Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Postponement by the council came after about a half hour of deliberations that included back-and-forth between councilmembers and the owners of the parcel.

Initial approval by the council had come at its June 16, 2014 meeting.

The council’s initial approval came only after two votes on each of the parts of the zoning, as councilmembers had first decided to refer the height limit issue back to the planning commission, but ultimately decided to amend the height limit to 60 feet. A summary of the deliberations is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the June 16 meeting.

By way of background, currently a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Considered separately by the council on July 21 were two separate votes that would have: (1) changed zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) changed the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to specify the height limit at 60 feet, not the 100 feet that the planning commission had recommended. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

Upper-story setbacks, specified in the character district overlay along with the height limits, had been specified based on the 100-foot limit.

The planning commission recommended both the zoning changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development.

The zoning change affecting 425 S. Main, which the council delayed at its July 21 meeting, is just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

The current D1 zoning for 425 S. Main allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for the 425 S. Main site.

For more details on the July 21 council discussion, see The Chronicle’s live updates from that meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall located at 301 E. Huron.

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]

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioner Bonnie Bona talks with city planning manager Wendy Rampson before the start of the commission’s Dec. 3, 2013 meeting. Bona was successful in advocating for the downzoning of a parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William. (Photos by the writer.)

In general, the recommendations aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Three of the recommendations relate 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 are: (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; (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.

On Dec. 3, commissioners heard from three people during the public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main, including one of the property owners, Andy Klein. Speaking on behalf of the owners was Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, who suggested 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. Ted Annis, who lives near that location, called for D2 zoning there.

Bonnie Bona, who’d been involved in the original A2D2 zoning process that’s now being partially reviewed, advocated for downzoning the entire site at 425 S. Main, to provide a buffer between D1 zoning and the nearby residential neighborhood. Some commissioners, including chair Kirk Westphal, wanted more density in the downtown, and noted that the site has allowed for denser development since the 1960s. The final vote on the recommendation for that site was 5-4, with support from Bona, Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were Westphal, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola and Paras Parekh.

Also, because of feedback received from the city’s design review board, commissioners revisited a recommendation that they’d previously settled regarding compliance with design guidelines. They unanimously voted to change the recommendation – so that it would require mandatory compliance with some of the design guidelines. The intent is to develop a process that will clarify the design compliance that will be required in order to receive premiums.

The vote on the full resolution with all of the recommendations, as amended, passed unanimously.

The next step is for the council to review the recommendations and give direction back 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 planning commission and ultimately would require city council approval before taking effect. That process would include additional opportunities for public input.

Also on Dec. 3, commissioners reviewed the 2015-2020 capital improvements plan (CIP). After about an hour of discussion – touching on street lights, sidewalks, the rail station, public engagement, and other issues – they voted unanimously to adopt the updated CIP as a supporting document for the city’s master plan, and to recommend that the city council base its FY 2015 capital budget on the CIP.

The CIP 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 the 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.

Downtown Zoning Review

The 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]

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.”

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing

Ted Annis told commissioners that he lived across the street from the property at 425 S. Main. He’d been following the commission’s recommendations and had been glad to see that – at their Nov. 12 working session – they had agreed that the parcel should be zoned D2 and not D1. He supported that decision.

Ted Annis.

He read aloud from an email he sent out to his neighborhood group and other neighborhood groups after that meeting. In the email, he stated that the planning commission had agreed to change the zoning to D2 rather than the D1 zoning that had been recommended by the consultant. [The commission didn't formally vote on any of the recommendations at that working session, though they did discuss the recommendations and indicated some support for downzoning.]

Annis called the D2 zoning “more logical and aesthetically pleasing” for building heights downtown. He thought that the outcome would be accepted by the downtown community, with the exception of one or two property owners. “Unless there is a last minute flip-flop by planning commission, city council should be spared the agony of the downtown zoning fight,” he said.

Referring to a proposal from the owners of 425 S. Main for a modified D1 zoning, Annis told commissioners that he didn’t agree with that. “I think D2 makes sense for that parcel, and most of the downtown citizens that I work with agree to that,” he concluded.

Andy Klein spoke next, introducing himself as one of the owners of 425 S. Main. Noting that he’d spoken to the commission on previous occasions, Klein said this site was developed 30 years ago and it’s a valuable asset to the community. The real question is the future, he said. They have a tenant with a long-term lease, but in the long-term, the question is whether they’ll be able to build a landmark building there. Obviously, they’d want to develop something that has value and that’s important to the community, he said.

The change from D1 to D2 would represent a 70% reduction in allowable height, Klein noted. “That’s not urban planning. That’s just a knee-jerk reaction to reduce height because people have been unhappy with other developments.” He pointed out that the consultant, Erin Perdu, had recommended a 150 feet height limit on the site. Klein then introduced Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, who had been hired to come up with a “reasonable solution” for the site. Klein noted that Neumann/Smith had designed Zaragon West, a building that he described as successful for this community. [The apartment building, with retail on the first floor, is located at the southeast corner of Thompson and William.]

Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture.

Scott Bonney told commissioners that his firm designed Zaragon Place before A2D2 was enacted. [That apartment complex, also with retail on the ground floor, is on East University between Willard and South University.] He said the city “sort of wrote the ordinance around that, what we did at Zaragon Place.” After that, he added, Zaragon West was the “poster child for D1.”

Bonney reviewed some slides that showed an alternative zoning for the 425 S. Main site, as well as what could be built given the current zoning in that area. [.pdf of Bonney's slides] D1 zoning allows a height of 180 feet, while D2 areas have a height of 60 feet. The alternative proposal put forward by Bonney would match the height of Ashley Mews, which is located on the opposite side of Main Street from the 425 S. Main site. The suggestion was to put a 122-foot height limit on the property as a compromise, as well as keeping a diagonal restriction. [Diagonals are a method of controlling shape, and typically allow for taller but less massive buildings.]

Bonney said that a 122-foot building is lower than what is allowed nearby under D1 zoning, and that a diagonal requirement would result in slender buildings. He urged commissioners to consider this alternative zoning.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Main & William Site

Kirk Westphal began the discussion by asking planning manager Wendy Rampson to review the history of the 425 S. Main site.

Rampson described the area’s zoning prior to the adoption of A2D2 in 2009. The site was previously zoned C2BR, based on zoning categories established in 1963. What’s now called the core downtown was zoned C2A, with the fringe downtown zoned C2B. That zoning didn’t allow for residential use in the downtown core, so subsequently zones were created (C2AR, C2BR) where residential use was permitted. After several high-rises were built – including Campus Inn, Tower Plaza and University Towers – the city commissioned a study of the downtown zoning, conducted by JJR.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Until 2009, there were no height limits in the C2A, C2AR, C2B and C2BR zoning districts. For parcels zoned C2BR – including 425 S. Main – there was a 300% by-right floor-area ratio (FAR) and up to 600% FAR with premiums. [FAR, a measure of density, is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.]

When the premiums were revised in the 1990s, that FAR for C2BR districts increased to 660%. The D1 zoning on the 425 S. Main site now is fairly similar to the previous zoning, Rampson said, aside from the height limit and change in premiums.

Sabra Briere asked Rampson to explain why there was an increase in the use of PUDs (planned unit developments) between 1985 and 2005. Rampson said the increase was due primarily to limitations on FAR. One North Main and 305 E. Liberty were PUDs, for example, because the buildings exceeded the 600% FAR. The PUDs were one way to get bigger buildings in terms of floor area, not necessarily height, she said.

Westphal asked whether the 425 S. Main site had been discussed during the A2D2 process. Had the D1 zoning been called into question?

All of the “edge” parcels were discussed during A2D2, Rampson replied. Any of the properties that abutted residential or that were constrained by the floodplain were debated. The areas along the north side of East Huron as well as along some parts of South University were “hotly debated,” she recalled. The 425 S. Main site had been discussed, she said, “but not at the same level.”

In order to lessen the impact of D1 in some areas, the height limit was reduced for certain character overlay districts – including on East Huron and South University. [.pdf of character overlay district maps]

Bonnie Bona provided additional historical context regarding the A2D2 process. The council had created several committees to tackle specific aspects of the project, like design guidelines, historic districts and zoning. Bona served on the committee that looked at zoning. That group decided that the entire D1 core should be surrounded by D2, she said – and that was the recommendation that the zoning committee sent to an A2D2 steering committee. The steering committee changed that recommendation, however. The discussion centered around whether a block should be split into different zoning districts, Bona recalled.

Looking east at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William. The northern half of the site is a surface parking lot, with a building that houses DTE offices on the southern half. Nearby residential houses are visible to the east of the property.

On East Huron, for example, the zoning committee had recommended placing D2 between residential areas and D1 districts. The exception was on parcels adjacent to the University of Michigan, because the university can build whatever it wants, Bona said, so there was no need for a transition zone.

So why did the D2 recommendation get changed? Some people felt that when you’re driving along East Huron, Bona explained, “the buildings should be the same on both sides.” The problem is that it’s a very shallow site between parcels on the north side of East Huron and the Old Fourth Ward, she noted. So the zoning committee had recommended D2 for the north side of East Huron. The steering committee wanted the same zoning on both sides instead.

The 425 S. Main site probably got changed from D2 to D1 because of its history, Bona said, and because of the desire to have the same zoning on both sides of Main Street. “I don’t agree with that,” she added. “I think the world is much more interesting when it’s not so completely obvious and literal.” There were a lot of changes during the A2D2 process, she noted. “It wasn’t quite horse trading, but it kind of felt like that. What it felt like was ‘What hill am I going to die on, and what am I going to let go?’ – for everyone on the planning commission, and everyone on the council. Everybody kind of had their favorite spot that they wanted to protect, and had to compromise on others.”

Westphal asked Rampson to review the zoning of parcels surrounding the 425 S. Main site. She explained that adjacent parcels along William – including where the Beer Depot is located – are zoned D2, with residential zoning (R4C) further south on Fourth Avenue. Responding to a query from Sabra Briere, Rampson said that the parcels along the south side of William, east of the alley that separates the Beer Depot site from the 425 S. Main site – are in the East William historic District. [.pdf of East William historic district map]

Rampson explained that parcels in a historic district can’t use premiums. So sites that are zoned D2 would be limited to 200% FAR. Bona noted that if a 200% FAR building filled the entire site of a parcel located in an historic district, the building could not be 60 feet tall, because of the FAR limitations.

Overall, the idea of the A2D2 process was to reduce the density in some areas with D2 zoning, Rampson explained. The 425 S. Main site was zoned D1 – with a height limit of 180 feet – because it was considered to be part of the Main Street character district.

Commissioners also discussed the possibility of using split zoning on the site – the northern half toward William as D1, and the southern half toward Packard as D2. Diane Giannola wondered whether that would mean that a tower could be built on the northern half, but not on the southern half. That’s right, Rampson replied.

Jeremy Peters wondered about the height of the Bethlehem United Church of Christ on South Fourth. It seemed taller than nearby residential structures, he said. That’s true, Rampson said, but she didn’t know how tall it was.

Slide by architect Scott Bonney showing potential structures on and around 425 S. Main. In the foreground is planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Bona said that to her, the entire 425 S. Main site should be zoned D2. If split zoning were used, she’d only support D1 zoning on the very north end, next to the Beer Depot – “and that’s hardly worth doing.” Sixty feet height limits are still a big transition to residential areas, she said, and anything higher than that “would be unfortunate.”

Westphal clarified with Rampson that if the site had split zoning, only two residential parcels would directly abut the D1 portion. He felt that’s why the split-zoning proposal is compelling.

Bona expressed concern about affecting even those two residential properties. “Those houses are just as important to not overpower as a whole row of them,” she said.

Diane Giannola liked the idea of split zoning, saying that it would look better visually. With D2, she’s worried about getting a long, 60-foot-high building on the entire site. “I’d rather have taller, more compact buildings,” she said, not a huge, massive apartment building. She thought the city could get a better building with D1 zoning and a 120-foot height limit on the northern part of the site.

Briere described the site as massive. With D2 – a 200% FAR – you could build quite a large building, she said, even without premiums. She suggested considering whether there should be mandatory open space, so that the entire FAR couldn’t be used. “I’m really frustrated at talking about this,” she said, because it’s not clear how to go about getting the right design. “So much of it depends on the quality of the developer.”

Bona suggested that the issue of blocky versus slender buildings could be addressed by using diagonals, rather than split zoning.

Bona also clarified with Rampson that if the site were rezoned to D2, the owners could still seek a PUD (planned unit development) to build more square footage in exchange for community benefits. Westphal followed up by asking whether PUDs are something that the city wants to encourage. “No,” Rampson replied. One of the stated goals of the A2D2 process was to eliminate a trend of using PUDs to develop downtown sites.

Ken Clein reviewed the zoning of D1 – with by-right FAR of 400%, and more FAR with premiums – compared to D2, with by-right FAR of 200%, and up to 400% with premiums.

Planning commissioner Ken Clein.

Westphal pointed to the city’s master plan and the issue of density, and the notion that denser development should be located downtown, near public transit. It’s compelling to him to have opportunities for people to live without relying on cars. If the parcel were downzoned, that could potentially eliminate housing for 100 or 200 people, he said. The master plan also talks about protecting residential areas, so that’s why he’s struggling with this site.

This is the most challenging parcel of those that the council directed the commission to look at, Clein said. The site is so large that you could probably put two or three buildings on it that are the size of Zaragon West. The process that the commission and city council have to go through is to balance the rights of property owners with the ability to develop downtown property to support the tax base, Clein said, and to protect the rights of the nearby neighbors. “It’s a compromise, no matter what,” he said.

Personally, as an architect, Clein said, he’d be very comfortable with zoning the entire site as D2. However, it was instructive to hear about the site’s history, he added, and to know that the property has been zoned something similar to D1 since the mid-1960s. You could say that the owners had their chance to develop it, but didn’t – so “too bad,” Clein said. Or you could say to the neighbors that development could have happened at any time over the past few decades. “There’s validity in both of those points,” he said.

Split zoning would offer a compromise to greater density and height, Clein added. Alternatively, one option would be to change the maximum height of the Main Street character district, and to add a diagonal requirement, he said. Given the site’s history, he’d be willing to support a compromise that would leave part of the site D1, especially at the corner.

Bona added another piece of historical context, referring to the downtown plan that was written in 1988. It was the first time that the concept of “interface zones” between downtown and residential neighborhoods was introduced. When the A2D2 process took place nearly 20 years later, none of the recommendations for interface zones had been enacted, she said. “So this isn’t a new issue that came up now,” she said. “The neighborhoods around downtown have been fighting for an interface zone since 1988 – and probably before that.”

Commissioners continued discussing the option of split zoning, along with some combination of step-backs and diagonals, to limit the impact on the residential neighborhood.

Bona said she personally didn’t like the character overlay zoning, finding it “overly detailed.” If the commission wants to recommend step-backs or diagonals, they should do it for the entire downtown, she said, not just this site. Noting that commissioners seemed to be stuck, Bona formally put forward a recommendation: To rezone the entire site D2, and to establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 in the Main Street character district.

Westphal asked Rampson to review the height limits in D2 districts. She explained that height is determined by character district, and there is no current D2 zoning in the Main Street character district. For D2 sites in all other character districts, however, the height limit is 60 feet.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Clein floated the possibility of having two different heights on the site, even if the entire site were zoned D2. Briere clarified with Rampson that there’s a two-story minimum height in D2 districts. The by-right FAR is 200%, and up to 400% with premiums.

Westphal noted that by downzoning the site to D2, it would go from a possible 900% FAR (with premiums) to 400% (with premiums). In terms of affecting the property’s value, he said, it’s a challenge to rezone the entire site as D2. Bona replied that from a density perspective, 400% FAR is still a lot – and it’s a lot more density than the R4C zoning. Also, 60 feet is a tall building that belongs downtown, not in the neighborhoods, she said.

Concerns about massiveness are important, she said, and it’s something that the design guidelines attempted to address. She suggested revisiting the design guidelines as the best way to handle those concerns, noting that it’s a problem everywhere, not just at this site. Development of the Brown Block – currently a surface parking lot bounded by Huron, Ashley, Washington and First streets – is “a scary thought,” Bona said. The idea of using diagonals or step-backs for one site almost creates spot zoning, she said, which isn’t a desired approach.

After additional back-and-forth, commissioners voted on Bona’s proposed recommendation:

Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main 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.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the recommendation on a 5-4 vote, with support from Bonnie Bona, Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were Kirk Westphal, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola and Paras Parekh.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Design Review

During her update to the commission, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that she’d met with the design review board in November to go over the commission’s draft recommendations. Board members had expressed some concern, she said, for the recommendation that they felt would make the board the “sole gatekeeper” for premiums. The design guidelines were drafted to be flexible, they said, and weren’t intended to be structured for decision-making. “They were worried that they’d be placed in a position of having some pretty subjective standards to apply to a project, and saying yea or nay to whether a project can obtain premiums,” Rampson said.

In general, the design review board members felt there was value for the board to being involved in the discussion about premiums, Rampson said. They thought it would make sense to have a joint meeting with the planning commission to flesh out some of these issues, she said.

Rampson noted that at this point, there are no items on the agenda for the commission’s Jan. 7 meeting, so it might be possible to schedule a joint meeting then. Another possibility would be the Jan. 14 working session.

Bonnie Bona said that based on this feedback, she’d like to discuss the recommendation that commissioners had previously voted on at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting. That recommendation stated:

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.

Bona noted that when A2D2 was being developed, the planning commission and city council had considered making the design review guidelines mandatory. “So it’s not like we haven’t had this discussion before,” she said, adding that she thought it would be good to discuss the option of making some guidelines mandatory.

Jeremy Peters didn’t think the commission needed to button down details at this point. The recommendation didn’t call for mandated compliance, he said. The commission was just recommending that the council consider requiring compliance, he said.

From left: Eppie Potts talks with Ann Arbor planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Ken Clein agreed with Peters, and was in favor of leaving the recommendation unchanged. Bona noted that the language of the resolution stated that the commission was making a set of recommendations, and the recommendation for this item was to require compliance. “We’re not recommending to consider requiring compliance,” she said. “We’re recommending requiring compliance.”

If the commission feels, based on feedback from the design review board, that they should “tread carefully around that and get more input,” she said, “I think we might make this more of a consideration rather than a requirement.”

Wendy Woods expressed concern that if the recommendation is changed, it will end up with what is currently in place – that a developer can consider input from the design review board, but not actually make changes to the design. She wasn’t in favor of changing the recommendation, but supported having a conversation with the design review board.

Ken Clein noted that there seemed to be some confusion over the word “consider.” There’s a difference between asking council to consider a recommendation, compared to recommending that a developer consider input from the design review board. So in the planning commission’s recommendations to council, he said, commissioners should be very clear about their intent.

Bona indicated that Woods had interpreted her suggestion in a completely different way than what she had intended, so it hadn’t been clear.

Sabra Briere said she’d be happy if the planning commission could use input from the design review board as a tool to determine whether a project has met all the requirements of the ordinance – without making the design review board more powerful than it was created to be. It was designed to be a voluntary board that gives advice, she said, but not as a board to make recommendations about whether to approve a project. She’d like to include the board’s input as part of the approval process regarding premiums, “rather than the design review board handing us a fait accompli, and we feel our hands are tied then.”

As a way to incorporate Briere’s comments, Peters suggested a possible alternative recommendation: “Revise the premium conditions to allow the planning commission to use design review board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.”

Clein agreed that he didn’t want to put a new burden on the design review board, or hamstring the planning commission or city council. However, members of the community as well as developers have both indicated that they want the city to “Tell us what you want,” he said. So he’s reluctant to do anything that will make it less clear to developers what’s required in order to secure premiums.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods, Jeremy Peters, Paras Parekh.

Bona noted that when it was decided that the design guidelines would be voluntary, the guidelines were written in a different way than if they had been mandatory. Not every design guideline should be mandatory, she added. On the other hand, there were things that didn’t become mandatory in 2009 that should perhaps now be revisited, Bona said. She wanted to recommend a mandatory requirement for some of the design guidelines. If the council agrees, then the commission and others can look at which guidelines should be mandatory versus voluntary.

Another thing to be determined is which body – the design review board, planning commission or council – determines whether those mandatory requirements have been met, Bona said.

Diane Giannola interpreted the commission’s original recommendation as simply requiring compliance with the design review board’s report on a project, not requiring compliance with all of the design guidelines.

Bona then made another suggestion for revision: “Revise the premium conditions to consider requiring mandatory compliance with some design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.”

Clein suggested replacing the word “some” with “core” – to indicate that it will be a subset of the overall guidelines. Bona agreed to that change.

Woods said she’d support this, but expressed concern that the recommendation was in danger losing the essence of its original intent. “It’s starting to feel a little watered down from where it started,” she said.

Westphal wanted to eliminate the word “consider.” Bona said she’d be in favor of that, noting that she’d included the word as a reflection of the concerns cited by the design review board. Westphal thought that using “design guidelines” rather than “design review board” addressed that concern.

Rampson noted the design review board had mentioned another initiative that the council had started, but that hasn’t moved ahead: A review of the design guidelines. [A task force was established through council action on March 4, 2013 to review the downtown design guidelines, but that group has not yet met. Westphal had served on the original design guidelines task force in 2010, but had asked to be removed from the group when it was reconstituted earlier this year.] The expectation was that these two efforts – a review of downtown zoning, and a review of the design guidelines – would go hand-in-hand, Rampson said.

Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and the Ann Arbor city council.

