions.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked staff to explain how they interpreted “this convoluted site” during their review of the project. She described it as a fairly odd-shaped site, and some of the improvements are being included not just near the restaurants, but elsewhere around the Macy’s building. She clarified with staff that the improvements, such as adding landscape islands in the parking area, are being done in response to the addition of the two restaurants.

Scott Richardson, a representative of the Briarwood Mall owners.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed to a page in the meeting packet that showed the site configuration of the mall and indicated each parcel’s ownership. [.pdf of site configuration] She said that at the Oct. 15 meeting, the planning staff was still struggling to understand how the parcel configuration ended up that way. As far as staff can tell, the parcels inside the mall’s “ring road” never went through a formal land division process, she said. “That was what we tried to untangle.”

Macy’s owns the land where the restaurants are proposed, Rampson explained, so the mall owners – Simon Company – are buying and developing that parcel.

Bona then asked Scott Richardson about the future development of the mall. It’s important to make sure that “we’re not boxing ourselves into something that looks like the past, instead of like the future,” she said. Bona wondered whether the mall site’s subdivisions would prevent the site from more progressive development in the future.

Richardson replied that when the company looks at a master plan for any mall that it’s developing, “we tend to lose sight of the property lines.” When there’s a “win-win” for all of the parties involved, he said, “there’s ultimately a deal that can be done” to allow for what he called “grand development.” Even though parcel lines might change, nothing being done for this restaurant deal will eliminate the possibility for anything in the future, he said. Representatives for Simon Company meet at least quarterly with representatives from the key department store companies, he said, to talk about issues that arise, including opportunities for future development.

As an example, it would be possible to develop the property so that the road in front of the two new restaurants becomes “like an intimate Main Street,” Richardson said, with additional shops, restaurants – or even a parking structure with some residential units above it, built to face the street. He said that everyone recognizes the fact that a lot of parking is underused, and a lot of the site is undervalued and can be improved. It’s not a change that happens quickly, he added, but it’s something “that we certainly have on our plate, to make sure that we think big picture – because the last thing you want to do is sell yourself short in the future for a bird in the hand today.”

Bona said she was glad Richardson “could see more optimism here than I’m seeing, so I’ll take you at your word.” She then asked about the number of trees and bioswales on the site, saying that at first glance it seemed to her to be in excess of what would be required by the two new restaurant buildings. She noted that it seemed to relate to the fact that two parcels were impacting this development – a parcel owned by Macy’s, a the parcel owned by Simon Company.

City planner Angeline Lawrence replied that 169 trees are required by code for the Macy’s parcel, but the city allowed the developer to count some of the existing trees on the site as part of that total. That means that only 133 trees will be added, she said.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh.

Bona also wondered how the regional detention system worked. Lawrence replied that the existing detention pond is just to the north of the proposed new restaurant site. There’s a similar pond on the other side of Briarwood Circle, she said. The plan calls for dredging sediment from the bottom of the existing detention pond that’s near the to-be-developed site, and to install a new pipe that would allow runoff to flow into that pond.

Rampson added that when Briarwood Mall was developed, a regional detention system was created for the whole area. The detention ponds drain east into Malletts Creek.

Jeremy Peters asked about a possible scenario in which one of the core companies at the mall goes out of business, and was sold to a “less cooperative” holding company. Would the property lines pose any problems in that case? Richardson replied that the property lines have nothing to do with what happens in that situation. There are legally binding documents between the mall developer and the property owner, he explained, that restrict what a retailer can or can’t do with their property. There would also be a dialogue between Simon Company and the retailer, he said, because Simon Company has more invested in Briarwood Mall than any individual retailer, and would “vigorously” protect its asset.

Saying that she frequented the mall, Eleanore Adenekan asked about handicapped parking spaces. Richardson assured her that all of the spaces are being designed to meet current Americans with Disabilities (ADA) codes.

In response to a query from Ken Clein, the project’s engineer – Gary Tressel, with the engineering firm of Hubbell, Roth & Clark in Bloomfield Hills – explained that the lights in the parking lot at Macy’s will be retrofitted with LED fixtures. The new parking area will also have LED fixtures.

Noting that it wasn’t directly related to this project, Wendy Woods asked about a new skating area at the mall. Richardson replied that an inside “faux ice” skating rink was installed in the mall near the JC Penney store. He described how skaters use special shoes with pads to simulate ice skating.

Outcome: The site plan and development agreement was unanimously approved. The proposal will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Bonnie Bona, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The majority sentiment among the nearly dozen people who addressed the commission was that the consultant’s recommendations did not adequately address the need for buffering between areas zoned D1 and those zoned residential. However, the owner of the property on the southeast corner of William and Main did not share that sentiment. He offered his perspective that the parcel should not have zoning applied that splits the parcel between D1 and D2 zoning, which is the consultant’s recommendation.

Planning commissioners did not themselves engage in substantive discussion on the issue. Instead they focused on how to delay consideration of a resolution that would make a recommendation to the city council. The inclination to delay stemmed from a request from two commissioners who were absent due to illness – Sabra Briere and Wendy Woods.

The outcome of the scheduling discussion was to postpone consideration until the commission’s next working session on Nov. 11 12 – which will start at 7 p.m. in one of the basement conference rooms in city hall. The public will be heard at the end of the commission’s working session discussion. Indications from commissioners at the Nov. 6 meeting were that they expected they’d need more than just one additional discussion to come to a consensus on what the recommendation to the city council should be. They won’t be voting on anything at the working session.

