Interim Ann Arbor police chief John Seto talks with Eunice Burns, a longtime activist who attended an April 12 sustainability forum at the Ann Arbor District Library. Seto was a panelist at the forum, which focused on building a sustainable community. (Photos by the writer.)

Community is one of four categories in a framework that’s been developed over the past year, with the intent of setting sustainability goals for the city. Other categories – which have been the focus of three previous forums this year – are resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community.

At the April 12 forum on community, Wendy Rampson – the city’s planning manager, who moderated the discussion – told the audience that 15 draft goals have been selected from more than 200 already found in existing city planning documents. The hope is to reach consensus on these sustainability goals, then present them to the city council as possible amendments to the city’s master plan. The goals are fairly general – if approved, they would be fleshed out with more detailed objectives and action items. [.pdf of draft sustainability goals]

Rampson said that although this would be the final forum in this year’s series, there seems to be interest in having an annual sustainability event – so this would likely not be the last gathering.

The forum was held at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building, and attended by about 50 people. Panelists were Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program; Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation; John Seto, Ann Arbor’s interim chief of police; Jennifer L. Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission; Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission; and Cheryl Saam, facility supervisor for the Ann Arbor canoe liveries.

Several comments during the Q & A session centered on the issue of housing density within the city. Eunice Burns, a long-time local activist and former Ann Arbor city councilmember, advocated for more flexibility in accessory apartments.

Doug Kelbaugh, a UM professor of architecture and urban planning, supported her view and wondered whether the city put too high a priority on parks, when what Ann Arbor really needs is more people living downtown. He said a previous attempt to revise zoning and allow for more flexibility in accessory units was shot down by a “relatively small, relatively wealthy, relatively politically-connected group. I don’t think it was a fair measure of community sentiment.”

Also during the Q & A period, Pete Wangwongwiroj – a board member of UM’s student sustainability initiative – advocated for the concept of gross national happiness to be a main consideration in public policy decisions.

The April forum was videotaped by AADL staff and will be posted on the library’s website – videos of the three previous sessions are already posted: on resource management (Jan. 12); land use and access (Feb. 9); and climate and energy (March 8). Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality” and “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability.“

Update on Sustainability Goals

The overall sustainability initiative started informally two years ago, with a joint meeting of the city’s planning, environmental and energy commissions. The idea is to help shape decisions by looking at a triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

In early 2011, the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project. The project set out to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. The overall project also aimed to improve access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to incorporate the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

The Home Depot grant funded the job of a sustainability associate. The position is held by Jamie Kidwell, who’s been the point person for this effort. In addition to city staff, this work was initially guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: park, planning, energy and environmental. Members from those groups met at a joint working session in late September of 2011. Since then, the city’s housing commission and housing and human services commission have been added to the conversation.

Over the past year, city staff and a committee made of up members from several city advisory commissions have evaluated the city’s 27 existing planning documents and pulled out 226 goals from those plans that relate to sustainability. From there, they prioritized the goals and developed a small subset to present for discussion.

Fifteen goals have been organized into four main categories: climate and energy; community; land use and access; and resource management. The draft goals are:

Climate & Energy

• Sustainable Energy: Improve access to and increase use of renewable energy by all members of our community.
• Energy Conservation: Reduce energy consumption and eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions in our community.
• High Performance Buildings: Increase efficiency in new and existing buildings within our community.

Community

• Engaged Community: Ensure our community is strongly connected through outreach, opportunities for engagement, and stewardship of community resources.
• Diverse Housing: Provide high quality, safe, efficient, and affordable housing choices to meet the current and future needs of our community, particularly for homeless and low-income households.
• Safe Community: Minimize risk to public health and property from manmade and natural hazards.
• Active Living: Improve quality of life by providing diverse cultural, recreational, and educational opportunities for all members of our community.
• Economic Vitality: Develop a prosperous, resilient local economy that provides opportunity by creating jobs, retaining and attracting talent, supporting a diversity of businesses across all sectors, and rewarding investment in our community.

Land Use & Access

• Transportation Options: Establish a physical and cultural environment that supports and encourages safe, comfortable and efficient ways for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to travel throughout the city and region.
• Sustainable Systems: Plan for and manage constructed and natural infrastructure systems to meet the current and future needs of our community.
• Efficient Land Use: Encourage a compact pattern of diverse development that maintains our sense of place, preserves our natural systems, and strengthens our neighborhoods, corridors, and downtown.

Resource Management

• Clean Air and Water: Eliminate pollutants in our air and water systems.
• Healthy Ecosystems: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
• Responsible Resource Use: Produce zero waste and optimize the use and reuse of resources in our community.
• Local Food: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our local agriculture and aquaculture resource.

A public meeting on March 29 to get input on these draft goals drew only a handful of people, but feedback can also be sent to the city via email at sustainability@a2gov.org.

Framing the Discussion: What Is Community?

As he did at the first sustainability forum in January, Dick Norton – chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program – began the April 12 event by giving an overview to frame the subsequent discussion. He started by defining three terms: community, development and sustainability.

What is community? It’s not “I am an island unto myself,” he said, nor is it anarchy, nor dystopia, nor even utopia. Rather, community brings to mind images of the common, the social aspects of our nature, the notions of inclusiveness, identity and belonging. But it’s likely that most people in the room didn’t give much thought to what community means, he said.

The concept of development connotes improvement over time in the things we value, Norton said. It’s a sense of improving the human condition, in a qualitative way. Sustainability is harder to define, he noted. If we sustain our society, we keep it going and stable. But we want a just community, too – we want governments and those with power to treat the rest of us fairly. We also want happiness, Norton said, so we want to develop communities that we love, that are desirable places to live, work and play.

The trick is to do all these things simultaneously, he observed. So what institutions can help us get there? Government certainly plays a role, as do markets, to some extent. But nonprofits and religious institutions also play an important role. All of these entities interact, Norton said, adding complexity.

Norton also talked about the wide range of components that are necessary to build community. Citizen participation is key – residents need to be engaged. Fair and affordable housing, jobs, public safety, landscape and environment, services and amenities, historic preservation – all of these are important.

Norton also raised the issue of connectivity – how accessible are things? [This was a topic addressed at length by his UM colleague Joe Grengs at the Feb. 9 forum on land use and access.] Redevelopment is another component of community, but that’s set against concerns of gentrification. There are also issues of race, class and inclusiveness, Norton said. Who are we talking about when we talk about community?

Norton then laid out challenges faced in promoting community development. First, people are individuals, yet they’re also social creatures – we live in that tension, he said. Added to that, we’re a community of individuals with a variety of abilities, ambitions and circumstances. That causes us to behave differently, yet we still need to make communities work, given that variation.

Another challenge is the huge plurality of viewpoints and values that we hold about what’s important and valuable. We tend to want people to see things the way we see them, Norton said. But there are different preferences for whether things should be planned or evolve organically, for example, and those preferences influence how much government we want.

Norton also pointed to the challenge of randomness and uncertainty. That makes planning difficult, because you don’t know how things will play out. Measurement is also a challenge, he said. How do you measure whether you’re achieving your community development goals?

Community is vital, Norton concluded. The American ethos tends to be a cowboy mentality, the idea of individuals bootstrapping themselves and making it on their own. “That is just so untrue,” he said. People depend on communities to help them thrive.