Rampson characterized the current guidelines, which were adopted by the council in 2011, as “fairly subjective and qualitative.” [.pdf of design guidelines]

Briere said she’d ask mayor John Hieftje if the design guidelines review could move ahead.

Woods expressed some concern about whether the commission would be taking on a much bigger task – if their recommendation opened the door for a broader review of design guidelines. The term “design guidelines” seemed nebulous, she said, and she wondered if it referred to “a list of things that everybody learns in Landscape 101 or urban planning? What is that? What really are we saying?”

Bona replied, saying there might be some changes recommended to the city’s existing design guidelines, based on the task force review. “There is no magic book of design guidelines,” she added. “It’s whatever we want to put in there, and we think we can figure out a way to get.”

Eleanore Adenekan weighed in, saying she wanted to make sure the word “consider” had been removed from the revised recommendation.

Bona described the review of design guidelines as a project, and she didn’t think the guidelines would be nebulous after that project is completed. The end result should be a clear set of mandatory design requirements and voluntary guidelines.

The final revised recommendation states:

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.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved this recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Main Street Character District

Sabra Briere indicated that she had some concerns about height in the Main Street character district. The community has not absorbed the fact that four buildings on Main Street could be demolished and replaced with 180-foot buildings as infill. There are two buildings now that are empty – the former Middle Kingdom restaurant, and the former house where an ice cream parlor was located. Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that those sites are in the Main Street historic district, so the heights would be limited. [.pdf of Main Street historic district map] Rampson noted that the southern edge of the district has a jagged edge, and there are some properties between Liberty and William that aren’t in the district.

Briere noted that the surface parking lot at the northeast corner of Main and William – next to Palio restaurant – isn’t in the historic district, nor are the buildings directly north of that.

In general, Briere anticipates that there will be problems in this area, but she noted that it’s not part of the council’s current charge to the planning commission. She said she didn’t want mission creep, but it might be appropriate to discuss this issue as part of a review of the design guidelines.

Outcome: There was no formal recommendation on this item.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Main Motion

The final set of recommendations, as amended, are:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 humans 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.

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

Rampson told commissioners that unless the recommendations move forward in an expedited way, it’s likely that they’ll be included at the council’s second meeting in January – on Jan. 20, 2014.

Capital Improvements Plan 2015-2020

The Dec. 3 agenda included a resolution to approve the city of Ann Arbor’s capital improvements plan (CIP) for 2015-2020.

Deb Gosselin, a city staffer who oversees the capital improvements plan.

The CIP provides a roadmap for investments in a wide variety of infrastructure projects. It is prepared by city staff and is the basis for budget decisions made by the city council, but the council does not approve the CIP. That’s the purview of the planning commission.

Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, transportation and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon. Major updates are conducted every two years. This year is considered an “off” year with only minor adjustments.

The updated plan covers the fiscal years 2015-2020, but most of the updates relate to FY 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. 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] The plan indicates changes in scheduling compared to the previous CIP, as well as funding adjustments and new projects. In the report, new projects are indicated with gray shading. This year the gray shading primarily reflects first-time inclusion of projects undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission.

The DDA’s projects are included this year due in part to an ordinance change approved by the city council on Nov. 18, 2013 which added, among other language: “The authority shall submit their capital budgets to incorporate them into the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP).”

The CIP contains over 300 projects in 13 different asset categories. Of those, 127 projects require funding in FY 2014 – the current fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2013 – or in FY 2015. Funding needed in FY 2015 totals $62.253 million. That’s $11,881,800 (23.59%) more in FY 2015 than was included in last year’s CIP. But most of that increase is due to the addition of the DDA and housing projects. If those projects weren’t included, funding needs for FY 2015 would have dropped by 27.55%, That’s because many FY 2015 street construction projects were pushed back to FY 2016 or later to allow time to develop a pavement asset management program.

The housing commission projects primarily relate to an effort to renovate and redevelop the city’s public housing properties. [See Chronicle coverage: "Work Progresses on Public Housing Overhaul."]

Highlights of FY 2015 projects by the DDA include $2.5 million for elevators in the Fourth and William parking structure, $600,000 for a first-floor build-out of the Fourth and William parking structure, $250,000 for a South University streetscape project, $50,000 for vehicle charging stations, and $30,000 for crosswalk repairs in the DDA district.

Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process, was on hand to give an overview of the document and to field questions from commissioners. The planning commission’s meeting also included a public hearing on the CIP, but no one spoke.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Street Lights, Signals

Sabra Briere asked about the funding line for lights on Main Street, scheduled in FY 2015. It’s not clear what entity is providing that funding, she said. Deb Gosselin replied that the report provided to commissioners didn’t include that information, but it’s available in the online database.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioner and city councilmember Sabra Briere talks with Deb Gosselin.

The line item in the 2015-2020 CIP that Briere referred to was $588,000 in FY 2015 for “TR-OT-14-01 S Main St Street Light Poles, William to Huron.” By way of background, the CIP for 2014-2019 that the planning commission approved on Dec. 18, 2012 included the same line time, but at $600,000 for FY 2014. [.pdf of 2014-2019 CIP as approved by the planning commission on Dec. 18, 2012] A separate document that shows the funding sources for CIP items in 2014-2019 lists the funding source for that line item as “Operating Transfer from 0003″ – the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment financing (TIF) fund – but the document indicated that no funding had yet been authorized.

In fact, the issue of which entity would for the Main Street light pole replacement – the city or the DDA – has been a point of contention. The question was answered the day after the planning commission meeting, on Dec. 4, when the DDA board voted to allocate $280,000 to the project. That amount, added to a previously approved $300,000 from the DDA, covers the entire cost of the replacement. For details of the history of this dispute, see Chronicle coverage: “DDA Ponies Up for Main Street Light Poles.”

At the planning commission’s Dec. 3 meeting, Briere noted that councilmembers have been talking about adding improved street light options for several locations around town, including Dhu Varren, Pontiac Trail, Stone School Road and others. But she didn’t see a subsection in the CIP for lighting, so she wondered where such projects would be listed. Gosselin replied that there’s not a separate category for street lighting. Also, only projects costing more than $100,000 are included in the CIP, so it’s possible that individual street light projects fall below that threshold.

Briere wondered if items like flashing beacons or HAWK signals would also fall below the $100,000 threshold. Gosselin explained that often those items are bundled with street construction projects, and that funding typically comes from federal or state sources. Briere said that given the conversation that occurred at the Dec. 3 city council meeting, “I have a feeling that we’re going to need to be able to pull that information out.” [Briere was alluding to a debate over proposed changes to the city's crosswalk ordinance.] Gosselin agreed, saying that the recently formed pedestrian safety task force would likely want that kind of information, too.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Streets, Sidewalks

Briere referred to an organization that grades the streets in Michigan each year, saying “it never makes the city look good.” Gosselin noted that SEMCOG (the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) does street ratings, using a system called PASER [Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating]. Ann Arbor uses a Pavement Condition Index. [.xls spreadsheet of PCI for 2001-2010]

Gosselin reported that the city has hired a firm to do a sign inventory, and that same firm might be hired to a PCI rating for all of the city’s streets as well. It would be the first time that the city has PCI ratings of all of its streets during the same timeframe. The city is looking at possibly doing a full-scale rating every three years, she said.

Briere said she knew that city staff takes an inventory of streets every spring and fall. In the spring, they look at what has deteriorated over the winter. In the fall, they try to anticipate the needs for the following spring. “But spring is always a surprise,” she said. People living on a street have no “visceral memory, that’s connected to a calendar, of when that street was last in good condition,” Briere said. So when the staff prepares a list of street projects, it would be helpful to include information about when it was last resurfaced and the current condition, she said.

Eleanore Adenekan asked about sidewalk gap projects. Gosselin reported that the city council has funded development of a sidewalk gap strategic plan. [In May 2013, when the council adopted the city's budget for the current fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2013, it included a $75,000 allocation for a study of sidewalk gaps, so that they can be prioritized.] Gosselin said the scope recently expanded to include a pedestrian safety plan. But that study isn’t completed, she added, so it hasn’t generated any projects in the CIP yet. “I certainly anticipate that it will,” she said.

In addition to an inventory of sidewalk gaps, the staff will be building a prioritization tool specifically for sidewalks, with points awarded for different elements like how far the sidewalk would be from a school, for example. There will be a lot of public engagement on this project, Gosselin said. In addition, the city will be exploring potential funding sources. To fill every sidewalk gap, the city has estimated it would cost between $25 million to $50 million, she said. So it won’t happen all at once.

Briere noted that the city is trying to roll sidewalk gap construction into broader road projects. For example, Newport Road from M-14 to the city limit is going to be resurfaced in FY 2014. Residents have been contacted about a possible sidewalk plan and there will be a community meeting on Jan. 2. A sidewalk is needed from Riverwood to Wines Elementary School, she said. “It’s an important thing for a community that was built to rely on a [school] bus, and who no longer has access to a school bus.” The project has taken over two years to get this far, she noted, and will be another year before it’s completed.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Rail Station

Kirk Westphal asked if a future reconstructed rail station is part of the CIP. Yes, Gosselin replied. She noted that the project has “started and stopped a number of times,” and she indicated that the outcome will depend on available funding as well as “community values at the time.” [The project is listed under the "Alternative Transportation" category. Line items include $2.6 million for final design in FY 2016 and $44.5 million for construction, also in FY 2016. The project would require city council approval to move forward.] Gosselin noted that the staff listed construction in FY 2016 as a placeholder, but “it’s not going to stay in 2016, because – it’s just not,” she said.

The project is included in the CIP so that “the need is memorialized,” Gosselin said, and as each stage gets funded “it will keep moving along.”

Westphal asked whether the station would be considered a city asset. When Gosselin hesitated, Briere said the determination hasn’t been made. The current station is built on Amtrak-owned property and is an Amtrak building, Briere noted. If another station is built, “where it’s built would determine who owns it,” she said, “as much as what funding is used to build it.”

The project is a city project that’s 80% federally funded for the current stage, Briere said. The location hasn’t been determined, she noted. At this point it’s a city project, she added – that’s why it’s in the CIP. She pointed out that the connector study is listed in the CIP as well, even though much of that project won’t end up being an asset that the city owns.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Housing Commission

Wendy Woods asked about changes at the Ann Arbor housing commission (AAHC). Her understanding was that the commission is getting a federal grant to improve some of the city’s public housing. [Woods is married to Ronald Woods, who serves as president of the housing commission.]

By way of background, in January 2013 the housing commission board selected Norstar as a co-developer for a major overhaul to the city’s public housing. AAHC is using low-income housing tax credits from the state of Michigan as the primary funding source for renovating its properties. It’s part of a broader effort to help AAHC convert Ann Arbor’s public housing units into public/private partnerships through a new rental assistance demonstration program, known as RAD, offered by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). AAHC was accepted into the program late last year. The goal is to allow AAHC to use private financing for capital improvements in its existing housing stock, which is decades-old and in need of major upgrades.

Housing commission projects included in the 2015-2020 CIP total $21.23 million, including renovations at Baker Commons ($4.195 million), Green Baxter Court ($6.325 million), Miller Manor ($4.8 million) and Maple Meadows ($4.544 million).

Gosselin replied that some of these projects are approved, while others are still in the pipeline. She noted that the projects include energy efficiency and other improvements.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – University Collaboration

Woods wondered what happens when the city finds out about a big project that the University of Michigan is doing. She referred to the large graduate student complex that was announced earlier this year. [The project is for a 370,000-square-foot, eight-story building on the north side of East Madison Street between South Division and Thompson streets, where Blimpy Burger was formerly located. The anticipated opening date is fall 2015.] Woods asked how the city handled unexpected projects like that, which could affect the city’s infrastructure.

“With the university, I would say it’s an ever-evolving relationship,” Gosselin replied. Part of the challenge that the university has is with the board of regents approval process, she added. “My perception is that it’s difficult for staff to share as much as I would like or that city staff would like to have more lead time on knowing what’s coming. They’re reluctant to state ‘We’re doing this’ until the board [of regents] has blessed it.”

If the university creates a new need – for example, with a project that might require a new water main – then the city treats them like a private developer, Gosselin said. That means asking UM to pay for up-sizing the main. “We’re trying to do that with the university. There are times in the past when they’ve participated with street costs, but we can’t compel them to.” Ideally, it could be a smoother process, she added, “but we work with it the best that we can.”

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Parks

Paras Parekh asked about the $60 million total listed in the line item for ”Open Space and Park Acquisitions.” Was that amount merely a budget, but with no expectation that there would be that much land to acquire? [The line item indicates that $26 million had been spent in previous years, with $2 million in revenues listed each year from FY 2015 through 2019, then $24 million listed in FY 2020.]

Planning commissioners Paras Parekh and Sabra Briere.

Gosselin replied that the $2 million was the annual amount of revenue from the city’s open space and park preservation millage. It’s not necessarily the amount that might be spent, she explained.

By way of background, in 2003 Ann Arbor voters passed a 30-year 0.5 mill tax called the open space and parkland preservation millage. It appears on the summer tax bill as the line item CITY PARK ACQ. The city’s policy has been to allocate one-third of the millage for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the greenbelt program.

To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being paid back with revenue from the millage. Debt service on that bond in FY 2013 year totaled $1.227 million. [.pdf of fiscal 2013 activity report] [.pdf of FY 2013 financial statements]

In FY 2013, which ended June 30, 2013, $2.141 million in revenue came from millage proceeds. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Colin Smith – manager of parks and recreation for the city – explained that the $24 million listed in FY 2020 represents the remainder of the millage funds through 2033, at an estimated $2 million per year.

Parekh asked what happens to the money if it’s not spent? It’s kept in a fund balance, Gosselin explained. [As of June 30, 2013, the fund balance for the millage stood at $8.856 million, with about equal amounts designated for the greenbelt ($4.413 million) and park acquisitions ($4.442 million).]

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Asset Management

Bonnie Bona asked how the staff assesses the totality of the city’s assets, and makes sure infrastructure doesn’t crumble before it’s repaired or replaced.

No community will say that they’re exactly where they want to be in that regard, Gosselin replied, including Ann Arbor. The CIP is a short-term planning tool, she added. “Six years is not a long time, when it comes to infrastructure.” The city is doing long-term asset plans for several of the 13 asset groups, she said. There’s a water asset management plan that’s underway, for example, that includes prioritization related to the consequences if a particular water main fails. Another project focuses on pavement asset management, looking at options beyond repaving or resurfacing. A stormwater asset management plan is also in the works.

Gosselin said the water asset management is probably the most challenging financially, because a lot of water mains were installed at about the same time during the building boom of the 1960s. The cast iron used during that era has been relatively problematic, she said, and there’s a lot of work being done so that the city can be proactive.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters listen to Deb Gosselin (foreground) talk about the city’s capital improvements plan.

Regarding roads, Gosselin said that Ann Arbor’s street millage “is such a privilege.” She’s worked in other communities that didn’t have that revenue source. A millage is a much more stable funding source, she said.

Kirk Westphal asked how the city staff assesses the impact of a large development on the city’s infrastructure, and how it’s determined whether a developer must pay for an upgrade.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson said that it’s done in a variety of ways. Generally, if a development is going to impact the sanitary sewer system, for example, the developers aer required to upsize the capacity before they build. The Landmark apartment complex on South University is one example where the developers had to upsize the sanitary sewer, she said, and they shouldered the whole cost for that. In other cases, like traffic intersection improvements, the city determines a “fair share” contribution based on the amount of traffic that a project is expected to generate, she said, and that’s included in a development agreement. Those contributions are often used to match federal or state funding sources to complete a project. The Plymouth/Green intersection is an example of that.

In response to a query from Westphal, Rampson said that the city is not proactively upsizing infrastructure in order to support future growth, although that’s an approach that some communities take, she said.

Ken Clein asked how the prioritization model works. Gosselin explained that prioritization works within each asset group – that is, the city doesn’t pit a water project against a road project. Within an asset category, each project gets ranked by a team of people, which results in an overall ranking. The lower the number, the higher the priority. Then the staff looks at funding and programming. The next step is done in a very old-fashioned way, she reported – by listing projects on a board and seeing how much money is available, and how many projects can be funded from that pot of funding.

Westphal wanted to know if the prioritization model is being tweaked. Gosselin replied that it’s been five years since it’s been revised in any significant way. The one change that was made last year was to incorporate the city’s new sustainability framework – by asking how many of the city’s 16 sustainability goals a project is contributing to. This winter, she’s planning to do a detailed evaluation of the prioritization criteria, she said. “I don’t anticipate big changes, but there will be some.”

Westphal asked about the typical percentage of expenditures on a city’s asset base, benchmarked against other communities. Does Ann Arbor spend more or less on road maintenance, for example, than other cities? Rampson elaborated on the question, asking if there are best practices for the amount spent on maintenance of infrastructure.

Gosselin said the city hasn’t done a benchmarking study. The city’s prioritization model is considered cutting edge, she noted, with staff from other cities frequently calling to ask about it. She said that it’s difficult to make comparisons, because so much of the work depends on the availability of funding sources. For example, Ann Arbor probably looks like it’s spending way more on roads compared to other communities, because the city has a street millage.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – 415 W. Washington

Clein asked about the 415 W. Washington project, which is listed in the CIP with $300,000 in FY 2015. Gosselin replied that she was torn about what dollar amount to attach to the project. The council commissioned a study of the site, which is in the hands of the city administrator, she said. It’s unclear what the council will decide to do when they’re presented with a variety of options. The $300,000 figure is “basic,” she said.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Public Engagement

Bonnie Bona asked how projects end up on the CIP. Gosselin replied that there are several ways that projects get added. Often the city staff will identify a need, but sometimes a project is recommended by an advisory body – like the planning commission or the park advisory commission – or from the city council. Other projects are driven by needs identified in the city’s master plan, or are spearheaded by citizens, like the skatepark that’s under construction at Veterans Memorial Park, or the sidewalk construction along Scio Church Road. She estimated that about 75% of projects are generated from staff input.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Jeremy Peters said he appreciated Gosselin’s responsiveness to questions and openness to input from the public. Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that it’s been a challenge getting public input – she noted that no one had attended the public hearing on the CIP that night, for example. She told commissioners that if they’re able to tap their networks for input and bring suggestions back to the staff, that helps staff members understand the needs of residents.

Paras Parekh noted that the CIP lists so many great things that are planned – in parks, for example. How does the public find out pro-actively what’s been completed? “I think people are proud of the city, and I think if they knew more about all these great things that are happening,” he said, “I think there’d be more people here tonight and there’d just be more of an engaged citizenry around what we should be doing and taking pride in where we’re headed.”

Gosselin said she’d like to develop ward-by-ward maps of projects. There was a pilot attempt to do that last year, but it didn’t work out. The staff is continuing to work on it, with information available on the CIP page. In addition, the city website is being redesigned to make it easier to navigate, she said.

Gosselin also reported that the city’s new communications specialist, Robert Kellar, is very enthusiastic about exploring different ways to improve communications. Parekh encouraged the use of social media like Pinterest, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. “That’s where people are,” he said. Wendy Rampson pointed out that “it’s easier to promote an Argo Cascades than it is a new sewer.”

Rampson noted that during the construction of East Stadium Bridges, the city set up a bridge cam and promoted that through social media.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the 2015-2020 CIP.

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. 17, 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]

Running Fit building at East Liberty and Fourth Avenue. A proposal calls for building three additional floors for apartments or condos. The adjacent building owner is concerned about blocking the three windows – barely visible in this photo – that are in apartments facing over the current one-story building. (Photos by the writer.)

Questions and comments covered a range of issues, including potential conflict of interest over a lot next to city hall that’s owned by the University of Michigan Credit Union. Five commissioners are UMCU members, and the credit union president objects to a proposed rezoning of the site. Other discussion points included affordable housing premiums, the use of diagonals as a tool for influencing the shape of tall buildings, and concerns over rezoning public land.

Ten people spoke during a public hearing on the zoning review. Before the hearing began, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal stated that the hearing would likely continue at a future meeting, but that speakers would be allowed only one turn during the entire hearing – either that night, or at a subsequent meeting. Midway through the hearing, Sabra Briere raised an objection to Westphal’s ruling, and commissioners spent about 20 minutes debating the issue. The commission ultimately voted to allow for people to speak more than once when the public hearing is continued, over the objection of Westphal, Diane Giannola and Wendy Woods.

Consultant Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates attended the Oct. 15 meeting and answered questions from commissioners, but her contract for this project has now expired. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that any additional work from Perdu would require city council approval.

In addition to the downtown zoning review, two development projects were on the Oct. 15 agenda. Commissioners recommended approval of an three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth. The expansion will create six residential units.

During a public hearing on the project, Ali Almiri – who owns the adjacent building to the west at 119 E. Liberty – raised concerns that three bedroom windows in his building’s residential rental units would be blocked by this new structure. He and his attorney urged that the new project be required to accommodate those existing windows. The issue will continue to be investigated by planning staff, building staff and possibly the city attorney’s office prior to the project’s consideration by the city council.

Another proposal – related to plans for two new restaurants at Briarwood Mall, on the east side of Macy’s – was postponed, because of several outstanding issues that still need to be resolved.

During public commentary, Alex Perlman, a co-owner of the food carts The Beet Box and Cheese Dream, highlighted a project at 1215 S. University – the former location of Pinball Pete’s, which burned down in 2009. The project, called Eat the Hub, would repurpose the space as a temporary food cart yard that would accommodate between three to six carts. Perlman noted that current city ordinances “don’t reflect the ever-changing landscape that mobile food businesses require.” He said he’d appreciate any help to move this project forward.

