Pre-premiere socializing at the Workantile Exchange for films on urban planning and forms of local government. (Photos by the writer.)

The first film, “The Great Street Toolkit,” focuses on urban planning. The second, “The Council-Manager Form of Local Government,” is an introduction to how the council-manager system is different from a strong mayor system. The city of Ann Arbor uses a modified version of the council-manager form.

As Westphal himself noted lightheartedly, it was the “true wonks” in the audience who stayed for the second film – on council-manager government.

And it turns out that most of the 30 people in the audience were true wonks.

But linked indirectly to the evening in multiple ways was one person who was not in the audience at all –  local developer and downtown property owner, Ed Shaffran.

The wonks included people like Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor; Ed Koryzno, Ypsilanti’s city manager; Diane Giannola, Ann Arbor city planning commissioner; Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning; and Steve Bean, recent independent candidate for mayor of Ann Arbor.

Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning, talks with Wendy Rampson, head of Ann Arbor's planning staff.

Westphal, a video producer and urban researcher, will be recognizable to many Chronicle readers as one of the city’s planning commissioners; he also serves on the city’s environmental commission. His previous work includes the film “Insights into a Lively Downtown,” a case study of Ann Arbor.

Each of Westphal’s new films had a running time of 23 minutes, and there was opportunity for the audience to discuss the content of the films before, between and after the showings. Prompting much of the discussion was how the material in the “Great Street” film relates to the Washington-to-Huron block of Main Street, where the Workantile Exchange itself is located. The Washington-to-Huron block includes a number of banking opportunities: Citizens Bank, Chase, KeyBank, and PNC Bank. In addition, Comerica is located just north of Huron, in the One North Main building.

But as the “Great Streets” film makes clear, neither professional planners nor Westphal are fans of banks as a ground-floor use in a downtown environment. [The film was funded in part by a grant from the Urban Design and Preservation division of the American Planning Association.]

Westphal has expressed the same view before, most recently in an early November presentation he made to his colleagues on the planning commission. Describing a surveillance camera photo of a bank robbery in progress, said Westphal: “What I’d like to convince you of tonight is that there are two crimes being committed in this photo. I contend that what this thief is stealing from the bank doesn’t even come close to what underused banks, like this one, steal from the vitality of a downtown.”

Kirk Westphal answered questions as the credits rolled.

And in an opinion piece published in the April 5, 2009 Ann Arbor News, Westphal expressed the general view that ground floor uses should be regulated in the zoning code to give preference to “active uses” – like retail stores, cafes and restaurants.

So how did Ed Shaffran factor into the evening?

When Westphal’s opinion piece was published in The News, it appeared side-by-side with one from Shaffran, who’s a downtown property owner and developer, and who offered a view opposing Westphal’s. From Shaffran’s piece: “On a theoretical level, to say a bank is not an active use and should be located to a secondary street borders on National Socialism.”

The impetus for the two opinion pieces was the city’s A2D2 rezoning initiative for downtown Ann Arbor, which at the time was being debated by the city council. The original A2D2 proposal included some restrictions on ground-floor uses in certain areas – preference was given to active uses. But those restrictions were removed from the version of the A2D2 rezoning that was approved by the Ann Arbor city council in November 2009.

And Shaffran, as it turns out, was featured in a serendipitous cameo in Westphal’s “Great Streets” film, which included footage shot by Westphal in downtown Ann Arbor. In the frame, Shaffran can briefly be seen walking towards the camera east along Liberty Street, talking on his cell phone.

At left: Jesse Bernstein, chair of the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, chats with Ray Detter, president of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, before the film premiere. In the foreground is Trek Glowacki, co-owner of the Workantile Exchange.

Another Shaffran connection to the film premiere: He owns the building at 118 Main St. that houses the Workantile Exchange, where the films were shown.

And it was the Workantile Exchange itself that generated some of the conversation after the “Great Streets” showing. Why? Parade examples of non-active uses of space are banks and offices. And the coworking space offered by the Workantile Exchange is somewhat similar to shared office space. Does coworking space constitute an active use in an urban planning sense?

The day before the showing, Trek Glowacki, co-owner of the Workantile Exchange, explained to The Chronicle that one key difference between a coworking space and a shared office arrangement is the business model. In a shared office space, every tenant would have an assigned desk, and the rent for the space would be divided equally among the tenants. If a tenant moves out, the remaining tenants would pay slightly more rent. If tenants were added, the rent would decrease accordingly.

In contrast, the Workantile’s coworking space doesn’t guarantee a permanent desk in a specific location. The furniture is on wheels, and will be configured differently on any given day, depending on who shows up to work, when they show up, and who they might be collaborating with. The Workantile is calibrated to a culture that is inherently more collaborative than an arrangement where the only expectation is that you pay the rent for your desk. This community of coworking is a key part of what Glowacki describes as the Workantile’s role in the city’s economic development.

So, the monthly fee paid to the Workantile is not a desk rental, but rather a membership that gives access to a working community and the expectation of a contribution to that community. The space itself includes all the typical amenities that you’d expect in an office, including access to two conference rooms.

Window view of the Workantile Exchange last Wednesday night.

The configurable space inside the Workantile makes it suitable for hosting various kinds of events. For example, on Friday, Dec. 3, the same day as Midnight Madness in downtown Ann Arbor, author David Erik Nelson, a Workantile member, hosted a book-signing event for his latest title, “Snip, Burn, Solder, Shred.” The book is written for parents who’d like to make things with their kids – like boomerangs. With all the tables rolled to the walls, there was plenty of room to fling the boomerangs around the main floor. The Workantile Christmas tree is now bedecked with boomerangs.

And of course the space is suitable for hosting a film premiere.

So one of questions at the conclusion of the film came from the Workantile’s Glowacki, who told Westphal to be honest: Is the Workantile Exchange an active use of space?

Before answering, Westphal wanted some clarification about what the usage patterns were. Glowacki told him there was generally someone working 20 hours out of every day. Westphal noted that the use was certainly more active when Mighty Good Coffee had its storefront at the front of the space – but in September 2010 Mighty Good moved up the block to a new location at 217 N. Main St. Now, the whole space is occupied by the Workantile.