Quality of Life: Community Foundation

Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, described the work of her organization. It was founded nearly 50 years ago, and its overall mission is to improve the community’s quality of life. AAACF manages more than 425 funds with over $60 million in assets, and administers scholarships, grants and other community support.

Cheryl Elliott, president of the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

Elliott focused her comments on the quality-of-life issues of community, and said some of her remarks were informed by the recent book “The Economics of Place,” a publication of the Ann Arbor-based Michigan Municipal League. Quality of life plays a vitally important role in the community’s economic future, she said. When Elliott came to Ann Arbor as a University of Michigan freshman in 1969, “you could have shot a cannon down Main Street,” she said, and not hit anyone. It took a lot of collaboration to achieve the city’s vibrancy that you see today.

A wonderful community is crucial to attract and retain workers in a knowledge-based economy, Elliott said. An AAACF board member [Kevin Thompson] works for IBM and could live anywhere, she reported, but he chose to live in Ann Arbor. Quality of life and place wasn’t something that was previously considered as a factor in economic development. But today, a functioning, safe community isn’t enough, she said. It needs to be a place that inspires people, and that encourages creativity and innovation.

Elliott ticked through eight dimensions that affect quality of place: physical design and walkability, green initiatives, a culture of economic development, entrepreneurship, multiculturalism, messaging and technology, transit, and education. We need to think more regionally to achieve goals in these areas, she said.

Turning her comments to the role of culture in economic development, Elliott highlighted the importance of a healthy creative sector. Before Pfizer pulled out of Ann Arbor, its leadership talked about the city’s diverse cultural environment as an important factor in their desire to be located here, she said. Communities with healthy cultural sectors help create jobs, build a stronger tax base, and bring in more tourism.

Ann Arbor ends up on a lot of national Top 10 lists, Elliott noted, in large part because of the city’s quality of place, and a lot of that has to do with arts and culture – everything from the Ann Arbor Summer Festival and art fairs, to the University Musical Society and events like FestiFools. But “it doesn’t just happen,” she added. These things require partnerships and a lot of collaboration.

Elliott wrapped up her remarks by saying that the area has a creative, entrepreneurial nonprofit sector. She cited the example of a coordinated funding approach being taken to fund human services – a joint effort of the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, AAACF and Washtenaw United Way, administered by the city/county office of community and economic development. No other community in the country is doing that, she said.

Public Safety

John Seto, Ann Arbor’s interim chief of police, told the audience that when he first was asked to speak at the forum, he wasn’t sure how public safety fit into the notion of sustainability. But after giving it some thought, he realized that most of what the police force does helps create a sustainable community, and it would be difficult to condense it into the limited time he had for his presentation.

John Seto, Ann Arbor's interim chief of police.

So what does sustainability look like for public safety? he asked. It entails a vibrant downtown, safe neighborhoods, disaster preparedness, and a partnership with the community. Seto outlined a variety of ways that Ann Arbor police work toward these goals:

• Neighborhood crime watch: There are over 300 neighborhood crime watch captains in the city, working with a police coordinator who disseminates information throughout the city.
• Crime Stoppers: The coordinator for this Washtenaw County program works out of an office at the Ann Arbor police department. The anonymous tip line is 1-800-SPEAK UP.
• Justice Center e-kiosk: Located in the lobby of the new Justice Center at the corner of Fifth and Huron, an electronic kiosk allows users to make a police report, get traffic crash reports, pay a parking ticket, obtain a Freedom of Information Act request form and more.
• Online police reports: Several types of reports can now be made on the police department’s website, Seto said. They are typically crimes with no suspects, or reports that are needed for insurance purposes. The reports that can be filed if there are no known suspects include harassing phone calls; theft (but not of a home or business that’s been entered illegally); and vandalism. Reports of private property traffic crashes – if your vehicle was parked and struck by an unknown vehicle, for example – can also be made online, as can reports for lost or damaged property.
• CrimeMapping.com: Ann Arbor is now participating in this online mapping of crime data, which indicates the location and type of crimes. It allows users to search by date, crime type or address.
• Disaster preparedness: The city’s office of emergency management coordinates the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), a countywide effort with more than two dozen members.
• CodeRED notification: Residents can sign up to be notified of crime alerts and other warnings – such as missing persons – through an automated phone notification system. It can handle 1,500 calls per minute, Seto said.
• Regional collaboration: Sustainability means collaborating to make the most out of your resources, Seto said. For policing, the city is collaborating both in everyday operations – like a joint dispatch unit with Washtenaw County, or mutual aid agreements with surrounding communities – and in special units like the SWAT and crisis negotiations teams.

Seto concluded by asking the audience how they would like to see the police department partner with the community. He said he hoped to hear some questions and comments about that later in the evening.

Affordable Housing

Jennifer L. Hall gave a shorter version of a presentation she made at the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s December 2011 board meeting, which was her first meeting as executive director of the AAHC. Previously, Hall served as housing manager for the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development.

She began by describing affordable housing. It’s defined relative to income levels – what is affordable to a higher income family is not necessarily affordable for a lower income family. For federal funding purposes, affordable housing means that a household is paying 30% or less of its gross income for housing, including utilities, taxes and insurance. Several programs of the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) provide affordable housing assistance for low-income families – AAHC is one of the local entities that receives funding from these HUD programs.

Hall described a continuum of affordable housing throughout Washtenaw County. On one end are shelters for people who are homeless, including the Delonis Center, SafeHouse Center (for victims of domestic violence), Interfaith Hospitality Network’s Alpha House (for families), and SOS Community Services, which runs a housing access hotline. At the opposite end is market rate housing that is affordable. Within those extremes, Hall outlined a range of other housing assistance and types:

• Transitional housing (Dawn Farm, Michigan Ability Partners, Home of New Vision)
• Group homes (Synod House, Washtenaw Community Health Organization)
• Senior assisted-living (Area Agency on Aging 1-B, private sector)
• Nonprofit supporting housing (Avalon Housing, Michigan Ability Partners, Community Housing Alternatives)
• Senior housing (Lurie Terrace, Cranbrook)
• Public housing (Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Ypsilanti Housing Commission)
• Tenant vouchers (Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Ypsilanti Housing Commission, Michigan State Housing Development Authority)
• Private developments (Windsong)
• Cooperatives (Arrowwood, Pine Lake, Forest Hills, University Townhomes)
• Houses for homeownership (Habitat for Humanity and other nonprofits)
• Units within private developments (First & Washington, Stone School)

Ann Arbor’s owner-occupied housing market is getting more expensive compared to other areas nationally. According to data from the National Housing Conference, in 2011 metro Ann Arbor (Washtenaw County) ranked as the 87th most expensive housing market among the nation’s 209 metro areas, Hall reported. The median home price for the Ann Arbor metro area was $162,000. Just two years earlier, the median home price was $136,000, and metro Ann Arbor ranked 132 among the 209 metro areas, she said.

Jennifer L. Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

For the rental market, metro Ann Arbor also ranked 87th among the 209 markets in 2011, with an average monthly rent of $882 for a two-bedroom apartment. But that is a drop in the rankings from 2009, when the area ranked 51st with an average monthly rent of $940.