Downtown Zoning Review

The Oct. 15 agenda included a public hearing and discussion of the revised report on downtown zoning changes. The report had been originally presented at the planning commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. Based on feedback from the working session, Erin Perdu, a consultant hired to oversee the project, made some changes to her original recommendations. [.pdf of revised 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]

The 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.

On Oct. 15, Perdu reviewed the process and public engagement that had taken place since July. She also highlighted changes that had been made based on feedback from planning commissioners at an Oct. 8 working session.

Illustration showing potential development on Main Street between William and Packard, if recommendations for new zoning standards are adopted. The changes would include reduced height and a new diagonal requirement, compared to existing zoning.

The revised recommendations reviewed on Oct. 15 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.

Perdu noted that other issues emerged during the review that are outside of the project’s scope, but that she and the city staff felt should receive additional attention from the city. 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.

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

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing

In total, 10 people spoke during the public hearing. In opening the hearing, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal stated that he anticipated the commission’s discussion would carry over to another meeting. In that case, the public hearing would be continued. However, he asked that people only speak one time during the hearing – so if they spoke that night, they would not be able to take another turn when the hearing continued on a different date. He noted that there are other opportunities to address the commission at the end of each meeting. [There is also public commentary at the start of each meeting.]

Jeff Crockett and Eleanor Pollack wait to speak during the Oct. 15 public hearing.

Piotr Michalowski told commissioners that he lived at the corner of Packard and Fourth. He thanked them for doing this difficult job, but said there are still some problems. He’s appalled by the prospect of what’s suggested for the Main Street corridor. There’s no reason for property there to be zoned D1 – any development would tower over the neighborhood. And why does the south entrance to Ann Arbor, with its low two- and three-story buildings, have to be zoned for buildings of such “monstrous” proportions? It should be zoned D2 or some other kind of creative zoning. Many houses in that area are historic and owner-occupied. He said the neighborhood has already been destroyed by the “monstrosity” on Fifth Avenue – City Place apartments. You can’t just allow for someone to build another horror, he said. Michalowski urged commissioners to reconsider this recommendation.

Eppie Potts objected to the constraint that someone could only speak once during the public hearing, even if it was carried over to additional meetings. “I’m really upset that we have to choose between tonight and whenever it is you take this up again.” People have input that would be useful, she said.

Tom Petiet, owner of 432 S. Fourth Ave., wanted to see the entire lot at Main and William zoned D2. Even though many houses near there aren’t owner-occupied, “renters have rights as well,” he said. There’s a garden at his house that would get less light if a tall building is constructed, so it’s a problem if there’s a building that’s two or three times as high as the existing DTE building. He noted that when the DTE building was proposed, the city promised residents that the building would have a three-foot setback from the alley, but that didn’t happen, he said. There’s no setback now. He’d recommend the commission go back to the drawing board regarding the zoning of this parcel.

Jeff Crockett complimented the city council and planning commission. He couldn’t recall a public input process like this, with numerous opportunities for people to give feedback. The report’s renderings were well done. Although he didn’t agree with every outcome, it’s a process that should be replicated in the future. He referred to the report’s recommendations regarding East Huron, and said he really wished these considerations had been in place four years ago. If these standards had been applied, then the 413 E. Huron project wouldn’t exist in its present form.

He also praised the fact that the recommendations would put teeth into the design review, but he’s concerned about some omissions. He said he’d spoken to the planning commission about the impact on trees, and he sees nothing in the recommendations that addresses this issue. Trees are covered under the city’s guidelines on natural features, he said, but there’s no teeth behind those guidelines. If trees are impacted, the only response is mitigation, “which essentially does very little.” You can knock down a 250-year-old oak tree and replace it with a few saplings, he said, and that’s totally unsatisfactory – especially considering that the city is named after trees.

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing – Debate over Continuation

After four people had spoken during the public hearing, Sabra Briere spoke up, saying she’d like to make a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair about the continuation of the public hearing. It seemed to her that the practice of the commission was to allow people to speak again, if a public hearing is continued over multiple meetings. Bonnie Bona seconded the motion.

From left: Planning manager Wendy Rampson and Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and city council.

Wendy Woods said she didn’t understand why the public hearing was being interrupted. It was her understanding that people could only speak once during a public hearing, even if it’s continued. That rule may not always be adhered to, she noted, because it can be hard to keep track of who has spoken previously. Diane Giannola said she remembered the rule in the same way as Woods, though she noted that sometimes the commission is more lenient and lets people speak twice.

Eleanore Adenekan didn’t think it was appropriate to stop the public hearing. Commissioners could have this discussion after the hearing, she said.

Briere replied that she’d looked up the point of order in Robert’s Rules of Order, and it stated that an appeal should be made as soon as possible after a ruling has been made, and that it’s appropriate to interrupt the speaker who has the floor, in order to appeal a ruling of the chair. She said she’s witnessed people speaking more than once at a public hearing, though the commission might not be rigorous in keeping track of names. But proposals often change, she said, and the commission has allowed people to speak when that happens.

Bona noted that regardless of the rules, this downtown zoning review “is a moving target.” It’s a complicated issue, and the commission hasn’t finished discussing the report or making changes. She expected people might have something important to say if the discussion continues at another meeting. That’s why she was in favor of allowing people to speak, even if it makes the commission’s meetings longer.

Jeremy Peters agreed with Bona and Briere, because it seemed like the rules haven’t been consistently applied, and out of an interest in hearing public commentary on issues that are very important.

Kirk Westphal said he took comfort in knowing that there’s an opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting. Peters pointed out that in that case, a decision would already have been made by the commission.

Adenekan explained that she didn’t object to having people speak more than once. But when Westphal had stated the one-turn rule at the start of the hearing, no one had objected, she said. She opposed interrupting the hearing to decide this issue. Briere replied that she had been checking the parliamentary rules to make certain that her understanding was accurate – that’s why she didn’t object immediately.

Giannola called it a standard rule at city council and the planning commission, though she again noted that it wasn’t followed consistently. “I guess we’re sort of being punished now for being generous in some of the other public meetings.” If people speak more than one time, the public hearings last for hours and hours, she said, and some people don’t attend to have their say because the hearings are so long. Everyone should have the chance to speak.

Giannola pointed out that email is an effective way to communicate, and can be even more effective than speaking in person. Bona agreed, and encouraged people to provide written comments, even if they also decide to speak at the hearing.

Woods said she didn’t think Westphal had made a ruling, as Briere had stated. He had just been reminding people of the commission’s rules, Woods said. It was standard practice, to make sure that everyone has the chance to speak. “I’m sorry if people are offended, but I do think that if we have these rules, either we’re going to have them or we’re not.” She said she might support allowing people to speak more than once, but it should be clear that this is an exception. “I also don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be somehow blindsided by something that …wasn’t a part of how we’ve been operating.”

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters.

Saying he didn’t have a stake in how this turns out, Paras Parekh said he’d just like the commission to follow its rules and be consistent, one way or another.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the commission’s bylaws are silent on this issue, but the city council rules are very specific about only allowing one speaking turn per hearing. In the past, when a public hearing is continued and additional information might be coming forward at a future meeting, it makes sense to allow people to review a revised plan, she said. When nothing is anticipated to change, “it’s really open to interpretation about how much time or how many opportunities people have to be able to speak,” she said. “We’ve done both practices.”

Giannola said she couldn’t support Briere’s proposal, because she thinks that process and precedent are important. Going forward, the commission will be setting a precedent, so commissioners should be aware of what their vote will mean.

Giannola also wondered if the chair could vote, since the motion related to his action. “In America, everybody gets a vote,” Woods quipped.

It was clarified that an affirmative vote would uphold the ruling of the chair, while a negative vote would overturn it and allow for people to speak more than once if the public hearing were continued.

Outcome: On a 3-5 vote, commissioners overturned the chair’s original ruling. Voting in favor of the original ruling were Kirk Westphal, Diane Giannola and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh.

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing – Continued

The public hearing continued. Eleanor Pollack said she thinks of the downtown core between State and Main streets as being bounded by the north side of William and the south side of Huron. Whatever occurs anywhere along the south side of William directly impacts an in-town residential neighborhood. The same is true for the north side of Huron, she said.

The fact that there is also commercial activity in these areas doesn’t diminish the need for careful constriction of new development, Pollack said. For these areas, D2 should be the most allowable density, and it should be further tempered by approval of the design review board for a project to be eligible for any premium. For over 40 years, residents of in-town neighborhoods have asked the city to ensure that adjacent new development be respectful of the neighborhoods and compatible with them. Now is the time for the city to respond to those requests in a concrete way, she concluded.

Will Leaf said the planning commission and city council have the opportunity to provide more space for people to live and work without harming the near downtown residential neighborhoods. Two problems are facing Ann Arbor and the rest of the country, he said: (1) poverty and the lack of affordable housing for poor and middle-class people, and (2) the destruction of the environment. Both are affected by the amount of space downtown. Why is housing more expensive in downtown Ann Arbor, compared to rural areas like in Pittsfield Township? The answer is space, Leaf said, and the value of the land. “If you could create more space, I think you could reduce the cost of housing.”

From left: Jack Eaton and Ted Annis.

Leaf recommended reading a report by the Harvard Institute of Economic Research: “The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability.” He read a section from the report, which stated that zoning restrictions appear to cause higher prices. He recommended allowing for taller buildings – that is, more space – further away from residential neighborhoods, perhaps by limiting the maximum height of the structure to one-half the distance to the nearest restricted area. That would be a comprehensive way of addressing the D2 buffering problem. If it’s addressed parcel-by-parcel, Leaf thought there would be perpetual issues of people not feeling that their neighborhood is protected sufficiently.

Regarding the environment, it’s better to have more people living downtown where they can be less dependent on the automobile, he said. It improves air quality and reduces traffic. The way to do that is to lower the cost of housing by creating more space for it. He’s in favor of a variable height limit, which would allow taller buildings in the center of downtown, and shorter ones around the edge. He drew an analogy to Ford Motor Co. giving out a million Jaguars – it would have the effect of lowering car prices. The same would be true if more downtown housing is built.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council. The ward has been almost entirely left out of this discussion because it’s not within the boundaries of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, he said. Under the tenure of mayor John Hieftje and of the Republican leadership prior to that, there have been no policies that require zoning for affordable housing or that promote diversity of housing in every block of the city, Partridge contended. He likened it to attitudes of the Klu Klux Klan when they came to Ann Arbor several years ago.

Eppie Potts said she was glad to hear the commission’s discussion at their Oct. 8 working session, including changes to D1 and D2 zoning, as well as premiums. The city isn’t getting public benefits from premiums, so she’s glad those are being reconsidered. But do commissioners really think D2 is a buffer? she asked. It allows for buildings that are twice as high as the nearby neighborhoods. And why limit the locations that the commission is discussing to the three sites that were mentioned by the city council? There are other locations at the edge of downtown that would be “devastated” by D1 zoning, she said. New premiums are also needed – such as required open space, affordable housing and design that respects context.

Ted Annis called the zoning recommendation for the parcel at Main and William a “mistake.” Even though the report notes that D2 was the most popular zoning option for that site based on responses to an online survey, the consultant didn’t recommend D2 on that site. He took great exception to that conclusion, and he hoped commissioners did, too. D1 zoning on that corner would allow for a building that’s massive and inconsistent with surrounding buildings. He urged the commission to send the report back to the consultant, Erin Perdu, and have D2 for the entire site incorporated into the report before it goes to city council. [Perdu's recommendation is to zone half of the site – at the southeast corner of Main and William – as D1, with the other half D2.]

Julie Ritter said there seems to be a fear of offending developers and sending them away from Ann Arbor, and she’s curious about that. She noted that she worked in commercial real estate for 11 years, and was personally responsible for the operation of two shopping centers and several office buildings in southeast Michigan, and did due diligence on buildings in other states. Real estate development is a very aggressive industry. “I’ve seen incredible power plays. I’ve seen grown men cry,” she said. But developers have very thick skins and they don’t scare easily. They’re smart and rational, “and if they smell money, they will figure out a way to get it.”

There’s a lot of development happening, Ritter said, and Ann Arbor is losing its unique character. Developers don’t like uncertainty, and become anxious if they don’t know what they’re supposed to do and if that uncertainty costs them money. If they know the expectations in advance – and know that the requirements will be enforced – they’ll figure out how to make it work. Give them a high bar and enforce it, she said, and give residents buildings that they can get behind and be excited about rather than dismayed by. Don’t be intimidated by developers’ threats of lawsuits or financial hardship. The commission has a lot of power, Ritter said, and she wanted them to use it consciously and wisely to make Ann Arbor the “great, beautiful, civilized city that we all envision.”

The final speaker was Doug Kelbaugh, professor at the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning. “I would have been a little bit peppier, had it been earlier,” he joked. His remarks restated commentary he made at the Oct. 8 work session. There are three very vulnerable areas that were designated D1 in 2009 and that need the commission’s close scrutiny: (1) on Thayer near North University; (2) the former Borders bookstore site on East Liberty; and (3) the area along Ann and Fourth. William and Main is a tough call, Kelbaugh said, adding that he understands the dynamics there. He visited the site again and think the possible height is exacerbated because there’s a rise coming into town just south of the site, which would exaggerate the height. Any building at the corner of Main and William should be roughly the height of the existing DTE building, roughly 100 feet. It seems reasonable to have split zoning on that site, he said – adding that’s often the norm.

Kelbaugh said he often uses the former Y lot for a class exercise, asking his students to design development there. Most students don’t go as high as 180 feet or even 150 feet because they think it’s too tall in that location. And these are students, he noted, who are generally in favor of the most exotic and dramatic architecture possible. Finally, he said the northern portion of Huron needs to be a new kind of zone. Perhaps there should be new zoning east of Maynard as well, he said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Credit Union

Wendy Woods began by noting that the commission had received an email from Tiffany Ford, CEO of the University of Michigan Credit Union. [.pdf of Tiffany Ford's email] The credit union owns a parcel next to city hall that’s being considered for rezoning from D1 to D2, and Ford’s email states that she is “completely opposed to the downzoning.”

Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates.

Woods told commissioners that she’s a member of UMCU, and wasn’t sure whether she should recuse herself from this issue or get an opinion from the city attorney. As there are about 55,000 members, “I may not be the only one,” she said.

Four other members indicated that they are also UMCU members: Kirk Westphal, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters and Sabra Briere.

Briere said she thought recusals are allowed only if the decision affects you materially. “I don’t believe that my decision is likely to affect me materially and uniquely,” she said. Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that the discussion is about a recommendation to do something, not the action itself. However, she suggested that commissioners could hold off on discussing that particular parcel and she would check with the city attorney’s office for guidance. There are plenty of other items that commissioners can address first, she said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Diagonals

Sabra Briere asked about diagonals, noting that Erin Perdu had recommended the use of diagonals in two specific areas – at Main and William, and in the East Huron 1 character district. Briere wondered whether the city should consider using diagonals across the entire D1 zoning, beyond just specific areas. [Diagonals are a method of controlling shape, and typically allow for taller but less massive buildings.]

Perdu replied that her recommendations were based on the sites that the city had specifically hired her to evaluate. But it would be appropriate to look at using diagonals for the entire D1 area, she said.

In explaining how she had arrived at the specific diagonal recommendation, Perdu said she recommended a flat number for the East Huron 1 character district because the parcels along that street are more uniform in size. In contrast, the site at Main and William is very large. To determine the diagonal for that site, Perdu said she tested the diagonals on existing buildings in that area, and made a proportional recommendation based on those comparisons.

Paras Parekh asked how Perdu arrived at the 130-foot diagonal requirement for the East Huron 1 character district. Perdu replied that she looked at the table of existing buildings that the city planning staff had compiled. [.pdf list of downtown development projects since 2000] The 130-foot maximum was recommended in order to keep any new development in scale with existing buildings in that area, she said. It’s something that could be studied further and refined, she said.

Kirk Wesphal noted that the diagonal for the Main and William site – 50% of the maximum parcel diagonal – is recommended for the entire Main Street character district. Perdu clarified that it would be required if a building is within 20 feet of a residential area. Rampson explained that the Main and William site is the only parcel that falls within 20 feet of a residential area. All other parcels in the Main Street character district are adjacent to D1 or D2 sites.

Westphal said he’d be in favor of figuring out what the ideal diagonal is to orient sunlight toward the neighborhood.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Extending East Huron 1

The current East Huron 1 character district runs from Division to State, on the north side of Huron. The recommendation calls for extending that district westward to include the north half of the block between Division and Fifth. So it would include the parcel where Ahmo’s Gyros & Deli is now located, which is currently zoned D1. The downzoning would reduce the maximum height of development in that block to 120 feet (from the current 180 feet) and include new diagonal regulations recommended for the East Huron 1 character district.

Perdu noted that the owners of the properties that would be affected by this change haven’t been contacted yet. It would be a big change for the development potential of those properties, and Perdu recommended that someone from the city should reach out to the owners before any changes are made.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Premiums

Bonnie Bona referred to a comment made during the public hearing about the affordability of housing downtown. One of her concerns is that adding an affordable housing premium makes all of downtown housing potentially less affordable. She asked Perdu for feedback about how adding premiums might threaten the affordability of downtown housing.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Perdu replied that it’s an issue that the consultants, city staff and Ann Arbor housing commission struggled with. By including an affordable housing option as a premium, it’s potentially increasing the cost of development. But developers aren’t obligated to take advantage of that premium, she noted.

Perdu reported that this was also an issue that arose when discussing the recommendation to make the design review approval mandatory, in order to secure premiums. That requirement could extend the time it takes to work through the approval process, and in turn make a project more expensive. It’s difficult to quantify, she said. Perdu added that she heard from several developers who are concerned that the city might incentivize affordable housing at the expense of middle-of-the-road pricing.

Bona thought the quality of construction could also be threatened, if a developer is looking to cut costs. Rather than making a mandatory affordable housing provision for premiums – by either providing affordable housing on site or through a payment in lieu – perhaps a requirement of open space could be made instead. She asked for Perdu’s feedback on the idea that a project would have to have provisions for either affordable housing or open space. Perdu said she hadn’t considered that approach, but it’s reasonable to consider.

Westphal said he echoed Bona’s concerns about affordability. Adding to the housing supply citywide is a great way to get more affordable units, he said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Height Cap

Westphal said he’d heard concerns about a height cap limiting flexibility. A cap wouldn’t give the design review board or any governing body the ability to make exceptions that would allow developers to shape a building to reduce shading. So if the city is making design review mandatory, he wondered if there’d been any thought to providing more flexibility regarding an absolute height limit.

Perdu noted that this issue had emerged during the Oct. 8 working session, and perhaps it was worth more discussion. She understands there’s also a tradeoff between implementing diagonal restrictions and height caps, and that’s something developers struggle with.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Rezoning Public Land

Briere noted that one of the recommendations is to rezone the city hall site from PL (public land) to D2. The rationale is to allow for the unification of D2 zoning parcels adjacent to city hall. She said she’s struggling with the concept of public land not being zoned as public land.

Perdu replied that the extension of D2 zoning was a “second tier” recommendation, beyond addressing what the council resolution had directed. The goal was to extend D2 zoning westward, to connect with other existing D2 parcels. One option was just rezoning the north portion of the city hall site, facing Ann Street. There was discussion about whether it was better to rezone a half block rather than a full block, and ultimately the recommendation was for the full block. If the city ever decides to move city hall, the site could be redeveloped, she noted.

Bona asked whether the master plan would need to be changed, if the city hall block is rezoned to D2. City planning manager Wendy Rampson said she’d recommend amending the downtown plan – which is part of the city’s master plan – for all of the zoning changes that might be made.

Bona suggested that one way to deal with the city hall parcel is to give direction in the master plan, rather than actually rezoning the site.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Ground Floor Uses

Westphal noted that one thing the planning commission and staff had recommended – that got removed by the council and didn’t end up in the final A2D2 zoning – was to require active uses in the ground floor levels of downtown buildings. There were specific streets that were proposed to have a certain degree of retail frontage. The only parcel that it would relate to in the current review would be the parcel at Main and William. He’d be interested in looking at that requirement again, to make the ground floors pedestrian-friendly, especially on Main Street. He asked Perdu if she had gotten any feedback on that issue.

Perdu reported that “downtown real estate interests” had expressed concern about having specific requirements for ground floor uses. She’d gotten feedback that it was more important to have a building that fit in with the “urban fabric” and had an active design, with ground floors that could be used for a variety of purposes.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Consulting Services

Bona asked about Perdu’s availability, beyond the meeting that evening. Rampson replied that Perdu’s contract has ended, and likely wouldn’t be available after the Oct. 15 meeting.

Woods wondered if it was possible to extend Perdu’s contract. Rampson said that any additional work from Perdu would require authorization from the city council.

Perdu said she’d be willing to respond to questions via email, even if she wasn’t able to attend future meetings.

Giannola suggested emailing questions to Perdu, and continuing the discussion at the next planning commission meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone the item on the downtown zoning review.

Running Fit Building

A proposal to build a three-story addition to the one-story building on the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth – where Running Fit is located – was on the commission’s Oct. 15 agenda. The building is located on three parcels: 121 and 123 E. Liberty, and 220 S. Fourth Ave.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building (indicted with crosshatches), at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The site plan calls for keeping the first floor as retail space, and creating six residential units on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units. The project’s architect, Brad Moore, indicated that a decision hasn’t been made yet about whether the units will be apartments or condos.