At a meeting of Workantile coworkers soon after Mighty Good Coffee departed, they discussed possible alternatives for the area previously used by the coffee shop’s store front. One idea batted around at the meeting was rotating window displays showing off the work of members. Attractive windows offering things of interest to pedestrians is one feature that Westphahl’s “Great Streets” film highlighted as important for a vibrant downtown.

From outside the Workantile on Wednesday night, the film premiere taking place on the other side of the glass wasn’t necessarily accessible to every member of the public – the sign on the door indicated a private event was taking place. But through the window it was clear the space was filled with activity.

Dave Askins, editor and co-founder of The Chronicle, is a member of the Workantile Exchange.

The PNC Bank building in Ann Arbor, at the corner of Main and Huron, illustrating planning commissioner Kirk Westphal's point that banks tend to create urban "dead zones."

A request to add a parking lot at the University Bank headquarters in the former Hoover Mansion was revisited during public commentary – the proposal had been discussed and postponed at the commission’s Oct. 19 meeting. Bank president Stephen Ranzini returned and spoke during public commentary on Nov. 3, citing additional reasons why commissioners should grant the request, which planning staff had recommended rejecting.

Later in the meeting, commissioner Kirk Westphal reprised a cheeky slideshow he’d given during the recent annual conference of the Michigan Association of Planning. One slide showed an image of a bank robbery taking place, as Westphal narrated: “I contend that what this thief is stealing from the bank doesn’t even come close to what underused banks, like this one, steal from the vitality of a downtown.”

Commissioner Evan Pratt also gave a presentation that he’d delivered at the conference, focused on the use of roundabouts as an alternative to a traditional intersection, or the “axis of evil.” Their presentations were given in the “Pecha Kucha” style – Chronicle readers might be familiar with a similar format if they’ve attended Ignite Ann Arbor events.

Intersecting the topics of parks and planning, but without the playful overtones, commissioners passed a resolution recommending that city council distribute a draft of the Ann Arbor Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan to neighboring communities and stakeholders, as required by state law. The draft plan, revised every five years, will be posted on the city’s website for public feedback after council approves distribution.

University Bank: Redux

At the commission’s Oct. 19 meeting, a proposal by University Bank had been postponed. The request was to add more parking by creating a new parking lot behind the bank’s headquarters in the building known as the Hoover Mansion on Washtenaw Avenue. The proposal would also allow up to 10 additional employees to work at that location. The planning staff had recommended denial of the request, stating that the project impacts natural features and doesn’t offer an overall benefit to the city. However, commissioners asked planning staff to work with bank officials to come up with an alternative proposal for locating new parking.

At the Nov. 3 meeting, bank president Stephen Ranzini spoke during public commentary, making a case for why the commission should approve the bank’s request. He covered many of the same points made in a letter he’d sent to commissioners, dated Oct. 21. [.pdf of letter from Ranzini]

He told commissioners he’d returned to speak to them to highlight some points that he didn’t have time to cover at the previous meeting. To make the building site and grounds sustainable for the long-term, “something must change,” he said. “The status quo is not sustainable.” The 3.4-acre site in Ann Arbor Hills consists of potentially 12 lots, which in today’s market are worth $300,o00 each, he said. But the building on that site was recently appraised at only $2 million. In addition, the cost of operating the building as an office, on a per-square-foot basis, is more than triple the market rents of offices elsewhere in the city. He said that when the bank bought the building, they beat out another potential buyer who would have put in a condo project that would have caused substantial damage to the building.

Ranzini noted that the idea of putting parking on the circular drive in front of the building was discussed at the Oct. 19 meeting. He read a statement from a local attorney, who said that parking on the driveway will increase the likelihood of collisions, and isn’t a good solution.

Ranzini also responded to another proposal mentioned during the Oct. 19 meeting – that bank employees be encouraged to use the AATA bus system. Ranzini stated that two-thirds of the bank’s employees live outside of Washtenaw County. He read a statement from one of his employees who lives in Canton, and who said that it’s unreasonable to suggest that they take public transportation. The employee would have to leave his home two hours earlier and take two buses in order to get to work, even if he used the Park & Ride lot at Plymouth and US-23.

Since the October meeting, Ranzini said he’d talked to the couple who had spoken during public commentary against the project. [They are Gerald and Sheryl Serwer, and had cited concerns over aesthetics and drainage issues.] Ranzini said that prior to the Oct. 19 meeting, he’d talked with them and they didn’t mention their opposition. Another speaker during public commentary at the Oct. 19 meeting, who lives behind the bank, had never responded to any communications from the bank, Ranzini said. And a third speaker, he said, had previously been offered $10,000 worth of landscaping to screen his property. “He’s unreasonable, and we’re never going to reach agreement with him,” Ranzini said.

Ranzini said he thinks the couple who opposed the project might change their minds. In addition, he was meeting on Monday, Nov. 8 with the city’s planning staff “to see if we can get their opinion changed also.”

Finally, he said there are many more Ann Arbor voters among the bank’s employees and customers than the four neighbors who expressed opposition to the project.

There was no discussion among commissioners about the project.

PROS Plan Distribution

The one action item at the Nov. 3 meeting was a resolution to recommend that the city council approve the distribution of the revised Ann Arbor Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan to neighboring communities and stakeholders. Jeff Kahan, in his staff report, told commissioners that state law requires that adjoining communities and other stakeholders be given the opportunity to comment on master plans like this, prior to adoption. After distribution, these groups have up to 42 days to respond. After comments are received, the planning commission is required to hold a public hearing prior to adopting the PROS plan as an element of the city’s master plan. It’s then forwarded to city council for final adoption.

The planning commission will have the opportunity to discuss the content of the plan in early 2011. Amy Kuras of the city’s parks and recreation unit has been working with an advisory group for the past year to update the PROS plan, which was last revised in 2006.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this agenda item.