Hall noted that in an ideal world, every household would live in a unit it could afford – there would be units available for all income levels. But unfortunately, that’s not the case, she said. There’s a mismatch of availability and income, with some families paying more than 30% of their income for rent, and others paying far less than 30%.

There’s a growing need for more affordable housing in this community, Hall said. A study conducted by the Washtenaw Housing Alliance showed that in 2004, 2,756 people in Washtenaw County reported that they had experienced homelessness. In 2010, that number had grown to 4,738.

AAHC manages two main programs: (1) the Section 8 voucher program for Washtenaw, Monroe, and western Wayne counties; and (2) public housing units in Ann Arbor. Hall noted that the majority of people on wait lists for these programs fall into the category of extremely low-income families, with income at 30% or less of the Ann Arbor area’s median income. For a family of four, Ann Arbor’s median income is $86,300 – 30% of that would be an annual income of $25,900.

Hall then turned to the issue of fair and equitable housing. She showed the audience a map that indicated levels of poverty throughout the county, and pointed out that the map showed concentrations of poverty in downtown Ann Arbor, in the student neighborhoods around the University of Michigan. The city has benefited from its student population, in terms of federal funding, because students typically report poverty-level incomes, she noted. And because federal funding to communities from HUD is based on formulas that are tied to poverty levels, Ann Arbor receives more funding than it otherwise would, Hall explained. HUD is looking to change that formula, she added, but the formula hasn’t been changed yet.

In fact, this measure of poverty doesn’t reflect where most true low-income households are located, she said. For example, you’d see very different areas of poverty – primarily clustered in Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – if measured by the number of people on public assistance.

Hall also observed that as people search for affordable housing and move further away from where they’d prefer to live, they often increase the amount they pay for transportation to get to work or to necessary services, like grocery stores. That increased cost often isn’t factored in to their housing decisions, she noted, and the more distant location can end up being more expensive overall.

Hall wrapped up by noting that federal funding for low-income housing is decreasing. In 1976, HUD’s budget was $86.8 billion. By 2010, its budget had dropped to $43.58 billion.

Parks & Recreation

Giving the presentation on Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation were Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission, and Cheryl Saam, facility supervisor for the Ann Arbor canoe liveries.

The city has 157 parks and recreational facilities, 52 miles of pathways, and 2,008 acres of land – 72% of that land in open space. How the city cares for these resources makes an impact on the quality of life for residents here, Saam said.

Grand noted that one of the city’s draft sustainability goals is to have an engaged community. The goal states: “Ensure our community is strongly connected through outreach, opportunities for engagement, and stewardship of community resources.” One way to do that is through neighborhood parks, Grand said – this is a community that’s very engaged with its parks, and many neighborhoods are defined based on their relationships to nearby parks.

The city also engages residents through its senior center and other community centers, as well as through volunteer programs like the Give 365 program, Adopt-a-Park, or natural area preservation program. The thousands of volunteer hours benefit the parks system, Grand said, but also provide a way for people to feel connected to the community and give back in a meaningful way.

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

The parks system also supports the community goal of diverse housing, Grand said, through partnerships with the office of community and economic development. Parks land acquisition funds paid for property to expand the Bryant Community Center, for example. The city’s goal is to have a park within a quarter-mile of every residence, she said, and to make sure that low-income areas are well-served.

Grand said that having a safe and healthy community is also important to the parks system. Using best practices in stormwater management, protecting the Huron River ecosystem, and building non-motorized pathways are all examples of that. Parks and recreation also contribute to the city’s economic vitality, with facilities that draw people in, she said – the farmers market, golf courses, and other venues. “People want to live in communities with a vibrant parks system.” Parks also improve safety and add value to neighborhoods, she said.

Saam addressed the goal of providing an active living and learning community. The parks system provides both structured and unstructured active recreation, where people can get measurable health benefits and social interaction – summer camps, classes, or places just to relax and take a walk. A scholarship program offered by the parks system makes the venues and class offerings accessible to lower-income families.

The mission of the parks system is to provide open space and recreation that’s accessible, Saam said, and they strive for a broad range of services and facilities for people with disabilities. Recent examples include adding steps in Buhr pool, and plans to renovate the Gallup canoe livery, adding ADA-compliant pathways.

Saam also highlighted recent renovations in West Park and the new Argo Cascades, a bypass by the Argo Dam that’s just now being completed. And Grand pointed to land acquisition – both through the city’s greenbelt program, and for parkland within the city – as other examples of the parks system enriching the community.

Turning to the future, Grand said the parks system hopes to increase volunteer opportunities, expand non-motorized pathways and connections between the Huron River and the city’s urban core, continue paying attention to best practices in stormwater management, and emphasize making improvements to existing facilities – it’s important to improve what the city has before building something new, she said.

Grand also reminded the audience that the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage would be up for renewal in November. She encouraged people to get more information online or to attend an upcoming public forum on the topic. [Also see Chronicle coverage: "Park Commission Briefed on Millage Renewal."]

Questions & Comments

During the last portion of the forum, panelists fielded questions and commentary from the audience. This report summarizes the questions and presents them thematically.

Questions & Comments: Accessory Dwellings, Density

Several questions and comments centered on the issue of housing density within the city. Eunice Burns, a long-time local activist and former Ann Arbor city councilmember, described how she’d sold her house to her daughter and son-in-law, and now lives in the home’s garage that was renovated into an apartment for her. But because of existing zoning constraints, only a family member can live in an accessory dwelling, she noted – no one will be able to use the apartment when she’s gone. The city’s ordinances need to be revised to allow for more types of dwellings like this for a wider range of people, Burns said.

Eunice Burns advocated for zoning changes to allow for more accessory dwellings in Ann Arbor. Her record of public service includes the Ann Arbor city council, the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the local officers compensation commission.

Ann Arbor faces a growing senior population, and many of them can’t afford senior housing like Glacier Hills, Burns noted. She recalled that when the city tried to change zoning for accessory dwelling units in the past, it had met with resistance. ”I’d like to see us work on this again and see if we can get it through this time,” she said.

(Burns concluded her remarks by putting in a plug for Huron River Day on July 15.)

The derailed effort that Burns mentioned would have changed the city’s zoning to make it possible for non-family members to live in accessory apartments. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, told the audience that the concern had primarily been about neighborhoods close to campus becoming too densely populated.

Conditions have changed since then, however. Rampson noted that according to the most recent census, Ann Arbor’s population has stabilized while the size of households has decreased. With fewer people living in individual homes, density isn’t as great as it was a few decades ago.

Dick Norton responded to Burns’ comments by taking a broader view. Like sustainability, the concept of community is difficult to define – it means different things to different people. Residents of a gated community might have a different definition than people who live outside of it. Norton pointed to sociologist Max Weber’s description of the Protestant work ethic in America – the idea of individuals making their way in society through hard work, and succeeding on their own merits. That concept influenced how people viewed the world, and complicated efforts to help people who are less well off, Norton said – people think that if someone is poor and homeless, it’s because they lack the ambition to work.

There are some deeply embedded ideological perspectives that need to be addressed, Norton said. Americans need to figure out how to ensure that people who are in less fortunate circumstances are at least doing okay and have opportunities to do better, he said. It requires people to open their minds a little bit. People tend to fear change and feel threatened if they’re asked to do something where there are no easy answers. Norton concluded by saying he knew he was preaching to the choir – the people who show up to the sustainability forums are already engaged in these issues, he said.

