The site – a triangle at the corner of Detroit and North Division – is in the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. [.pdf aerial map of 544 Detroit] [.jpg image of proposed design] The plan calls for demolishing a 560-square-foot gas station, which has been vacant for more than 30 years, and constructing a new 4,077-square-foot building. The city’s historic district commission (HDC) voted to issue a certificate of appropriateness to allow the demolition and new construction to occur. That happened at the HDC’s Oct. 11, 2012 meeting. A new curbcut is planned off of Detroit Street, replacing other curbcuts on the site.

The proposal is a “planned project,” which allows modifications of the area, height, and placement requirements related to permanent open space preservation, if the project would result in “the preservation of natural features, additional open space, greater building or parking setback, energy conserving design, preservation of historic or architectural features, expansion of the supply of affordable housing for lower income households or a beneficial arrangement of buildings.” However, all other zoning code requirements must still be met – including the permitted uses, maximum density, and maximum floor area.

In this case, a planned project is requested to allow an additional 3.5 feet of building height for a “decorative parapet” on the building’s north end and a stair enclosure to access a roof deck. The planned project also is needed to accommodate shorter front setbacks – 5 feet, versus the required 10 feet setbacks along Detroit and North Division streets, and a 19-foot rear setback, rather than the required 39 feet.

A modification is requested to the landscaping buffer to reduce the required width and allow for a six-foot-tall privacy fence on the east side.

Commissioners praised the building’s design, given the unique constraints of the site. The project’s architect is Marc Rueter of Ann Arbor, who was on hand to review the details. Two residents spoke during a public hearing on the project. One neighbor who lives nearby opposed it because of the building’s height. In strong favor of the project was Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association.

The site’s owner is listed as Jack Epstein of Rockville, Maryland. According to a staff memo, the owner intends to pursue brownfield tax increment financing for the site.

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

Owners of five properties – including the University of Michigan’s Burton Memorial Tower and The Relax Station at 300 W. Huron – will be honored for rehabilitating those properties “in accordance with good preservation practice as established by the U.S. Department of the Interior.”  Owners of another 10 properties will be recognized for having preserved their property for over 10 years of continuous ownership. People in that category include councilmember Mike Anglin and his wife Kathy Clark, for the house they own at 549 S. First, and Herb David for his shop at 302 E. Liberty.

A lifetime achievement award will be give to Rosemarion Blake. The press release cites her work “to promote local history by serving on the City of Ann Arbor Historic District Commission, the Washtenaw County Historical Society, the Ann Arbor Historical Foundation, the Kempf House Board, the Cobblestone Farm Association, and many historic study committees including one which resulted in the publication of Historic Buildings, Ann Arbor.”

Nancy Deromedi and Tracy Aris will receive special merit awards for establishing the A2Modern group and website. And two entities – the UM Rackham Graduate School and Zal Gaz Grotto Club – will be given Centennial Awards for the longevity of their organizations.

The award winners were selected by the following committee: Patricia Austin, Ina Hanel-Gerdenich, Patrick McCauley, Louisa Pieper, Ellen Ramsburgh, Mark Rueter, Fran Wright, Grace Shackman, Tom Stulberg and Susan Wineburg. McCauley, Ramsburgh and Stulberg are members of the Ann Arbor historic district commission.

The highest-profile of those projects, of course, was a plan to expand the Zingerman’s Deli operations at the corner of Detroit and Kingsley streets, in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. About a dozen representatives affiliated with Zingerman’s attended the meeting, including co-founder Paul Saginaw and managing partners Grace Singleton and Rick Strutz.

In 2008, commissioners rejected the company’s first attempt to gain HDC approval – in the form of a “certificate of appropriateness,” which included asking permission to tear down a small house on their property that had been gutted by fire. Since that initial rebuff by the HDC, Zingerman’s has been working on an alternative path, gaining approval from the city’s planning commission and city council, and returning to the HDC for a “notice to proceed.”

On Thursday, the commission granted the notice to proceed, which will allow the project to move forward. Several commissioners addressed concerns raised during public commentary about this project setting a precedent, saying that Zingerman’s is a unique business and this expansion is unique as well.

But commissioner Lesa Rozmarek, while noting that she would support the project and that overall Zingerman’s is an asset to the community, also said she wanted it on the record that she felt Zingerman’s had threatened the commission with the prospect of leaving the area if they didn’t get approval. The project sets a bad precedent, she said, adding that “it’s opening a big door that hopefully we can shut after this application.”

Later in the meeting Saginaw responded to Rozmarek’s comments, denying that anyone from Zingerman’s threatened to leave the city – though at one point they did consider moving out of that location to another site within Ann Arbor, he said. Saginaw said he believed the HDC was able to approve the project on its merits.

In other business, the commission issued certificates of appropriateness for three projects: 1) a solar panel installation at 217 S. Seventh St., 2) a request to add an exterior sign near the front door of 209-211 S. State St., where a CVS pharmacy is being constructed, and 3) a proposal for a 1.5-story addition on the back of 442 Second St.

The solar project is being installed on the home of Matt Grocoff, founder of Greenovation TV. Grocoff had attended last month’s HDC meeting, when two other solar panel installations were approved, including one at the historic Michigan Theater building on East Liberty. On Thursday, Grocoff told commissioners that when his solar panels are installed, his home will be the oldest in the nation to achieve net zero energy status, using only energy generated on-site.

Zingerman’s Deli Expansion

Before the start of Thursday’s meeting, Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office conferred with commission chair Ellen Ramsburgh, and at the start of the meeting a closed session was added to the agenda. To comply with the state’s Open Meetings Act, public bodies must indicate the purpose of the closed session – this one was to discuss written attorney-client privileged communication. The session was slotted after the first three projects on the agenda were considered, but prior to the Zingerman’s Deli project. It is likely that the closed session related to that project.