PROS Plan Distribution: Commissioner Deliberations

Bonnie Bona asked Kuras how the distribution list was determined – who decided what groups should be asked for input? Kuras said that state law requires distribution to adjoining communities and entities like utility companies. The city staff has added others to the list, including the University of Michigan and the Washtenaw County health department.

Bona said she noticed that the Norfolk Southern Railroad was included, but not Ann Arbor Railroad. Kuras agreed that Ann Arbor Railroad should be added.

Noting that the commission had held a working session on the PROS plan with suggestions for changes, Evan Pratt wondered whether the commission could get a document highlighting changes that had been made as a result of those discussions. [For Chronicle coverage of that June 8, 2010 session, see "Ann Arbor Planning with the PROS"] Kuras said she could provide a summary of changes that are being recommended, compared to the 2006 plan.

In broad strokes, Kuras said, she tried to align the PROS plan more closely with the city’s master plan documents, such as the land use element plan. The previous PROS plan included several subjective statements about the administration and structure of the city, she said, and they tried to take out that subjectivity. In addition, the PROS chapter on the parks action plan more closely reflects the city’s overall goals and activities, Kuras said, particularly related to capital projects.

After city council approves distribution of the draft plan, Kuras said she’ll post it online and in other venues, such as local libraries, for public input.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution to recommend that the city council approve the distribution of the revised Ann Arbor Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan to neighboring communities and stakeholders.

Pecha Kucha: Fast, Funny, Edgy

The Ann Arbor-based Michigan Association of Planning (MAP) held its annual conference last month in Detroit, and participants included several Ann Arbor area architects, urban designers and other planning professionals. Sessions presented by local experts included:

• LED billboards and LED signs, with Don Wortman of Ann Arbor-based Carlisle/Wortman Associates and April McGrath of the city of Ypsilanti.
• Planning and community-based food initiatives, with Larissa Larsen of the University of Michigan.
• Integration of design into the community planning process, with Norman Tyler of Eastern Michigan University and Ilene Tyler of Ann Arbor-based Quinn Evans Architects.

In addition, two Ann Arbor planning commissioners – Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal – and city planner Jeff Kahan participated in a “Pecha Kucha” session. At the Nov. 3 planning commission meeting, Pratt explained that Pecha Kucha events were started by young urban designers in Tokyo. Presenters have seven minutes to cover their topic, and can only display their 20 slides in their presentation for 20 seconds each. The idea is to make your point quickly and inject some energy and humor into the talk. [It's a similar format to the popular Ignite events, including those held in Ann Arbor.]

At the Nov. 3 meeting, Pratt and Westphal gave a reprise of their Pecha Kucha presentations. Visuals are a crucial element of the presentations, which can be viewed on Community Television Network’s video-on-demand: Westphal’s talk begins at the 31:35 minute timecode; Pratt’s begins at the 39:45 mark.

Pecha Kucha: Why Too Many Banks Are Bad for Downtown

Westphal began by noting that ever since the financial crisis of the early 1900s, it became customary for banks to build lobbies much bigger than they needed to be. That way, even when banks were busy, it would never feel crowded and remind people of a panic. That wasn’t so bad when people actually did their banking at the bank, Westphal said.

He showed a slide of what appeared to be a surveillance camera shot of a bank robbery taking place. “What I’d like to convince you of tonight is that there are two crimes being committed in this photo,” Westphal said. “I contend that what this thief is stealing from the bank doesn’t even come close to what underused banks, like this one, steal from the vitality of a downtown.”

His talk would focus on why too many banks are bad for your downtown, what you can do to break free, and how you can justify taking action.

Banks are oversized and generate little pedestrian traffic. They were oversized even before ATMs and direct deposits, he noted – now, there are mostly tumbleweeds blowing around inside them. The buildings are a hugely inefficient use of space in general, but the really sad thing is that bank buildings are usually ugly and always boring, he said. [He illustrated this point with an image of the former National City bank, now PNC, at the corner of Main and Huron in Ann Arbor.] At worst you get marble-clad fortresses that have been known to frighten small children, he quipped. At best, you get a couple of windows with ads for high-yield CDs and a bouquet of silk flowers, if you’re lucky.

The last reason that banks are bad is that they’re dead at night, Westphal said. Can you think of any successful downtown that didn’t begin as an active night spot? he asked. Every bank displaces a business that’s more likely to be open past five o’clock. And once one comes in, they typically like company – banks tend to cluster. So the question is, how many banks does it take to make a street not worth walking down?

Downtowns have an edge over malls and suburbia only when there are interesting things to see between your car and your destination, Westphal said, and each dead area interrupts a good downtown experience. So a lot of communities feel that banks run amok are bad, he said, but the good news is that cities can embrace banks without letting them kill our streets. We can’t wait until they’re a problem, he noted, because it’s too hard to undo this kind of damage.

There are two ways to be pro-active, Westphal said. One way is to implement a spacing requirement between banks to keep too many from moving in – Chicago, for example, has a 600-foot requirement. That compares to Ann Arbor, which in some places has five banks within 300 feet. Other cities prohibit banks from being on first floors.

The other strategy is to limit the percent of linear street frontage that banks or other inactive uses are allowed to occupy. The “dead” use has to be wrapped by active uses, like shops and restaurants, so that it doesn’t create a dead zone. Dozens of cities across the country have applied these types of ordinances to banks, Westphal said.

How do you justify these types of regulations to property owners? he asked. The fact that even the game Monopoly has moved to electronic banking likely isn’t persuasive, he noted. You might hear the argument “Let the market decide who I rent to.” Most people are free-market advocates unless it comes to externalities, he said. An externality is a side effect of something you do that doesn’t affect you personally, he explained. Pollution from factories is one example – the polluter might not care that people outside the factory are getting sick, so the government has to regulate this externality. Likewise, a property owner who rents to a bank and kills foot traffic around them is imposing a huge negative externality on surrounding businesses who need walk-by traffic for their livelihoods, Westphal said.