The expansion would increase the building’s square footage from 2,515 square feet to 8,530 square feet. Some of the units will be on two levels, connected by circular staircases. The fourth floor will include a smaller unit, roof decks and a “green roof” with plantings.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District. The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

In terms of historical background, there were originally two buildings on the site that were built in the 1800s, but burned down in the 1950s.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

The site plan approval is contingent on constructing two Class A bicycle parking spaces in the Fourth & William parking structure – located about a half-block away – or paying a contribution to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to install the spaces. No vehicle parking is required. One footing drain disconnection is required.

Running Fit would remain open during construction. Staff recommended approval of the project.

Running Fit Building: Public Hearing

Seven people spoke at the public hearing on this project. First in line was Tom Partridge, who introduced himself as a Ward 5 write-in candidate for the Ann Arbor city council. It’s discriminatory to handicapped and senior citizens to add new residences downtown without adequate parking, he said. He noted that the only parking required is for “the mayor’s all-time favorite bicycle, even though I go around town and I don’t think I’ve ever seen the mayor on a bicycle.” Partridge recommended tabling the proposal in order to come up with adequate vehicle parking.

Ellen Ramsburgh, a member of the city’s historic district commission, expressed her support for the project, saying the design is very appropriate for that corner and will make it more vibrant and useful. The project has support from the historic district commission, she noted.

From left: Attorney Dan Dever and Ali Almiri, who owns the building at 119 E. Liberty.

Dan Dever, an attorney for the owner of the adjacent building on East Liberty, said that they would applaud this project except for one thing. After the fire in the 1950s, in 1982 his client and the owners of the Running Fit building agreed to install three windows on the second story “common wall” – the wall of his client’s building that faces east. Those windows have been there for over 30 years, and if the windows go away, it will impact the residents in those rental units. It would be possible to design the new addition to step back and allow light and air to reach the windows, Dever said. There has been communication between the parties, and Dever said he wasn’t going to argue whether there was a license or a contract between the two property owners. But the situation hasn’t been adequately addressed, and it would impact the economic viability of those rental units. He asked the commission not to approve the project, saying it would have an adverse impact on his client’s building.

A tenant of one of the second-story apartments at 119 1/2 E. Liberty – and whose bedroom has a window that overlooks the current Running Fit building – expressed concern that the new building would shut out all natural light. She’s also concerned about how long the construction will take and how parking will be affected. She noted that there’s a senior apartment building nearby on Fourth Avenue, which would also be affected by construction and parking.

Ali Almiri, who owns the adjacent building at 119 E. Liberty, told commissioners that he’s been an Ann Arbor resident for over 40 years. His partner had gained permission in 1982 to put windows on the east wall, he contended. Almiri said his partner handled everything with city hall, but his partner and his partner’s wife both died and now Almiri has no record of that agreement. If the windows are covered, that would affect his rental income. Every two years, inspectors from the city come to inspect the building and no one has ever said anything about the windows, he noted.

Tom Bourque, the attorney for Running Fit’s owner, responded to the previous speakers. Although they’ve said there’s a purported agreement from 1982, there’s no documentation from the city to indicate that a variance was obtained to allow the windows to be installed, he said. The windows are actually through the east wall of 119 E. Liberty as well as through a wall that remained from the original adjacent structure after the fire. From a legal standpoint, if anything was ever granted, at most it was a license. He didn’t believe it could be the basis for tabling the project by the planning commission, because that’s not an issue that the commission would be deciding. It’s a legal issue, he said.

Regarding the inspections, Bourque said he presumed those were housing inspections and the inspectors would have assumed that the windows were installed with a variance from the city. There’s no record to show that, he said – no recorded easement, no document stating that the windows can be there permanently or that the windows “run with the land.” He said the Running Fit owners have offered to send their architect, Brad Moore, into the building at 119 E. Liberty to see if there’s another way to get light into the building. They’re still willing to do that, he added, but that shouldn’t affect what the planning commission does.

Architect Brad Moore noted that just one footing drain disconnect is required for this project. The Running Fit building has no footing drains currently connected to the sanitary sewer, he said. The existing footings can support the proposed addition, he noted. Moore said he was available to answer any questions.

Running Fit’s co-owner, Randy Step, attended the meeting but did not speak during the public hearing.

Running Fit Building: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere began the discussion by noting that she hadn’t noticed the windows on the adjacent building, and she asked staff why someone would need variances for those windows. She also asked what the city’s practice would have been when the windows were installed.

City planner Jill Thacher reported that the city’s building official is concerned about whether the windows are fire-rated – that is, would the windows keep a fire out of the building, and vice versa. The planning staff did a document search and didn’t find any record of planning approvals or other records for those windows. The building official has indicated that there are some plans that are stored off-site, and copies of those plans have been requested, Thacher said. But the planning staff hadn’t yet received those copies, so they don’t know if the windows were part of a previous remodeling plan.

Briere noted that the city has a history of ensuring that new construction includes windows for bedrooms. She embraces that, although her understanding is that it’s not required in the building code. She asked the architect, Brad Moore, whether he’d considered a design that included air wells or light wells for those adjacent residential units.

From left: Running Fit co-owner Randy Step and attorney Tom Bourque.

Moore replied that offsetting the upper stories to accommodate window wells doesn’t work with the existing footing structure, so that idea was abandoned early in the design process. The state building code doesn’t require windows in bedrooms, he noted. Alternative ideas include skylights or “sun pipes.” Moore reported that his client has asked him to go look at the adjacent building and see what alternatives could be achieved.

Briere wondered if it would be possible to create a vertical shaft where each window is located. She said she was only asking in order to ensure that she’s thought of all the options. Moore said it would not be a small shaft, and would result in the loss of too much square footage so the project wouldn’t be viable as a result.

Eleanore Adenekan asked if the units would be condos or apartments. Moore said that hasn’t been determined yet.

Bonnie Bona asked how the trash will be handled, since there is no alley next to the building. Moore replied that it will be taken care of as it’s done now, with dedicated space for trash cans in an alley off East Liberty that’s three buildings to the west, running between East Liberty and East Washington. You would take your trash bag and walk down the sidewalk to the alley, he said. Bona indicated that it seems like a good system, though it’s a bit of a longer walk than most residents have.

Bona also asked about what appeared to be bricked-over windows on Fourth Avenue. Moore explained that those are opaque now – inside is display and shelf space for Running Fit. The owners have indicated that they’d like to put public art in that spot, perhaps mosaics by local artists to enhance the pedestrian experience, he said.

Bona also asked about the corner of the upper stories, where it appears to have a section with two stories of glass. She wondered what was behind the glass. Moore said the corner unit is a two-story unit, and the glass is part of that unit. The same design is used for the stairwell in the back of the proposed structure.

Regarding requirements for the Americans with Disabilities Act, Bona confirmed with Moore that there isn’t an elevator in the building. Moore explained that ADA requirements don’t apply to apartments. The federal Fair Housing Act deals with residential units, he said, and requires elevators only for clusters of more than three dwelling units. This development is being crafted as two “assemblages,” Moore explained. Each of those assemblages has a staircase, but there’s no common circulation to all the units – so no elevator is required.

Bona also asked how far the building is from the Blake Transit Center. About two-thirds of a block, Moore replied. Bona said the proximity is “very lucky” for residents who’ll live there.

Bona referred to the staff report, which cited concerns by the Ann Arbor DDA that the project maintain pedestrian access during construction. She asked whether there was any assurance of that. Thacher said she wasn’t aware of any mechanism that could be used to ensure that the sidewalk remains open all the time. Sidewalks probably won’t stay open for the entire duration of the project, she said. Bona said that before the project is forwarded to the city council, it would be nice to see a proposal for how the owners plan to deal with that issue.

Regarding the window issue, Bona said she’s worked on a building that needed to get variances for windows on a zero lot line – otherwise, windows aren’t allowed unless they have special fire-suppression qualities. For the building she worked on, the owner had to secure an easement in order to put in windows. She suggested that the planning staff should get a better explanation of that situation before it goes to the city council. She didn’t think it should hold up action by the planning commission, however.

Jeremy Peters echoed Bona’s comments about the windows. It seems to be a legal issue and he hoped that the building owners could work something out, but he thought it fell outside the planning commission’s process. He thought the public benefit of a green roof is good for stormwater mitigation, and that the addition would not be out of character for that location.

Thacher indicated that planning staff would continue to work with building officials and the city attorney’s office on the window issue. She didn’t believe it was a site plan issue. They would need a more definitive answer on these outstanding questions before the project goes to the city council.

In response to a question from Kirk Westphal, Thacher said there are rules governing the hours when construction can occur – 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. She also reported that the project would require permits from the city if sidewalks are closed, and permission from the DDA if parking spaces are used for construction equipment and staging.

Wendy Woods asked whether Running Fit would remain open. Running Fit’s co-owner, Randy Step, replied that the store would stay open for business.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend approval of the site plan for the Running Fit project. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants

On the Oct. 15 agenda was a site plan and rezoning for two new restaurants at Briarwood Mall.

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

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. There will be landscaping around the restaurants, and a pedestrian plaza area leading into Macy’s.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 108 spaces. Additional bicycle parking will be added. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094.

A portion of the parking lot would need to be rezoned from P (parking) to C2B (business service). The site is located in Ward 4.

By way of background, when the mall was built in 1973, the property was divided into seven parcels, each with its own parking. Over the years, several administrative amendments have been made to allow for additions and modifications to the original structure.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponement in order to allow the developer to deal with some outstanding issues related to zoning, landscaping, easements and utilities.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during the project’s public hearing. Tom Partridge called for planning commissioners to give senior citizens and others better access to the council chambers at city hall, saying that it didn’t currently meet fire code or ADA regulations. He also criticized representatives of developers in general for deliberately speaking in low volumes so that they couldn’t be heard. He said he was in favor of business and economic development, but this site plan was taking away needed parking spaces. He indicated that it was difficult to find parking at Briarwood Mall, especially handicapped spaces. Perhaps the restaurants should be required to provide off-site parking, he said, and transportation to and from the site.

Scott Richardson, representing the Briarwood Mall owners, said the new restaurants and other mall improvements will be a great benefit. He responded to staff comments regarding outstanding issues, and indicated that they are being addressed. He hoped that rather than postponing, the commission could vote to recommend the proposal, so that it could move forward to the city council. The hope is to complete construction of the restaurants so that they’ll be open by the holiday season of 2014, so there’s not a lot of time to spare, he said.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Commission Discussion

In response to a question from Diane Giannola, Scott Richardson clarified that there won’t be a road between the restaurants and Macy’s. The back of the restaurants will be just over 10 feet from the Macy’s wall. It’s a code-based separation, and isn’t intended for use by the public. The entrance to Macy’s will be between the two restaurants, and there will be landscaping to mask the space between the restaurants and the Macy’s wall.

Scott Richardson, a representative of Simon Company, the developer of Briarwood Mall.

In response to a query from Wendy Woods, Richardson said that Macy’s has embraced this concept of putting restaurants in front of its stores. Exterior walls of older department store buildings “are not the most aesthetically pleasing to look at,” he noted. So instead of looking at large cinder-block walls, it’s better to line them with restaurants that have architectural interest and life to provide a better experience for the shopper, he said. In general, the mall owners would like to see restaurants built against the mall, Richardson said, rather than located in “out parcels.” The goal is to promote cross-shopping, and to extend the duration of a shopper at the mall. If shoppers have to drive to a restaurant to eat, they’re more likely to leave and not return to the mall, he said.

Responding to another question, Richardson said the area where the restaurants will be located is designated for Macy’s expansion, and they are forgoing that opportunity for expansion.

Woods then asked Richardson to explain the concern that the city’s fire department had. Woods was referring to this section of the staff memo:

The entire footprint for Macy’s does not meet the 250 foot hydrant radius requirement. The site plan shows two hydrants, one on the northwest and the other on the northeast of Macy’s. However, the Fire Marshall has indicated that they are Post Indicator Values (PIV’s) and not hydrants; they cannot be used to meet hydrant radius requirements. The proposed FDC for proposed restaurant A does not meet the minimum 100 foot distance from a supporting hydrant.

Gary Tressel – with the engineering firm of Hubbell, Roth & Clark in Bloomfield Hills – responded. He indicated that the project will add two hydrants to bring it into compliance, and those will be included in the final engineering drawings that will be submitted to the city.

Woods wondered how the project would handle the dumpster areas. The city staff had indicated that the dumpster areas for these restaurants would need to be widened to create a 20-foot clear opening for a second dumpster for recycling. Richardson wasn’t sure how this would be handled, because it’s physically not possible to provide that 20-foot requirement at that location. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said it’s possible that the requirement could be waived or that other alternatives could be explored – such as providing another location for recycling in the vicinity.

Sabra Briere was concerned whether the new buildings will leave enough space for deliveries to be made in a corridor that serves Macy’s and other shops in the mall. Richardson replied that currently, delivery trucks park in the lane and use hand trucks to take deliveries into the mall. This new project will create a “service court,” he said, to be used for deliveries both to the restaurants as well as the mall stores. So trucks will be able to back up into the court, rather than park on the lane next to the mall. It’s the same area that will be used for trash and recycling pick-up, he said.

Briere wanted to know how composting will be handled for the restaurants. That’s a question that the restaurants need to answer when those specific site plans come in for approval, Richardson said. Briere suggested that he make the restaurants aware that the city is moving toward commercial composting, and that commercial recycling is already required.

Bonnie Bona asked about how the project fits into the city’s master plan for that area. “Malls are not where we want our urban planning to go,” she said, describing malls as “an isolated interior space surrounded by a ton of parking.” The city would rather see something more vibrant and more mixed use.

The east entrace to Macy’s at Briarwood Mall, where new restaurants are proposed.

The master plan for the Briarwood Mall area includes a recommendation to develop a safe designated pedestrian pathway from crosswalks to mall entrances through the parking lot, and to evaluate “innovative parking solutions” to use land more efficiently. The master plan also supports the rezoning of P (parking) districts to C2B (business service), as part of redeveloping the mall to increase its floor-area ratio (FAR).

Bona noted that the landscaping and paving plan for this proposed restaurant area is more detailed than is the landscaping on the entire Briarwood site. “The landscaping at Briarwood is pretty…” Bona paused, and Richardson quipped: “You can stop at pretty.”

Bona said landscaping is almost non-existent in other parts of the mall site, and she liked that the new plan for these restaurants to include making the area more attractive for pedestrians.

Bona asked how this project was part of a larger plan to make the mall more dynamic and “village-like.” She said she’s a proponent of not tearing down buildings, because that’s wasteful, but she hoped the buildings evolved into mixed-use space. She also told Richardson that the pedestrian connections to the restaurants “look entirely random.” She felt that the attention paid to the pedestrian experience stopped at the curb.

Regarding long-term plans, Richardson said “you’ve got to start somewhere.” He noted that two-thirds to three-fourths of the parking lot at the mall is owned by other entities – not Simon Company, the Indianapolis-based firm that developed the mall. So Simon Company doesn’t have the ability to make changes there. Within Simon Company, there’s a unit called the asset intensification group, with the sole goal of taking surface parking lots and making the uses there more intense, by adding residential, office, medical, entertainment or other uses. To make that happen, Richardson said, there needs to be a public/private partnership, because “it’s not cheap.”

Bona said it wasn’t her intention to redesign Briarwood Mall on the spot. She wondered if there are things that the city can do to help facilitate a more intensive, desirable development – like a parking structure with retail uses on the first floor, rather than surface parking, which she called a “stormwater nightmare.”

Richardson replied that he’s “a young, ambitious developer at Simon, and I want to make every one of my assets the best.”

Rampson pointed out a challenge: The built infrastructure on the site hasn’t been addressed since 1987.

Regarding pedestrian connectivity, Richardson said that although it might not appear to be appealing, he thought it would be quite nice.

Jeremy Peters brought up the issue of bioswales, noting that the city’s staff didn’t believe the requirement for bio-retention had been met, given the number of parking spaces on the site. Richardson said that the project team planned to sit down with city staff and review the requirements, and if the bioswales aren’t big enough, they’ll be enlarged.

Kirk Westphal wondered what the maintenance schedule is for the mall’s bioswales. Tressel replied that litter pick-up would occur every week or so, depending on the need. There’s also an annual maintenance program for the bioswales, he said.

Westphal also asked whether there was ever consideration of making this a mixed-use project. “Not at this time,” Richardson replied, saying that the company doesn’t believe there’s demand for it. They’re also hampered by not owning parcels that would be appropriate for that kind of development. Long-term, the company is looking at it, especially because Ann Arbor is a college town, he said.

Westphal pointed out that the existing parking seems to exceed the maximum allowed by the city. Rampson replied that the site is considered non-conforming, because of that issue. The current project is proposing to remove parking spaces, she noted. “If they were going in the opposite direction, then that would require a variance.”

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Referring to peak parking capacity, Westphal asked if there are occasions when all the parking is used. Richardson reported that Briarwood Mall, compared to similar sized malls, has more parking per retail square footage. It’s busy between Nov. 15 and Dec. 31, he said, but other than that, parking isn’t an issue.

Giannola confirmed that the holiday season is the only time when the parking at Briarwood is at or near capacity.

Bona asked about whether there was only one bus stop. Yes, Richardson said, and it was recently relocated. A new bus shelter was also constructed, in conjunction with the recent mall renovation. Bona wondered whether there’s a need for more than one stop, since the mall is so large. Richardson said he’d be happy to discuss it with mall management.

Briere reported that she had just Googled the bus stops and it showed two locations at the mall. Richardson suggested that perhaps the map hadn’t yet been updated. The bus stop has been moved, and there’s only one, he said.

Woods thanked Richardson for keeping the bus stop at the mall. “There’s another part of town where that changed,” she noted. [Woods was referring to the decision by the owners of Arborland on Washtenaw Avenue not to allow an AAATA bus stop on their property.]

Woods asked if people park at Briarwood Mall on game days for University of Michigan football. Richardson said he wasn’t sure about parking, but the two new hotels that have opened in that area are fully booked on weekends when there are home games. “They kind of validate the demand” for hotel rooms, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to postpone action on the proposal.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two general public commentary times. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Eat the Hub

Alex Perlman, a co-owner of the food carts The Beet Box and Cheese Dream, addressed commissioners during public commentary at the start of the meeting about a project at 1215 S. University. That site is the former location of Pinball Pete’s, which burned down in 2009. It’s been a blight on the South University corridor, he said, so he’s been working on a solution.

Alex Perlman, co-owner of The Beet Box and Cheese Dream, is proposing a new food cart area at 1215 S. University called Eat the Hub.

The project, called Eat the Hub, would repurpose the space as a temporary food cart yard that would accommodate between three to six carts. Perlman said he’s been working with planning staff, who’ve been helpful. But unfortunately, he added, current city ordinances “don’t reflect the ever-changing landscape that mobile food businesses require.” He said he’d appreciate any help to move this project forward.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager’s Report

As part of her planning manager’s report, Wendy Rampson, reported that earlier in the month the city staff held a public meeting about the intersection of Nixon, Dhu Varren and Green roads. The staff was on hand to answer questions and get feedback about the intersection, which she described as an “odd, offset intersection” with four-way stops that has caused concern in that neighborhood. With a potential development proposal on Nixon, the staff has heard a lot of concern, Rampson said. As a result of the meeting, there will be more information posted on the city’s website in a Q&A-style format, she said.

Any project there would eventually be part of the capital improvements plan (CIP), Rampson said. The CIP is up for an off-year review, she noted – not the full overhaul, but an update. The planning commission’s CIP committee – Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh – will meet on Oct. 30 with Deb Gosselin, who is overseeing this process.

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

Absent: Ken Clein.

Next regular meeting: Due to the Nov. 5 election, the next planning commission meeting will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 6, 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.

Will Leaf was among about two dozen residents who attended the Oct. 8 working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission, which was held in the Justice Center next to city hall. (Photos by the writer.)

Generally, commissioners at the session seemed to favor downzoning certain areas of the downtown. They are looking for ways to create better transitions between residential neighborhoods and property that’s zoned for denser development. They’re also interested in requiring approval from the design review board for projects that are seeking premiums. A premium allows developers to construct larger buildings, in exchange for providing certain features that the city wants to encourage, like affordable housing, pedestrian amenities and public parking. Currently, projects must be reviewed by the design review board, but no approval from the board is needed.

The zoning evaluation was set in motion 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.

Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates attended the commission’s Oct. 8 working session to present her report. After public commentary, commissioners gave feedback on Perdu’s recommendations, which she then used to revise the report. [.pdf of revised downtown zoning report]

Commissioners will take up the topic at their regular meeting on Oct. 15. That meeting will also include a formal public hearing to gather additional feedback.

The recommendations they’ll be considering are: (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.

It’s possible that planning commissioners would wrap up their discussion on Oct. 15 and vote on the recommendations at that meeting, to be forwarded to the city council. But during the Oct. 8 working session, several commissioners indicated that they felt they’d need more time, and were prepared to postpone a vote until a later date.

Zoning Review 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.

Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates, the consultant hired by the city of Ann Arbor to conduct a review of downtown zoning.

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, consultants Erin Perdu and Megan Masson-Minock of ENP & Associates 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 slightly longer than anticipated, and the draft report was presented to the planning commission in early October. [.pdf of initial draft report, which was discussed at the Oct. 8 working session]

According to the draft report, the consultants heard from 131 individuals in person and received 142 survey responses. The draft report was based on that feedback, as well as discussions with planning commissioners.