The closed session lasted nearly an hour.

Zingerman’s Deli: Background

In June of 2008, Zingerman’s made its initial request to the historic district commission, asking to demolish two houses and a garage as part of its plan to expand operations at the popular deli. It was part of an application for a certificate of appropriateness – if it had been granted, Zingerman’s would then have moved through the approval process with the city’s planning commission and city council. This is the most common approach for projects located in historic districts.

Issuing a certificate of appropriateness depends in part on whether a building is deemed a “contributing” or  a “non-contributing” historic structure. A building that’s determined to be “non-contributing” is more easily altered than a building that’s “contributing,” under the Secretary of the Interior standards governing historic renovation.

At its June 2008 meeting, the HDC voted to issue a certificate of appropriateness to demolish Zingerman’s non-contributing garage, but voted to deny the request to demolish the two houses, which commissioners found to be contributing to the Old Fourth Ward. While the HDC vote on the house at 420 Detroit St. – known as the Annex, or orange house – was unanimously against demolition, the vote on the fire-damaged 322 E. Kingsley St. house was only 4-3 against demolition.

So Zingerman’s regrouped, opting to pursue what’s known as a “notice to proceed.” From the city code:

8:416. Notice to proceed.
(1) Work within a historic district shall be permitted through the issuance of a notice to proceed by the commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions:
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structure’s occupants.
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.
(d) Retaining the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.

The business decided to base its notice to proceed application on criterion (b) – and set about gaining all the necessary approvals it needed before returning to the HDC. It gained planning commission approval in May 2010 [Chronicle coverage: “Zingerman’s Deli Expansion Moves Ahead”] and city council approval in July ["Zingerman's Moves on to HDC"]. The city council embellished its approval by passing an additional resolution, communicating to the HDC the council’s view that the project represented a substantial benefit to the community.

In addition, representatives from Zingerman’s met with HDC commissioners in three working sessions in late 2009 and early 2010, and held public forums earlier this year to explain the project to residents.

Other Chronicle coverage:

“Zingerman’s: Making it Right for the HDC”

“Zingerman’s Project Seeks Brownfield Status”

“DDA Approves Grant for Zingerman’s”

Zingerman’s Deli: Staff & Review Committee Reports

Jill Thacher, the city’s historic preservation coordinator, began by giving a detailed report on the project, and a recommendation from staff that the notice to proceed be granted.

The site plan calls for demolishing the fire-gutted house at 322 E. Kingsley, while integrating the Annex into the site by connecting it to the new building – a two-story, 10,340-square-foot addition that also would be connected to the 5,107-square-foot existing deli building via a glass atrium. They’ll add underground tanks for stormwater detention and several environmentally-friendly design elements, including a green roof on the deli’s existing one-story wing. Phoenix Contractors of Ypsilanti is the project’s construction manager and general contractor – Bill Kinley, owner of Phoenix Contractors, attended Thursday’s meeting.

The overall project is expected to cost about $6.7 million. Roughly $500,000 is associated with renovating the Annex, which is relatively small – less than 900 square feet. Renovation will entail moving the Annex off its existing foundation, replacing the foundation, renovating the house, then moving it onto the new foundation and incorporating the structure into the new deli addition.

Thacher noted that staff believes the project’s benefits meet the threshold of “substantial.” From the staff report:

The benefits go well beyond an increase in the tax base and new construction jobs, which by themselves are important, but would not be substantial enough to warrant a notice to proceed. Benefits particular to the historic district include moving the kitchen out of the Deli, which will help preserve that historic structure, and restoring the exterior of the Annex and incorporating it into a new addition that is an appropriate size and scale for the neighborhood. Community benefits include 65 new permanent downtown jobs, retention and intensification of downtown business activity as opposed to peripheral sprawl, increased support to local non-profit organizations, increased entrepreneurial support for new local businesses, sustainable design that is expected to obtain LEED silver or gold certification and use local materials and vendors when possible, and many more (see also the application letter). [.pdf of Zingerman's application letter]

Thacher also noted that Zingerman’s submitted a financing commitment letter from United Structured Finance Co., and that the city’s chief financial officer recommended that the HDC accept it as proof of necessary financing.

Ellen Ramsburgh and Lesa Rozmarek were on the review committee for this project, though all but two commissioners – Kristina Glusac and Patrick McCauley – went on a Sept. 7 site visit. The visit, which The Chronicle attended, included a walk-through of the property with Ken Clein, a principal with Quinn Evans Architects who’s handling this project.

Lit only with flashlights, the burnt-out husk of the house at 322 E. Kingsley was explored by some historic district commissioners, The Chronicle and Zingerman's representatives last week.

At Thursday’s meeting, Ramsburgh said the staff report was very thorough and that commissioners have all the information they need to make a decision.

Rozmarek noted that all commissioners had been inside the house on Kingsley, which had been gutted by fire, and that they all realize it has lost its historic fabric and is no longer a contributing structure. It would be an improvement to demolish the building, she said.

Zingerman’s Deli: Public Commentary

Ken Clein, a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, said he was on hand to answer any questions the commissioners might have. “In fact, most of Zingerman’s is here tonight,” he quipped. Clein mentioned that he had brought samples of the metal and brick that would be used. They feel that the project meets the required threshold of providing substantial community benefit, he said. They intensely explored other options, he said, and believe this is the best design for the site. In response to a query from Rozmarek, Clein said that they would be using salvaged brick.

Jim Mogensen said he wanted to follow up on remarks he’d made at the August HDC meeting. His concerns aren’t about the Zingerman’s project, though he said that’s what the debate in the community is. For him, it’s about the policy that’s being set and what it means for the city’s historic districts in the future. This particular project is in scale with the historic district, he said, “but the process would not necessarily get you there.” The question for him, he said, is if you have a Glen Ann project, would that meet the same criteria? [He was referring to Glen Ann Place, a project that won approval from the planning commission and city council but was denied by the HDC.