When the planning staff proposed an active-use ordinance a couple of years ago, Westphal said, he was intrigued and did a straw poll of three businesses near his office – two restaurants and a bookstore – that seemed to be cut off from the “good” part of Main Street by inactive uses. [He showed a slide of the block of Main north of Washington, on the west side – Citizens Bank is located at that northwest corner.]

He asked them if they had any observations about being located next to a bank. He said he wasn’t expecting to hear much, but the first person told him without hesitation that it’s “terrible” – people see a building without activity and don’t cross the street toward their businesses. The next manager related a story about walking behind a guy who was showing his parents around town. When he got to that corner, the guy told his parents that “Main Street kind of ends here – let’s go down the other side.” Hearing that was like a kick in the stomach, the manager said.

Hurting your neighbor’s business is an externality, Westhpal said. During the debate about the active-use ordinance in Ann Arbor, a property owner [Ed Shaffran] wrote a letter to the editor of the Ann Arbor News, saying that to describe a bank as not being an active use “borders on national socialism,” Westphal reported. [Westphal also wrote an opinion piece, published by The News, in support of active-use regulations.]

An online commenter on the Ann Arbor News website wrote: “Better yet, the granola-and-tofu fascist set should pack their bags and move to a country where the government can control the minutiae of their lives.” But what the commenter may not know, Westhpal said, is that young professionals are leaving Ann Arbor in droves for a fascist country that does control banks – it’s called Chicago.

Ann Arbor’s proposed active-use ordinance was opposed by property owners and was dead-on-arrival at city council, Westphal said. Some say that incentivizing active uses might have worked better, and they may have been right, he said. But city officials can’t afford to be wimps about controlling the business mix downtown, he added.

“Let me be scandalous and suggest that we take a page from the shopping center playbook,” he said. “Like it or not, they continue to take traditional downtowns to the cleaners.” Westphal said he personally doesn’t think shopping centers capture the best of a downtown, but they’re certainly good at eliminating the worst. If you want to make a mall manager laugh, ask if they allow panhandling or banks inside, he said.

He then showed a slide of the inside of Briarwood Mall, and challenged his colleagues to find the mall’s version of the bank in the photo – it was an ATM kiosk. “Mall fascism at work!” he quipped.

Westphal said that one of the things he loves about downtowns is their truly organic feel. But like any garden, he concluded, you have to control the weeds.

Pecha Kucha: Roundabouts

Pratt, an engineer by trade, began by saying the point of his presentation was to identify elements that people should consider in situations where it’s reasonable to contemplate having either a roundabout or a traditional intersection.

Roadways are the most dangerous facilities on the face of the earth, he said – in the U.S., 650 people die each week on roads, or the equivalent of three jumbo jets going down. What if three jets crashed each week – what would the media do with that? He noted that a quarter of these fatalities occur at intersections, or the “axis of evil.”

So what are the alternatives? There are social benefits to improving safety and mobility for everyone, he said, as well as to eliminating delays at intersections. Financial and environmental gains are also goals.

But some roundabouts don’t work, he said, showing a slide of congestion around the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. We can do better, he said.

Conventional wisdom says that you can move more cars by adding more traffic lanes, Pratt said. He showed a slide of an intersection where 22 lanes converged – as a pedestrian, how would you like to walk about that? he asked.

In many cases, it’s not the best solution to add lanes. Maybe there isn’t space, or you’ll be taking away property that could be developed as taxable property. He paraphrased Einstein, saying we can’t solve problems using the same thinking we used to create them. “Just adding lanes is really not the best way to go in all situations,” he said.

So what are people doing? One example Pratt gave is a roundabout “retrofit” at the intersection of Geddes and US-23. The main benefit is that you don’t have to install a wider bridge. A case study at US-23 and Thompson Road showed an $8 million savings to put in a roundabout, he said, compared to a traditional intersection. There are no right-of-way issues, and there’s a financial impact for having fewer crashes, he said. The social benefit is a 90% reduction in fatalities – what if there were only 65 fatalities every week, rather than 650? There’s also a savings in health care costs for the serious injuries caused in accidents, he noted.

Where should roundabouts be considered as an option? In situations where there are capacity issues, safety issues, right-of-way or other issues that constrain the number of lanes, or where there are a lot of left turns, Pratt said. But the real benefits, he added, are for pedestrians. Roundabouts typically include “splitter islands,” so pedestrians have to cross only a few feet of traffic at a time.

Roundabouts also mean just 25% of the decisions to make compared to a traditional intersection, Pratt said. Rather than 32 vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points in a typical intersection, he said, there are only eight in a roundabout. There will still be accidents, he said, but typically they’ll be just sideswipes.

Pratt showed an example of the conversion of an intersection in Ashley, N.C. As a traditional intersection, pedestrians had to cross six lanes of traffic – it would take him 24-30 seconds to walk across, and he’d get the “Don’t Walk” sign well before crossing. Seniors and disabled people don’t want to navigate more than three lanes, he said.

As a roundabout, there are two eight-second crosses to make, buffered by a “refuge island” in the middle. There are also “aesthetic opportunities,” he noted – landscaping in the islands.

For larger roundabouts, you can install HAWK signals for pedestrians to use to control traffic flow, Pratt said – he noted that Ann Arbor’s first HAWK is being installed at Huron and Chapin. [A presentation on the signal was given at the Nov. 4 city council meeting. There are currently no traffic signals there – nor is it a roundabout.]

Pratt concluded by saying there are alternatives to traditional intersections, and people should consider the triple-bottom line of sustainability – the social, financial and environmental benefits – when considering their options. His final slide showed an image of a hospital in Bahrain that was located in the center of a roundabout – Pratt said he didn’t recommend it, but he wanted to show that “there are a lot of crazy things that people have done in the middle of these roundabouts.”

Present: Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Diane Giannola, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Eric Mahler

Next regular meeting: The planning commission’s Nov. 16 meeting has been cancelled. The group next meets on Tuesday, Dec. 7 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers of city hall, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

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

So what kind of growth was Greden talking about?