The report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

In general, the recommendations – prepared by consultants ENP & Associates – call for some sections of the downtown to be downzoned, to create better transitions between residential neighborhoods and property that’s zoned for denser development. The recommendations also call for mandatory approval from the city’s design review board for any projects that are seeking premiums.

The recommendations reviewed on Oct. 15 and Nov. 6 include: (1) rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) rezone the Municipal Center parcel from PL (public land) to D2; (3) reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 130 feet; (4) rezone the D-zoned parcels on the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue (where city hall is located) from East Huron 2 Character District to East Huron 1 Character District; (5) change the maximum height in the Main Street Character District to 150 feet when within 20 feet of a residentially zoned area and add a tower diagonal requirement of 50% of the maximum parcel diagonal; (6) rezone the south half of the parcel at 425 S. Main (between William and Packard) from D1 to D2.

In addition, several recommendations relate to premiums: (1) require approval of the design review board for a project to be eligible for any premium; (2) revise the residential premium to be more specific about the types of units that will be eligible for premiums; (3) revise the affordable housing premium so that the provision of affordable housing is mandatory for receiving any premiums; (4) eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) include other types of premiums in addition to those currently available.

This zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission that was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development. Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2, which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu has taken the lead on this project.

The commission will eventually vote on a final set of recommendations to be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

The decision to postpone consideration from the commission’s Nov. 6 meeting until its Nov. 11 12 working session means that the previously scheduled topic for that working session will need to be shifted to a future session. That topic was to have been a presentation on legal issues by assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, who specializes in land-use matters.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

An example of a possible development on East Huron – between Sloan Plaza and Campus Inn – with proposed zoning changes. (Image from draft report by ENP & Associates.)

By way of background, in late 2009 – after a multi-year process and considerable debate – the city council adopted the A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) zoning. The intent was to review the zoning after a year, to see whether the changes resulted in the kind of downtown development that the city wants. However, in part because relatively few projects were brought forward in the first year or two after the A2D2 zoning was put in place, an A2D2 evaluation was not conducted in the original timeframe.

Interest in a review was heightened by a proposal for the 14-story 413 E. Huron apartment project on a site zoned D1, the highest density allowed. The proposal spurred controversy in part because of its location adjacent to a residential historic district.

So on April 1, 2013, the city council directed the planning commission to review A2D2 and address three specific questions: (1) whether D1 zoning is appropriately located on the north side of Huron Street between Division and South State, and on the south side of William Street between South Main and Fourth Avenue; (2) whether the D1 residential FAR [floor area ratio] premiums effectively encourage a diverse downtown population; and (3) whether a parcel on the south side of Ann Street adjacent to city hall should be rezoned “to the appropriate zoning for this neighborhood.” That parcel, currently a surface parking lot, is now zoned D1.

On April 1, the council set a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to the council. Councilmembers subsequently approved the 413 E. Huron project on May 13, 2013 on a 6-5 vote.

Over the past few months, the consultants – Erin Perdu and Megan Masson-Minock – have been conducting public forums, focus sessions, surveys and other means of getting feedback on the current zoning, as well as on ideas for zoning changes. The work has taken longer than anticipated, so the council will likely receive a final report in November. According to the draft report, the consultants heard from 131 individuals in person and received 142 survey responses. The draft recommendations are based on that feedback, as well as discussions with planning commissioners.

The recommendation are:

• Rezone the Ann Street site from D1 to D2, a zoning designation that has a lower height – 60 feet, compared to 180 feet. The consultants also recommend rezoning the city-owned property on a portion of parcels on the south side of Ann Street – where the city hall, Justice Center and fire station are now located. The recommendation is to rezone the northern half of those parcels from D1 to D2.
• Reduce the maximum height of the East Huron 1 character district – on the north side of Huron, between Division and State – from 150 feet to 120 feet, but add diagonal requirements to allow for a building with a “tower” of up to 160 feet. [Diagonals are a method of controlling shape, and typically allow for taller but less massive buildings.]
• Change the height maximum in the Main Street character district to 150 feet – compared to the existing 180 feet maximum – when within 20 feet of a residentially zoned area, and add diagonal requirements. This would affect the zoning requirements for the area along William Street.
• Require approval of the Design Review Board for a project to be eligible for any premium. Premiums are considered “by right” increases to FAR [floor area ratio] if certain criteria are met. For example, in D1, the basic “by right” FAR is 400% – meaning that if a building covered the entire lot, it could be four stories tall. If the use of the property is residential, that can increase the FAR to 700%. This reflects a priority on residential buildings. This recommendation also proposes changes to the current design review process, to more clearly define certain aspects of the review.
• Revise the residential premium to be more specific about the types of units that will be eligible for premiums.
• Revise the affordable housing premium so that providing affordable housing is mandatory in order to receive any residential premium. Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR “super-premium.”
• Include other types of premiums in addition to the those currently available. Some options might be providing an incentive for developers to include balconies on new residential developments, providing a premium for certain types of retail on the ground floor of new developments, or allowing/encouraging open spaces that are managed and programmed privately rather than merely requiring a contribution to the parks fund (or dedication of public spaces).