The situation ended in a lawsuit, settled in the summer of 2007 in a way that allowed the project to move ahead. But so far, nothing has yet been built on that vacant lot just north of Ann Street on the west side of Glen Avenue, where two houses previously stood.] Mogensen said you could make the argument that projects like Glen Ann Place would meet the same criteria that the Zingerman’s project had met. His hope is that all the benefits cited by Zingerman’s are incorporated into the resolution, so that when another project comes forward, they’ll also need to provide such benefits.

Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, said that from the time they’d first heard about the project, they’ve told Zingerman’s that the historic district commission will be the entity that ultimately decides whether the project can move forward. Residents aren’t empowered to do that, she said. The city council has approved it, and no one would argue that the community doesn’t want it. Her concern is the process – this shouldn’t be used as a precedent for eroding the character of the residential neighborhood. It was unsettling that the property at 322 Kingsley had been rezoned from residential R4C to D2, which allows for higher density and commercial use. Now, owners of other properties on Kingsley are considering whether they can have their property rezoned as well, she said, to make more money from development.

This is not downtown, she said – it’s near downtown. Whatever decision they make about Zingerman’s, it should be worded in such a way to make clear that it’s not a precedent. Crockett said she loves Zingerman’s, and described it as a business that’s served the community well. This isn’t about Zingerman’s, she said – it’s about protecting the historic district.

Ray Detter identified himself as chair of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, and said the council had unanimously instructed him to support the project. It was not a decision that came easily, he said, and the project shouldn’t be considered a precedent-setter. It is a unique package and Zingerman’s is a unique business. The majority of Ann Arbor citizens believe that the expansion will bring a substantial benefit to the city.

However, he said, there have been serious missteps in the process. Several years ago, Detter said that he and Christine Crockett began meeting privately with Paul Saginaw and others to discuss issues related to the expansion. At that time, Zingerman’s wanted to demolish the historic building at 420 Detroit – the Annex – but they had no clear plan for the site, he said. Many people thought the city should support anything that Zingerman’s wanted, Detter said, but he and others opposed that kind of “popular reputation” precedent. It’s taken three years to get to this point, he said, but now they support the HDC’s decision to allow demolition of the Kingsley house. The years of public process that Zingerman’s has undertaken have won over the community, Detter said. “No one else could have done it,” he added. “No one else as far as we’re concerned should try to do it.”

Zingerman’s Deli: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Commissioner Bob White began by saying that he supported the project, and thought they should approve it.

Tom Stulberg said he originally had some concerns about a possible precedent that this project might set. But after reading the materials and considering the comments made by staff and other commissioners, he’s convinced that the project is unique and won’t set a precedent.

Diane Giannola noted that the request being considered was a notice to proceed, not a certificate of appropriateness. By granting the notice to proceed, the commission is saying that the societal benefits of this project outweigh the benefits of keeping the contributing structure – the fire-damaged building on Kingsley. The project helps the local economy, she said, by making Zingerman’s even more of a destination. The benefits are so unique that there are really no other places in the city where this would be possible, she said. Further, the project is in scale with the neighborhood. It’s a good project that’s been a long time coming, she concluded, and she fully supported it.

Ann Arbor historic district commissioners Lesa Rozmarek, Kristina Glusac and Bob White at the HDC's Sept. 9 meeting.

Rozmarek said that she too would support the project, but that it wasn’t the proposal they should really be voting on – it undermines the very reason why the commission exists. She believed the term “substantial benefit” was being loosely applied in this case. The addition – which will be used for food production, dining and administration – is similar to what they come across in new construction. The building itself isn’t unique and won’t benefit all of Ann Arbor – though the business overall certainly does benefit the city, she said. Having Zingerman’s in Ann Arbor does contribute to the greater good of the community.

However, Rozmarek said she felt the commission had been threatened, and she quoted from a March 13, 2010 Ann Arbor Chronicle article: “Clein responded to Ramsburgh at the January 2010 HDC working session by wondering if there were another historic district in another town where Zingerman’s could contemplate locating their operations.”

The section of the article was reporting on a Jan. 14, 2010 working session between Zingerman’s representatives and the commission. Here’s the entire section within which that sentence is cited:

Commissioner Ellen Ramsburgh wondered if the expansion was more than the site could take. She noted that the Zingerman’s Creamery and Bake House had moved to peripheral locations. “Do you need to be there?”

In her remarks, Ramsburgh was echoing sentiments expressed by then-commissioner Michael Bruner back in June 2008, when he had made the suggestion that Zingerman’s think of moving their operations. The specific location he had in mind was the Old West Side structure adjoining the Liberty Lofts development:

Commissioner Bruner – [...] This may be less than what they need, but there stands today, a project that we reviewed and was approved, a development that includes a 20,000 square foot commercial retail area with parking that is begging to be occupied. [An apparent allusion to the Liberty Lofts greenhouse building.] As preservationists that want to encourage the success of economic projects in the city, perhaps Zingerman’s should consider moving their location as they have with their Creamery, which is at a satellite location, their Bakery which is at a satellite location, their Roadhouse that is a satellite location – this could be relocated as a satellite component at another location, nevertheless retaining this location as it is.

Clein responded to Ramsburgh at the January 2010 HDC working session by wondering if there were another historic district in another town where Zingerman’s could contemplate locating their operations. Ramsburgh: “That’s a threat!”

Rozmarek said she felt the commission had been backed into a corner, and if they didn’t approve the project, Zingerman’s has threatened to leave this community. The commission doesn’t want Zingerman’s to leave, she said, and the business does provide a lot of benefits. But this expansion doesn’t provide a direct benefit. There’s no direct relationship between the project and the benefits that Zingerman’s already provide, she said. There’s nothing, for example, showing that by expanding their deli operations, Zingerman’s will be able to increase its contributions to charity.