Greden meant more residents, businesses and buildings in downtown Ann Arbor.   Management of that growth is the goal of the A2D2 zoning revisions and the revised downtown plan that planning commission approved last week (March 3), and which  council was starting to work through on Monday night. Planning commission had previously approved a set of A2D2 zoning revisions back in late summer of 2008, but had been requested by city council to take another look at their proposed revisions.

That request resulted in a series of fall workshops led by city planner Wendy Rampson to solicit additional feedback on planning commission’s proposed revisions. Planning commission had undertaken that work based on recommendations approved by city council in November of 2007. And those recommendations had emerged over the course of a process that has now been at least four years in the making, dating back to the Calthorpe report.

Wendy Rampson led off Monday’s work session by tracing through the impetus behind the re-examination of Ann Arbor’s downtown zoning and planning, which came in the early 2000s in connection with the Ashley Mews construction and what she described as a residential building “boomlet.” The downtown plan, she said, was first adopted in 1988 and last updated in 1992, so it was due for an update, while the underlying zoning regulations had been in place since the 1960s, and were overdue for revision.

The recommendations to city council just approved by planning commission do not reflect an end to the public process.  Rampson outlined the following timeline for opportunities to weigh in before council is expected to reach a final decision:

• Monday, March 23: city council will hold a public comment session solely on the topic of the A2D2  zoning revisions and the downtown plan
• Monday, April 6: city council regular meeting, first reading of zoning revisions
• Monday, April 20: city council regular meeting, public hearing on the revised downtown plan with final vote
• Monday May 4: city council regular meeting, second reading of zoning revisions with final vote

As reflected in the timeline, the downtown plan has a different status from the zoning revisions. The zoning revisions require a change to the city’s ordinances, and thus require a first and second reading at council. The downtown plan, in contrast, is a planning document, which is part of the city’s master plan, which the state of Michigan requires to be adopted by both planning commission and city council.

If  city council amends the zoning recommendations from planning commission, the zoning as amended would become law. But if city council amends the planning commission recommendation for the downtown plan, the amended plan would then go back to planning commission for consideration by that body.

Rampson said that planning commission felt that the downtown plan was a sound document, even if it was a bit  heavy on narrative. The amendments to it, she said, reflected a tightening up of the narrative, plus material on future land use and a zoning plan, which are elements required by the state. The draft of the downtown plan approved by planning commission and which council was examining during its Monday (March 9) work session can be downloaded here: Ann Arbor Downtown Plan [3MB .pdf]

The revisions to the zoning ordinances for downtown in the form council received them from planning commmission can be downloaded here: Ann Arbor Downtown Zoning [1MB .pdf] This is a red-lined document, with the indicated changes reflecting differences between (i) the version of proposed zoning approved by planning commission  in September 2008, and (ii) the version of proposed zoning approved by planning commission on March 2, 2009.

An accompanying memo from planning commission helps navigate through the changes made since fall 2008, and provides insight into why some sections were not changed. Inasmuch as this memo provides response to the feedback heard through fall 2008 resulting from Rampson’s series of workshops, we include the better part of that memo at the bottom of this article.

The Basic Concept and Council’s Work Session Discussion

With Monday’s working session, city council has just begun its current round of work, but based on watching their discussion Monday night on CTN, planning commissioner Eppie Potts said she was encouraged that councilmembers were asking good questions. This, after she expressed her frustration at the conclusion of  planning commission’s March 2 meeting, saying that the newly proposed zoning did not do the job of improving downtown and its surroundings. Her criticisms included the lack of an adequate buffer for residential areas, and what she sees as conflicts between character overlays and the new zoning, plus a lack of specific green space.

So what were some of the good questions that councilmembers were asking?

Basics: The basic concept for the rezoning strategy that was passed most recently by planning commission remains intact from September 2008. Under the strategy approved by planning commission, downtown zoning is simplified to one of two districts: D1 (core) and D2 (interface). The D1 area is a contiguous area in the center of downtown, while D2 areas provide a buffer between the single D1 districts and residential areas. On top of these D1 and D2 districts are overlaid eight “character” districts, which identify unique aspects of the following areas: South University, State Street, Liberty/Division, East Huron, Midtown, Main Street, Kerrytown, and First Street.

One key difference between D1 and D2 areas is that building height is controlled purely with floor area ratio (FAR), while in D2 areas, it’s controlled through a combination of FAR and an absolute building height limit (60 feet) that applies independently of FAR and any bonus premiums.

D1 – Core
• 400% FAR by right
• 700% FAR with premiums
• 900% FAR with on-site affordable housing
• No absolute height limit (except in South University character district)

D2 – Interface
• 200% FAR by right
• 400% FAR with premiums
• 60 ft. height limit
• 80% lot coverage limit

South University: The one important exception to D1′s lack of absolute height limits is the South University character district. For South University, which is proposed as a D1 district, an absolute height limit is proposed at 170 feet. In the September 2008 proposal that planning commission approved, the South University absolute height limit had been set at 120 feet. In recent planning commission deliberations, the 170 feet for South University reflected a compromise that included the addition of a 30-foot setback for new construction from residential areas, plus a maximal tower diagonal on the building of 150 feet.

Current zoning in the South University area has no absolute height limits. Part of the South University area was rezoned in fall of 2006 by city council from a variety of different kinds of districts (campus business/residential, office, multiple-family dwelling) to a central business district and parking district.

It was that rezoning, together with an accumulation of parcels, that enabled the proposal for 601 S. Forest as a by-right  development at a height of 164 feet. [Recent reporting by Dan Meisler, writing for the Ann Arbor Business Review, lays out recent legal wrangling among the developers on that project.]

While there is a prominent D2 area proposed on the west side of the city, and a smaller D2 area on the southern edge, it’s not the case that D2 areas buffer the D1 core on all sides – South University is one of those areas without a D2 buffer. During council discussion at its Monday night work session, councilmember Margie Teall asked why the South University area did not include a D2 interface buffer.