The draft report also identifies some issues that should receive additional attention from the city, but that were outside the scope of this particular project. Those issues are: (1) consider a review of D1 zoning for other “sensitive” properties that were not identified in the city council resolution, such as some areas of  South University and Thayer; (2) survey what other communities have done to regulate the shading impacts of new high-rise developments, in addition to requiring step-backs and diagonals; and (3) further study of the sewer and stormwater infrastructure, and the connection between new development and requiring city residents to disconnect their footing drains.

The consultants plan to present their draft report to the planning commission on Oct. 8, with commissioners considering the recommendations formally at their Oct. 15 regular meeting. For more background, see Chronicle coverage: “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review” and ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward.”

Julie Weatherbee is chair of the R4C/R2A advisory committee, which met most recently on Aug. 28, 2013. The next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 11. (Photos by the writer.)

Two main priorities have emerged as areas of concern: lot combinations, and a proposed “group housing” overlay district. Parking is also a concern, but several committee members noted that there isn’t time to reach consensus about parking recommendations. Only two more two-hour meetings are scheduled – on Sept. 11 and Sept. 25.

The committee’s original report had recommended imposing a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet. This would limit the ability of a developer to combine lots in order to build larger structures. It would be a way to limit the size of developments within R4C districts.

The planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee made a different recommendation, however, which was adopted by the full commission. Rather than requiring a specific lot size limit, lot combinations would be approved on a case-by-case basis. Review standards would be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. The planning commission has not yet developed details of how what standards would be used. Advisory committee members didn’t like this approach, saying that it seemed too arbitrary.

There are even fewer details at this point about a proposed group housing district, which planning commissioners envision as a future phase of R4C ordinance revisions. The planning commission recommendations call for a new zoning overlay district, located south and west of the University of Michigan’s central campus. It would be roughly an area outlined in the city’s Central Area Plan, but with final boundaries to be determined. [.pdf of Central Area Plan] The idea is to address issues that are somewhat unique to neighborhoods with a large amount of student housing.

In general, the new district would be intended to allow for flexibility by putting limits on density, but with premiums provided in exchange for community benefits such as pedestrian-friendly character and conformance with architectural design standards. For example, parking might be based on a building’s total floor-area ratio (FAR), independent of the number of units in a structure. The commission’s recommendations call for details of this new district to be fleshed out in a second phase, after other ordinance changes are made that are seen as more straightforward.

Advisory committee members were extremely skeptical of this approach, which one member characterized as “redlining.” Targeting housing for a particular type of resident – in this case, students – made many members uncomfortable. There was also uncertainty about the exact intention behind the recommendation.

Committee members have invited planning commissioner Bonnie Bona, who also serves on the commission’s ordinance revisions committee, to attend their Sept. 11 meeting. Their hope is to get clarity about the commission’s recommendations, as well as the intent behind those recommendations.

Several committee members stated that their overarching goal is to protect the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods, and to prevent older houses from being demolished. That’s the scenario that unfolded when seven houses were torn down along South Fifth Avenue to make way for the City Place apartments – a controversial development that was part of the impetus for the R4C/R2A review.

R4C/R2A Background

Over four years ago, on March 2, 2009, the city council directed the city’s planning staff and planning commission to review the R4C/R2A zoning districts in Ann Arbor’s “central area” neighborhoods. A few months later, in July 2009, the council created an advisory committee to provide input on the R4C/R2A zoning review. The committee’s recommendations were presented to the planning commission in a final report in May of 2012, with a set of recommendations and analysis. That report had been compiled by the planning staff. [.pdf of original advisory committee recommendations]

For the next year, planning commissioners who were members of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) reviewed the recommendations and discussed other possible changes as well.

The ORC ultimately made a different set of recommendations, which were approved by the full planning commission at its April 16, 2013 meeting. Those recommendations were forwarded to the city council, and did not include actual wording of the proposed ordinance changes. The ordinance revisions were expected to be the next step, following direction from the council.

The planning commission’s recommendations are described in two phases. There are some significant differences from the recommendations of the advisory committee, although many of the recommendations are the same. The changes in the first phase are seen as somewhat less controversial. For the first phase, here’s how the planning commission’s recommendations diverged from the advisory committee:

• Lot combinations need approval: Planning commission approval would be required for lot combinations in R4C districts, as part of a project’s site plan review. Review standards would be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. [The advisory committee had recommended imposing a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet, equal to an allowable density of three units. The consensus on the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) of the planning commission was that this maximum lot size would be too restrictive.]
• Conflicting land use buffer for vehicle areas only: The only areas that would require screening would be those used for vehicles – such as areas used for parking. This recommendation essentially reverts to the requirements used prior to 2011, when the city instituted changes to its landscape ordinance. Those changes expanded the conflicting land use buffer requirement in R4C districts to apply to the screening of buildings, in addition to vehicular use areas. The change resulted in an increase in variance requests for redevelopment in R4C districts, given the small size of the lots. [The issue was not part of the advisory committee's recommendations.]
• Further study of R2A district: Further study is recommended – to determine if the R2A lot size should be reduced to 6,000 square feet, allowing opportunities for duplex conversions. This number is based on the lot size requirement that was in place prior to 1984, when the requirement was raised to 8,500 square feet. [The advisory committee did not recommend zoning changes in the R2A district.]

A second phase would focus on creating a “group housing” zoning overlay district, but that is recognized by planning commissioners and staff as controversial. This “group housing” district was not part of the advisory committee’s recommendations.