The draft report’s recommendations that were presented at the Oct. 8 work session included:

• Rezone the Ann Street site from D1 to D2, a zoning designation that has a lower height limit – 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 was to rezone the northern half of those parcels from D1 to D2.
• Keep the D1 zoning of the East Huron 1 character district – on the north side of Huron, between Division and State – but reduce the maximum height from 150 feet to 120 feet and 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.] The main undeveloped property there is a surface parking lot between Campus Inn and Sloan Plaza.
• Keep the D1 zoning but 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, including the lot at the southeast corner of Main and William, which stretches between William and Packard.
• 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. Instead of any residential unit, the consultants recommend that a two-bedroom unit or smaller be required in order to get premiums. The intent is to encourage development of those types of units, rather than units with more bedrooms.
• Revise the affordable housing premium so that providing affordable housing – a minimum of 15% of all new units – is mandatory in order to receive any residential premium. Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR “super-premium,” which isn’t being used by developers.
• Include other types of premiums in addition to 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 identified 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.

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

At the Oct. 8 working session, Perdu noted that this effort wasn’t intended to revise the entire vision for downtown Ann Arbor. This project operates within the goals that were established in the downtown plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. She also stressed that public input occurred in many ways, including public and private forums, and that the process of gathering feedback was not scientific – that wasn’t part of the project’s scope, she noted.

That said, the recommendations are based heavily on public input, Perdu reported, as well as on the principles laid out in the downtown plan. The consultants looked at the impact of possible changes on the nearby residents, but also on the property owners and the downtown as a whole. The feasibility of implementing certain options played a big role in the recommendations too, Perdu said, and planning staff was consulted about that. Other factors included whether the recommendations were legally defensible and economically feasible.

Perdu also noted that there were illustrations in the draft report to show potential development using diagonals, but they had been drawn based on a misunderstanding of how diagonals are defined. Those illustrations would be revised prior to the formal consideration of these recommendations, she said.

Public Commentary

Ten people spoke during the opportunity for public commentary. Several more residents attended the meeting but did not formally address the planning commission.

Christine Crockett began by highlighting the illustrations in the draft report that show how development might look using diagonals. She pointed to the illustration for the property along East Huron Street between Sloan Plaza and Campus Inn, which indicated that the highest 120-foot wall of the building was against the Ann Street side of the lot. That would totally overshadow the residential properties in the Ann Street historic district, she said. Crockett noted that the same thing is true for the illustration on the Main and William site, where “the tall chasm of the wall” would overshadow houses in the historic South Fourth Avenue neighborhood.

She didn’t understand how these illustrations reflected a respect for the character areas and traditional residential neighborhoods. [The consultant, Erin Perdu, had indicated that these illustrations were based on a misunderstanding of how the diagonals would work, and that they would be revised in a subsequent draft of the report.]

This example of a possible development on East Huron – between Sloan Plaza and Campus Inn – was included in the draft report by ENP & Associates, but was based on inaccurate “diagonal” calculations. (Image from draft report by ENP & Associates.)

A revised illustration of the East Huron site between Sloan Plaza and Campus Inn, showing possible building height with diagonals. This illustration is part of the updated draft report that the planning commission will discuss on Oct. 15.

Steve Kaplan told commissioners that diagonals are an effective tool to mask the mass of a building from the pedestrian experience on one side, but it does nothing to mask the mass at the back of the building – at least, as illustrated [erroneously] in the draft report. Lowering the height maximum along East Huron is a positive step, he said, “it’s just too small a step.” Kaplan thought that the East Huron area needed to be changed to D2 zoning. The point is to have transitional areas where it’s most sensitive, and this area is one of the clearest examples of a true transition area between the densest core of the city and a residential area, he argued. Kaplan also said that having tall buildings on either side of a property doesn’t justify having a tall building in between them. “It actually calls for more relief, not less.”

Eppie Potts called the draft report “a very good beginning.” But the city council had put limitations on the commission and consultants, she said, and there are other sites that should be evaluated – like property near the University of Michigan campus. She also wondered whether the provisions in D1 and D2 zoning should be reviewed more broadly. “Have you read D2?” Potts asked. “Are you sure you really want D2 as a buffer between neighborhoods and D1? Read it again – see what you’d be getting. I’m not sure you would really want it.”

Potts thought the city needs new premiums, and she’s pleased that some modifications are recommended. But more changes might be necessary, she said. People really want more green space, and want developers to respect the context of the neighborhood. Premiums should be offered for those things. For Potts, the current draft recommendations are “step one that does a teeny bit about a few tiny little places in the downtown.” The city needs to consider rewriting D1 and D2 zoning, she concluded.

Ted Annis and Eppie Potts were among the two dozen or so residents who attended the Oct. 8 planning commission work session. Potts is talking to Jack Eaton, who is the Democratic candidate for Ward 4 Ann Arbor city council, and is unopposed in the Nov. 5 election.

Ted Annis told commissioners that he lives at the corner of William and South Main, so he’s very sensitive to what’s being proposed. He said the zoning for the parcel on South Main, between William and Packard, is a “big mistake.” It’s currently zoned D1, and should be zoned D2, he said. Everything around it is D2 [or residential], and the fact that it’s zoned D1 “doesn’t make sense,” Annis said. He pointed to the draft report’s illustration that showed the size of a building that could be constructed on the site, given the current zoning. It “absolutely swamps and dwarfs” the largest buildings around the site, Annis noted, and looms over the nearby two-story residential buildings. The zoning needs to be scaled back, he said.

Marc Gerstein said he was generally pleased with the recommendations. He agreed with Annis that any building on the DTE lot – on Main Street between William and Packard – would be enormously large, under existing zoning. It seems very much out of scale with surrounding buildings, including Ashley Mews on Main Street and smaller homes on South Fourth. He likes the recommendations for premiums for affordable housing, because the current approach isn’t working.

Gerstein also liked Perdu’s recommendations for other topics to explore, including the zoning on Thayer next to Hill Auditorium and Rackham. You don’t want to put buildings there that are 150 or 180 feet tall, he said. And his direct concern is the South University area, specifically Willard Street. [He lives in that area.] There was talk at one time of zoning the north side of Willard Street as D2, he recalled. There was some horse-trading on city council, Gerstein said, and that proposal was eliminated. The idea of a buffer area needs to be considered again. He hoped that the recommendations for further study could be more specific than just the “South University area,” and that it would call out Willard Street in particular.

Eleanor Linn thought that the process of developing this report was a good one. Having opportunities for people to see what buildings might look like was useful, she added, but she was surprised to see the illustrations showing step-backs that weren’t on the side facing residential neighborhoods. Hopefully that’s just an error in how the illustrations were drawn, she said.

Linn was also surprised by the idea that if there are buildings on one side of an intersection, then there should be similarly-sized buildings on the other side. She said she’d been pretty active during the development of the D1 and D2 zoning, and at that time she’d been told that what’s across the street had nothing to do with zoning on the other side of the street. She’d been told that zoning is specific to a block, and not to what’s across the street. So it feels like the attitude is that zoning across the street only matters when you’re talking about big buildings, not small buildings, she said. “And that seems totally unfair,” Linn added, because it pits “big buildings people against small buildings people.” Linn also noted that the appendixes referred to by Perdu didn’t appear to be available to the public, and she hoped they would be made available. [The appendices are now available, and were posted as part of the planning commission's Oct. 15 agenda on Legistar.]

Ray Detter reported that he was speaking for the downtown citizens advisory council, which he said has been working on this issue since 2009. The CAC is looking for consistency, and to correct mistakes that were made in the original A2D2 zoning, he said. Ann Street, for example, should have been D2 from the beginning, he said. Another mistake was on the north side of East Huron, he said: It shouldn’t have been zoned D1 with a 150-foot height limit, because it’s directly related to the Old Fourth Ward historic district and other historic properties on Ann Street. It should have been D2 or a hybrid zoning. He’s delighted to see a recommendation to reduce the height allowed in that area. He noted that Dennis Dahlmann, whose family owns Campus Inn and the property next to it, supports this recommendation.

Detter said the city council recognized that the development on 413 E. Huron “was a terrible mistake that we got trapped into by people who came back and said it was a by-right project.” There’s nothing the city can do about that now, he added, but it can look at another mistake – the property across the street from 413 E. Huron, where Ahmo’s Gyros & Deli is located. [That parcel is at the northwest corner of Huron and Division.] It’s zoned D1 with a 180-foot height maximum. Detter thought it should be D2 or some kind of hybrid zoning, because it would have an impact on the nearby residential and historic neighborhood. [Detter lives in that neighborhood, on North Division.] He said the CAC agrees with Ted Annis regarding the property on Main Street south of William – in that it should be zoned D2. They also believe that approval by the design review board should be required in order to get any premium.

Planning commissioner Eleanore Adenekan.

Dorothy Nordness said she agreed with a lot of what other speakers had said, and the consultants’ report has done a nice job of reflecting what’s been said at public meetings. She called it a mistake that a tall building could be constructed right next to Mark’s Carts on West Washington. The building [City Apartments, at First & Washington] shades the Mark’s Carts site, making it colder and less comfortable, she said. The building is also creating a wind tunnel there. Mark’s Carts is a great community gathering place, she said, “and having a building looming next to it is a real mistake.”

In general, Nordness wanted to see even lower height limits and a different kind of zoning that’s more transitional. People need to get the light they need in their houses. Nordness also felt that design guidelines need to be mandatory. “Developers will take advantage of whatever the possibility is for making more money,” she said. The D1 and D2 zoning regulations should be taken back to the drawing board, she said, “to make something more welcoming to people and avoid the mistakes that have been made.”

Julie Ritter also agreed with previous speakers, saying she typically didn’t come to these kinds of meetings because she gets so frustrated. She passed out copies of an article by Brent Toderian of the Council on Canadian Urbanism, which she said addresses the concepts of neighborliness, people-friendly architecture, and ways to encourage people to come downtown to high-density areas that are well-designed, not ugly. She questioned the premise that all high-rises need to be concentrated downtown. Why can’t there be high-rises on West Stadium Boulevard or South State? She and others have worked really hard to make the Old Fourth Ward an attractive residential district, Ritter said, and the 413 E. Huron project was a real setback – “it’s kind of heart-breaking” that the city council allowed it to go through, she said.

Doug Kelbaugh, a professor at the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture & Urban Planning, said he was glad the city council started this process and that Perdu had been hired. He said Detter was right in describing some of the issues as corrections to oversights in the original A2D2 process. There are some other “glaring vulnerabilities” that aren’t addressed in this current review, he noted. On South Thayer, for example, a 180-foot building could be constructed under existing zoning, which would loom over Hill Auditorium. Or someone could tear down the former Borders store on East Liberty and put up a 180-foot building there, Kelbaugh noted, which he didn’t think was appropriate.

The idea of extending D2 zoning along Ann Street is good, Kelbaugh said, but why not extend it further west? It seems like there should be further study that’s broader than the existing recommendations. Going from 180 feet in D1 to 60 feet in D2 is a very abrupt transition, for example – and he wasn’t sure how that decision had been made. There should be an intermediate zoning between D1 and D2, he said. This review has been a good effort, Kelbaugh concluded, “but a piecemeal one.”

Commission Discussion

Following public commentary at the Oct. 8 working session, planning commissioners discussed the recommendations for over two hours. Topics ranged from general issues like the use of diagonals and the role of a design review board, to some of the recommendations for specific sites. This article summarizes the discussion thematically. [.pdf of initial draft report discussed at the Oct. 8 working session] [.pdf of Appendix A – original city council resolution] [.pdf of Appendix B – summary of downtown projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C – 111-page report on public input]

Commission Discussion: Diagonals, Height

By way of background, the term “diagonal” refers to the horizontal dimension of a building or tower, measured corner-to-corner of a floor. A maximum diagonal would be the longest allowable corner-to-corner measurement.

Illustration of a diagonal measurement, taken at the top of a “tower” building. This example was part of the original A2D2 proposed zoning ordinance, but all references to diagonals were ultimately amended out of the final ordinance.

After public commentary, Erin Perdu re-stated that some of the illustrations in the draft report were incorrect, based on a misunderstanding of how the diagonals would work. Those illustrations would be revised, she said. The intent of the diagonal measurement is to shrink the footprint of a tower building. City planning manager Wendy Rampson elaborated, saying that a diagonal would allow for slender towers: When the diagonal dimension is smaller, it results in more slender towers.

Perdu said that the report would be updated with new illustrations as well as a revised numeric recommendation for diagonals. [The revised report, which the planning commission will consider on Oct. 15, now includes a recommendation for the East Huron 1 character district – between Division and State – of a 120-foot height maximum and a diagonal maximum of 130 feet.] Diagonals are only recommended for the East Huron 1 character district and the site on South Main between William and Packard.

Rampson explained that older tower buildings constructed in the 1960s tended to be taller and more slender, because the economics of development were different at the time. One of the proposals for the original A2D2 – a proposal that didn’t get approved – was that larger sites would require subdividing the lots in order to build multiple towers with diagonal requirements, Rampson said. As examples of larger lots, Rampson cited the city-owned Kline lot (on the east side of Ashley, north of William) and the Brown block (a surface parking lot leased to the city by First Martin Corp., bounded by Huron, Ashley, Washington, and First streets).

Rampson noted that Perdu was being as specific as possible in her recommendations, but the planning commission could decide whether to be more or less specific in the recommendations it ultimately forwards to the city council.

Bonnie Bona described herself as a strong supporter of diagonals, but she noted that diagonals conflict with having a height limit. That was the tradeoff in the original A2D2 debate, she said – whether to have diagonals with no height limit in order to get tall slender towers, or to have a height limit and “throw the diagonals out.” Ultimately, the compromise was to have a height limit and no diagonals. She advocated for having a specific recommendation about that.

Kirk Westphal also noted that the original A2D2 proposal – but not the one that was ultimately approved – had called for diagonals. The idea was that taller, more slender buildings would disperse the shading over a wider but less centralized area. He recalled that the rationale for eliminating the diagonals was that if diagonals were required, it would be difficult to construct buildings with large floor-plates for offices.

That was one piece of the discussion, Rampson told Westphal, but the main issue was the desire for a maximum height limit. It was thought that the two ideas – maximum height and diagonals – did not mesh well for maximizing the floor area on a site.

Ken Clein thought the use of diagonals could be a viable approach to preventing buildings from getting too massive, like 413 E. Huron. He thought the issue deserved more study.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Westphal wondered whether there’s interest in looking at the height cap again, in light of a recommendation about diagonals. Rampson replied that it’s a question for the planning commission to decide.

Clein said he’d be curious to look at available downtown property that might be developed, and to see how big a building could get with 700% FAR and no height limit. You might not need a height limit, he said. The concern about putting on a height limit was that you’d get shorter, “stouter” buildings, he noted. Clein acknowledged that it’s guesswork, because you never know what sites might be redeveloped.

He noted that for the 413 E. Huron project, the developer combined parcels that resulted in a larger site than people had anticipated when those parcels were zoned. The city could see more of that happening as the economy turns around, he said, and that could change the scale of buildings dramatically.

Clein pointed out that diagonals are irrelevant in D2 zoning districts, because of the height restrictions. So if commissioners want to recommend rezoning an area to D2, diagonal requirements aren’t needed.

Paras Parekh had concerns about only looking at diagonals for certain parts of the downtown, calling it “spot diagonaling.” He’s not opposed to diagonals, but would prefer a more uniform approach – one way or another.

Commission Discussion: Transitions

Bonnie Bona said she’d like to see some recommendations for step-backs in buildings – for example, there should be step-backs required on D2 sites that are next to “non-D” sites. Also, D1 sites that are next to D2 sites should have some kind of step-backs. The idea is to help create more of a transition between different zoning designations. ["Step-backs" refer to a building's upper floors that are "stepped back" from the lower-level facade, so that the upper levels are narrower than the building's base. "Setbacks" refer to the distance that a building is located from the lot line.]

Paras Parekh also supported the idea of step-backs between different types of zoning.

Diane Giannola asked whether step-backs could be on any side of a building. Erin Perdu replied that step-backs could be on any side, or there could be ordinance requirements specifying that step-backs are located on a particular side – such as the front or back of a lot.

Jeremy Peters noted that transitions are a huge concern, especially between downtown zoning and residential neighborhoods. He wanted to find a “middle ground” for smoother transitions.

Ken Clein agreed with the point that Doug Kelbaugh had made during public commentary, that the city should explore some kind of transitional zoning between D1 and D2. Clein said he imagined the current zoning could result in a kind of “Emerald City,” with tall buildings emerging abruptly at the boundaries of downtown. But it’s messier than that, he said, and there’s a need for a smoother transition. Handling it through character district requirements might be the best approach, he said.

Clein would prefer to zone all three sites – those mentioned in the council resolution – as D2. He appreciated that Perdu had included illustrations showing what could be built under the existing zoning. “You weren’t trying to sugarcoat it, and that’s good,” he said.

Jeremy Peters supported D2 zoning for the Main and William site and East Huron 1 character district, abutting Ann Street – or perhaps looking at some kind of intermediate hybrid, like a “D 1.5″ zoning.

Noting that she was on the original A2D2 advisory committee, Bona said the committee had recommended putting D2 zoning around the entire perimeter of the downtown core. “How it got pulled out, I have no idea,” she said, adding that she’s still in favor of that approach.

Commission Discussion: Design Guidelines & Premiums

Kirk Westphal noted that some of the characteristics and needs for downtown sites are so specific that it’s difficult to codify. He wondered if the idea would be to put some of these issues into the hands of the design review board.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Erin Perdu replied that the design guidelines could be “beefed up” to address certain issues. She recommended looking at other communities to see how some of these issues – like transitions between downtown districts and neighborhoods – are handled.

In response to a query from Diane Giannola, Perdu clarified that her recommendation is to make it mandatory to follow the city’s design guidelines for any project that’s requesting premiums. Giannola wondered if it just required approval from the design review board, or whether a project would actually need to follow the specific design guidelines. What if a developer wanted to do something creative? Giannola wanted to ensure that the process wasn’t too limiting.

Perdu said she had discussed this issue with Wendy Rampson, and that the design review process would likely need to be changed. The intent is for the design review board to approve the project, but that the board would have some flexibility.

Sabra Briere brought up the example of The Varsity development on East Washington, which also has an entrance off of East Huron. The zoning required a smaller courtyard than the developer had negotiated with the neighboring property owner on the East Washington side. So to get a larger courtyard, the developer had to pursue a “planned project” development. Would it be possible for the developer to propose certain kinds of features – like larger courtyards or pedestrian amenities – and not be required to do a “planned project”? Probably not, Rampson replied: “If it’s in the zoning, the only body that can adjust it is the city council or the zoning board of appeals.”

However, if certain requirements were removed from the zoning ordinance and put into the design guidelines instead, Rampson added, that would provide more flexibility.

Ken Clein thought it was a good idea to make approval by the design review board mandatory, in order to secure premiums. It seems like premiums are desirable to developers, he said, and he didn’t think that requiring approval by the design review board would dramatically alter that, though there might be some pushback.

Briere noted that there are a range of premiums that developers could pursue now, but they’re only going after one – residential. By building residential units, developers are able to increase the 400% FAR to 700%. So the other premiums – like affordable housing, more open space, and “green” buildings – haven’t been pursued. She’d like to reduce the FAR that’s given for a general residential premium, so that a developer will have to do more than simply build residential units in order to get 700% FAR.

Regarding the affordable housing premium, Westphal noted that he and others have heard from affordable housing advocates who say they miss the planned unit developments (PUDs) that were more common prior to the A2D2 zoning. PUDs can require affordable housing units as part of the development, or a contribution to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. He’s also heard concerns about the need for more workforce housing. But paying into the affordable housing trust fund impacts a project’s finances, he noted, which results in housing units that are more expensive. He wondered if there was a way to be more sensitive to that issue.

Ken Clein supported efforts to encourage housing at different price points.

Paras Parekh was interested in making premiums for mixed use or commercial developments, rather than residential, since it seems like most developers are pursuing residential developments anyway. Rampson explained that when A2D2 zoning was being debated, there was an interest in promoting residential developments.

Westphal wondered why developers weren’t pursing other premiums, besides residential. Rampson said the recent recession was a factor. There hasn’t been a market for anything beyond a very specialized type of residential, she said. [That specialized type of residential is typically targeted for student housing.] As the economy improves, she expects to see a market for other types of uses.

One example is a hotel, Rampson said. Under previous zoning, you could not build a hotel and be eligible for premiums. But under A2D2, you could get premiums for LEED construction, pedestrian amenities or a plaza in order to build beyond the by-right FAR.

Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and city council.

Jeremy Peters wondered if there could be premiums related to shading – suggesting that might be something to look at. He also liked the strong emphasis on approval from the design review board. Noting that it “might be opening a can of worms,” Peters suggested looking at the makeup of the board, making sure that all voices in the city are represented.

Parekh noted that the design review board would become more important, with mandatory approval for premiums. The city could end up with designs that are boring and uniform. [From the audience, Marc Gerstein called out: "We already are!"] Clein observed that it’s not possible to make everyone happy regarding design. Giannola characterized it as “an art.”

Briere pointed out that the initial design guidelines were “vastly improved” after a group of citizens worked together to develop a stronger, more clear set of recommendations that eventually were approved by the council. In other communities, if there are strong voices on the design review board, then developers start proposing projects to please those voices, she said – and everything ends up looking alike. Ann Arbor’s design guidelines provide the tools to be “as non-arbitrary, as non-design police as possible,” she said.

If the board’s approval becomes mandatory, Briere agreed that the membership of that board will become even more important. But the composition of the board wasn’t what discouraged the city council from making approval mandatory when A2D2 was enacted, she said. Rather, it was the fear that making the design review mandatory would stifle opportunity, Briere reported.