Rampson noted that the real focus of increased density was meant to be along South University Avenue itself, and that part of the rationale for including the rest of the area was based on its zoning history before the 2006 rezoning. Given that the zoning history was “a material impetus in driving the decision” to zone the area as D1, councilmember Christopher Taylor wanted to know if that was a paper history or if it was reflected in the buildings that had actually been built. In response to Taylor’s question, Rampson suggested the “Stegeman Building” [1113 Willard, constructed in 1999 as "Willard Street Apartments"] and the Forest Avenue parking structure as examples.

Taylor’s concerns about the South University area pre-dates his service on council. After he had won the August 2008 Democratic primary, but before he was seated on council, Taylor spoke during a public hearing on the 601 S. Forest project, expressing concerns about the scale of that development.

Teall seemed unconvinced by Rampson’s explanation that in the South University area a D2 buffer was not feasible given the small size of the resulting D2 district. Teall cited the small D2 areas along William Street, suggesting that similar small D2 areas might be possible in the South University area. Rampson noted that one difference between South University and the William Street area was that the D2 area along William Street was a historic area.

Absolute Height Limits: Councilmember Greden took the first leap into the discussion of absolute height limits, not just for the South University character district, but also for other D1 areas. He said he would be paying very close attention to the possibility of a reasonable height limit that still respected the need for growth. Greden at one point mooted the idea of using character districts throughout D1 as the basis for different absolute height limits.

Asked by Greden for comment, Rampson said that when asked, “If there were an absolute height limit, what would it be?” the planning commission was at pains to name a number. She noted that the number in the original recommendations considered by council in 2007 – which provided the basis for planning commission’s work on the actual zoning language – was 240 feet.

That 240-foot limit was struck from the recommendations during council deliberations on Oct. 15, 2007. Bob Johnson first introduced a motion for an amendment to reduce the maximum height in the core area from 240 feet to 190 feet. That motion failed on lack of a second. Lowenstein then introduced an amendment completely striking the height limit of 240 altogether. That amendment succeeded with two votes against it – from mayor John Hieftje and Johnson.

[Editorial aside: The Chronicle's came across this episode while looking for support for statements made by Hieftje during the 2008 campaign, and as recently as last Sunday's council caucus, to the effect that there'd been an occasion when he had been the only vote for height limits. The Chroncile could not find an episode in the archives of council minutes fitting the description. When asked if the Oct. 15, 2007 meeting was the occasion to which he'd been referring (it's very close to matching the description), Hieftje wrote that his memory of the various meetings had grown "foggy," that Johnson had introduced his motion because Hieftje had asked him to, and that since that time several councilmembers had come around to his own point of view on height limits.]

Council’s interest as a body in exploring the question of absolute height limits can be seen in a June 2008 resolution passed by council to extend a deadline for completing of the A2D2 work: “RESOLVED, that City Council ask that the A2D2 Steering Committee look closely at the D1 core zoning and return with a recommendation that will address appropriate height and massing and provide examples for 150 ft. and 180 ft.”

At the working session on Monday, councilmember Tony Derezinski, who is city council’s representative on the planning commission, reported that the single largest discussion in connection with A2D2 zoning was absolute height limits on South University. He said that “not a nuance was left unturned” during the discussion. What he emphasized was that there was a trade-off between the higher absolute height limits, the setback, and the maximum tower diagonals.

The complex interplay between various standards was a theme vistited by many councilmembers. On the subject of absolute height limits, councilmember Carsten Hohnke noted that “FARs alone aren’t enough to keep us from being surprised” – an allusion to FAR requirements being in place but still allowing the 601 S. Forest project. So Hohnke raised the issue of the interplay between FAR and massing standards.

Massing standards have to do with the streetwall height, the size of the offset at the top of the streetwall, maximum tower diagonals, and setbacks. This is one of the ways the character districts are more than just colored regions drawn on a map: There are different massing standards for each character district.

Design Guidelines: Character districts, with their different massing standards, reflect some of the work of the design guideline review committee. What has been incorporated into the current zoning revisions are the quantifiable aspects of that committee.

It’s a frequent point of criticism (from Ray Detter, chair of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council) that the aesthetic parts of the design guidelines have been separated out from the revisions to the zoning currently being considered. At Monday’s working session, Hieftje led off all comments with a question for councilmember Marcia Higgins (who serves on the A2D2 oversight committee along with Evan Pratt of the planning commission, and Roger Hewitt of the DDA board) about when the design guidelines could be expected. Higgins said they’d been put on the back burner, but that late summer or early fall would be reasonable.

Hieftje then elicited from Higgins an assurance that as far as she knew there were no conflicts involved in proceeding with the zoning ordinance revisions without the design guidelines in place.

Other Concerns: This report of council’s discussion of  South University, absolute building heights and design guidelines is not meant to be exhaustive of all topics addressed by councilmembers at their work session. Some of their additional questions overlap with issues raised in the feedback to Rampson’s fall workshop tour. And planning commission’s memo to council provides some explanations about why certain elements of the September 2008 draft were left in place and why certain elements were changed. For this reason, we publish the largest chunk of that memo here.

PC Memo: What Was Left Intact After  Studying Feedback

The memo from planning commission begins with a section on aspects of the proposed zoning that it left intact from its September 2008 draft.

1) Height Limits & Diagonals: The intent behind the proposed Diagonal requirements in most of the downtown core is to balance building “bulk.” Since the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is fixed once applicable premiums are identified, new projects can either 1) cover most of the site with a lower height or 2) cover less of the site with a higher height. The Calthorpe Report recommends that buildings be allowed to exceed a height limit if certain community goals are provided. Diagonal limits were a recommendation of the Design Guidelines Advisory Committee as the most effective means of allowing a variety of building shapes without resulting in massing that is viewed negatively. Diagonal limits are most effective when there is no height limit, encouraging towers to be more slender with more light and air between buildings. A height limit without any Diagonal requirement will encourage the assembly of parcels and will result in a less desirable continuous building mass covering several sites or entire blocks. Any height limit coupled with Diagonal requirements needs to be considered very carefully because they work counter to each other and could result in requirements that are too restrictive.