Though she’d be supporting the project, she felt this needed to be on the record because the project is setting a bad precedent. “It’s opening a big door that hopefully we can shut after this application,” she concluded.

Giannola responded to Rozmarek’s comments, noting that the difference between this and other projects is that Zingerman’s is a destination business, and is world-renowned. Allowing them to expand enhances the reputation of Ann Arbor. “It’s not just any business,” she said.

Gary Bruder, Paul Saginaw and Grace Singleton wait in city council chambers for the Zingerman's Deli project to be considered by the historic district commission. Bruder is an attorney and Zingerman’s owner representative on this project. Saginaw is co-founder of Zingerman's and Singleton is a managing partner of the deli.

Ramsburgh concluded the discussion by saying that a lot of good comments had been made. The process had been arduous for both Zingerman’s and the commission, she said, but it had been beneficial to both of them as well. The working sessions they’d held about the project had been very helpful, she said, and she agreed with the staff report – it’s providing substantial benefits to the community. It’s time for the Kingsley house to be removed and for something vibrant and active to go there.

Holding the working sessions and having Zingerman’s come forward with a site plan that’s respectful of historic buildings makes this project much easier to support, Ramsburgh said. There might be elements of the design that they’d like to tweak, but because it’s respectful of the area and the historic district, it helps them support the overall project. She said she believes that Zingerman’s and Quinn Evans are aware of the mutually beneficial relationship between the deli and the historic neighborhood.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to award a “notice to proceed” for the Zingerman’s Deli project. The decision was met with applause from those attending who were affiliated with the project.

Zingerman’s Deli: Public Commentary

Zingerman’s co-founder Paul Saginaw came up to the podium and responded to Rozmarek’s comments, saying that at no time did they say they’d leave the city. At one point they had considered leaving that location, he said, but they were still planning to be downtown. Saginaw said he didn’t want the story to be that Zingerman’s had threatened to leave in order to get approval. He believed the commission had approved the project on its merits.

Saginaw said it would be disingenuous of him not to mention that there had been a time when he didn’t see how the project could work without removing the Annex building, as Zingerman’s had originally requested. But commissioners had pushed Zingerman’s to keep it, and he thanked them for that.

Zingerman’s Deli: Brownfield Coda

Though the Zingerman’s Deli project’s brownfield plan has received approval from the Ann Arbor city council and Washtenaw County board of commissioners, it still awaits final approval from the state before it can receive tax credits. They had hoped to have their application reviewed at the Sept. 13 meeting of the Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA) board, but last-minute questions from state staff have pushed back the process a month. Zingerman’s expects to have their plan voted on at the MEGA board’s Oct. 19 meeting instead, with plans to start construction after that.

Solar Panel Installation

At its Aug. 12 meeting, the commission approved two solar panel projects in historic districts: an installation on the Michigan Theater building on East Liberty, and a residential project at 553 S. Seventh St., just north of West Madison in the Old West Side historic district.

Speaking during public commentary on Aug. 12 in support of the residential project was Matt Grocoff. From Chronicle coverage of that meeting:

Saying he was a huge advocate of historic preservation, Matt Grocoff – founder of Greenovation TV – noted that he lived down the street from Hewett, and that he intends to make his home the oldest in America to achieve net-zero energy. While he was excited by the discussion, he said the commissioners were asking the wrong questions about the aesthetics. “The real question is what point is there in preserving our history if we don’t protect our future?” He urged commissioners to set a precedent by unanimously approving the installation of solar panels.

On Thursday, Grocoff himself was asking for HDC approval to install up to 30 solar panels on the south-facing side of his home’s roof at 217 S. Seventh St.

217 S. Seventh: Staff & Revew Committee Reports

Jill Thacher, the city’s historic preservation coordinator, gave the staff report on Grocoff’s proposal.

Matt Grocoff, right, indicates the proposed location for a solar panel installation on the roof of his house at 217 S. Seventh to historic district commissioners Ellen Ramsburgh and Lisa Rozmarek.

She noted that at last month’s meeting, she had suggested it might be good to limit such installations to cover no more than 30% of the roof’s surface. Since then, she’s gathered additional information and now thinks that it would be less conspicuous to have most of the roof’s surface covered, especially if the panels are a different color than the roof. Grocoff’s installation would cover just over 80% of the south side of the roof. The panels would be black in a black frame, and because of that they would minimize the appearance of a grid.

The staff recommended approval of the project, Thacher said. The panels are easily removable and don’t detract from the historic character of the house.

Lesa Rozmarek and Ellen Ramsburgh were the review committee for this project, and had made a site visit to the house on Tuesday, Sept. 7.  At Thursday’s meeting, Rozmarek said she agreed 100% with the staff report. It’s good for the environment and good for the city, and the commission should promote sustainable building practices within historic districts, she said. Rozmarek said she wholeheartedly supported the project.

Ramsburgh echoed those sentiments, and said the commission has learned a lot about solar panel installations over the past month. In the future the commission will address in a more formal way the issue of solar installations and other energy efficient projects that will be occurring in historic districts, she said.

217 S. Seventh: Public Commentary

Matt Grocoff, the homeowner, thanked commissioners and said it was encouraging to hear their comments about moving into the future while preserving the past. He talked about the history of the house, which he’d bought from the daughter of a man who’d owned a tavern located where Grizzly Peak is now – the daughter had been born in the home’s living room. He noted that this was an opportunity to add something “of our time,” but to also clean up the house aesthetically to be closer to its original condition.

Though his project will cover a large footprint on the roof, not every project will be able to do that, he said. Grocoff added that he looks forward to future discussions about how to balance historic preservation with current environmental needs. He noted that not every historic district commission has been this progressive, and that there have been cases where homeowners elsewhere have been required to remove expensive solar systems. Grocoff said he hoped the commission would see “hundreds and hundreds” of such projects in the coming years, a comment that drew laughter from commissioners.