Carl Luckenbach, an architect and member of the R4C/R2A advisory committee, at the Aug. 14, 2013 meeting of that group.

There was sentiment by some members of the original advisory committee that their work had been cut short by the planning staff, and that the final report presented to the planning commission on behalf of the committee did not fully reflect the committee’s consensus.

So at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the city council voted unanimously to reconstitute the advisory committee, with the goal of completing its work and responding to the planning commission’s recommendations.

There are 12 members on the reconstituted citizens advisory committee, including many who served on the original committee. City councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will represent the planning commission. [Former councilmember Tony Derezinski and former planning commissioner Jean Carlberg were on the original committee.] Jay Holland replaces Chuck Carver to represent rental property owners. From the wards: Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5). Weatherbee is chair of the group. Michelle Derr was also appointed to represent Ward 3, but decided not to participate. Dale will be giving feedback in writing, but does not plan to attend the committee meetings.

The group is working on a tight timeline, with only four meetings scheduled. Two of those meetings have taken place so far – on Aug. 14 and Aug. 28. Both were attended by The Chronicle. In addition, meetings are scheduled on Sept. 11 and Sept. 25, from 7-9 p.m. at city hall.

More information about the R4C/R2A zoning review is on the city’s website. [.pdf of planning commission recommendations] [.pdf of original advisory committee report] [.pdf of chart by Sabra Briere outlining differences between the advisory committee and planning commission recommendations] See also Chronicle coverage: “Planning Commission Signs Off on R4C Draft.”

Priority Areas

At the advisory committee’s first meeting on Aug. 14, the group discussed priority issues to focus their work, given that they planned to meet only four times. On Aug. 28, they reviewed a summary of those priorities that had been identified at their first meeting. [.pdf of priority areas document]

Julie Weatherbee, chair of the committee, stressed the need to focus their efforts and be clear about what they’re trying to “fix.” She noted that the two main consensus priorities were: (1) lot combinations, and (2) the proposed group housing overlay district.

From left: R4C/R2A advisory committee members Ellen Rambo and Nancy Leff.

Nancy Leff suggested that the committee make a clear statement about why they felt these two areas were a high priority. She cited part of the original charge from the city council as one of her main concerns: “Develop site design standards that encourage creative design while maintaining sensitivity for existing neighborhood character; …” [This is one of the "priority action strategies" identified in the 1992 Central Area Plan, which is part of the city's master plan. It was highlighted in the March 2, 2009 council resolution that directed the planning staff and planning commission to review R4C/R2A zoning districts. The advisory committee was subsequently established, on July 6, 2009, to provide input to the planning commission on this process.]

Leff said that for her, the advisory committee’s work boils down to addressing that charge. With the exception of some large fraternity houses and churches, the character of the neighborhoods in R4C districts is overwhelmingly single-family homes, she said – regardless of who is actually living in those homes. “If you eliminate the single-family homes in this zone, you are completely destroying the current and original nature and character of the properties in that zone,” she said. If developers are allowed to tear down those existing homes through lot combinations or group housing, Leff added, it will “completely obliterate” what’s left of the neighborhood’s character.

Sabra Briere cautioned against calling these structures single-family homes, saying it could cause people to quibble about whether the houses are rentals or owner-occupied, or about how many people are living there. It’s the visual fabric that the city needs to protect, Briere said, but not necessarily for the original use. There can be a lot of variance in that visual appearance, depending on where the lots are located, she said. Briere thought that lot combinations should be the committee’s top priority.

Eppie Potts agreed that the committee should avoid calling the buildings single-family homes. It’s not important who’s living there now, she said. It’s important to talk about the original plats. “It’s the buildings and their lots that we’re wanting to preserve,” she said, with traditional sizes and setbacks.

Ray Detter pointed out that the council’s original charge had quoted directly from the city’s Central Area Plan, and that those statements could back up the committee’s recommendations on lot combinations and group housing.

Weatherbee noted that some of the difficulty in addressing issues within the R4C district is that there are many different types of structures there now, from large older apartment buildings to smaller homes to duplexes. Some neighborhoods have tiny lots with hardly any setbacks, while other neighborhoods have large lots and setbacks. Sometimes, even opposite sides of the street have different character, she observed.

Priority Areas: Lot Combinations

The advisory committee’s original report had recommended imposing a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet. However, this recommendation was not accepted by the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) of the planning commission. ORC members felt that this maximum lot size would be too restrictive, and so they instead made the recommendation to handle lot combinations in R4C districts as part of a project’s site plan review, on a case-by-case basis. The ORC recommended that review standards be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. This recommendation was adopted by the full planning commission, but specific standards have not been proposed.

At the advisory committee’s Aug. 28 meeting, Eppie Potts said she thought the 6,525-square-foot maximum lot size was workable. It meant that there could be some lot combinations, but they’d be relatively small. Nancy Leff noted that the number of 6,525 wasn’t arbitrary – because it had been based on a survey of lot sizes within the R4C districts, she said, and that justification was supposed to be included in the committee’s report. But the justification hadn’t been part of the report, she noted.

Ellen Rambo recalled that when the advisory committee was first formed, it focused on the issue of non-conforming lots in the R4C district – because that was the problem that had been stressed most by planning staff. The intent of the 6,525-square-foot maximum lot size was to minimize the number of non-conforming lots within the R4C district.

Jay Holland of Jay Holland Construction Co. and Sabra Briere, who serves on the Ann Arbor city council and planning commission.