Many sites in the proposed interface area (D2) currently have no height limit but would now be limited to a maximum of 60 feet in height. CPC continues to support “no height limit” in most of the D1 district coupled with Diagonal requirements, except for the South University Character Area. (Height in the South University Character Area is addressed further below.) CPC continues to support a 60 foot height limit in the D2 district.

2) Design Guidelines: Any of the recommendations of the Design Advisory Committee that could be stated in ordinance language (numerically quantifiable) are included in the proposed Massing Standards. The remaining recommendations are in the proposed Design Guidelines and will not be referenced in the new ordinance until Council approves them. At the request of the Steering Committee, the approval of the Design Guidelines was set aside to allow the new Zoning Ordinance and Downtown Plan to move toward enactment more quickly. The Design Guidelines were the product of a collaborative and far-reaching effort among the public, staff, and design professionals in response to repeated feedback to promote higher design quality in our built environment. These are recommended in the Calthorpe Report and Council has passed two (2) resolutions supporting the design review process for downtown projects – one asking the Design Advisory Committee to develop Design Guidelines and the other to move them forward with the drafting of ordinance language.

CPC believes the Design Guidelines give more definition to the community’s vision for downtown than is possible in our Zoning Ordinance or our Downtown Plan while allowing design flexibility and creativity. The Design Guidelines are on the CPC Work Plan for recommended approval in June 2009, followed by Council approval. This schedule was preliminary and may need to be adjusted to allow adequate time for its review. CPC requests direction and a desired schedule to assist in meeting Council’s expectations.

3) Flood plain: Construction on many properties within our flood plains throughout the City is currently regulated by the State. The City is in the process of drafting a local Flood Plain Ordinance as an overlay district for all flood plains (not just the Allen Creek) within the city, to be approved along with the new FEMA flood maps. Only a small percentage of our floodplains are within the downtown zoning districts. The concerns raised in this process regarding the Allen Creek flood plain are important but should be addressed in the new Flood Plain Ordinance. However, the Premiums (increased floor area percentage) in the new downtown zoning are not applicable to properties in flood plains.

CPC recommends that all flood plain regulations be incorporated in the new Flood Plain Ordinance and not in the downtown zoning. CPC will be seeking Council input on the proposed flood plain policies before the ordinance is finalized. This is on the CPC’s Work Plan for recommended approval in July 2009, followed by Council approval.

4) Density: The FAR in the downtown core area (D1) as proposed will be increased from 660% to 700% if premium amenities are provided – an increase of about 6%. An additional 200% super-premium is proposed to encourage on-site affordable housing – a community goal that has been difficult to achieve. In the downtown interface area (D2), the FAR as proposed will be 400% maximum if premium amenities are provided – a reduction for many properties. Premium floor area is not applicable to properties within historic districts or flood plains.

CPC continues to support the FAR recommendations. These levels meet the broad goals identified in the Calthorpe Report and the recommendations of the Zoning Advisory Committee.

5) Green space/open space: The Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan recommends that a method be identified to quantify urban open space, green or hard-scaped, to assist the City in evaluating the real need within downtown. The Calthorpe Report addresses Public Space and recommends the careful consideration of edge uses for vitality and safety. The Zoning Advisory Committee was not comfortable encouraging arbitrary locations for open space through the use of a Premium. The proposed ordinance does provide a Premium for Inner Arcades (connecting streets and adjacent sites) and Plazas (open to the sky) on private property, both of which are in our current ordinance. Currently, the new Police/Courts project, the Library Lane underground parking project and the requirement for the 415 W. Washington proposals all include public open space. In concept, CPC believes that large green spaces in the downtown core are counter to numerous goals and that pocket parks are more effective. CPC does not recommend green space or open space requirements as a part of private development in the downtown districts beyond the front open space required on Front Yard Streets at this time. This should be re-evaluated once the Parks Advisory Commission identifies a method of quantifying urban open space.

The concept for the Allen Creek Greenway is supported in the current PROS Plan, the current Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and the new Downtown Plan. Because the majority of the Allen Creek flood plain extends beyond the downtown, CPC does not support using the downtown district zoning to direct its planning.

6) Active Use: The new zoning requirements identify what we would like rather than what exists. Because of this, some non-conforming uses will exist but in time we will make progress toward our goals. The Calthorpe Report recommended that first floor retail not be required everywhere, but maintained in strong areas and encouraged in existing weak retail areas, such as Liberty and Washington between Main and State. The Zoning Advisory Committee recommended requiring first floor retail on certain streets, but did not feel qualified to decide on the streets.

With all this input, the CPC continues to support the 60% minimum frontage of first floor retail on identified “active use” streets to reinforce independent local retailers that depend on pedestrian traffic between adjacent uses for their survival. This includes the main retail sections of Main Street, State Street, Liberty Street, Washington Street and South University. Existing non-conforming uses can continue (see Chapter 55, 5:86).

7) North side of East Huron (Division to State): This block has been a challenge due to the fact that these properties abut residential districts to the north and are in a section of Huron where height was identified in the Calthorpe Report. In an effort to create new zoning that defines our goals, rather than perpetuating what has already been built, the Zoning Advisory Committee struggled, but ultimately recommended that this block be zoned D2 – one major reason was the shading potential of the FAR allowed in the D1 district.

CPC continues to support the compromise of maintaining the D1 district on this block with the additional tower setback from the adjacent residential districts.

8) Downtown Plan: CPC adopted The Downtown Plan on February 19th and has recommended Council adoption.

9) Massing Standards, Character Areas: The eight (8) Downtown Character Areas were identified by the Design Guidelines Advisory Committee with substantial public input. They are based on the unique building and site characteristics within each area.

CPC continues to support the eight (8) Character Areas and the inclusion in the zoning ordinance of the design Massing Standards.

10) Simplify the code: Most downtown projects in the last several years have been reviewed as Planned Unit Developments (PUD) or Planned Projects because of the inappropriateness of our current downtown zoning. The City has encouraged this in order to get projects that more closely align with our Downtown Plan. The uncertainty inherent in both PUDs and Planned Projects have added great expense and additional review time beyond that of a project designed to meet its underlying zoning district. Our current ordinance is actually too simple because it does not adequately define our goals and vision and the current downtown zoning district boundaries are random and without planning logic. The proposed ordinance also includes a vast majority of the recommendations in the new Downtown Plan.