Addressing Giannola’s concern about preventing creativity, Briere said that in her memory, that hasn’t been a problem because no creative proposals have come forward.

Peters said he was simply suggesting that in the report that the planning commission delivers to the council, it should include a recommendation to look at the makeup of the design review board, including possibly having a resident from each ward.

Rampson said that one option is to include membership on the board on a project-by-project basis, to include residents who live near a particular proposed development.

Clein likened the design review board to the historic district commission, where members have knowledge about the standards that they’re applying. He agreed that the board makeup was important, and it would help control the quality of projects.

Rampson said that when the city developed the design review process as part of A2D2, the design review process in Grand Rapids was examined as a possible model. Grand Rapids zoning includes elements like numerical standards for window transparency, step-backs and other features built into the ordinance. Ann Arbor officials decided to aim for greater flexibility, Rampson said.

Westphal described a balance between all the requirements, noting that the longer it takes a developer to move through the process, the more expensive the development becomes. He hoped it wouldn’t add too much time by making the design review mandatory. Briere thought it would require a minimum of one extra trip to the design review board, compared to the current process.

There was some discussion about whether the design review board could have discretion over building height, for developments that were seeking premiums. Peters weighed in on providing a maximum height cap, “just so that it’s not completely free form.”

Commission Discussion: Ann Street

Sabra Briere wanted to expand the recommendation for the Ann Street site, which focused on the surface parking lot next to city hall. The consultant’s recommendation called for rezoning that site from D1 to D2. Briere thought the recommendation should extend D2 zoning to the parcel at the northwest corner of Huron and Division, where Ahmo’s Gyros & Deli is now located.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Paras Parekh.

Briere also suggested rezoning the entire city hall site from D1 to D2. [Perdu's original recommendation had called for rezoning half of the city hall site – the half that faced Ann Street – as D2. She also suggested rezoning the site where the fire station is located to D2. The station is located south of Ann Street on North Fifth Avenue, across from the Justice Center.]

Bonnie Bona wanted the entire block where city hall and the Justice Center is located – bounded by East Huron, North Fifth Avenue, Ann Street and Division – to be rezoned D2, with the exception of lots along Division that are zoned residential. She noted that city hall is 300% FAR, and already meets D2 zoning standards.

Ken Clein said that if it weren’t already built up, he’d suggest rezoning everything north of Huron as D2.

Kirk Westphal expressed concern that commissioners were going beyond the charge given by city council. He wanted to be cautious about exceeding their purview. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that city staff hadn’t spoken to all the property owners in that area about the possibility of rezoning.

Clein suggested recommending rezoning the parcel on Ann Street to D2 – the parcel that the council had highlighted in its resolution – and then recommend that the city look at the entire block for possible rezoning as well. Westphal noted that it would require another process to rezone the entire block.

Commission Discussion: East Huron 1 District

For the north side of East Huron between Division and State, the consultant’s recommendation was to reduce the maximum height from 150 feet to 120 feet, and to add a diagonal requirement. Only one lot along that stretch is undeveloped – the lot between Sloan Plaza and Campus Inn.

This change would make the 413 E. Huron project a non-conforming development. Kirk Westphal noted that when a building is non-conforming, the owner would need to get approval from the zoning board of appeals, if any future alterations are desired.

Sabra Briere explained that the original rational for putting a 150-foot height in this area was that Campus Inn was already about 150 feet high. “Whether that was a good rationale or not, that was the rationale,” she said. Briere reported that she’d talked with Dennis Dahlmann about a year ago, and he was in favor of rezoning the entire block as D2. [Dahlmann's family owns Campus in and the undeveloped lot next to it.]

Bonnie Bona said she’d like to see the entire area zoned D2 along that stretch of East Huron, as was originally proposed in the A2D2 discussions.

Even though that block is mostly developed, Diane Giannola said, the city should be looking far into the future. If everything burned down, would they really only want it to be rebuilt based on D2 requirements, with no building taller than 60 feet?

Bona said there’s no area of greater concern for her regarding height than the block of East Huron between Division and State. That’s because it abuts a residential neighborhood to the north, over which tall buildings would cast shadows. She said she could compromise on other areas regarding D2 zoning, but not on this section of East Huron – it should be D2.

Commission Discussion: Main & William

Sabra Briere described some of the challenges to this site, which runs along Main Street between William and Packard. Currently, about half of the site is a parking lot, with an existing commercial building on the remainder of the site. It’s located across Main Street from Ashley Mews, and the public housing complex Baker Commons is across Packard Street to the south. The main concern is to the east, where the site is across an alley from a residential neighborhood. The lot is currently zoned D1.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Jeremy Peters said he’d be comfortable rezoning this parcel to D2, especially considering the potential shading of residential properties to the east, if the site had a D1 development.

In response to a query from Ken Clein, planning manager Wendy Rampson said that requirements for D2 in the Main Street character district would need to be determined, because there is currently no D2 zoning in that district.

Clein said there’s a disincentive for developers to build multiple towers – because it gets very expensive to put in multiple elevators and other mechanicals, compared to a single tower. He’d like to zone the parking lot portion of the site, which fronts William, as D1 with perhaps some diagonal restrictions. The southern portion of the site – with the existing building that fronts Packard – could be D2.

Kirk Westphal noted that the main concern, similar to the East Huron area, is potential shading by development of residential property.

Bonnie Bona supported D2 on the site. Paras Parekh agreed, saying that D2 zoning would make it seem like a continuous flow from the north side of William, where Palio is located. Westphal clarified with Rampson that the surface parking lot next to Palio – at the northeast corner of Main and William – is zoned D1, so it could be developed with a much taller building than those that currently exist on that side of Main Street. That would change the character of the area, Westphal noted. It’s also possible that the gas station at the southwest corner of Main and William could be developed as D1. Westphal cautioned against trying to match the character of existing development, because that might change.

Next Steps

After nearly three hours, commissioners had not yet finished their discussion of all the recommendations. The group talked about whether they needed to schedule another working session, or if they should continue the discussion at their regular meeting on Oct. 15.

Kirk Westphal, who chairs the commission, expressed concern about deliberating during working sessions. Diane Giannola said it was difficult to know when you crossed the line in terms of stating your position. Sabra Briere, who also represents Ward 1 on the city council, indicated that Robert’s Rules of Order wasn’t clear on this issue “because you can go over that line the minute you start lining up on different sides.” What commissioners had been talking about up to that point is somewhat closer to deliberation than some people are comfortable with, she said.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson told commissioners that there was no problem with the kind of discussion that they were having, as long as they didn’t take a vote. [The legal issue of deliberations relates to Michigan's Open Meetings Act, not Robert's Rules of Order. Under the OMA, public bodies are free to deliberate as long as the meetings are properly noticed, open to the public and include the opportunity for public commentary.]

In that case, Westphal said, he’d prefer a working session’s less formal setting to continue the discussion.

But Giannola and Bonnie Bona supported having a discussion at the regular meeting. Bona noted that the regular meeting will be videotaped via Community Television Network (CTN), which makes it more accessible. [Working sessions aren't videotaped by CTN.]

Rampson reminded commissioners that a public hearing on this downtown zoning report had already been set for the Oct. 15 meeting.

Commissioners reached consensus to put the report on their Oct. 15 agenda for further discussion. In terms of how to handle the formal resolution on this issue, Rampson suggested separating out the recommendations, so that commissioners could discuss and revise each one.

The following 11 recommendations are listed in the resolution that’s now on the planning commission’s Oct. 15 agenda:

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 to D2 (Downtown Interface).

3) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District 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 from E. Huron 2 Character Overlay District to East Huron 1 Character Overlay 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 from D1 (Downtown Core) to D2 (Downtown Interface).

7) Require approval of the Design Review Board for a project to be eligible for any premium.

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

9) Revise the affordable housing premium so that the provision of affordable housing is mandatory for receiving any premiums.

10) Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR “super premium.”

11) Include other types of premiums in addition to the ones currently available.

It’s possible that planning commissioners would wrap up their discussion on Oct. 15 and vote on the recommendations at that meeting. But during the Oct. 8 working session, several commissioners indicated that they felt they’d need more time, and were prepared to postpone a vote until a later date.

[.pdf of revised downtown zoning report, as posted on the Oct. 15 planning commission agenda]

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

Absent: Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Oct. 15, 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.

From left: Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson confers with planning consultant Erin Perdu prior to the Aug. 13, 2013 meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee. Perdu was on hand to update commissioners about the ongoing D1 zoning review. (Photos by the writer.)

Erin Perdu, the consultant hired by the city to lead this process, briefed the four commissioners who serve on the ordinance revisions committee, as the first phase of this effort draws to a close.

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.

Based on public meetings, interviews and survey responses, Perdu reported a general consensus that D1 zoning is not optimal. In particular, many people feel that the buildings allowed in D1 zoning districts are too tall and massive, and that other solutions should be explored for the sites mentioned in the council resolution. Possible solutions include rezoning those sites to D2, or making changes to the D1 zoning – such as allowing diagonals as a tool for controlling building shape, lowering the height or adjusting setbacks – so that it worked better with the adjacent neighborhoods. Some people suggested creating yet another type of zoning. “I think those are options that we’ll be exploring in the next phase of this,” Perdu said.

Another big issue that emerged was the design guidelines, Perdu reported, and a lot of people suggested that those guidelines need more teeth. Suggestions included making the guidelines a requirement in order to be eligible for premiums, which allow developers to construct larger buildings in exchange for providing certain features or public amenities.

There was also general agreement that the diversity of housing isn’t being achieved, Perdu said, but “how to fix that is up for debate.” Some ideas include making the premiums more specific, to encourage different types of residential units – that is, not granting a premium for simply any kind of residential development, as is currently the case. Other ideas for premiums include providing open space, or additional environmental and pedestrian amenities.

Perdu’s team will be developing visuals – including 3D models – showing how certain types of buildings might look if changes are made to D1 zoning on the sites mentioned in the council resolution. The consultants will also be doing research on possible options for premiums that would encourage specific kinds of residential development. In addition, they’ll be looking at how design guidelines can be strengthened and better integrated into the process.

Kirk Westphal, the planning commission’s chair who also serves on the ORC, requested that Perdu’s report reflect the history of how the D1 and D2 zoning were developed. During public commentary, several speakers objected to using Perdu’s time in this way. Former planning commissioner Eppie Potts said she felt like that history is being used against opponents of D1 zoning. “Hey, there was a lot of discontent and unhappiness, which nobody chooses to remember,” she said. “There were revolts at some of the meetings. It was not that pretty, as history.”

The next public forum will be held on Thursday, Sept. 19 at 7 p.m. at a venue to be determined. Perdu said she’ll also hold additional focus groups before then. The next ordinance revisions committee meeting will likely take place on Sept. 10.

D1 Review: Update

Erin Perdu began by saying she wanted to brief commissioners on the review so far, including a public forum held on Aug. 5, when she and her partner had reviewed the priority areas that have emerged so far, and solicited more feedback about those issues.

She distributed a packet of materials to ORC members that included summaries of input that she’s received from focus groups, public forums, a survey and individual interviews.

Perdu noted that she had already reviewed results from the focus groups at the ORC’s last meeting, on July 31, 2013. [See Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward."] There had been four focus group meetings attended by a total of 72 individuals. [.pdf of focus group input (executive summary)] [.pdf of focus group comments]

Interviews also had been held with developers, real estate professionals, citizens who couldn’t attend the focus groups, and representatives of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. A few more interviews will be scheduled, Perdu said. [.pdf of individual interviews (executive summary)] [.pdf of input from individual interviews]

An online survey using A2 Open City Hall yielded 36 responses. [.pdf of online survey (executive summary)] [.pdf of online survey results]

All of that input helped set the stage for the Aug. 5 public forum, Perdu said. [.pdf of Aug. 5, 2013 meeting (executive summary)] [.pdf of Aug. 5, 2013 meeting input] At that forum, the group had discussed the sites and issues highlighted in the city council resolution.

Chris Crockett, center, at an Aug. 5, 2013 public forum about the D1 zoning review. The forum included small group discussions to explore possible changes to the current zoning. Crockett is president of the Old Fourth Ward Association.

By way of background, on April 1, 2013 the city council 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. The city council set a deadline of Oct. 1 for the planning commission to deliver recommendations to the council.

Perdu reported that the Aug. 5 forum used those topics as a springboard to talk about other issues that have emerged from focus groups and the online survey. There was a lot of discussion about the use of premiums, and about the location of D1 and D2 zoning districts as they relate to surrounding neighborhoods.

There was quite a bit of agreement among people who attended the Aug. 5 forum, Perdu said, regarding whether the zoning should be changed for the three sites mentioned in the council resolution. “There was general consensus from all of the groups that the D1 zoning, as it stands right now, is not optimal, and that some other solution should be explored for those areas,” she reported. Possible solutions that were suggested included rezoning those sites to D2, or making changes to the D1 zoning so that it worked better with the adjacent neighborhoods. Some people suggested creating yet another type of zoning. “I think those are options that we’ll be exploring in the next phase of this,” she said.

Based on reading Perdu’s reports, Diane Giannola said it sounded like people thought D1 and D2 zoning allowed for a taller height than what the previous zoning allowed. Do people have the understanding that D1 and D2 is actually a lower height limit? she asked. Giannola wanted to make sure that people didn’t think D1 and D2 created a height problem.

In general, Perdu replied, people she’s talked with do understand that there had been no height limit before the D1 and D2 zoning. Her understanding is that some people want those sites to be downzoned even further, with an even lower height limit. She also noted that a lot of the high-rise buildings that people criticize were built prior to the new zoning.

Perdu sensed that people are open to different zoning categories, depending on how the buildings are designed. That might include incorporating diagonals or different setbacks, and it’s something she’d like to explore further. “Is it just a straight rezoning that needs to happen? Or do we need to tweak the ordinance so that buildings that are built in the D1 look different or interact differently with the neighborhoods,” she said.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola, who serves on the commission’s ordinance revisions committee.

Especially on the north side of East Huron, Perdu said, some people at the Aug. 5 meeting felt that the D1 zoning could be modified so that buildings would “respect the neighborhoods better.” A lot of people used Sloan Plaza and the Campus Inn as good development, even though those buildings are also tall.

Another big issue that emerged was the design guidelines, Perdu reported, and a lot of people suggested that those guidelines need more teeth. Suggestions included making the guidelines a requirement in order to be eligible for premiums. These are issues that Perdu plans to explore in more detail.

There was also general agreement that the diversity of housing isn’t being achieved, Perdu said, but “how to fix that is up for debate.” Some ideas include making the premiums more specific, to encourage different types of residential units – that is, not granting a premium for simply any kind of residential, as is currently the case. Other ideas for premiums include providing open space, or additional environmental and pedestrian amenities.

Perdu said that given the council resolution and input received so far, there are some clear issues emerging that she’ll be exploring in this review’s next phase.

D1 Review: Update – ORC Discussion

Responding to a question from Diane Giannola, Erin Perdu reported that the concept of diagonals has come up in discussion several times, and because of that, she’d like to look at options for diagonals. [For some early discussion on the issue of diagonals, see The Chronicle's March 2009 coverage: "Council Begins Downtown Zoning Review." At its April 6, 2009 meeting, the council voted to remove the diagonal requirements that had been recommended by the planning commission. See Chronicle coverage: "City Council Moves Toward Height Limits."]

Wendy Woods wanted more information about feedback related to affordable housing. Perdu described affordable housing as an issue that has surfaced in several ways. At the coffee hours she’s been holding, some people who live outside of the downtown area have told her that they’d like to live downtown, but can’t afford it. They wanted to explore changes that would encourage more variety of downtown housing. This doesn’t just include the definition of affordability that’s used by the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, she noted. Rather, it’s tied to what’s sometimes called workforce housing – units that are affordable for young professionals or middle-income families. That’s difficult to incorporate into a premium, she noted, but it’s worth exploring. The price of land is a major factor in the cost of downtown housing, she observed.

Bonnie Bona, who participated in the meeting via conference call, wanted to make sure Perdu had a good handle on the configuration of units in buildings that have been approved under the new D1/D2 zoning. Bona’s impression is that the buildings don’t have predominantly six-bedroom units. The city has always made the assumption that student housing gets built with six-bedroom units, she said. Some people assume that the solution to avoid student housing is to require smaller units, she added, but she’s not sure that’s the case. She hoped to come up with other ideas for ensuring diverse housing.

Kirk Westphal wondered if there needs to be more discussion about what constitutes an impact on the neighborhoods, related to massing, height and shading. Perdu replied that the impact of a building on sunlight and shading of adjacent properties was a big reason that people thought buildings were too tall. Pure aesthetics was another impact mentioned frequently, as was parking, she said. But the biggest concern seemed to be blocking of sunlight, she added.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Westphal also asked whether the city has received a legal opinion from the city attorney’s office about whether the state enables the historic district commission to have authority outside of historic districts. Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the city attorney hasn’t been asked to provide a legal opinion yet. Perdu indicated there also might be ways for the historic district commission to participate in an advisory capacity.

Woods asked about some input that had been received from residents, who cited Campus Inn and Sloan Plaza as two buildings that have been well-received. She wondered if those buildings had actually been well-received when they were originally proposed.

Rampson reported that the very first meeting she attended as a member of city staff was a zoning board of appeals meeting when a variance request from Sloan Plaza was on the agenda. “I think it’s safe to say it was not well-received,” she said. [The office and residential condominium building, located at 505 E. Huron, was constructed in 1986.]

Westphal brought up the issue of flooding. He said that at a forum he attended, several residents had raised concerns about flooding in their neighborhood. [Westphal was referring to a July 29 public forum, held at the Kerrytown Concert House. Several residents from the Lansdowne neighborhood on Ann Arbor’s south side had focused their comments on criticizing the city’s footing drain disconnect program.] He noted that this issue wasn’t part of the council’s directive, and he wondered how it was being handled.

Perdu replied that it was outside the scope of her contract, but she hoped it would be addressed by the appropriate city staff. The concern, she said, is that the city’s infrastructure isn’t adequate to support increased downtown development, and it causes impacts in other parts of the city. She said her final report will include a list of concerns that have arisen but that are outside of her contract’s scope, so those issues will be documented.

In terms of Perdu’s contract, Rampson noted that they’ve reached the end of the first phase. Planning commissioners should make sure that issues identified by Perdu are those that are priorities, Rampson said. If so, those are the issues that Perdu will focus on when developing alternatives and options for possible zoning changes.

Westphal wanted Perdu’s report to include some of the history behind how the current D1 and D2 zoning had been determined, including the locations for D1 districts, the height cap, and why diagonals as a tool had been removed – and what the impacts have been for those decisions. He was also interested in knowing how the use of premiums impacted the cost of construction, which in turn would affect affordability.

Giannola wanted to include a chart showing the previous zoning, compared to current D1 and D2 zoning.

Rampson noted that there’s a tight budget and timeframe on this work, so the priority for Perdu’s work will be a focus on the three sites mentioned in the council resolution. If there’s time, Perdu can expand that work to other areas.

Perdu said she felt the alternatives provided for the three main sites could be applied to other locations as well. “At least that’s my hope,” she said.

D1 Review: Update – Additional Public Input, Next Steps

Perdu reported that there will be a break in public engagement until after Labor Day, so that she and her team can spend time assessing the input so far. The next step will be bringing back some recommendations to the planning commission and public, and getting feedback on those recommendations.

Planning commissioners Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

She’ll also be looking at how to get input from people who haven’t participated so far, particularly people who work downtown. Perdu said she’ll be posting more targeted questions online, to get feedback from social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, and possibly from a Survey Monkey survey. There will also be additional coffee hours, focus groups and individual interviews scheduled.

A working session is scheduled with the city’s historic district commission to get their input, Perdu said. HDC members as well as residents have indicated that the HDC should have additional input about developments that are proposed adjacent to an historic district, she said. A meeting with the housing commission will also likely be scheduled.

Her team will be developing more visuals to present – including 3D models – showing how certain types of buildings might look if changes are made to D1 zoning on the sites mentioned in the council resolution. Changes might include the use of diagonals, different types of setbacks, or rezoning to D2. The consultants will also be doing research on possible options for premiums that would encourage specific kinds of residential development. In addition, they’ll be looking at how design guidelines can be strengthened and better integrated into the process.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said the planning staff will be getting a better sense of the current residential mix for existing and planned buildings downtown, and to find out what people are looking for. Kirk Westphal suggested asking the Ann Arbor DDA for the report it commissioned from Todd Poole, a land economist who did market research as part of the Connecting William Street project.

Wendy Woods hoped that Perdu would reach out to University of Michigan students who’ll be returning to town in the fall, perhaps by going through the UM student government. Many students end up staying after they graduate, Woods noted. [Woods is associate director of the Michigan Community Scholars Program.] Rampson suggested working through the Beyond the Diag neighborhood outreach program. It’s a student-initiated effort to build community among students and non-students, and to raise safety awareness on campus and near-campus neighborhoods.

Regarding future focus groups, Diane Giannola wanted to address an incident she’d heard about that caused concern. She said she’d heard a rumor about a woman who attended one of the earlier focus groups and who had felt bullied. Giannola wanted to know how that situation was resolved, and how it might be prevented in the future. “I’m concerned that people aren’t speaking up because they feel like they don’t have the popular viewpoint,” Giannola said. [The incident occurred at a July 30, 2013 public forum attended by The Chronicle.]

Perdu reported that she had spoken to the woman after the forum, and the woman had felt “it was not a welcoming place for her to share her ideas.” That meeting had been very well attended, Perdu said, with about 45 people. It was a larger group than Perdu had anticipated, so in the future she’ll make sure the meetings are better staffed to help “manage the dialogue.” There are also other ways for people to contribute their input, she said, if they don’t feel comfortable speaking out at a meeting.