Julie Weatherbee pointed out that the committee hadn’t wanted to prohibit lot combinations entirely, because combining lots makes sense in some situations. She wondered if the committee wanted to bring back that same number of 6,525 square feet as part of their new set of recommendations.

Ilene Tyler supported that approach. “We need a number,” she said. Under the planning commission’s proposal, all lot combinations would require the commission’s review. “Who knows what judgment or criteria they’re going to use?” Tyler said, adding that there needs to be clear guidelines.

Ray Detter felt that the ORC and planning commission want to set up an “arbitrary” approach to lot combinations, similar to the customized zoning of a planned unit development (PUD). He referred to a memo that the advisory committee had received from Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff regarding how to regulate lot combinations. [.pdf of Kahan's memo] The planning commission’s proposal is “exactly what Kahan seems to suggest that we shouldn’t do,” Detter contended.

Detter liked the idea of allowing a specific lot size or following the original plats. He also said he wanted to be fair to developers. He and Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, worked hard to support developer Tom Fitzsimmons for a development on Catherine Street, Detter said. It had been proposed for two vacant lots zoned R4C in an historic area, he said. If there had been restrictions on lot combinations at the time, Detter noted, Fitzsimmons had indicated that the project would not have been possible. Detter wanted to make sure that zoning would allow projects like the Catherine Street development to occur, calling it a “special case.”

Eppie Potts found it disturbing that the planning commission didn’t set any standards for making its decisions related to lot combinations. Eventually, those standards would be developed, she noted, “but meanwhile, a lot of damage is done.”

Regarding lot combinations, Jay Holland – owner of Jay Holland Construction Company – felt that problems with new developments generally relate to massing, not to the size of the lot. He also noted that some very large homes in historic districts survived, because they were converted to multi-family homes or offices.

Holland reported that he’d been around in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the city expanded the minimum lot size in R4C districts from 6,000 square feet to 8,400 square feet. That’s contradictory to what some advisory committee members are now proposing, he said. “It seems like if it were broken, it would have been fixed long before now.”

Holland said he believed in urban redevelopment, “in a good way.” There’s a benefit to restoring structures that are deteriorating, he said, even if it means shifting the buildings and the existing lot lines. If the city makes that kind of project too difficult, “it won’t be happening,” he said.

Nancy Leff said she didn’t think she and Holland were very far apart in what they wanted. Her concern was simply the possibility that a developer could tear down multiple houses and put up a large apartment building, for example. Once built, it’s unlikely that an apartment building would be torn down in the future in order to build smaller homes, she noted. Holland replied that perhaps a developer would want to tear down old dilapidated homes in order to build newer houses – though perhaps not as many. His point was that it’s the massing that’s more of a concern.

Weatherbee told Holland that if there were more developers like him, “this town would be better off. I think the trouble is, whether it’s our processes or the people, we don’t get a lot of great projects,” she said. At this point, people might be reacting to the bad projects that have come forward, she noted.

Potts agreed that massing was an issue, and that’s why she’s in favor of limiting lot combinations. “The only reason anyone seems to want to combine lots and take down houses is to build something very massive,” she said, which violates the character of these neighborhoods. “So mass is our problem.”

The only way Potts said she can think of to prevent this is to restrict the lot combinations to a specific square footage, which probably amounts to two or three lots at the most.

Holland countered by saying that lot combinations would be needed if someone wanted to build several detached homes as part of the same development. Other committee members were supportive of that idea, but unsure how it could be accomplished. Briere asked Holland how he would write that outcome into the city code. “That’s the challenge,” she said.

Ray Detter, a member of the reconstituted R4C/R2A advisory committee. Detter was not a member of the original committee, but attended many of their meetings.

Detter brought up the City Place development on South Fifth Avenue, saying he sat through all the meetings when the project was first brought forward as a planned unit development (PUD). He said the developer threatened the city that if the PUD wasn’t approved, then a by-right project based on R4C zoning would be proposed instead. Ultimately, the project was built based on R4C zoning, Detter said, “and what we got was that awful thing [done by] combining lots.” Detter added that he wanted to revise the zoning so that no one can threaten to build anything like that again.

Holland said he was under the impression that the developer had proposed to save the existing homes there. Detter replied that such an alternative had been proposed, but it didn’t happen “because it was all baloney, and the money wasn’t there.” [By way of additional background, the city council had denied approval of the project.]

Weatherbee characterized the City Place project as “kind of a failure on everyone’s part” – a failure of the planning process, the city council, the owner, and the neighbors. People didn’t believe that the developer would be able to build a project using the existing homes along Fifth Avenue, she noted, “but we didn’t let him try it.”

City Place was a failure of the city’s process, Weatherbee said. “We don’t want our current zoning to be the worst of all options, where nobody’s really happy.” The hope would be to make it possible to have developments that everyone can live with, she said – “or something better.”

Ellen Rambo quoted from the 2009 land use element of the city’s master plan – the final sentence in this paragraph:

Action F – Reinforce residential neighborhoods in the area south and west of Central Campus by developing new zoning definitions and standards that support organized group housing opportunities. Examples of ordinance revisions include amendments to reduce nonconformities, elimination of special exception use approvals and minimum house size in some areas. Additional buffer areas between single-family and student areas may be needed. Off-street parking requirements and density limitations, however, should not be reduced in these areas.