Doug Kelbaugh, a University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning, also commented on the topic of density. The carbon footprint of those living in the suburbs is dramatically higher than for urban residents, he noted. Increasing urban density would have the single greatest impact on reducing that carbon footprint – saving energy, the amount of land that’s used for development, the amount time people spend commuting, and more.

Kelbaugh said he loves the city’s parkland, but he sometimes thinks there’s too much of it – what the city really needs is more people living downtown. Perhaps parkland is being over-prioritized.

Regarding sustainability and affordable housing, Kelbaugh said the lowest-hanging fruit to address that issue is accessory dwellings. The previous attempt to revise zoning and allow for more flexibility in accessory units was shot down by a “relatively small, relatively wealthy, relatively politically-connected group,” he said. “I don’t think it was a fair measure of community sentiment.”

There cannot be too many people living downtown, Kelbaugh concluded – the more, the better – and Ann Arbor is far from hitting the upper level of the population it can sustain.

Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission, said she’d argue that the city needs greenspace to allow people room to breathe. There also needs to be recreational opportunities for residents, she said.

Questions & Comments: Being Proactive

Ann Larimore, a UM professor emeritus of geography and women’s studies, followed up on the issue of density by saying that it doesn’t help to use the word in a general way. There are different kinds of density – of families with children, of low-income people, of students living in high-rise apartment buildings, of people who only use their Ann Arbor homes on football weekends and otherwise those homes sit empty.

But Larimore said her question related to creating a community that’s proactive. An increase in private high-rise apartments aimed at students has been a national trend that’s also seen in Ann Arbor, she said, often fueled by out-of-town development money. Pfizer pulled out of Ann Arbor several years ago and UM bought its large research campus, thus taking that property off of the local tax rolls and creating an employment crisis. There’s also been more severe weather because of global warming, she said. What can the community do to be more proactive to these kinds of outside events?

Dick Norton noted that by the very nature of these events, it’s difficult to be proactive. But it’s possible to build a community that’s adaptable and resilient, he said. Creating a diverse economic base is also important, so that the community is not dependent on any one entity like Pfizer or UM.

Norton said he teaches planning, which includes taking stock of how things currently stand and reflects on where you’d like to go. But a plan is never a fixed thing, he added. You need to build in a resiliency and a capacity to respond as conditions change. That’s an unsatisfying answer, he acknowledged, but it’s a complicated world.

Jennifer Hall of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission responded by saying that you can’t discriminate against the type of people who might move into a building. You can plan for the type of building, but not the type of people who ultimately live there, whether they be students or the elderly. It’s a fair housing issue, she said.

Questions & Comments: Gross National Happiness

Pete Wangwongwiroj introduced himself as a University of Michigan student who’s active in the campus sustainability movement – he’s a board member of the student sustainability initiative. He said he’s shifted the focus of his studies from environmental issues to happiness. Happiness is an issue that’s bipartisan and that can unite people, he said. The country focuses its attention on the gross domestic product as an economic indicator, he noted. But there’s a new concept that deserves consideration: gross national happiness. Wangwongwiroj advocated that this concept should be the main consideration of public policy decisions. He asked the panel what has been done in Ann Arbor regarding the well-being and quality of life for residents, and what more can be done?

Jennifer Hall observed that there are some interesting new studies related to that topic and public health, looking at how your environment can make you happy or depressed. People are more depressed who live in neighborhoods with buildings that have boarded up windows and are in disrepair, with uncollected garbage and broken streetlights. She related an anecdote about developers who came to Ann Arbor and were interested in building affordable housing. Hall took them on a tour of one of the city’s low-income neighborhoods – the Bryant area, on the southeast side of Ann Arbor – and reported that the developers were shocked that it was considered low-income, because it was so much nicer than the low-income areas they were used to seeing elsewhere. So Ann Arbor is doing relatively well, she said.

Cheryl Elliott pointed to the involvement of youth as a community resource, through volunteering in different organizations – in youth advisory councils, for example. The community can leverage that enthusiasm and creativity, she said: “They aren’t jaded yet.” In general, a more engaged community does bring more happiness to residents, she said. Elliott also pointed to public events like the recent FestiFools parade as another way that Ann Arbor brings happiness to residents.

John Seto of the Ann Arbor police said that many times, it’s the smaller things that affect quality of life. Many complaints that the police receive have to do with quality-of-life issues – a neighbor’s barking dog, or uncut grass. It’s important not to lose sight of those smaller issues, he said, adding that Ann Arbor does a good job of that. Any complaint is important, he said.

Wendy Rampson noted that as the sustainability project moves ahead, the next step – after a consensus is reached on goals – will be to develop objectives and metrics to measure progress. She asked Wangwongwiroj to fill out a comment card, and said the group that’s working on these sustainability goals would be happy to consider adding happiness as a factor.

Dick Norton noted that happiness is based on a sense of safety and stability, but also on the relationships you build. The problem is that there’s too much focus on GDP, especially at the national level. The government needs to rethink that approach, and people need to resist the constant bombardment of advertising to buy more stuff. Norton also recommended getting backyard chickens to increase happiness – chickens are very calming and fun to watch, he said.

After the panelists finished weighing in, Doug Kelbaugh, a UM professor of architecture and urban planning, stepped to the microphone to make a comment related to accessory dwellings and density (see above). But he prefaced his remarks by saying that although a happiness index might sound frivolous, in fact it’s getting a lot of serious professional and academic respect.

Questions & Comments: Spending Priorities

Thomas Partridge said he wanted to know how the community could prioritize, when there was no sustainable, progressive tax base. He said he’s called on the Ann Arbor city council and Washtenaw County board of commissioners to place a Headlee override on the ballot. He also wondered why there is a dedicated millage for open space and parkland, while at the same time there are homeless people living in parks and under freeway overpasses. The city isn’t giving priority to human values like affordable housing, health care, transportation, education, human rights, and adequate fire and police protection.

Panelists responded primarily by pointing to examples of collaboration. Cheryl Elliott talked about the collaborative funding approach used to support local human service organizations – a joint effort with the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Urban County, Washtenaw United Way, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. They aren’t working in silos, she said. They’re communicating and working more effectively with the resources they have.

Julie Grand noted that the city parks collaborates with the county – the proposed Ann Arbor skatepark project is an example of that, she said, and also involves the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. The county’s parks and recreation commission has committed $400,000 to that project.

Grand also reported that when the city park commissioners discuss land acquisition, the first question they consider is how much it would take away from the city’s tax base. She said they’ve determined that the Headlee rollback isn’t significant enough to be a real concern.

Jennifer Hall thanked Partridge, saying that she appreciated his advocacy for the same people that she was trying to support. She raised the issue of Michigan being a “home rule” state, making it difficult to overcome the jurisdictional boundaries of townships, cities and villages. The city of Ann Arbor’s tax rate is much higher than the townships, she noted, so many people want to live in the townships and pay lower taxes, yet they use the amenities of the city. It results in some “weird dynamics,” she said. Hall also noted that Ann Arbor is very generous in its funding of housing and human services for low-income residents.