Giannola wondered if the bully could be asked to leave, if someone is being booed or laughed at. Perdu indicated that nothing escalated to that point.

City councilmember Sabra Briere also serves on the planning commission, but is not a member of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee.

Sabra Briere – a city councilmember who serves on the planning commission, who had also attended the July 30 forum – interjected, saying that the woman had been upset, but not about how she had been treated. She was upset about how another speaker had been treated, Briere said. The result was that this woman chose not to give her view, but instead pointed out how there were no ground rules for group behavior. The woman had encouraged that ground rules should be established in the future, Briere said.

The person who was interrupted frequently while he was speaking, Briere said, “was voicing his viewpoint, but at the same time he was assuming that others shared it. There were people in the room who felt he had no knowledge to speak for them.”

[The person that Briere described was Will Leaf, a University of Michigan student who's co-chair of the Mixed Use Party. The woman had responded to how Leaf's comments were received by others at the meeting, which The Chronicle attended. She asked the group: "Is there appetite for doing a couple of minutes of group norms, since I feel a little uncomfortable – especially when the person sitting next to me seemed to get shot down, and I don't feel like I'm in a safe space." She then attempted to continue but was interrupted four times by other participants, before continuing. "So for example, the question is: Is it OK to interrupt others? If we decide as a group norm that that's OK, then that's OK. I, for example, felt uncomfortable when I heard that he was interrupted and I, again, don't feel like I'm in a safe space."]

People were interrupting the speaker, Briere said. “That was rude, but it wasn’t hostile.”

Giannola responded, saying “I just hope we fix it.” Perdu said she took the experience to heart, and it was a lesson in the importance of establishing ground rules at the beginning of a session. She had done that at the Aug. 5 meeting, she reported.

The next public forum will be held on Thursday, Sept. 19 at 7 p.m. at a venue to be determined. Perdu said she’ll also hold additional focus groups before then. The next ordinance revisions committee meeting will likely be on Sept. 10.

Public Commentary

Thirteen people spoke during public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a write-in candidate for the Ward 5 city council race. He suggested that planning ordinances should have a more integrated approach to encourage supportive services in housing. Zoning should aim to foster a more diverse society to mitigate decades of segregation. The planning commission – along with the housing & human services advisory board and the human rights commission – should play a key role and hold joint meetings on this topic, he said.

Marc Gerstein asked about the online survey. He said he was one of the people who had trouble with it, and although he had completed it, he lost everything because he hadn’t realized he needed to register. So his survey was never recorded. It was very frustrating, he said, and he wondered how the next survey would be handled.

From left: Cy Hufano and Chuck Gelman, both residents of Sloan Plaza on East Huron Street, attended the Aug. 13 ordinance revisions committee meeting at city hall.

Erin Perdu replied that the city would likely use Survey Monkey or some other mechanism, not A2 Open City Hall. City planning manager Wendy Rampson added that A2 Open City Hall might be used for open-ended responses, but that Survey Monkey would likely be used for more targeted questions. Gerstein said the A2 Open City Hall was difficult to use, especially for writing long answers. Rampson told him she’d pass along his concerns to the company that runs A2 Open City Hall. [That firm is Peak Democracy.]

Eleanor Linn said she was surprised to hear that there was some consensus about the priorities – because she had expected the responses would be more polarized. The three priorities she heard were that people: (1) aren’t pleased with the D1 zoning; (2) think the design guidelines need more teeth; and (3) don’t think a diversity of housing has been achieved. Those were all very important, she noted. But the questions from planning commissioners during their ORC meeting “didn’t seem to acknowledge how much the feedback was going in that direction,” she said. Linn wanted to reinforce that those are the main concerns.

Peter Nagourney said Erin Perdu had done a splendid job in compiling her reports and capturing the comments, as well as writing helpful executive summaries. But even if you have time to read through all of that, he said, it doesn’t really replace the understanding that you get from attending the public forums. He encouraged members of the ORC to attend as many forums as possible, so that they can hear the discussions directly. There’s a qualitative difference between hearing for yourself and reading a report. Because this is an important decision, Nagourney hoped commissioners would take advantage of the opportunity to listen to people directly as much as possible.

In addition to Sabra Briere, two other councilmembers – Jane Lumm and Sumi Kailasapathy – attended the ORC meeting. Lumm told commissioners she was just there to listen. Kailasapathy began to speak, but was cut off by Kirk Westphal, the planning commission chair. He told her that at the commission’s last meeting, they were reminded that the commission’s bylaws don’t allow councilmembers to speak during public commentary.

[The situation occurred at the commission's July 16, 2013 meeting. Councilmember Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) had planned to speak during public commentary about a proposed Glendale Condos project, which is located in his neighborhood. He had been stopped by commissioner Diane Giannola, who cited the commission’s bylaws. The bylaws state: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.” Warpehoski, who had been unaware of that rule, stepped away from the podium but stayed for the remainder of the public hearing and the commission’s deliberations on this item.]

At the Aug. 13 ORC session, some members of the audience questioned whether that bylaw applied only to regular business meetings. Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the general sentiment is that communications from councilmembers can occur in other ways. She said she didn’t have the bylaws in front of her.

Briere weighed in, saying that councilmembers, including herself, “are wise to be observers, since we’re not on the committee.” However, the bylaws don’t address the issue of whether councilmembers can speak during public commentary at meetings like this, she noted.

Public commentary continued.

From left: Ann Arbor city councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), and resident Eleanor Pollack at the Aug. 13 ORC meeting.

Eleanor Pollack said she appreciated what Perdu had done, and Perdu’s report had reflected what Pollack had been hearing at these public forums. Pollack recognized that consultants have to manage their time, because there’s always more than you can do. If planning commissioners want to look at the history of how D1 and D2 zoning was developed, she said, then the commissioners could perhaps use their own time to do that. “We’re in the here and now,” Pollack said. “We’re looking at what’s happening to existing residential neighborhoods as a result of D1 and D2 being in place. It doesn’t matter what the history was before. What matters is the condition that we’re working with today.”

Pollack believed that more height is needed downtown, but she didn’t want to see it on the south side of William – she wanted those neighborhoods to be protected. She said she was still “flabbergasted” at the approval of 413 E. Huron. “That should never have happened.” The city hasn’t respected the existing neighborhoods, Pollack added – the city has “failed its people.” The impact of zoning is important, not its history, she concluded, and it’s certainly not worth Perdu’s time.

During Pollack’s commentary, Briere had pulled up the commission’s bylaws on her iPad and shown it to Rampson. When Pollack concluded her remarks, Rampson read aloud the relevant section, and said the bylaws would allow councilmembers to speak during meetings like this.

Kailasapathy responded by saying that Pollack had expressed her own sentiments beautifully. Kailasapathy had attended a couple of forums, and said it’s clear that people are totally dissatisfied with D1 and D2 zoning. The history of how this zoning was developed isn’t relevant. “It’s almost like we have an agenda – we don’t like what the people are saying, so we need to teach them, we need to give them a history lesson.” That’s the kind of attitude she’s seeing, Kailasapathy said. Commissioners need to open up and listen to people talk about why the zoning isn’t working.

Rita Gelman told commissioners that she’d had trouble hearing them during their discussion, since there were no microphones in the room. She noted that she has interest in this topic, because she lives next door to 413 E. Huron [at Sloan Plaza].

Cy Hufano said he’s lived in Ann Arbor about 67 years. There are two green signs at the corner of Huron and Division that say “historic district,” he reported. It’s very interesting to see that. Conceptually, he noted that “you can’t get there from here, but you can get here from there.” He wondered what the vision is for the city. First you get people to align on a vision for the future of the city, then you develop specifications for that vision. By getting people aligned on that future vision, you can get beyond issues of the current conditions, which are typically structural and resource-oriented, he said.

There’s a Biblical saying that “where there is no vision, the people perish.” Hufano said he doesn’t really want to understand the history. He wants to know how people will move beyond all of this contentiousness and disagreement. “I want to understand what’s the vision.” He’d heard that years ago, there was a vision that the Huron Street corridor would be where all high-rise development would be located. If that’s true, where are the zoning ordinances to guide that vision? If you have vision, it will give direction to power, he said. “Where everybody gets bolloxed around is on the power issue,” he concluded.

Ellen Ramsburgh, a member of the city’s historic district commission, said she wanted to echo Nagourney’s comments. The public forums have been very helpful and well-guided by Perdu, and Ramsburgh would appreciate members of the planning commission attending as many of those meetings as they can.

Chuck Gelman began by referring to the forum where the bullying incident was said to have occurred. The problem was that no ground rules had been established, he said. Someone [Will Leaf] had made a “ministerial speech, instead of stating his comments.” Before they speak, people should indicate who they are and where they live and who they’re associated with, so that everyone knows who they are and whether they represent a particular interest, he said. The moderators had no idea what was going on, Gelman said.

Referencing the coffee hours that Perdu is holding on Thursday mornings at Zingerman’s Deli, Gelman reported that Zingerman’s staff didn’t know where those sessions were being held. “So a group of us sat for a half hour waiting for something to happen, and it never did happen.” [The coffee hours are held in the second floor of the new addition to the deli.] He also alleged that the ORC meeting that night was a violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act, though he didn’t indicate why he believed that to be the case. He said he’d sent a copy of the OMA to city councilmembers, and he thought they should read it and be familiar with it. [Three of the 11 current councilmembers attended the ORC meeting – Sabra Briere, Jane Lumm and Sumi Kailasapathy – along with Jack Eaton, who won the Democratic primary election on Aug. 6. That number (3) does not constitute the six needed for a quorum.]

Former planning commissioner Eppie Potts and David Blanchard, a local attorney who is chair of the city’s housing and human services advisory board.

Eppie Potts said she felt she could speak out so that everyone could hear her. Commissioners had been speaking “as though they were about to faint and pass away,” she said. No one has been spoken to be heard. “It’s almost insulting to speak in a way that nobody can hear you.” Potts also urged commissioners not to review the D1 and D2 history. She believes that the history is “being used against us.” It’s used to show how great participation was in that whole A2D2 process, she said, which is meant to show that everyone should like the result. “Hey, there was a lot of discontent and unhappiness, which nobody chooses to remember. There were revolts at some of the meetings. It was not that pretty as history.” She said she tries really hard to forget about those bad times, and just move on.

Don Salberg joked that since many of his thoughts had already been expressed by others, he’d like to pass and accumulate his three minutes of commentary time for some future meeting. [Salberg was, in fact, joking because public commentary time can't be accumulated in this way.]

David Blanchard, chair of the city’s housing and human services advisory board, said he’d been asked by other board members to reach out regarding this issue. From the affordable housing perspective, the D1 and D2 zoning has resulted in a drastic change for affordable housing resources in the community. Regardless of how people felt about planned unit developments (PUDs), “they did provide for a dialogue on council priorities, such as affordable housing,” he said. PUDs had been effective in garnering cash-in-lieu payments that provided revenue to the city’s affordable housing trust fund, he added. [If a developer requests PUD zoning, then the development can demonstrate a public benefit either by including affordable housing units, or a making a contribution to the affordable housing trust fund.]

The D1 and D2 affordable housing premium “hasn’t worked out well,” Blanchard said, because no developer has taken advantage of that premium. In the meantime, there haven’t been any contributions to the affordable housing trust fund, and that impacts housing diversity. When commissioners think about housing diversity, Blanchard urged them to consider low-income housing as well as workforce housing. It’s not a pitch for mandating low-income housing in every development, he added, “but it is a pitch for the idea of thinking about development and development rules in a way that encourages that diversity of housing.” HHSAB would like to be at the table to be part of the input that goes back to city council, he concluded.

Ordinance revisions committee members present: Bonnie Bona (via conference call), Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: Planning manager Wendy Rampson, consultant Erin Perdu.

Next regular planning commission meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 20, 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.

Consultant Erin Perdu compiles feedback at a July 30, 2013 public forum on the A2D2 zoning review. Participants were asked to write their thoughts on sticky notes regarding what’s working (left side) or not working (right side) with downtown zoning. (Photos by the writer.)

In late 2009, after a multi-year process and much debate, the city council adopted the A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) zoning. The planning commission had for some time been intending to review the zoning, looking at whether the changes have resulted in the kind of downtown development that the city wants.

But 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 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.

To lead the A2D2 review, the city hired consultant Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates, who has been holding public forums and interviews with individual stakeholders over the past two weeks. She updated planning commissioners at a July 31 meeting of the ordinance revisions committee, and described her approach to the upcoming Aug. 5 forum.

The Aug. 5 forum starts at 7 p.m. in the lower level conference room of the Washtenaw County administration building at 200 N. Main – at the intersection of Main and Ann. The purpose of that meeting is to review the priority issues that have emerged from feedback so far. The goal is to get confirmation that those issues are, in fact, priorities for the community, she said, and then to have more discussion about those priorities.

The meeting will focus on three main priority issues: (1) height and bulk, with character districts as part of that discussion; (2) premiums, with a focus on housing; and (3) the location of D1 and D2 zoning districts, with a focus on the three sites mentioned in the April 1 city council resolution.

Perdu also addressed technical problems with the online survey on A2 Open City Hall, noting that the issues have been fixed and the deadline extended until 5 p.m. on Aug. 5.

Planning commissioners and staff had a wide-ranging discussion at their July 31 meeting about the feedback they’ve received so far, and the scope of their review. Their discussion touched on design guidelines, historic districts, parking, and housing diversity, among other issues. For example, some critics point to the large amount of student housing that’s being built downtown as a negative outcome of A2D2.

But Kirk Westphal, chair of the planning commission, wondered whether it’s the city’s role to change zoning in respond to these “micro-trends.” He noted that the market might be trending toward student housing now, but in five years that trend might switch to one- and two-bedroom apartments, or offices.

For some additional background on the original A2D2 deliberations, see Chronicle coverage from 2009: “Planning Commission Draws Line Differently“; “Zoning 101: Area, Height, Placement“; and “Downtown Planning Process Forges Ahead.” For more recent background on this zoning review, see: “Planning Group Strategizes on Downtown.“

Summary of A2D2 Feedback

Two forums for the general public have been held so far: on the morning of Monday, July 29 at Kerrytown Concert House and the evening of Tuesday, July 30 at city hall. During those sessions, participants were asked to write on sticky notes their thoughts about what works and what doesn’t work regarding downtown zoning. The consultant hired to manage this process, Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates in Ann Arbor, summarized those notes into topics that she posted on the wall. Participants then placed stickers on the topics that reflected their priorities – a “dot voting” exercise. [.pdf of focus group comments (what's not working)] [.pdf of focus group comments (what's working)] [.pdf of focus group comments (unclear if zoning is working or not)]

In addition to these forums, Perdu and her partner Megan Masson-Minock have interviewed other stakeholders as well as held small focus group meetings with the city’s downtown marketing task force, and environmental and energy commissions. Most of the interviews have been with people in real estate and development, Perdu said, “because they tend not to come to the other meetings.” Interviews were also conducted with Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and DDA board member Sandi Smith, who previously served on city council. [.pdf of interview notes: Smith and Pollay] [.pdf of interview notes: 413 E. Huron neighbor] [.pdf of interview notes: former DDA board member] [.pdf of interview notes: apartment building owner near 413 E. Huron]

In addition, the consultants are holding weekly coffee hours and are also gathering responses to the online survey on A2 Open City Hall. They are also trying to solicit additional input via social media – on Facebook and Twitter.

At the July 31 meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee, Perdu told commissioners that they had received copies of comments that had been received so far, although not all comments from the July 30 forum had been recorded yet. All of these documents would eventually be posed on the city’s A2D2 website, she said.

Summary of A2D2 Feedback: Too Broad?

Perdu said she’s heard feedback that the questions being asked at previous forums are too broad, and that the focus should be more on the specific sites mentioned in the city council resolution.

By way of background, on April 1, 2013 the city council 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.

The council set a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to the council.

An earlier resolution – approved by the council on March 18, 2013 – had given broader direction:

Resolved, That the City Council directs the Planning Commission to review recently approved and recommended site plans in the D1 zoning district to determine whether these zoning standards provide clear, understandable requirements regarding both form and use and at the same time conform to and carry out the goals of the City’s Master Plan, Downtown Plan and Character Overlay Districts; and

Resolved, That City Council provide the Planning Commission with a scope of work and a timeline by April 1, 2013.

At the July 31 ORC meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson also indicated that the staff had been getting feedback that the focus of the review so far had been too broad. However, Sabra Briere – who serves on city council and is the council’s representative on the planning commission – said both resolutions should hold equal weight, in terms of focus.

Diane Giannola advocated for maintaining a broader focus, too. “What if a controversial project comes in that wasn’t on one of these sites?” she said. “Would we have to do the whole process again?” But she wondered if it were possible to do a broad review, given the time constraints.

Erin Perdu at the July 31 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee.

Perdu felt it was possible to do a broader review, looking at the overall A2D2 zoning and what parts of the ordinance might need changing. Rampson noted that the three sites mentioned by the council resolution had been prioritized by the ORC when this review began. So the question is how deeply the review should delve into some of the other issues, she said. Would it be redirecting energy by the consultant or the community on issues that should be focused instead on the three sites?

Perdu noted that the feedback she’s receiving has been fairly broad – much broader than the three areas mentioned in the council resolution. Feedback included statements like “the zoning is not producing what we’d envisioned when we adopted it,” she said. Other feedback included a desire to look at premiums and whether the premiums are really generating the kind of projects that the city wants. The design guidelines and historic districts are other topics that have been raised at public forums, she said. “Integrating all of those into the review process certainly is beyond the scope of the second resolution,” Perdu noted.

A separate group is working on the design guidelines, Rampson said, and the historic district component is outside of the zoning issue. There could be some recognition of those topics, she added, but given the time constraints of the review, “it doesn’t seem like those will be at the top of the list.” [A task force was established through council action on March 4, 2013 to review the downtown design guidelines, but that group has not yet met.]

Giannola worried that if the A2D2 review looked at only a small part of A2D2, then any changes that are made might not be understood within the broader context of the ordinance. And that might lead to unintended consequences, she feared. Bonnie Bona suggested letting the review process play out a little bit longer before deciding whether to narrow the focus. “I guess I’m not quite ready to pull back yet,” she said.

Briere explained that the initial council resolution was intentionally broad, but councilmembers who drafted the second resolution wanted to make sure that the “known problem areas” were addressed. Those are geographical areas, not conceptual areas, she noted. The councilmembers wanted to call out the locations that didn’t have a buffer between residential areas and D1 zoning. “But that’s not the only problem, and it shouldn’t be treated as if it were the only concern,” she said.

Briere agreed with Giannola, saying she’d hate to revisit this zoning again in the near future. She hoped that the collection of input and data could continue with a broad approach, and that would guide the next step in the review.

Rampson noted that there would still be opportunity to collect more feedback, but the city was reaching its maximum allotment of time for this contract, so any additional meetings or forums must be strategic. Perdu reported that there are follow-up focus groups scheduled for later in August, along with plans to meet with the historic district commission and the housing commission.

Emerging Themes

Perdu described the response to public meetings as very good, with a total of 77 people attending four meetings – two forums for the general public, a session with the city’s downtown marketing task force, and a meeting with environmental and energy commissions. In addition, the consultants were holding weekly coffee hours and had conducted six interviews with specific individuals or small groups. They are also gathering responses to the online survey on A2 Open City Hall.

The biggest issues that have been raised include opinions on both sides, she noted. The topics she highlighted include height and massing, design guidelines, historic districts, the location of D1 and D2 districts, premiums, and overall vision for the downtown.

Emerging Themes – Height, Massing

Height has been brought up at virtually every session, Perdu said. The majority of residents who live near D1 zoning think that buildings are too tall. However, in the focus groups and interviews with other interested parties, she said, people feel that the height should not be capped.

Illustration of the concept of a maximal diagonal. A maximum on this dimension is intended as a check on chunky buildings.

Related to that, some people don’t have a problem with height but do have concerns about the mass and bulk of buildings. Some people felt that structures could be taller if they were designed differently, with different types of stepbacks, Perdu reported.

Some people talked about how the zoning ordinance describes a three-dimensional building “envelope,” and developers are simply building out to the maximum that’s allowed, Perdu said. Some of the feedback reflected a desire to encourage developers to have different designs and setbacks.

Bonnie Bona noted that setbacks are required, “but apparently it’s not enough.”

Kirk Westphal recalled that someone at the July 29 public forum had mentioned the concept of diagonals – and Westphal called himself a big fan of that approach. It’s a way of controlling shape, he noted. [For some early discussion on the issue of diagonals, see The Chronicle's March 2009 coverage: "Council Begins Downtown Zoning Review." At its April 6, 2009 meeting, the council voted to remove the diagonal requirements that had been recommended by the planning commission. See Chronicle coverage: "City Council Moves Toward Height Limits."]

Bona noted that using diagonals typically means there is no height limit on buildings. “That needs to be clear,” she said.

Lot combinations were another topic that Sabra Briere felt should be addressed. Sometimes the community isn’t prepared for the actual size of a development, she said, because they’re accustomed to seeing an existing lot and think of a building in terms of one lot. But if that lot becomes one of three or four combined lots, she added, “suddenly, the possible size of a building is much more impactful.” Even though the city’s design guidelines state the design should reflect the underlying plat, it hasn’t really been something that’s been implemented so far, she said. [The wording on this topic from the design guidelines is: "Provide variation in building massing to reflect the underlying pattern of established lot widths."] In places where lot combinations have been used, the building’s facade has not been broken up to reduce the visual impact of the building, Briere noted.