Rambo wondered how Holland envisioned creating “friendly, livable streets” with new developments that are aesthetically pleasing. Was there a way to prevent the kind of monolithic buildings that are being constructed?

Holland replied that he’s not a designer, but he was under the impression that the planning staff, planning commission and city council are interested in developing some kind of design overlay. It takes a lot of time, he added, “and you don’t always get it right the first time.”

At the end of the meeting, the group – with the exception of Holland – reached consensus on the recommendation of limiting lot combinations to a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet, which is 1.5 times the current minimum lot size.

Tyler noted that the original priority for the advisory committee was to try to bring more of the existing lots into conformance with zoning. “It wasn’t that we were opposing development,” she said. Currently, any time owners of a non-conforming property want to make changes, they have to get approval from the zoning board of appeals. “So it wasn’t just a protectionism angle on this,” Tyler said. “It really was a bigger gesture on our part to say that there are a lot of people who suffer, and not just single-family owner-occupants.”

Holland said he agreed with the ORC recommendations regarding lot size, not with the advisory committee. He suggested that the committee’s report could reflect the majority opinion as well as his dissent.

Weatherbee noted that she’d be shocked if the committee had 100% agreement on these recommendations. “We’re not screaming at each other – that’s one step forward,” she joked.

Priority Areas: Group Housing

In their discussion about the proposed group housing overlay district, Julie Weatherbee noted that the original advisory committee had talked about the idea of overlay districts, and had liked the idea of using those to capture the different characteristics of neighborhoods within the R4C zoning districts. But the planning commission’s proposal for a group housing overlay district isn’t one that committee members like, she said. “I personally don’t like the idea of zoning districts that are set up for certain types of people,” Weatherbee said. If you substituted a racial or gender designation instead of students, “then I would be ballistic.” Setting up a zoning for a student district makes her very uncomfortable.

Sabra Briere noted that there are currently some areas that are already zoned for group housing, but there are housing cooperatives in other parts of the city too. For group housing that’s not in an area zoned for that use, then any changes to that structure must seek variances from the zoning board of appeals, she said.

If someone wanted to establish a new residence that’s considered group housing – located in an area where that type of housing isn’t allowed – the developer would have to petition both the planning commission and zoning board of appeals, she said.

Ilene Tyler, an architect and member of the R4C/R2A advisory committee who lives in Ward 1.

Ray Detter called the current boundaries for a possible group housing district as “malleable” and “very arbitrary.” Some areas are included that he didn’t consider student housing districts, he said, while some areas with student housing “dumps” aren’t included. [As a possible later phase proposal, details of the group housing designation haven't been fleshed out by planning commissioners or staff.]

Eppie Potts voiced concern about a lack of clarity regarding what a group housing overlay district means, compared to other possible overlays, such as those for design standards. Nancy Leff agreed, saying the proposal for a group housing district seems like a new type of zoning, rather than an overlay.

Ilene Tyler noted that some people view historic districts as a form of overlay zoning, because it crosses boundaries of different zoning districts.

Jay Holland said that in the case of historic district requirements, the restrictions related more to massing than to lot size. Leff didn’t think it was possible to separate lot size from massing.

Detter said that even if there were an overlay for group housing, development in that area should still have to conform to the requirements of R4C zoning too. The problem is that decisions related to the group housing overlay might be made by the planning commission “in almost an arbitrary way,” he said. “I don’t want that kind of situation at all.”

Briere clarified that a zoning overlay district would go on top of the underlying zoning. For example, in a group housing overlay district, it might be possible to increase the number of people per unit or per acre, she explained. But the zoning as it relates to lot combinations wouldn’t change. “The lots are restricted the way they are everywhere else in R4C,” she said. Or it might be desirable to add even more restrictions using an overlay approach, Briere said. There are some overlay areas in the D1 district that restrict building height more than the standard D1 regulations, she noted.

An overlay district is designed to be non-arbitrary and enforceable, Briere said, as well as clearly understandable and predictable. “That we haven’t managed that yet is a shame.”

Based on Briere’s explanation, Leff replied that the group housing proposal “violates all those principles, because there are no regulations or standards.” Briere pointed out that the planning commission plans to develop those standards in the second phase of these revisions.

Potts felt the only rationale for a group housing overlay would be to create more density, and she expressed skepticism about the approach. Detter quipped: “You don’t want a fraternity next to your house.”

Weatherbee again stressed that this is a topic that the advisory committee needs to explore with Bonnie Bona, because none of the committee members are comfortable with the vague proposal. Bona, a member of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee, is expected to attend the Sept. 11 meeting of the advisory committee.

Priority Areas: Parking

Parking was another concern raised by advisory committee members. But committee chair Julie Weatherbee told the group that she didn’t think they’d be able to reach consensus on that topic, given their time constraints. She felt the best approach might be to give some general guidance, rather than a detailed recommendation for parking.

Ilene Tyler wanted to recommend against having the planning commission introduce any change to the existing parking regulations.

Ray Detter felt that residential parking permit programs were effective in controlling parking in the neighborhoods. He suggested that might be a strategy deployed more widely in R4C districts. He noted that enforcement is still a problem, however.

Eppie Potts said she felt strongly about the parking issue. She felt parking regulations could be used to address the problem of six-bedroom student apartments. When developers don’t have to provide parking, she said, they can build a larger structure with more bedrooms per unit.

