Comments on: Two Residential Projects Get Go-Ahead

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:03:31 +0000

Whew! At last this is cleared up. OK, everyone, show’s over, move along. (Eric… I have a spare seat in 497 any time you need a refresher :)

By: Eric Wucherer

Eric Wucherer — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:11:22 +0000

Indeed, my terminology was at fault. I meant to refer to the third image in the article from the start (the MAP), not the fourth (the PHOTO). Your comment that it’s the left is exactly in line with what I meant in my original comment, that the map is incorrectly captioned, and I didn’t communicate that optimally.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:44:27 +0000

You might not be. The image I see doesn’t contain High Street (which I used to live on, so I know what it looks like). Are you interpreting the caption of the aerial view as pertaining to the photo? (Detroit Street angles in from the bottom *left* in the aerial view, by the way–I have no idea why the caption says bottom right.)

By: Eric Wucherer

Eric Wucherer — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 01:25:01 +0000

As the map indicates, High Street is on the right, and it’s to the east of the intersection. The caption even indicates that Detroit street comes from the bottom right, but there’s no street there, just High from the middle right. North is on the top of the image, south on the bottom. Am I not seeing the same image as everyone else?

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:32:47 +0000

I don't think so, Eric. It seems to be looking from approximately the merge of Detroit and Division, which is north of the site. Here's a streetview link (this may not work).

By: Eric Wucherer

Eric Wucherer — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:37:12 +0000

Let the pedantry continue… my understanding of the photo, at least as it looks today, is that it is a view FROM the south. Thus Detroit Street would angle in from the bottom left.

By: John Q.

John Q. — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 02:04:32 +0000

Commissioner Bona’s comments make perfect sense. The city has a limited amount of vacant land for development. Does the city want to encourage the kind of development that maximized the public’s investment in infrastructure and public transit? Or does the city prefer lower density development that doesn’t? It’s not as if the city of Ann Arbor lacks for low density housing options. Whatever her views of those that ride the bus, it doesn’t change the fact that encouraging lower density development in that area doesn’t make sense.

By: johnboy

johnboy — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:09:42 +0000

Yes, many of Ms. Bona’s comments and reasoning leave me scratching my head.

By: Bob Martel

Bob Martel — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:03:28 +0000

Reading Bonnie Bona’s comments reminds me of why so many people vote Republican.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 22:16:21 +0000

The role of the planning commissioner and how they make judgments is ambiguous, at least to me, and I have served on a planning commission. I am referring specifically to the commissioner’s role in approving developments and rezonings. Is the role merely to apply ordinances, regulations, and master plans to the proposal and come up with a judicial ruling? But it seems to me that staff is there to cover those bases. It is the planning commissioners who listen to citizen input and take it into account. Presumably they also apply some broader community principles and consider more fully than staff might what the impact on adjoining parcels will be. (Recall University Bank’s long struggle for a revised parking lot?) Yet at times they declare themselves incapable of making what seems to be the just decision because of zoning quirks which result in what everyone acknowledges is a bad development. City Place and Maple Cove are examples that come to mind.

But what I am fairly sure is that planning commissioners are not there to impose personal taste and wishes on the landscape. As a planning commissioner, could I refuse a site plan for a hardware store because I thought there were too many in the area already? Or if I don’t like buildings designed in an advant-garde style, may I refuse a site plan and advise the builder to choose bricks and gargoyles?

For these reasons, I am troubled by Bonnie Bona’s reasoning for rejecting a rezoning because that is not the density she envisions for that corner. I have no particular interest in that corner, nor am I especially fond of that particular developer. But it seems to me that her objection was too personal, and was unjust. And how can she determine whether the future owners will ride the bus? I live in a single-family house and I ride the bus whenever the schedule permits. She is not only expressing personal taste but is stereotyping people who aren’t even here yet.