CPC believes that the proposed zoning district boundaries are far more consistent and logical. CPC also believes the proposed ordinance amendments are clear and the new technology tools will make navigation much easier for developers and citizens.

PC Memo: Changes To Proposal After  Studying Feedback

The memo continues by addressing aspects of the zoning recommendation that have changed since September 2008.

11) Premiums: The proposed Premiums generally align with the recommendations of the Calthorpe Report and the more detailed conclusions of the Zoning Advisory Committee. The intent with the Premiums is to get identified public benefits in exchange for allowing additional floor area (up to a maximum). The Residential Premium was reduced from the current ordinance based on a desire to balance the use of all the premiums. With the recent popularity of residential projects it is important to make sure the community also gets the benefits of the other premiums. The use of the Premiums will ultimately be decided through a developer’s financial analysis considering the economic climate at that time.

As this is a moving target, the incentives (increase in floor area percentage) will need to be evaluated on a regular basis to access how they are being used and if the percentages need to be adjusted to encourage benefits that are not otherwise provided.

A Premium for transfer-of-development-rights has not been included. CPC recommends that this be reconsidered for inclusion in the future (currently under more detailed review) as a tool that could be used to protect some historic buildings or could encourage dedicated open space, such as in the Allen Creek floodplain.

CPC has changed the Plaza premium to no longer require these to be located on a street corner. Successful plazas are difficult to design and CPC hopes the added flexibility will provide opportunities where there are adjacent vibrant uses. This was an allowable premium in our current ordinance that was never used but was retained with minor changes to encourage open space on private property.

12) Buffers & Setbacks adjacent to residential districts: Throughout the City, all non-residential districts must currently provide an additional building setback along property lines immediately adjacent to residential districts and matching the setbacks required in that residential district. The proposed downtown zoning also includes additional building setbacks along property lines adjacent to residential districts. These setbacks are part of the Massing Standards for each of the eight (8) Character Areas. They respond directly to the nature of that area and its adjacent residential districts. By their very nature, zoning districts are defined by boundaries and there will always be some level of tension at the dividing line. Neighborhoods’ use and character are protected when they are appropriately zoned and when their boundaries are respected and predictable.

CPC continues to support the proposed building setbacks along adjacent residential districts in all the Character Areas except for South University. The depth of these setbacks is reasonable for the traditional and typical small size of downtown sites. Larger setbacks would encourage the assembly of lots and could make some sites very difficult to build on.

After extensive discussion, CPC has changed the building setback requirement in the South University Character Area to a total of 30 feet along property lines adjacent to residential districts regardless of building height, instead of a 15 foot setback for the first 30 feet in building height and a 30 foot setback for the rest of the building above 30 feet in height. In this area, CPC feels the setback of the lower floors has just as much impact on the neighboring residents as the upper floors.

13) South University character area: CPC support for the 2003 rezoning of this area to C2A was based on its immediate adjacency to the Central Campus. About 50% of the perimeter of this area is bounded by University property, primarily to the north and east, where floor area and height are not regulated by the City. The residents of this zoning district are considered to be primarily students with some University staff – who are the most likely to use walking or biking as their primary transportation thus adding minimally to the motorized traffic and parking in the area. It was also considered a benefit to students and University staff to have the opportunity to live close to their classes or work. The retail in this district, primarily small independent businesses, have been struggling for many years. Some reasons include 1) the distance non-students are willing to walk to shop and dine has diminished as regional opportunities for these have increased, and 2) the student population moving through the district fluctuates dramatically. Finally, the area merchants believe strongly that the captive audience provided by a significant increase in residential density will greatly increase their chances of success. The Calthorpe Report, written just prior to this rezoning, supports this view and states that “local-serving retail districts should first and foremost be located near residential concentrations.”

After extensive discussion, CPC recommends that the South University character area have a height limit of 170 feet to give added design flexibility and increase the opportunity for more light and air between buildings. The recent compromise on the project proposed at 601 Forest would meet this requirement. At this height, CPC also recommends a maximum diagonal requirement of 200 feet [Editor's note: We believe this is a typographical error, and should read "150 feet," which is consistent with the accompanying zoning code revisions forwarded to council  as well as with The Chronicle's previous reporting.] The height limit would not allow an upper tower, so only one diagonal is needed. (The building setback adjacent to residential districts was also modified as described above.)

14) Downtown district boundaries: In order to focus this effort on the zoning requirements rather than district boundaries, the Calthorpe Report included only the non-residential districts directly contiguous to the downtown area, excluding any residential districts. The DDA boundaries are similar but somewhat arbitrary due to the complex political process with other public entities required to change them.

After looking closely at these boundaries, CPC has excluded non-residential properties in the Old Fourth Ward and the Old Westside historic districts from rezoning due to the residential character (and primarily residential use) of these historic districts and the fact that they were created after, and in reaction to, their current zoning designations.

After the new zoning requirements and the design guidelines are in place, and in conjunction with a review of the Central Area Plan, would be an optimal time to re-evaluate the outer boundaries (with possible expansion or contraction) of the downtown districts, including the non-residential and R4C districts.

15) Parking: It is a recommendation of the Nelson/Nygaard downtown parking study that shared public parking be encouraged on appropriate private sites. Any above grade parking that is required parking or public parking on private property up to 200% in not included in a project’s FAR.

CPC has added that any premium for public parking on private property meet DDA standards. Additionally, CPC has clarified that required residential bike parking must be enclosed and lockable.

16) Non-Conformities: The desire to change our current downtown zoning is a reaction to projects that have already been built and a desire to encourage particular types of development. At the same time, it should not be the intent of this ordinance to put an additional burden on buildings that were built under an earlier code – either to require unreasonable changes to existing buildings or to require variances for existing buildings to remain.

CPC has changed the new massing standards to only apply to new buildings or additions.