Related to the six-bedroom concern, Sabra Briere wondered why the previous advisory committee hadn’t recommended that the city put a limit on the number of people per unit that a development could accommodate. Tyler reported that the committee had talked about it, but they couldn’t reach consensus so it was not included in the final report.

Potts noted that the committee had also made parking recommendations that didn’t get included in the report.

Weatherbee added that the committee had decided to let the planning staff take the lead on some of these issues, and as a result, some of the recommendations got “derailed.” She said she didn’t blame staff, noting that the committee had been complicit in this approach.

Jay Holland thought that the parking requirements for high-rise developments “have really put a burden on the neighborhoods.” It’s not fair that smaller, existing home have to provide more parking, proportionally, than large apartment buildings with more residents. The same disparity also applies to setbacks, he said.

The advisory committee will likely take up the issue of parking at a future meeting.

Questions for Ordinance Revisions Committee

At the advisory committee’s initial meeting on Aug. 14, the group discussed differences between its original recommendations – presented in a report that was delivered to the planning commission in May of 2012 – and the ultimate recommendation of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC), which was approved by the full planning commission and forwarded to city council. They also noted that some of their recommendations didn’t make it into the final advisory committee report, which was prepared by Matt Kowalski of the city’s planning staff. Committee members felt that in some cases, that report didn’t accurately reflect the advisory committee’s actual consensus.

At the suggestion of Julie Weatherbee, the R4C/R2A advisory committee members agreed to limit their speaking turns. They were given 2 minutes per turn. Weatherbee used her iPad as a timer.

In their discussion on Aug. 14, several advisory committee members had questions about the intent and meaning of some of the ORC’s recommendations. Ultimately, the group decided to invite a member of the ORC to one of the advisory committee meetings, to answer questions and help get clarity on some of these issues. Committee members talked about which ORC member might be best suited to handle the questions. Ray Detter suggested either Bonnie Bona or Kirk Westphal, saying that he did not want Diane Giannola to come. [Westphal is running for city council in Ward 2. Wendy Woods also serves on the ORC.]

The group reached consensus that Bona would be invited to attend. Julie Weatherbee, chair of the advisory committee, suggested providing questions to Bona in advance of the meeting, so that Bona wouldn’t be “blindsided.”

Although the hope was for Bona to attend the Aug. 28 meeting, she couldn’t make it until the group’s session on Sept. 11. So on Aug. 28, advisory committee members spent part of their meeting discussing possible questions for Bona. [.pdf of draft questions]

The main concerns focused on the proposed group housing overlay, with committee members questioning the purpose of such an overlay, as well as concerns over a lack of details and the targeting of a specific group – in this case, students. Nancy Leff called it a kind of redlining. Detter added that the committee isn’t opposed to overlays that protect the scale and character of the neighborhoods, but they are opposed to the creation of a student neighborhood.

Eppie Potts said the overarching question for Bona should be: Why did the ORC make the recommendations that it did? Detter added that the committee is really asking Bona to justify the ORC’s positions. When he has asked Bona in previous conversations about the rationale, she indicated that it was based on the city’s central area plan, Detter reported. “At this point, it’s not our job to simply put in everything that’s in the central area plan,” he said. “It’s our job, at least as far as this committee is concerned, to preserve the character and scale of the R4C areas.”

Several committee members suggested narrowing down the number of questions, so that there would be time for Bona to answer, along with time for some dialogue. Briere volunteered to compile a shorter set of questions for Bona.

Public Commentary

Three people spoke during the opportunity for public commentary at the end of the Aug. 28 meeting.

Eppie Potts, a member of the R4C/R2A advisory committee, talks with resident Eleanor Linn prior to the committee’s Aug. 28 meeting.

Eleanor Linn said she had several notes, but that the committee had addressed all of the topics she was interested in. She noted that not all of the draft questions for Bonnie Bona were appropriate, and some should be answered by city staff – questions about legal issues, for example. Linn also wanted to make sure the committee asked Bona about what problem these zoning revisions are trying to correct. That would be good to know, she said, rather than guessing the intent of the ORC.

Gwen Nystuen characterized the committee’s discussion as good. The issue of group housing is a big one, she said, and it’s unclear what is meant by that. Nystuen was happy to see that there seemed to be unanimity on the committee that a student overlay district was not appropriate. Nystuen joked that she has lived next to a fraternity for about 50 years, so she’s familiar with group housing.

Regarding group housing, Christine Crockett said it’s important to avoid designating zoning for a particular demographic, such as students. “It’s creating a ghetto – saying that this is the senior citizen part of town, or this is the Asian-American part of town.” It’s a way of encouraging people where to live, Crockett added, and “that’s a very dangerous direction to go in.”

One issue that concerns her is the demolition of older houses, Crockett continued, even houses that could be rehabilitated. That’s what bothered people more than anything regarding the City Place development, she said. So it’s more than just a simple issue of lot size. She noted that Tom Fitzsimmons, for example, has taken down houses in the city’s central area and built new structures that are more suburban in nature – and he didn’t have to combine lots to do that. She said it was alarming when you have the bullnose of a garage facing the sidewalk, where there once was a porch.

Crockett also thought the committee needed to be more specific. “The more vague your recommendations are, the more it’s going to be interpreted by the planning commission,” she said. The committee needs to imagine the worst possible scenario, she added, “because that has happened in this town.”

