Comments on: Land Uses Expand; Plan Regs Relaxed

By: cosmonıcan

cosmonıcan — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:51:43 +0000

RE: [9} In the absence of any other information, I’d assume that’s a corner lot, with the house number on the other street.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:17:39 +0000

Where’s the half block face? I’m having trouble imagining that.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:10:18 +0000

CM Briere and Smith were offering good constituent service in sponsoring the RPP program. Congratulations to the Council for passing it. It only makes sense, if we are to maintain livable neighborhoods (including livability for renters) adjacent to huge auto magnets like the campus and the new dorm. Until we can achieve a truly car-free society, existence of a residence implies the need for at least one car. There is a cost to housing cars. It makes more sense that property owners who pay taxes should have this amenity (or necessity) rather than granting it free to a large incoming population. The UM to its credit has been establishing outlying parking areas and commuter services. I don’t think that they have resolved the problem of automobile storage. (Question: does the UM provide any places where autos may be left over 24 hours?)

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 04:19:39 +0000

RE: [6] “One last question: will there really be a half sign in the OFW for the RPP program?”

For other readers, the reference is to the math for calculating cost: 20,985.00 ($415.55 x 50.5). The 50.5 number comes from the 50.5 “block faces” in the district, with one sign placed per block face. I’d guess that 51 signs get placed, with the extra half block face getting a whole sign.

RE: [6] “… was the resolution put forward by staff (the administrator) or a council member?”

The RPP resolutions were sponsored by Briere and Smith.

RE: [6] “If the former, was the resolution required because of the absence of the petition, or did it rather serve the purpose of the required notification of council by the administrator, and is that how previous ones were handled?”

I’m not certain. The petition requirement does not seem to appear in the city code per se, but rather lives in a set of criteria that the council has adopted: [link]. I think the reason a resolution was required is that the city administrator could not flout the criteria, not because it was a mechanism for notifying the council. Note that even when there’s a 60% petition filed, the city administrator is required, by code, to notify the council.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:57:32 +0000

I wonder about establishing the residential parking districts without the petitions. The fact that those areas are “heavily impacted with commuter and long-term car storage” isn’t sufficient evidence of how much residents will use the spaces once they’re freed up. Making a $25,000 investment in signs—and a commitment to future maintenance and program administration costs—without a sense of how many $50 permits are likely to be purchased, which would determine the payback period of the investment, seems premature. Did either of the neighborhood groups indicate how many signatures were obtained? Does the city have any data on available spaces and/or permit purchases in existing districts? I didn’t see any on the city’s web site.

Dave, was the resolution put forward by staff (the administrator) or a council member? If the former, was the resolution required because of the absence of the petition, or did it rather serve the purpose of the required notification of council by the administrator, and is that how previous ones were handled?

One last question: will there really be a half sign in the OFW for the RPP program?

By: David

David — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:33:14 +0000

Oh yeah, I am also not a UM graduate and have no association with the University except for occassional attendance at UM sporting and cultural events.

By: David

David — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:28:57 +0000

Aarg, I need a spell checker, lol

By: David

David — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:28:23 +0000

For a disclaimer, I am not a great supporter of the current city govt and can understand the objections raised aganist the Fuller Road Station. I agree that it appears to be a sweetheart deal. However, UM is the dominant economic engine in Ann Arbor. We provide breaks to others hoping they will bring in jobs, etc, so what is the big deal when we provide the same to UM?

By: Jack F.

Jack F. — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:02:35 +0000

“The net impact to the city is $121,000, Hohnke said, or roughly 5% of the budget for the project.”

So what WAS the new appraisal vs. the old one, and how much did it impact other public funding groups, and not just the city? And why didn’t ONE council member ask that question? Or why wasn’t the process discussed that allowed this to happen?

It’s GREENBELT and sacred and on one dare question the motives of the Green Shirts apparently.

By: M. Hunt

M. Hunt — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 04:27:58 +0000

IF the Fuller Road Station is really supposed to be a transit facility and funded in part with funds flowing through AATA (which operates under Federal Transit Administration oversight) - why hasn't section 4(f) of the DOT act been raised? [link] "The Section 4(f) process as described in 49 U.S.C 303 states that a special effort must be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. . . A transportation program or project requiring the use of such land will be approved only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land and if the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the land or resources." This would seem to present a big hurdle (maybe even insurmountable) that this project must face.