The Chronicle could not sustain itself without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Looking north from Mosley at the site of the proposed 618 S. Main apartment complex. The former Fox Tent & Awning building will be demolished. Ashley Street runs to the left of this photo, and borders the Old West Side historic district. (Photos by the writer.)

The 618 S. Main project is an apartment complex geared toward young professionals, according to developer Dan Ketelaar. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

The project borders the Old West Side historic district – the board of the Old West Side Association submitted a letter of support for the development. Parking and traffic concerns were raised by some commissioners, but the project received praise for its design and its potential to enliven that part of the city. The planning staff had recommended approval.

Two other projects gained approval from commissioners at their Jan. 19 meeting. Rezoning and a site plan for a small addition to the Habe Mills Pine Lodge – owned by the Society of Les Voyageurs – will move forward to the city council with a recommendation of approval. The lodge is adjacent to city parkland near Argo Pond, and had been erroneously zoned as public land.

The commission also signed off on a special exception use at 3645 Waldenwood, which would allow an accessory apartment to be added to the single-family house there. It’s located in the Earhart Estates neighborhood, west of Earhart and south of Glazier Way, in the city’s northwest side.

Several commissioners expressed support of this project and for accessory units in general. “Accessory dwelling units can be an asset to our community and I hope we see more in the future,” said commissioner Erica Briggs.

618 S. Main Apartments

The main item on the Jan. 19 agenda was a resolution to approve the site plan and development agreement for 618 S. Main – a major new residential project near downtown Ann Arbor.

The planned project is located at the site of the former Fox Tent & Awning building, north of Mosley between Main and Ashley. It borders properties in the Old West Side historic district, but is not in the district itself. The proposal calls for demolishing two existing structures and erecting a 7-story, 153,133-square-foot apartment building with 190 units for 231 bedrooms.

The building would contain 70 studio apartments, 70 one-bedroom units, 42 two-bedroom units, and 7 duplex units with 1 bedroom each. The proposal is slightly modified from details discussed at a Nov. 11, 2011 neighborhood meeting about the project, hosted by the developer, Dan Ketelaar, and his design team – one of several public forums regarding the project.

618 South Main facade, facing west from Main Street. (Links to larger image)

Underground parking would include 121 vehicle spaces – including two spaces for a car-sharing service like Zipcar – and 89 bicycle parking spaces. Other proposed features include solar panels installed on the roof to help heat water for the building, and a private open space on the west side of the building with an outdoor pool and pool deck, a pool house/rental room, two fire pits, three rain garden/bio-retention areas, landscaping areas and patio areas made of porous pavement. The developer has agreed to make a $117,800 contribution to the city’s parks system, in lieu of providing dedicated parkland on the site.

The building as proposed would be 85-feet tall – 25 feet higher than permitted in the D2 zoning district in which the site is located. Planned projects allow for some flexibility in height or setbacks, in exchange for public benefits. They don’t allow as much flexibility, however, as a planned unit development (PUD).

The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board. According to a staff report, the board found that the design generally adhered to the downtown design guidelines. Some modifications were made to the design in response to the board’s suggestions – for example, the portion of the building along South Main Street was stepped back five feet above the third floor and 10 feet above the sixth floor, to enhance the pedestrian experience along the west side of South Main.

618 S. Main Apartments: Public Hearing

Six people spoke during a public hearing on the project, including developer Dan Ketelaar and two representatives from his design team. Another speaker weighed in on the project at the meeting’s final public commentary slot.

Andrew Lineberry said he lived nearby on Hoover and walked by the 618 S. Main site frequently. He told commissioners that he’d originally planned to go to a talk that night at the Gerald R. Ford Library, but instead decided to attend this meeting to express his dismay over yet another tall building being constructed downtown. It will cast shadows and block the sky for others in the neighborhood, he said. Lineberry said he doesn’t believe people want more tall buildings. He hasn’t spoken out against other projects, because they haven’t been in his neighborhood, he said. But now, he felt he needed to let people know that it bothered him.

Barbara Murphy introduced herself as vice president of the board for the Old West Side Association. She referred to a letter that had been sent to the commission, signed by all board members. Their opinion is quite positive, she said. It’s a project that will bring life to the neighborhood by adding residents. It will clean up a brownfield area, and install rain gardens to deal with stormwater runoff. The increased density in that area is a good thing, Murphy said, and could lead to more retail. The association is also pleased at the amount of parking that will be part of the development, so that residents of 618 S. Main won’t be parking along the streets.

The association regretted that the project would displace existing businesses at that location. [Three businesses – Delux Drapery, Overture Audio and Ivory Photo – are located in buildings that will be demolished.] Murphy strongly encouraged the city to come up with a plan for the Main Street corridor between this site and Ashley Mews, at Main and Packard. The 618 S. Main project would provide an anchor, she said, and there’s potential to work with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on streetscape improvements. A large tech company is moving into the former Leopold Brothers location that’s nearby, she noted, and this new apartment complex could help lead to a revitalization the entire South Main corridor.

This is a case in which the city’s development process worked, Murphy said. The developer held more than the required number of citizen participation meetings, including one for the Old West Side Association that was attended by about 40 people, she said. There have been a few negative comments, Murphy concluded, but overall the feeling is that the project will be good for the neighborhood.

Ray Detter said he represented the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council and a coalition of eight neighborhood groups in the city. He said he’d attended four public meetings about the project, and had watched it take shape based on feedback from the public and from the design review board. It’s a well-designed gateway building that will replace a blighted site, Detter said, giving 20- to 30-year-olds a place to live downtown. Detter pointed to a range of other benefits, including more open space, parking, and stormwater treatment. He noted that the project’s design team added a major entryway to reinforce the urban corner at Mosley and Main. The Main Street corridor along that stretch could be improved using a portion of the tax increment financing (TIF) funds that will be collected by the DDA, he suggested. Overall, the community will benefit from this development, Detter said.

Detter also reflected on the city’s design review process. When the Varsity project was going through the city’s planning approval process, he said, planning commissioners seemed uncertain about whether they could comment on the building’s design. “We feel strongly that you can,” Detter said. Otherwise, he added, what’s the point? [The Varsity is another planned project, which was approved by city council in November 2011 despite criticism by Detter and others regarding its design. It consists of a 13-story apartment building with 181 units at 425 E. Washington, between 411 Lofts and the First Baptist Church.]

The process for 618. S. Main was better than it was for the Varsity, Detter said, and he hoped the process would continue to get better. He also hoped the commission and then city council would approve 618 S. Main.

Three representatives of the 618 S. Main project also addressed the commission. Developer Dan Ketelaar said his office has been located on South Ashley for more than 20 years. This development is literally two blocks from downtown – that has allowed his team to create something that’s difficult to do elsewhere, he said. On the east side of the site is commercial, on the west is a residential historic district. Washtenaw Dairy, which is well known and loved, is just down the street, he noted. Ketelaar described how the project’s original design – which conformed to the site’s D2 zoning – didn’t fit within this context. It overwhelmed the area.

Ketelaar went on to describe some of the attributes of the proposed design, and how the building’s features – such as a large common “living room” area on the main level – are designed with the young professional in mind. He and his team have been working on the project for over a year, Ketelaar said, and have gotten input from many people, including neighbors. It was an elaborate design process with several public forums, in addition to the design review board. They tried to be as sensitive as they could, he said.