Julie Weatherbee asked Crockett for an example of a specific recommendation. R4C neighborhoods vary widely, Weatherbee noted, so what’s appropriate for one neighborhood might not be appropriate for another. In her neighborhood, Weatherbee said, all of the houses have porches, but in some neighborhoods they don’t.

Crockett replied that for the most part, all houses originally had porches. Ilene Tyler noted that houses built after the mid-1920s or 1930s don’t necessarily have porches. Linn added that her house was built in 1914 and it doesn’t have a front porch, because the house is rotated on the lot – so the side of the house faces the street.

Weatherbee asked Crockett if she was referring to design specifics. Crockett replied that she’d like the committee to include a recommendation that discouraged the demolition of houses. She noted that a house of historical significance had been demolished in the north central area, and replaced with a house “that’s so suburban looking, it’s offensive” – even though it fits the current zoning.

Committee members present: Sabra Briere, Ellen Rambo, Julie Weatherbee, Ilene Tyler, Ray Detter, Nancy Leff, Eppie Potts, Jay Holland.

Absent: Wendy Carman, Carl Luckenbach.

Next meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the basement of city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

• Friday, Sept 6: Downtown zoning evaluation community coffee, 8-10 a.m. at Espresso Royale Cafe, 324 S. State St.
• Monday, Sept. 9: Downtown zoning evaluation brown bag lunch, noon-1 p.m., at the A2Y chamber boardroom, 115 W. Huron St.
• Monday, Sept. 9: Downtown zoning evaluation public focus group, 5-6 p.m. at the Traverwood Library multipurpose room, 3333 Traverwood Dr.
• Monday, Sept. 9: Ann Arbor planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee, 6:30 p.m. in the basement conference room of city hall, 301 E. Huron.
• Tuesday, Sept. 10: Downtown zoning evaluation public focus group, 5-6 p.m. at Pizza House, 618 Church St.
• Tuesday, Sept. 10: Downtown citizens advisory council focus group, 5-6 p.m. in the basement conference room of city hall, 301 E. Huron.
• Tuesday, Sept. 10: Ann Arbor planning commission regular meeting, 7 p.m. in city hall’s council chambers, followed by a working session at 8 p.m. in the basement level of city hall, 301 E. Huron.
• Wednesday, Sept. 11: Downtown zoning evaluation public focus group, 5-6 p.m. at Bill’s Beer Garden, 218 S. Ashley St.
• Thursday, Sept. 12: Downtown zoning evaluation public focus group, 8-9 a.m. at the DDA boardroom, 150 S. Fifth Ave.
• Thursday, Sept. 19: Downtown zoning evaluation community coffee, 8-10 a.m. at Espresso Royale Cafe, 324 S. State St.
• Thursday, Sept. 19: Downtown zoning evaluation public workshop, 7-9 p.m. at the Workantile Exchange, 118 S. Main St.

Most of the sessions will be led by Erin Perdu, a consultant hired by the city to lead a review of downtown zoning, working with the city’s planning staff and planning commission. The work is the result of a city council resolution passed on April 1, 2013. It directed the planning commission to address three specific questions: (1) whether D1 zoning is appropriately located on the north side of Huron Street between Division and South State and the south side of William Street between South Main and Fourth Avenue; (2) whether the D1 residential FAR [floor area ratio] premiums effectively encourage a diverse downtown population; and (3) whether a parcel on the south side of Ann Street adjacent to city hall should be rezoned “to the appropriate zoning for this neighborhood.” That parcel, currently a surface parking lot, is now zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development.

The council’s resolution set a deadline of Oct. 1 for the planning commission to deliver recommendations to the council.

For more background, see Chronicle coverage: “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review” and ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward.”

At its July 1, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council voted to reconstitute the citizens committee, which had previously worked to provide input on possible changes to zoning in the R4C/R2A (multi-family) zoning districts. That action followed the planning commission’s vote at its April 16, 2013 meeting to send recommendations to the city council for revisions to the R4C zoning areas – but without the actual wording of the ordinance changes. Those recommendations, which were crafted with input from the original citizens advisory committee, were provided to the council as an item of communication on May 20, 2013.

When the the planning commission discussed its annual work plan at a June 4, 2013 meeting, the group set a goal of completing actual amendments to the R4C/R2A zoning ordinance by March of 2014. But before the council gives additional direction to the planning commission about these recommendations, the advisory committee will have another chance to weigh in.

The committee will be chaired by Julie Weatherbee. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will represent the planning commission and city council. Other members appointed to the committee on July 1 were: Chuck Carver representing rental property owners; Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo and Michelle Derr (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5). However, the membership is expected to change slightly. Any changes to the committee would require city council approval.

At a July 9 working session of the planning commission, Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson had reported that the planning staff will offer only as much staff involvement as the committee members want. She had indicated that when the committee had done its original work, some members felt that “staff cut the conversation off unduly, so we don’t want to reinforce that by being on the committee if we’re not needed,” she said. So planning staff will attend the meetings only if asked.

In addition to Aug. 14, other meetings of the R4C/R2A advisory committee are set for the following Wednesdays from 7-9 p.m.: Aug. 28, Sept. 11, and Sept. 25.

More information about the R4C/R2A zoning review is on the city’s website. [.pdf of planning commission recommendations] [.pdf of original advisory committee report] [.pdf of chart by Sabra Briere outlining differences between the advisory committee and planning commission recommendations] See also Chronicle coverage: “Planning Commission Signs Off on R4C Draft.”