Daren Griffith, of Canton-based Mechanical Energy Systems, also commended the commission. He noted that the company has been around for many years, and had installed solar panels on Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s residence last year. One side effect to making historic homes more energy efficient is that there will be more money available for preservation efforts, he said. Also, solar panels help preserve the structure by protecting the roof, he said. These are aspects that aren’t often discussed, he said.

Griffith noted that unfortunately, 90% of solar panel manufacturers don’t make the black-on-black panels. Most of them have aluminum frames. He also addressed concerns he’d heard mentioned in previous discussions about the location of the panels. In some cases the panels can also be mounted on the ground or on a pole, he said, but they do have to be south-facing and out of shade. That’s why the roof tends to be the best location.

Solar Panels: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Commissioner Kristina Glusac pointed out that the application had mentioned two possible types of panels – a 225 watt or a 315 watt. Griffith said that at the time Grocoff applied, it wasn’t clear how much surface area of the roof they could cover. They’d prefer the 225, but had included the possibility of the 315 panels, which would give more wattage from a smaller area.

Glusac said that at the HDC’s last meeting, experts told the commission that the dark blue was the color used in solar panel technology. “I walked away from last month’s meeting thinking that black is not the appropriate color for solar panels,” she said. She asked Griffith to comment on that.

He said that new technologies will be coming out that allow the panel to be a variety of designs, from the logo of your university to a design mimicking the asphalt shingles of a roof. He described the two types of panels currently used – monocrystalline and polycrystalline. Polycrystalline panels have the dark blue that Glusac mentioned. The black panels that would be used on Grocoff’s house are monocrystalline, he said, with electric contact points on the back of the panel, rather than the front, which is more common. The black panels are a design that’s patented by the manufacturer, Sunpower, and it’s fairly unique, Griffith said.

However, Griffith added that he didn’t think the historic commission should be able to determine what type of panel is used. The performance of the panel is what’s most important, and there are other things to take into account beyond aesthetics.

Lester Graham of Michigan Public Radio recorded proceedings of the Sept. 9 Ann Arbor historic district commission as they considered the solar panel project for the home of Matt Grocoff.

Tom Stulberg asked about the positioning of the panels, noting that they didn’t go all the way up to the roof’s ridgeline. Griffith said that they could have cantilevered the panels above the ridgeline or beyond the gutter. One reason they didn’t do that is to preserve the structure of the roof. Another reason not to cantilever over the gutter is that they want the runoff from the panels to flow into the gutter, which at Grocoff’s home then flows into a rainwater collection system. Cantilevering over the gutter might also cause ice damming and over time damage the roof. Griffith said that if the chimney weren’t located on that side of the roof, they might try to go up to the ridgeline.

Rozmarek noted that during the site visit, Grocoff had mentioned that he’d be installing micro-inverters on the panels. She asked him to describe that type of system for the commission.

Grocoff said they’d be using Enphase micro-inverters – he held up one that he had brought to show the commission. Griffith said that it’s the latest technology in solar panels, and will make systems more efficient. Most systems are hooked up to one large single-phase inverter that’s located inside or outside the house. Wires from the panels are run to the inverter, which converts from direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC). Because of the distance, a lot of power is lost. With micro-inverters, the power is converted from DC to AC at the panel.

Another selling point for micro-inverters is that with older systems, if any part of the solar panel array is shaded, the entire array shuts down, Griffith said. With micro-inverters, only the individual panels are affected – and within those panels, only the portions that are shaded stop generating power. Cost is another factor, he said. If a micro-inverter fails, it can be replaced for about $250. However, if a single-phase inverter fails, it would cost several thousand dollars to replace.

Grocoff concluded by noting that with the addition of the solar panels, their house will be the first one in a historic district nationwide to achieve net zero energy status, and the oldest house in America to achieve net zero. “It’s pretty cool,” he said.

Outcome: The commission unanimously voted to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of up to 30 solar panels.

After the vote, commissioner Stulberg said it was important to note that because these installations are non-permanent, it gives the commission a lot of flexibility to approve them, and to adapt to changing technologies, as long as the projects don’t intrude on the character of the homes. There’s no need to demand uniformity on the projects, he said.

Ramsburgh noted that on the site visit that she, Rozmarek and Thacher had made on Tuesday, they’d been able ask a lot of questions and ascertain that Grocoff had done many other things to increase the energy efficiency of the house, before asking for permission to install solar panels.

Other HDC Business

Earlier in the meeting, the commission considered two additional projects: 1) a request to add an 18-inch by 22-inch exterior sign near the front door of 209-211 S. State St., where a CVS pharmacy is being constructed in the State Street historic district, and 2) a proposal for a 1.5-story addition on the back of 442 Second St., in the Old West Side historic district.

The CVS approval for a certificate of appropriateness passed quickly, with little discussion. For the house on 442 Second St., homeowners Toby and Kathy Brzoznowski were on hand, as was architect Marc Rueter, who’s designing the project.

HDC chair Ellen Ramsburgh said the house was interesting because you could quickly read the different periods that the various additions to the house represented – they are very distinct, and it’s an attractive house. She said she’d feel more comfortable if the one-story addition on the north side of the home had a varied roofline, making it easier to discern where the new section began.

Toby Brzoznowski responded by noting that the second story part of the addition did have a break in the roofline, and that the foundation for the old and new sections would be different, and a trim line will mark the start of the new addition. Rueter said there were some structural issues that made it necessary to design the roofline as it is. He also pointed out that the north facade was almost an invisible side of the house, being masked by a fence and shrubs.