Ketelaar also highlighted aspects of sustainability on the site, such as the proposed rain gardens. He noted that sustainable design is no longer just an add-on. Overall, he said he’s asking to do a planned project for only one reason – the height limit.

From left: Matt Kowalski and Alexis DiLeo of the city's planning staff; planning commissioners Bonnie Bona and Eleanore Adenekan; Ann Arbor resident Andrew Lineberry, who spoke during public commentary at the Jan. 19 meeting.

Mike Siegel of VOA Associates – the Chicago-based architecture firm that’s working on this project – described several key differences between the original design and the current proposal. [For details, see previous Chronicle coverage: "Public Gets View of 618 S. Main Proposal"] He talked about the public benefit that the project brings, citing the large open space courtyard off of Ashley, the wide landscape buffer on the Main Street side, and almost double the amount of required parking. Siegel also noted that the design was changed in response to feedback from the design review board. An entry tower was added on Main Street, and the corner of the building at Main and Mosley was strengthened. The changes reflect how the design evolved through collaboration with the review board, the community and planning staff, he said.

Shannan Gibb-Randall – a landscape architect with Insite Design Studio, the Ann Arbor firm that also built the new rain garden in front of city hall – reviewed details of the site’s landscaping and stormwater treatment. The open space off of Ashley will have fire pits, a place for raised vegetable beds and other amenities, she said: “This is going to be the backyard for people who live here.” She noted that the site is designed to take 100% of the runoff water from the site and direct it into the ground – that’s 990,000 gallons of water that won’t be flowing into the Allen Creek drain and on toward the Huron River, she said.

In the public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Don Wortman of Carlisle/Wortman Associates – which is co-owner of South Main Market across the street from the proposed project – said he welcomed the development but had concerns over its height, as well as traffic and parking issues. He noted that his office is located across the street from the project, in the South Main Market complex. In the context of the neighborhood, the development is too tall, he said. The next tallest building in that area is only three stories high – you have to go all the way to Ashley Mews, at Main and Packard, to find a similarly tall structure, he said.

Regarding traffic, Wortman said he observes numerous accidents along that part of Main Street. A left turn from northbound Main into the building’s underground parking would be a problem, and he hoped the traffic engineers examined that. It becomes a real choke point, and cars travel fast along that stretch.

The final issue Wortman raised was parking. There are problems with parking at South Main Market, he said – some University of Michigan employees use the lot instead of paying for parking, and there’s insufficient parking for the market’s tenants and customers. They’ve had to lease parking spaces at a nearby Fingerle Lumber lot, he said. Wortman said he’s worried that students living at 618 S. Main will park at South Main Market – it’s a serious issue, he said, and he hoped that the city council would address it.

Dan Ketelaar responded to Wortman’s commentary. Regarding the issue of turning off of Main Street, he noted that the same concern could be stated for southbound vehicles turning into South Main Market. As for parking, people generally just need to be told that they can’t park there, and they won’t do it, he said. Ketelaar told commissioners that his team would work with South Main Market to make sure that parking isn’t a problem.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion

Questions from commissioners covered a range of topics, with many of their comments focused on design, parking and traffic issues. This report organizes their discussion thematically.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – Design

Bonnie Bona began the discussion by responding to Ray Detter’s concerns over the planning commission’s stance on design review. Having a public conversation about a project’s design is important, she said. The commission absolutely should talk about design, Bona said. But she was confident that the commission has no authority to deny a project based on its design.

Bona said she was glad that the architect had shown drawings of the original design, which conformed to D2 zoning. When considering whether to approve a planned project with a building taller than zoning allows, the question is whether the design fits the site better. The project is at the southern edge of the D2 zoning district, but most of the building height is along the northern and northeast part of the site. So the height doesn’t bother her from that perspective, Bona said.

Bona asked about the streetwall along Ashley. In some of the drawings it looks like a gated community, she observed, adding that she didn’t think that was the intent of the design.

Shannan Gibb-Randall, the project’s landscape architect, said that Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff had raised the same concern, so they’ll revisit that design. She described the grade change there as strange – it rises very quickly, and the level of the courtyard is quite a bit higher than the sidewalk. When they designed the streetwall, they were thinking of it from the perspective of the residents, not the pedestrians, she said. They can change it, though there are certain height requirements necessary to contain the rainwater, Gibb-Randall noted.

Evan Pratt said he still wasn’t sure he understood what the streetwall would look like, saying it sounds goofy. But that’s good for Ann Arbor, he added – the city needs more goofy things.

Kirk Westphal asked what the distance is between the building’s Main Street tower entrance and the building’s northern edge. The entire side that fronts Main Street is about 290 feet, said Mike Siegel, the project’s architect. The tower is located at about the midpoint on that facade. Westphal pointed out that D2 zoning requires articulation every 60 feet. This proposed design includes a section with more than 100 feet that’s non-articulated, he said. There are worse examples in downtown buildings, Westphal noted, but he wondered how this design passed muster in that regard.

Kahan noted that Chapter 55 of the city code now includes design provisions related to articulation. [Table 5:20:10 in Chapter 55 addresses this issue – it's a chart of building "massing standards" in the downtown character overlay zoning districts.] The maximum “modular length” for an non-articulated facade is 66 feet, he said, but the code is less clear about what “modular” means.

Chapter 55 describes three ways to create distinct spaces on a facade – that is, to provide articulation: (1) by altering the surface plane – with setbacks, for example; (2) by changing materials; and (3) by changing textures. When staff looked at the 618 S. Main design, Kahan said, they determined that the building included materials to delineate spaces – windows between columns on the building served that purpose, and broke up the facade. Regardless of this project, he added, the code needs to be clearer.

Westphal said he personally enjoys the building’s industrial aesthetic, but it seems that the city is giving the developer a pass simply because bricks are being used. He was concerned about setting a precedent.

Pratt felt that the building’s inset along that Main Street facade provided variation, as did the large windows. If the windows had been small, he added, he wouldn’t have felt the same way. He agreed that they should clarify the city code.

In general regarding the project’s design aesthetics, Pratt said he was glad to see the changes between the original design and the proposed project. The process that the design had been through was appropriate, he said. Pratt noted that not many people were attending the meeting that night, “and that’s a good sign” – a reference to the fact that if a project is controversial, people turn up to speak during public commentary. If the city had 10 projects that worked this well, it might be possible to say that mandatory compliance isn’t needed, he said. [Currently, it's mandatory for projects to go through a design review process, but compliance with suggested design changes is voluntary.]

Wendy Woods asked if the entrance off of Ashley would be open to the public. She also questioned whether the pool in the courtyard would be accessible, indicating some concern for the safety of children in the neighborhood. Ketelaar replied that the courtyard will serve as a backyard for the building’s residents – it’s not open to the public. The area will be walled off, which will act as a deterrent to keep people out who don’t live there, he said. But for residents, the Ashley entrance will be a main one. He said he wasn’t sure how the entrance would be accessed – perhaps by a swipeable key card.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – Parking

Kirk Westphal noted that some people have cited the amount of parking – about double the number of required spaces – as a public benefit. He indicated that he and others might not share that view. Will a parking space be included in the rent for each unit? he asked. Mike Siegel, the project’s architect, said there would be an additional charge for parking.