Bona framed the issue in terms of Ann Arbor’s “innate scale.” That’s what some people really mean when they talk about massing, she said, adding that it isn’t just about setbacks. Ideally, buildings wouldn’t go beyond a certain footprint – something “that’s Ann Arbor’s size,” she said.

Bona also wondered why Ann Arborites aren’t building in Ann Arbor. Instead, the city sees developers from Atlanta and New York. Some of it has to do with scale, she said, but “some of [the local developers] actually know how hard it is, and they wouldn’t do it.” The contradiction between the attitude that “density can’t be good” and the fact that only luxury housing is being built “is really a funny juxtaposition,” she said. “How can it be so bad if only the wealthiest will live there?”

Wendy Woods pointed out that the previous owners of the property at 413 E. Huron are local, and they knew what would happen when they sold that land. Bona ventured that the previous property owners probably didn’t have the financial wherewithal to build something at the scale that the city’s zoning allows.

Emerging Themes – Design Guidelines, Historic Districts

The issues of design guidelines and historic districts have come up in every interview and focus group, Perdu reported. In most of the forums, people have said the design guidelines and historic districts need more teeth. Regarding the historic districts that abut D1 or D2 zoning, some people have indicated that the historic district commission should have more say about what goes on a property.

Standing, at left: Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates, and Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson at the July 30 A2D2 public forum, held at city hall. Seated in the foreground at the right is Ray Detter of the downtown citizens advisory council.

However, in some of the individual interviews conducted, people indicated that they liked the current approach, Perdu said. One person even described the design guideline process as working very well, she reported, because it encouraged collaborative discussion rather than the typical way that the city deals with developers, telling them what they must do or can’t do.

Developers tended to say that historic districts are removing developable land from the downtown area, Perdu said. Because of that, they felt it’s harder to fulfill the goal of A2D2 zoning, which is to encourage more development and residences downtown.

Perdu said that perhaps this is a topic to be set aside or forwarded to the group that’s handling the design guidelines review.

Bona noted that in the past, planning commissioners have talked about using special exceptions as a way to be more discretionary when approving projects. It had come up in the context of changes to the R4C zoning districts, she said, adding that perhaps Perdu could learn more about that issue. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "R4C Advisory Committee Re-Established."]

“I would hate to be so specific [with design guidelines] that we get exactly what we ask for,” Bona said. That has been a problem with mandatory design guidelines in Boston, she added. “Everybody built the exact same thing, and they all looked alike.”

But there’s a flip side, Rampson observed. One goal of A2D2 is to make the city’s rules very clear to developers. With special exceptions, that makes it discretionary – and harder to know what the city wants or expects. Bona replied that perhaps the discretion only occurs if a developer wants premiums.

Emerging Themes – Character Districts, Location of D1, D2 Zoning

Erin Perdu noted that the location of D1 and D2 zoning has been brought up in most of the meetings and interviews she’s held. A good portion of people say that there’s too much D1 zoning or that they’re concerned about the location. But there are others – people who have given their opinion outside of the general public forums – who indicate that there needs to be more D1 zoning, she said.

Some people also suggested having a third type of downtown zoning, Perdu noted. Kirk Westphal pointed out that in two locations, there already is a third type of zoning – the two character districts of East Huron 1 and East Huron 2. [By way of background, these districts were a compromise that zoned the East Huron block as D1, but with additional tower setback regulations on the north side (East Huron 1 district). The south side of the street (East Huron 2 district) does not have those same setback requirements.]

Will Leaf, an Ann Arbor resident and University of Michigan student, spoke at the July 31 public forum on the A2D2 zoning review. He suggested a height restriction on new buildings based on the distance from a proposed building to neighboring buildings.

At the July 31 ORC meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the idea emerging from current feedback is to create a third zoning district, not just a character district overlay.

Perdu suggested that part of the issue might be a lack of understanding about how zoning and character districts currently work together. “I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about that,” she said. A lot of people have asked her why the character districts aren’t mandatory, she said. “And I said, well, they are mandatory.” So perhaps more education is needed, rather than a new district.

Westphal pointed out that character districts are mandatory only for measurable things, like height and setbacks. That’s true, Rampson said, adding that comments about the non-mandatory nature of the districts have related to “intent” statements in the ordinance.

Perdu also reported that some people want more D2 zoning around the edges of the downtown district, rather than the denser D1, “which is not a surprising finding.” Perhaps the specific sites mentioned in the April 1 council resolution could be a platform for a discussion about converting some D1 sites to D2, she said.

Rampson said the juxtaposition of historic districts with D1 and D2 property is a strong sub-theme in the feedback so far. It’s not just an issue around the edges of the downtown, she added – noting that there are also small historic districts within the downtown. During the original A2D2 process, there was a robust discussion about it, Rampson said. But because there is a relatively small amount of developable land in downtown Ann Arbor, it was decided that there wouldn’t be zoning “stepdowns” between those historic districts and D1 or D2 zoning. That’s something that should be discussed again, she said.

Sabra Briere wondered what protections are in place for adjoining properties, when a developer builds underground parking or puts in the foundation. Is it a good idea for the developer to be able to put in parking below ground up to the lot line – especially when the property abuts a residential or historic district? The developer has to have side setbacks in certain areas for what’s built above ground, she noted, adding that this might relate to massing.

Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association who attended the ORC meeting as a member of the public, said her concern about underground parking is that it affects the urban forest. The 413 E. Huron project will jeopardize a 250-year-old bur oak, she said, in part because the underground parking is going right up to the lot line, next to an historic district. “So there’s no protection for the district or the heritage trees, or the urban forest,” Crockett said.

Emerging Themes – Premiums

The April 1 council resolution directed the planning commission to review “whether the D1 residential FAR [floor area ratio] premiums effectively encourage a diverse downtown population.” Premiums are considered “by right” increases to FAR if objective criteria are met. For example, in D1, the basic “by right” FAR is 400%. If the use of the property is residential, that can increase the FAR to 700%. This reflects a priority on residential buildings.

The issue of premiums emerged frequently in discussions, Perdu reported. Nearly everyone agreed that the housing being built isn’t diverse, she said. However, people disagreed about the reasons for a lack of diversity, with some pointing to market forces and financing, and others saying that the zoning ordinance and premiums were causing it.

A lot of people felt that premiums are being granted too easily, she noted, and that perhaps premiums should be more specific or harder to achieve. Several ideas were mentioned for other kinds of premiums to encourage the type of development that the city wants – for example, premiums for specific kinds of housing, not just housing in general. Another example is to offer premiums for a broader array of environmental amenities, not just for LEED certification, but perhaps for parks or active open spaces. That’s a bit beyond the scope of the council resolution, Perdu said, but perhaps a starting point could be looking at premiums for housing.

From left: City councilmember and planning commissioner Sabra Briere, and consultant Erin Perdu at the July 30 A2D2 public forum.

Perdu noted that there was also a significant number of people who wanted to get rid of premiums entirely, because they believed premiums didn’t work.

If student housing is being built because of market demand, Bona pointed out, “you don’t have to give a premium for it.”

Rampson noted that the original idea behind offering premiums was to incentivize something that the market wasn’t providing. If the market is now providing a certain type of housing, “then maybe this isn’t the right incentive.” She noted that the issue gets tied up in the question of whether the city should try to read the market trends.

Briere raised the issue of premiums related to affordable housing, noting that A2D2 hasn’t resulted in any affordable housing. Perdu reported that some people are also concerned that workforce housing isn’t being provided. Someone she had interviewed was concerned that the downtown might become a place where only the very rich and the very poor could live. It’s an interesting question about how to incentivize the construction of workforce housing, she said, if that’s what the city wants.

Westphal said he’s heard feedback that more smaller units need to be available – fewer bedrooms, and smaller unit size, which in turn makes the housing more affordable. If that’s important, he said, the city needs to explore how to help make it happen.

Westphal also wondered if parking premiums are part of the mix. Perdu replied that the topic is beyond the scope of the council’s resolution, but a lot of people have strong feelings about it. Westphal noted that it’s part of A2D2′s broader transportation demand management approach. The city has built a lot of parking since A2D2 was enacted, so he wasn’t sure if that approach has changed. Perdu said she didn’t doubt that people would want to discuss it, but the question is whether it’s a priority issue.

Rampson weighed in, saying that if parking is discussed as part of the FAR and building height, it makes sense to include that topic, she said. But if it’s discussed in the context of transportation demand management, that might be something to address later, she said. Westphal noted that the city probably wouldn’t undertake another review of A2D2 anytime soon, so this might be a good time to deal with it.

For Giannola, the question is whether the premiums in general are preventing the city from getting the kind of buildings that people want.

Emerging Themes – Vision

A lot of people have indicated that the city should revisit the vision for these zoning districts, Erin Perdu said. Some people have noted that projects are being built “by right” but are not, in their view, the kind of projects that the city intended to encourage. If that’s the case, then the city should look at its vision and make sure that ordinances are in place to actually achieve that vision.

Sabra Briere reported that during a July 31 focus group with the downtown marketing task force, some members had firmly stated that the vision needs to be revisited. Perdu said she’d heard people say they want to revisit the vision or reaffirm it, as a reminder that this was the vision when the city enacted A2D2, and to see if that’s what is being built.

Members of the Ann Arbor planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee at their July 31 meeting. The meeting was also attended by consultant Erin Perdu and two members of the public – Ray Detter and Christine Crockett. Clockwise, starting at the lower left: Erin Perdu, Wendy Woods, Kirk Westphal, Ray Detter, Sabra Briere, Christine Crockett, Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola.

Bonnie Bona observed that if you thought the ordinance reflected the vision and you aren’t happy with what’s being built, then you’d say the vision is wrong. But it’s also possible that the ordinance doesn’t reflect the vision.

Perdu joked that this is “a little bit larger question” than the council had proposed, and she wondered if it was something the planning commission wanted to tackle. Wendy Rampson responded: “I can say that: No, that’s really outside our scope.”

Wendy Woods asked what is meant by vision. It’s the master plan that leads to the intent of these downtown districts, Perdu replied, which in turn leads to the zoning standards. [.pdf of the downtown plan, an element of the master plan that was adopted in 2009 as part of the A2D2 process.]

A lot of comments about the vision are related to student housing, Perdu said. People want to encourage residents to live downtown, but don’t want a “monoculture” of housing.

Diane Giannola felt that some people seem to be missing the point, and they don’t look at why students are flocking to these high-rises. “I think people need to pay more attention to that, because [these student apartment buildings] are full. The high-rises aren’t empty.” If students continue to move into this kind of building, developers will build more, she said.

Kirk Westphal noted there is also the question of timing, related to the city’s vision. At the moment, banks want to loan money to build luxury student high-rises, but that trend will play out, he said. “So do we start chasing these micro-trends, in the big scheme of things, and end up trying to crystal-ball things?” It might be student housing now, but in five years that trend might switch to one- and two-bedroom apartments, or offices.

Bona felt it was an issue worth talking about. The city got overbuilt with hotels, she noted, so this kind of thing happens outside of the downtown, too. It would be a good discussion for the city to have – or especially the planning commission – about how far do you go to micromanage these issues.

Rampson suggested that commissioners read a recent article by Jeff Mortimer, published in Michigan Today, which addresses the trend in high-rise buildings. [The article is titled "A2 on the (high) rise."]

Giannola worried that if the city changed its vision as a reaction to student housing, it might be ignoring other factors that have led to the increase in student apartment buildings. “The vision might not be wrong,” she said. Perdu agreed, saying that developers she’s talked with don’t think the ordinance is causing the student housing trend. It’s the market demand responding to an under-supply of new housing stock, and the financing that’s available.

Planning for Public Forum on Aug. 5

A public forum will be held on Monday, Aug. 5 starting at 7 p.m. in the lower level conference room of the Washtenaw County administration building at 200 N. Main – at the intersection of Main and Ann. The July 31 meeting of the ordinance revisions committee included a discussion of the topics that would be a focus for the Aug. 5 meeting. Some issues were put aside, while commissioners selected other issues to be highlighted, based on feedback that’s been received so far, as well as the scope of the A2D2 review.

Planning for Public Forum on Aug. 5: Footing Drain Disconnections – No

Kirk Westphal suggested excluding some issues that might be related to the A2D2 review, but that are “not necessarily useful for the purposes of this discussion, like flooding and footing drain disconnects.” Those issues are a concern, he added, but not for this review.

From left: Ann Arbor residents Betsy Price and Eleanor Pollack at the July 29 A2D2 public forum, held at the Kerrytown Concert House.

By way of background, at the July 29 public forum, held at the Kerrytown Concert House, several residents from the Lansdowne neighborhood on Ann Arbor’s south side had focused their comments on criticizing the city’s footing drain disconnect program. Westphal had attended that meeting.

At its Sept. 17, 2012 meeting, the city council voted to temporarily suspend a portion of the program, which was created in 2001 in response to backups of sanitary sewers into residents’ basements during heavy rains. The problem is caused by the connection of footing drains to the sanitary sewer system, instead of to the stormwater system. At one time, such connections were consistent with city code, but they are now prohibited. The existing connections, however, put more stormwater into the sanitary system than it can handle. The footing drain disconnection program requires residents to install sump pumps in their basements as part of the disconnection from the sanitary system.

Although the program is partly suspended, the city still requires developers to provide disconnects in residential neighborhoods, to offset the impact of new development on the city’s sanitary sewer system. However, those disconnections are voluntary on the part of residents – that is, the developers must convince the residents to participate voluntarily. For example, the 413 E. Huron project is required to pay for 62 footing drain disconnects. For the now-suspended part of the program, when the city implemented it in an area of the city, it was considered mandatory, with non-compliance requiring a $100/month payment to the city by a property owner.

At the July 31 ORC meeting, Bonnie Bona urged the staff to address these concerns in some way, so that the problems “don’t get lost” – even if it’s not within the scope of the A2D2 review. Erin Perdu agreed, saying she’d received a lot of follow-up messages about the flooding and footing drain disconnect program, and wanted to make sure she directed residents to the appropriate city staff. Bona described it as a “bike rack” issue – the term she uses instead of “parking lot” to refer to items that will be set aside for future discussion. Some of the issues might eventually return to the planning commission, she noted.

Planning for Public Forum on Aug. 5: Height, Massing, Premiums, Location – Yes

The purpose of the Aug. 5 meeting, Perdu said, is to review the priority issues that have emerged from previous feedback so far. The goal is to get confirmation that those issues are, in fact, priorities for the community, she said, and then to have more discussion about those priorities.

Perdu suggested using the three sites in the April 1 city council resolution as a springboard for the discussion on Aug. 5. She and her partner have been developing 3-D models for those locations, and those will be available at the meeting. If the discussion is framed with those sites as a starting point, it can evolve into other areas – including into other themes that have been raised at previous public forums and the online survey.

After Perdu gave an overview of the issues that had emerged in focus groups and interviews so far, commissioners discussed how to narrow the topics for the Aug. 5 meeting. Perdu suggested choosing three main topics, given the meeting’s timeframe.

They settled on these three topics:

• Height and bulk, with character districts as part of that discussion.
• Premiums, with a focus on housing.
• Location of D1 and D2 zoning districts, with a focus on the three sites mentioned in the April 1 city council resolution.

Perdu indicated that she’d begin the Aug. 5 meeting with a brief overview of the current A2D2 zoning, including a description of existing premiums. Westphal suggested providing some kind of visual representation of the relationship between FAR [floor-area ratio] and massing. It could show how buildings can be shaped in different ways that can affect perceived scale, shadows and other impacts.

Bona recalled that the consultants who led the original A2D2 process – Calthorpe Associates – had included an “illustrative vision plan” as part of their report, with diagrams showing where buildings might be constructed, and how big those buildings might be. [That plan is included in Calthorpe's final report. .pdf of "illustrative vision plan" excerpt] It might be useful to use examples from that plan, Bona said. “That is the result of the Calthorpe process,” she said. “Those were the places where people felt things could be built.”

A July 29 public forum for the A2D2 zoning review was held at the Kerrytown Concert House.

Rampson responded, saying it’s important to remember that Calthorpe’s plan was “tempered” by the final A2D2 zoning that council adopted, which differed from the Calthorpe recommendations. “Calthorpe tended to have more density than what got approved,” she said.

Bona also urged Perdu to make it clear to people at the Aug. 5 forum that there’s no interest in expanding D1 or D2 zoning into the residential neighborhoods. Rampson added that it doesn’t make sense even to bring up that possibility for exploration. “It’s off the table,” she said.

Perdu explained the format of the meeting, saying that at this point, the goal isn’t to suggest solutions – although people are welcome to offer ideas. Rather, the goal is to confirm the priority issues with the community, not to get agreement about how to solve these problems.

Rampson said she wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of addressing solutions. As people think through these issues, “you might be able to get some great ideas…. In the context of these discussions, you might find some good, creative thinking.”

Perdu said she’d begin the meeting with a brief educational presentation, including some illustrations and an overview of the issues that have been raised so far. Then to facilitate discussion, she plans to split people into small groups. A lot of people tend to feel intimidated in large group discussions, she said. There would also be opportunities for discussion in the larger group too, however. Bona liked the smaller group approach, saying that people could actually talk about the issues rather than just make comments.

All of the input received during the public meetings will eventually be posted on the city’s A2D2 website, Perdu noted.

A2 Open City Hall

During the July 31 ORC meeting, Erin Perdu reported that quite a few people had told her that the survey on A2 Open City Hall wasn’t working: People fill out the online form, but then it’s not recorded. Sabra Briere added that former planning commissioner Eppie Potts was one of the people who had a problem with the survey, but someone from Peak Democracy – the firm that owns and manages the system – had called Potts and worked with her to complete it. Briere said that if you didn’t sign in, the system allowed you to fill out the survey but didn’t allow you to submit it. Most of the people Briere had talked with didn’t realize they needed to sign in.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said that if the issue couldn’t be resolved quickly, her recommendation would be either to remove the survey temporarily or make it one open-ended question. Another option would be to use a Survey Monkey survey.

The following day, on Aug. 1, Peak Democracy issued a statement regarding the problems with A2 Open City Hall:

Did you get a warning message about unblocking your cookies this week when you tried to post your answers to the A2D2 survey? Eight residents had that problem this week because of a bug in the A2 Open City Hall software. We deeply apologize for the bug – especially if you are one of the eight who were inconvenienced by it!

The good news is that the bug has been fixed and now you can now complete the survey on the A2D2 Downtown Zoning Evaluation topic without hinderance at http://www.peakdemocracy.com/1396. The deadline has been extended to Monday to allow extra time for comments.

At the July 31 ORC meeting, Perdu also reported that the survey on A2 Open City Hall had been up for several days, but the email announcing that it was available didn’t get sent until June 30. “So it was up for four days before that, but no one knew about it,” she said. The deadline was extended until Monday, Aug. 5 at 5 p.m.

Perdu said she’d also hoped to get input on social media, but people aren’t really commenting. “I don’t think anybody really knows that you’re doing social media,” Briere observed. Perdu replied that if people are following the city of Ann Arbor on Facebook or Twitter, they’d see the posts. The use of social media was mentioned in the press release about the A2D2 review and is available on the A2D2 website, she noted.

Diane Giannola felt that some people wouldn’t necessarily want their opinions posted on Facebook.

Perdu reported that her experience with this Ann Arbor project differs from work she’s doing on the Ypsilanti master plan – an effort called Shape Ypsilanti. “We’ve had a huge response to social media in Ypsilanti,” she said.

Public Commentary

Two people stayed for the entire ORC meeting, and spoke during public commentary at the end of the session. Ray Detter told commissioners that he had attended both public forums and had been impressed by the diversity of comments there. “The Fourth Ward came armed to the first one [on July 29] with regard to drainage issues, in terms of more building downtown,” he noted. Those residents are concerned about how downtown development might impact drainage in outlying neighborhoods.

From right: Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and Ellen Ramsburgh, a member of the city’s historic district commission, attended a July 30 public forum on the current A2D2 zoning review. Standing in the background is John Floyd.

There are several D1 locations downtown that need to be considered, Detter said, beyond those that are mentioned in the council resolution. One example, he said, is the property at the northwest corner of Division and Huron, where the Ahmo’s deli is located – directly across the street from the controversial 413 E. Huron project. The corner of North Fourth and Huron is another example, he said.

Detter reported that Marcia Higgins, a Ward 4 city councilmember, has assured him that he’ll be on the design guidelines review task force, “if and when it meets.” The design guidelines aren’t bad, but they lack teeth, he said – and the 413 E. Huron project is an example of that. One way to give the guidelines teeth without making them mandatory is not to offer premiums unless there’s some relationship between the building and the suggestions of the design guidelines board, he said.

Detter also reported that the historic district commission is concerned about the D1 districts and the impact of development there on adjacent historic districts. Again, 413 E. Huron is an example of this, he said. If 413 E. Huron is built, he added, then the city will have to deal with the impact of construction on an adjoining historic property, where the developers want to put construction trailers. Those are all issues that need to be considered.

Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, felt that the historic district commission is critical in this process, because of the impact of D1 development on historic districts. Although 413 E. Huron was the first example, she said, there are other D1 parcels that could have the same impact. “I think that this is unfair that this is imposed on a residential district,” she said. “Somehow, the Old West Side gets protected over and over again, and the Old Fourth Ward has been treated a bit like a throwaway historic district.”

Crockett also said it’s important to consider what happens to heritage trees. “This is the Arbor,” she noted.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 7, 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.