Commissioner Lesa Rozmarek expressed some concern that the addition’s gable seemed to mimic the original Greek Revival architecture, which she noted was a violation of one of the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation. She said she’d feel more comfortable if the gable were one that you’d see in 2010, rather than one that evoked the 1800s. It’s a beautiful addition, she added, though it does push the envelope toward being inappropriate.

Rueter said he’s given the addition a design that he believes most people would recognize as not being an historic structure.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved certificates of appropriateness for both the CVS sign and the addition to the 442 Second St. house.

Present: Diane Giannola, Kristina Glusac, Ellen Ramsburgh, Lesa Rozmarek, Tom Stulberg, Bob White

Absent: Patrick McCauley

The plain brick wall on the Michigan Theater Building on East Liberty in downtown Ann Arbor – rising up behind the storefronts – will be the site of a solar panel installation funded by XSeed Energy, a program of the Clean Energy Coalition and the city of Ann Arbor. (Photos by Mary Morgan.)

As a project manager for the Ypsilanti-based Clean Energy Coalition, Bona specializes in this art of saving energy. She is quick to add, however, that “my goal isn’t to make people sacrifice and suffer. It’s to make them see opportunities where life can be better and, oh, by the way, it uses a lot less energy.”

But it’s not just about using less energy. Bona and others in the Ann Arbor area are involved with projects that focus on generating alternative energy, too – in particular, solar power. Prompted in part by the lure of tax credits and available state and federal funding, an increasing number of efforts are underway to install solar panels on individual residences, businesses, nonprofits and schools – including, as one recent example, the Rudolf Steiner School of Ann Arbor.

And in mid-August, the Ann Arbor Historic District Commission unanimously approved two solar installation projects in historic districts, one for a private home on South Seventh Street, and another at the Michigan Theater. With some citing concern over aesthetics, commissioners acknowledged that they’ll likely see more of these requests in the future, and discussed the need to develop guidelines for solar installations within the city’s historic districts.

City Solar Initiatives: XSeed Energy

The Michigan Theater solar project is being funded by an especially ambitious program that Bona is leading, called XSeed Energy. The program, part of the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC), aims at installing solar projects and encouraging “community-supported local energy,” Bona says, “which means that whether it’s solar or wind or geothermal, it’s locally-sourced energy versus having coal shipped from West Virginia.”

XSeed evolved from a partnership between CEC and the city of Ann Arbor, through the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Solar America Cities program. In 2007, the U.S. Dept. of Energy declared Ann Arbor one of 25 Solar America Cities. As a result, the city received $632,000 in funds dedicated to advancing solar energy. Since then, the city has published a comprehensive report titled “Solar Ann Arbor: A Plan for Action” – a 114-page document that Bona strongly recommends reading. XSeed was launched to help implement the plan. [.pdf of the plan's executive summary – the full document is available on the city's website.]

Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager, worked closely with the consultant who created the plan, and says of its purpose: “It helps to remove or reduce the barriers associated with solar energy, such as cost, and tries to allow [solar energy] to become a mainstream production of energy.” Bona adds that the plan details the “potential for Ann Arbor, as a city, to be entirely powered by locally-generated power.”

Solar panels are installed on the shelter roof of the Ann Arbor Farmers Market.

One of the city’s already-installed solar projects is a 10-kilowatt solar array at the Ann Arbor Farmer’s Market, put in place in 2008 with money from the Dept. of Energy along with matching funds from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Not only does the system advance the goal of using solar energy, it also tackles another facet of the city’s solar plan: awareness. The strategically placed array is easily within view, and – given the popularity of the farmer’s market – is guaranteed many viewers.

Public awareness is key, says Bona, who is also a member of the city’s planning commission: “The goal of XSeed is two-fold: one is to implement the installation of solar panels in lots of different locations – starting with nonprofits. The second piece is to make the general public aware of the installation, aware of how it works, have read-outs where people can see how much power it’s generating.”

The city is already providing information for property owners to raise awareness about the potential of solar energy. Wayne Appleyard, chairman of the city’s energy commission, explains that city staff, with the help of some University of Michigan interns, developed a system that estimates how much energy each residential home could generate via solar power in Ann Arbor.

Residents can use that system by visiting the city’s website and entering their address. They’ll then see a list of tabs, including one that’s labeled “Solar Potential.” Clicking on that tab generates a listing that looks like this:

Address: 101 Your Street
Full Zip Code: 48103-4357
Solar Potential: Excellent
Solar Hot Water Candidate: Yes
Roof Size:  756 sq. ft.
Estimated solar PV potential: 0.55 - 1.09 KW
Estimated electricity produced: 717.3 - 1434.61 KWh/yr
Estimated electricity savings: 304.9 - 383.81 per year
Estimated greenhouse gas savings: 1.65 - 2.36 tonnes CO2/yr

-

Appleyard, who has been a member of the energy commission for over 10 years and chair for the past year, cautions that the information is “an approximation.” But it’s useful as a guide for homeowners who are interested in the solar-energy option. Encouraging the use of residential solar energy is an explicit city goal, as outlined in its effort to put solar installations on 5,000 roofs by 2015, primarily for solar hot water systems.

Working Within a Historic District

While the city has a history of advocating for solar energy, it’s not common for solar projects to be located within the city’s historic districts. But during the Historic District Commission’s Aug. 12 meeting, the group unanimously approved two proposed solar initiatives: one for a Seventh Street residential home, and one for the Michigan Theater that’s funded by XSeed Energy. When completed, it will be the most high-profile solar project in the city.

In early 2010, XSeed began an application process for a solar panel project. The nonprofit Michigan Theater had the most potential of the applicants for two reasons, Bona explained. First, the project at the Michigan Theater offers an additional aspect of awareness because of the theater’s downtown location and because the system, once installed, would be easily visible from the street – the solar array will be installed on the south-facing wall of the theater, rather than on the out-of-sight roof.