Westphal asked Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff whether that parking rental arrangement has ever been written into the development agreement. Not to his knowledge, Kahan replied.

Developer Dan Ketelaar weighed in, saying that if it were up to the design team, there wouldn’t be any parking in the project. But there’s demand for parking, and it’s what the neighbors want too, he said. The plan calls for including spaces for a couple of Zipcars, he said. It’s very expensive to build underground parking, he added. Surface parking could have been designed in place of the courtyard, he said, but that wouldn’t be the best design.

Westphal acknowledged that it’s always a struggle between providing parking, especially underground, or having lower rents and no parking. Parking is being subsidized, one way or another, he said, and that’s legal.

Wendy Woods noted that sometimes when residents of an apartment building are charged for parking, they look for free parking in the neighborhood. Are there any restrictions on that? Kahan replied that there are some restrictions, but residents of the neighborhood can get residential parking permits. He wasn’t sure if residents of 618 S. Main would be able to purchase such permits, however – he said he’d look into that.

Diane Giannola said she was concerned about guest parking. Is there any accommodation for that – if someone has weekend guests, for example? No, Ketelaar said. That’s something the design team didn’t consider.

Giannola cautioned that if the rental of parking for the building is too high, residents will buy residential parking permits instead – if the city allows that. It will force people into parking in the neighborhoods, especially for younger residents of the building, she said.

Ketelaar replied that this will be a learning experience for everyone. There’s always a concern about charging too much or too little for parking, he said. The cost of owning a car is about $5,000 to $7,000 a year, he said, so it’s much cheaper to just walk downtown, or use a Zipcar or public transportation. Ketelaar said he hopes to encourage that.

Giannola wondered if one of the parking levels could be converted into something else, if the demand for parking doesn’t materialize. Ketelaar noted that the parking spaces will be available for community members to lease too – the spaces are not just for residents of the building.

Evan Pratt noted that if this were a by-right project, no parking would be required at all. In this case, it’s included as a premium as part of the planned project. Because there are far fewer parking spaces than one per unit, he noted, in some ways the developer is taking a risk, in light of market forces. Pratt said the developer is trying to respond to community concerns, and Pratt hoped it would work out.

Bonnie Bona said she hoped that residents of 618 S. Main would not be allowed to purchase residential parking permits. The building is located in a D2 zoning district, not a residential district, she said.

Woods disagreed with Bona. When you move into a neighborhood, you become part of its fabric, she said. Referring to the letter of support from the Old West Side Association, Woods noted that the association is viewing this project as an anchor to the neighborhood. She didn’t think the city should make a distinction based on the zoning district.

Responding to a question from Woods, Ketelaar explained that there will be two entrances to the parking levels – one entrance off of Main, another off of Ashley, going to an underground level. The two garages aren’t connected, he said.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Dan Ketelaar clarified for Wendy Woods that vehicles exiting onto Main Street won’t be able to turn left onto Main – the vehicles will only be allowed to make righthand turns onto southbound Main. Woods asked Jeff Kahan if a traffic study had been completed.

Returning from president Barack Obama's speech on the morning of Jan. 27, The Chronicle encountered the aftermath of a two-car auto accident on South Main at the intersection with Mosley – one car has rear-ended the other. The site for the 618 S. Main project is in the background. Concerns were raised at the Jan. 19 planning commission meeting about possible traffic problems in this area.

It had, Kahan said. The only proposed modification would be to change slightly  the traffic signal timing at the intersection of Madison and Main, north of the apartment building. Woods said she could imagine traffic backing up there. Backups could also be an issue along northbound Main, as people wait to turn left into the building’s parking entrance.

Eric Mahler echoed Woods’ concerns. He asked Kahan for more information about the traffic study.

Kahan noted that it’s not the planning staff who evaluated traffic issues – the city’s traffic engineers did that. The traffic engineers looked at the major corridors and intersections that are near this development. There will only be about 60 vehicles on each parking level, he said – so only 60 vehicles using the Main Street entrance, and 60 vehicles going in and out of the Ashley entrance.

The traffic study determined that even at peak hours, the volume could be accommodated – assuming that only righthand turns are allowed onto Main Street. All along the Main Street corridor people are making lefthand turns from northbound Main, he noted. The engineers didn’t feel the additional 60 vehicles would make a significant impact.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – Stormwater, Brownfield

Evan Pratt clarified with Shannan Gibb-Randall that there was capacity on the site to absorb the stormwater through infiltration into the ground. Not having runoff is a great public benefit, Pratt said. In general, the public benefits with this project are strong, he said, adding that it hasn’t always been so clear with other projects.

Kirk Westphal said the water runoff is being handled “elegantly,” and that it could also be of educational value for residents.

Tony Derezinski noted that the site includes contaminated soil and that there’s the potential for getting a brownfield designation. Is the project contingent on that?

Dan Ketelaar said that getting the site declared a brownfield – making it eligible for certain tax credits or TIF financing – is an important component of the financing. Armen Cleaners, located across the street at the northwest corner of Ashley & Mosley, is one of the most contaminated sites in the city, Ketelaar said. City staff have asked that Ketelaar look at possibly including the Armen Cleaners site as part of a brownfield plan for 618 S. Main – that’s why he hasn’t yet submitted a brownfield plan, Ketelaar said. His team is working on it with Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – Streetscape Improvements

Bonnie Bona raised the issue of the developer’s $117,800 contribution to the parks system, in lieu of providing dedicated public parkland. Dan Ketelaar has requested that the funds be used for street improvements on Main Street, between Mosley and William. Noting that the pedestrian experience along that stretch isn’t pleasant, Bona said she’d like to stipulate that the funds would be used for streetscape improvements, and she wondered if that could be written into the development agreement.

Jeff Kahan said that staff has been discussing the possible use of this type of contribution for purposes other than parks. The argument is that recreation in urban settings is different – recreation might involve going to cafes more than tennis courts. But no decision has been made yet regarding how to handle Ketelaar’s request, he said.

Bona endorsed spending the money on streetscape improvements, or putting it toward the proposed Allen Creek greenway. She asked that her comments be forwarded to city council.

Erica Briggs supported Bona’s suggestion. For downtown developments, the city needs to get creative about how the parks contributions are used. Ideas might include pedestrian improvements or public art, she said. It would go a long way toward improving the downtown.

Evan Pratt also agreed with Bona, but said he’d feel more comfortable consulting with the parks staff before making a recommendation. The attitude should be “Let’s make Main Street more park-like,” he said, but the parks system might have other needs.

Eric Mahler said he supports streetscape improvements, but cautioned that there might be unintended consequences. For example, if more pedestrians start using that stretch of Main Street, there will be more conflicts with vehicles going in and out of the parking garage. He hoped there would be sufficient warnings and signals to alert pedestrians – when people are in a hurry, it could be a dangerous situation.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – General Comments

Several commissioners praised the development. Tony Derezinski said it’s unusual to have near unanimity on a proposal like this. The design is creative, he said, and he thanked the developer and staff for their work. Kirk Westphal described the planned project as nearly ideal for this site, and he commended the developer for it.