As another factor in choosing Michigan Theater, Bona also cites the willingness of the theater’s staff – including executive director Russ Collins – to work with XSeed and fundraise, bringing in money to fund future projects.

Along with installing the solar system, XSeed required the Michigan Theater to reduce its energy use by 5%. Including the 5% that the solar array will offset from the theater’s electrical use, the entire project will reduce the theater’s need for fuel-based electricity by 10%.

“The goal with solar is not to replace the electricity we’re using today, but to step back and reduce the wasted energy,” says Bona, in explaining XSeed’s requirement for separate conservation measures. “Then we won’t need as much solar to make up the difference.” It’s an approach akin to avoiding the food processor while making pesto.

While the Michigan Theater was the first of the applicants selected by XSeed, Bona says they intend to do more projects.

Deliberations at the HDC: Questions, Concerns – and Approval

At their Aug. 12 meeting, historic district commissioners spent about 90 minutes discussing the two solar proposals. The first was for a home at 553 S. Seventh St., just north of West Madison in the Old West Side historic district. Homeowner Chris Hewett was asking for a “certificate of appropriateness,” which would allow him to proceed on installing solar panels on the roof of his 19th-century house.

The house at 553 S. Seventh St., with an indication of one option for installing solar panels on the roof. This image was included in the Aug. 12 meeting packet for the Ann Arbor Historic District Commission.

At the request of the city’s planning staff, he presented three configurations for installing the panels – commissioners were asked to weigh in on which of the three options would be most preferable, from their perspective.

Hewett told commissioners that he and his wife bought the house about a year ago, and were planning to make it more sustainable and energy efficient, while at the same time restoring its historical features. He said they were trying to take advantage of the credits available through DTE and federal programs, which would make the project financially feasible.

He said they use about 3 kilowatts of energy each month, and that the solar panels would likely generate about 1 kilowatt. In the future, they might return to the HDC to seek permission to install additional panels, he said.

Some commissioners posed questions about structural issues related to placing the array of 3-feet-by-5-feet panels on the roof. Kristina Glusac stated repeatedly that she felt there was insufficient information provided about the structure of the house and how the panels would be installed. Lesa Rozmarek was concerned about the possibility of ice damming.

Some of the commissioners were concerned about aesthetics, and initially wanted to choose an option that would minimize the visual impact of the panels. That issue was reflected in the staff report, presented by historic preservation coordinator Jill Thacher:

Staff’s initial thoughts on solar panels are that they are an acceptable, reversible addition to residential structures in historic districts if the panels a) match the color of the roof, b) match the angle of the roof and do not project more than eight inches above it, and c) do not cover more than 30% of the roof surface on which they are installed if any part of the panel is visible from a street or sidewalk, and most importantly, d) do not detract from the historic character of the house or destroy, obscure, or damage character-defining features.

During the time available for public comment, several people spoke – including many who were attending the meeting in connection with the Michigan Theater project, and who responded to some of the concerns raised by commissioners.

Saying he was a huge advocate of historic preservation, Matt Grocoff – founder of Greenovation TV – noted that he lived down the street from Hewett, and that he intends to make his home the oldest in America to achieve net-zero energy. While he was excited by the discussion, he said the commissioners were asking the wrong questions about the aesthetics. “The real question is what point is there in preserving our history if we don’t protect our future?” He urged commissioners to set a precedent by unanimously approving the installation of solar panels.

Clean Energy Coalition project managers Dave Strenski and Christina Snyder both spoke to the commission, addressing some of the technical concerns. Both have worked on other solar panel installations, and said they didn’t have problems with drainage or ice damming. Strenski, who volunteers with Solar Ypsi and did the installation of panels at the Ypsilanti city hall, said it was dumb to install the panels in a way that wouldn’t yield the highest efficiency. Shading was another factor to consider, he said – if any part of the array is in shade, it affects the performance of the entire system.

When asked by commissioner Tom Stulberg for his thoughts on the question of aesthetics, Strenski said aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. Most people who install solar panels are proud of them and want them to be visible, he said, but energy efficiency – not aesthetics – should be the main factor.

Later in the meeting, HDC chair Ellen Ramsburgh said it was important for the commission to weigh in on placement. Part of their job was to make sure the additions didn’t detract from the historic character of the house, she said, and a roof is a very visible part of that. In general, she said, she preferred a less-distracting placement of the panels.

The fact that the solar panels could be removed was compelling for several commissioners, and some mentioned that they had a steep learning curve on this issue. But despite some concerns, the project received unanimous support from commissioners, giving the homeowner the option of choosing which solar array would work best for the site.

Next up was the Michigan Theater project on East Liberty, an installation on the south-facing wall of the main theater building, which is located in the State Street historic district. Though the wall is set back 58 feet from the front of the shops along East Liberty, the panels will be visible from the street.

The staff report recommended approval of the project, but again brought up aesthetic issues. Of particular concern to the XSeed project team was a possible restriction on color. From the staff report:

Staff supports the proposal if the panels and their supporting armature are a neutral, and preferably matte, brown, gray, or black color when feasible. Very conspicuous panels, such as bright blue ones, and bare metal frame finishes should be avoided if they detract from character-defining features of the structure and neighboring ones.

In addressing the commission, Bonnie Bona noted that the color of the panels is determined by the technology that’s used to create them, and that she would not want to restrict their ability to select the appropriate technology for the project. They plan to put the project out to bid, and would be open to new technologies, she said.

Mark Ritz, a volunteer with the Clean Energy Coalition who’s working with the XSeed program, elaborated on that topic, saying he’d researched the different types of solar panels available and that almost without exception, the panels are dark blue, mounted on silver anodized aluminum frames. The panel absorbs light and creates electricity from the light it absorbs, he explained. The most efficient wavelengths of light are the longer ones, he added, so what’s reflected are the shorter wavelengths – the dark blue and violet, which are not as efficient in being converted to electricity. By imposing a color restriction, he said, it would restrict their choices immensely in selecting the best technology for this site.