Directing her comments toward Ray Detter, who was sitting in the audience, Wendy Woods said his statement during the public hearing had been refreshing. It was the first time she could recall him supporting a project.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement for 618 S. Main. The project now will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning for Society of Les Voyageurs

The commission was asked to consider rezoning of property and a site plan for an addition to the Habe Mills Pine Lodge, owned by the Society of Les Voyageurs. The property owned by the society, at 411 Longshore Drive near Argo Pond, is zoned public land, even though it’s owned by a private entity. The society is asking that the land be rezoned as a planned unit development (PUD), which would allow the group to build a a 220-square-foot, one-story addition to the rear of the existing lodge, on its east side.

Lodge for the Society of Les Voyageurs on Longshore Drive. The lodge faces Argo Pond.

The nonprofit society is a University of Michigan student and alumni club, focused on nature and the outdoors. Named for French-Canadian voyageurs of the Great Lakes fur trade, it was founded in 1907 and is one of the university’s oldest fraternal student groups.

The lodge was built in 1925 – about the same time as the city’s first zoning ordinance and zoning map. Five student members live at the lodge, and society alumni gather there for potluck Sunday dinners from September to April.

Three members of the society spoke briefly during the proposal’s public hearing in support of the changes. The city’s planning staff had recommended approval of the zoning change and site plan.

Rezoning for Society of Les Voyageurs: Public Hearing

Three people spoke during the public hearing for the project. Jim McNair and Mark Doman introduced themselves as members of the society. They both thanked the city planning staff – specifically citing Alexis DiLeo – for walking them through this complicated process and helping to resolve the issues that arose. McNair said it had been helpful to meet with commissioners last year at a working session to informally discuss the project – that’s a great process, he said.

John Russell also identified himself as a member of Les Voyageurs, and said he had purchased his home on Longshore Drive so that he could be close to the lodge. He fully supported the proposed changes.

Rezoning for Society of Les Voyageurs: Commission Discussion

Evan Pratt pointed to a section of the draft development agreement that specifically stated the permitted principal uses of the site: “The headquarters of the Society of Les Voyageurs, an organization of men and women who share a love of nature and the outdoors, and a dwelling for up to six occupants.” Citing a specific organization didn’t seem like the best long-term approach, he said, because the way this document reads now, no one else could buy or use the property.

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff said that if the society wanted to sell the property, a zoning amendment to the PUD would be required.

Erica Briggs apologized for missing the working session when this project had been discussed. She said it makes sense to find a way to allow Les Voyageurs to remodel, but she wasn’t sure why a PUD was the best option. She understood the desire to keep the society at that location. But to say that the project provided a benefit to the city – one of the requirements of a PUD – seemed to undermine the purpose of this type of zoning, she said.

DiLeo said she had prepared a memo for the society describing the requirements of two or three different zoning options that they might pursue, both residential and office. Variances and other modifications would have been required, she said – it was like trying to shoehorn a square peg into a round hole. Ultimately, it seemed that custom zoning would make the most sense.

Tony Derezinski noted that the addition is quite small, and that it gets too complicated to apply other types of zoning to a project this size. He described it as a creative use of the PUD. Derezinski also noted that over 1,000 invitations were sent out for a public meeting on this project, and only one person showed up. “That’s kind of convincing,” he said.

Kirk Westphal said that to him, it was an issue of fairness. It was the city’s “goof” that this site wasn’t zoned properly, he said. So to ask the owners to go through the expensive process of developing a site plan seems onerous, especially since it’s a use that doesn’t offend the neighbors.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of rezoning and a site plan for Les Voyageurs. The project will now be forwarded to the city council for its consideration. 

Accessory Apartment on Waldenwood

On the Jan. 19 agenda was a resolution to approve a special exception use at 3645 Waldenwood, which would allow an accessory apartment to be added to the single-family house there. It’s located in the Earhart Estates neighborhood, west of Earhart and south of Glazier Way, in the city’s northwest side.

According to planning staff, this is only the second time a special exception use has been requested for an accessory unit since the accessory dwelling ordinance was crafted in the early 1980s.

The apartment would be used by parents of the home’s owner, Laura Damschroder. No rent would be charged. The addition would include a one-car garage and a 596-square-foot one-bedroom apartment with a kitchen, living room and bathroom. It would attach to the existing 3,608-square-foot house.

Planning staff recommended approval.

Accessory Apartment on Waldenwood: Public Hearing

Only two people spoke briefly at the public hearing: the owner, Laura Damschroder, and the project’s architect, Mike Nicklowitz of Adrian Design Group. Damschroder said the motivation for the project is so that her parents can live at the home. Nicklowitz indicated he was there to answer any questions.

Accessory Apartment on Waldenwood: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked whether the accessory unit would have its own utilities – a furnace and separate water source. Mike Nicklowitz of Adrian Design Group said the water supply will be pulled from the main house, and the apartment will be hooked up to the same gas line. However, it will have a separate furnace, as well as an electric subpanel.

Eleanore Adenekan confirmed with planning staff that the main house was about 3,000 square feet, and the addition would add roughly 600 square feet of floor space. She wondered if this size was in line with other houses in that neighborhood. City planner Matt Kowalski replied that it was a comparable size, even with the addition.

Kirk Westphal asked when the ordinance was crafted that allowed accessory units. That happened around 1983, explained Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff. This would be only the second application the city has processed since then, she said.

Westphal wondered how many accessory units have been built without seeking a special exception use from the city. Kowalski ventured that there weren’t many, but Rampson disagreed. When she worked on revisions to the ordinance about 10 years ago – changes that ultimately did not get enacted – city staff discovered quite a few unauthorized accessory dwellings, especially in older neighborhoods.

Westphal indicated that this was simply a long way for him to say that he appreciated the homeowner going through this process – though he said he wasn’t sure this type of project should require a separate process.

Erica Briggs also expressed appreciation. ”Accessory dwelling units can be an asset to our community and I hope we see more in the future,” she said.

Woods asked what would happen when the property changes ownership. Kowalski said a note about the accessory unit would be added to the city’s property tracking database. But the city’s planning staff doesn’t monitor property sales closely, he said, so enforcement would likely depend on neighbors reporting any problems. He said he felt confident that it wouldn’t turn into a rental unit, and that it would remain occupied by someone closely connected to owners of the main house – even if ownership changed hands.

Bonnie Bona asked Kowalski to clarify for the general public the differences between a duplex and an accessory apartment. The main difference, he said, is that you can’t charge rent for an accessory unit. It also has to be occupied by someone related to the owner, he said.

That’s a key difference, Bona said, and it might make people feel more comfortable with having this type of unit in their neighborhood.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously approved the special exception use for an accessory apartment at 3645 Waldenwood.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Eleanore Adenekan, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Feb. 7 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city 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.

According to planning staff, this is only the second time a special exception use has been requested for an accessory unit since the accessory dwelling ordinance was crafted in the early 1980s. Several commissioners expressed support of this project and for accessory units in general. “Accessory dwelling units can be an asset to our community and I hope we see more in the future,” said commissioner Erica Briggs.

The apartment would be used by parents of the home’s owner, Laura Damschroder. No rent would be charged. The addition would entail a one-car garage and a 596-square-foot one-bedroom apartment with a kitchen, living room and bathroom. It would attach to the existing 3,608-square-foot house.

Only two people – Damschroder and the project’s architect – spoke briefly at the public hearing. Planning staff recommended approval.

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