Both Snyder and Strenski spoke again in support of the project. Snyder noted that the panels that commissioners might find the most “distracting” from an aesthetic view – made of polycrystalline silicon, with the crystals showing – are those she finds most beautiful. “I could stand and look at them for hours,” she said. “It’s almost like looking at fire or moving water.”

Strenski encouraged commissioners to check out seminars offered by the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association, based near Lansing. In addition to solar energy, the group provides training for wind energy too. “Wind energy’s going to be next on your list here,” Strenski said.

Andrew Brix, who’s a member of the XSeed advisory board, also addressed the commission. He mentioned that the city council approved a “green energy challenge” in 2006, with the goal of achieving 20% renewable energy use by 2015. He said he hoped the HDC would support the project and that they could continue this conversation about solar installations in historic districts, finding ways to address both the needs of historic preservation and the energy goals of the city.

During the commission’s deliberations, Lesa Rozmarek pointed out that the panels are being deliberately placed in a location that’s very visible. She said she didn’t have a problem with it in this case, but it’s something the commission should be aware of.

Diane Giannola said that a major point with this project is that the panels will be placed on a plain brick wall, and won’t interfere with the building’s historic front. She said she liked the educational aspect of the project, too.

The commissioners voted unanimously to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the Michigan Theater solar installation.

Coda to HDC Approval

In a follow-up email, Bona told The Chronicle that XSeed has budgeted about $30,000 for the Michigan Theater installation – $10,000 per kilowatt for a 3 kilowatt array. Bids are expected back from solar installers by the end of September. For other recent projects, prices have been in the range of $7,000 to $9,000 per kilowatt.

They expect to get about $15,000 from the DTE SolarCurrents program. The program allows the energy utility to buy renewable energy credits (RECs) from the state – credits that would otherwise go to homeowners or businesses. This helps the utility meet Michigan’s renewable energy standard, which was established by Public Act 295. The standard is a state mandate for Michigan electric utilities to generate 10% of their power from renewable resources by 2015.

In addition, XSeed is using the Michigan Theater installation to raise funds from corporate sponsorships, private donations and grants for public awareness efforts and future projects. That funding, in turn, will allow XSeed to provide incentives for private projects at residences, businesses and organizations. XSeed will also be pursuing public installations to provide power to residents, businesses, and organizations that don’t have adequate solar access on their own sites.

The focus on solar power, Bona wrote, is because of attractive incentives that are currently available to offset the cost of installation. In the future, XSeed will be looking at other renewable energy sources, too.

DTE, State Incentives Help Rudolf Steiner School

Yet another solar installation is coming in October – this one at the Rudolf Steiner School, on the campus of its high school on Pontiac Trail. The school received funding through two grants in June of this year: one from the Michigan Renewable Schools Program, which is funded by the Michigan Public Service Commission and administered by Energy Works Michigan; and one from DTE through its SolarCurrents program.

Rudolf Steiner School will receive $1,000 annually, says Sandra Greenstone, the school’s administrator, and is expected to save another $1,000 in electricity costs – about 12,000 kilowatt hours’ worth. In addition to a solar installation, the school will be making energy-saving changes based on results of an energy audit funded by the Michigan Renewable Schools Program, such as replacing windows and using energy-efficient light bulbs and fixtures.

Appleyard, of the city’s energy commission, considers the importance of the DTE program to be paramount in the accessibility of solar-powered systems. “It makes pretty good sense,” he says. “Certainly with DTE’s [SolarCurrents] program, photovoltaic arrays are a relatively secure investment in these times of uncertainty … since you’re signing a 20-year contract with DTE that basically guarantees that they’re going to pay you upfront money and then pay you every month for whatever you generate.”

Though DTE’s SolarCurrents program is viewed as progressive, hopes are set still higher for the possibility of incentives by the city, if pending state legislation is passed.

Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager, believes the single most helpful piece of legislation is PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy). Through the program, the city would use municipal bonds  to fund the upfront installation of a solar system to a resident’s home. The resident would then pay the city through property taxes in the coming years – probably over 15 to 20 years.

Wayne Appleyard and Bonnie Bona at a joint working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission, energy commission and environmental commission in April 2010. Appleyard chairs the energy commission. At the time, Bona was chair of the planning commission. (Chronicle file photo)

“This is incredibly helpful,” says Brix, “because most people don’t have the money for solar initiatives. It’s been passed in the House and is waiting to be reviewed in the Senate.” If legislation is approved, Brix says the city is “poised and ready” to run a PACE program.

The issue of PACE legislation came up during an April 13, 2010 joint working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission, energy commission and environmental commission, focused on the topic of sustainability and organized in part by Bona, who served as planning commission chair at the time. Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, explained some of the issues related to implementing a PACE program. From Chronicle coverage:

The program would be voluntary. Homeowners would first get an energy audit to find out if they’ve already taken initial steps on their own – for example, Naud said, you wouldn’t want to install solar power if you haven’t sufficiently caulked around your windows. You’d sign a contract with the city, which Naud said would microfinance the improvements. To repay the loan, homeowners would get an additional assessment on their property tax bills.

The risk is low, Naud said, as long as they structure the program in the right way – for example, not lending to people who are upside down on their mortgages, owing more than the home is worth. There’s already a system in place to make payments – the tax bills – and the improvements would add value to the property. The city has set aside $400,000 from a federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant it received, to use as a loan loss reserve fund. If the enabling legislation is passed, the city would be able to put together a package that would work, Naud said.

[Link to a September 2009 article about the PACE program, written by Eric Jamison, a law student at Wayne State University Law School who's working with the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center to develop the program in Michigan. More information is also available on the PACE Now website. Previous Chronicle coverage related to PACE: "Special District Might Fund Energy Program"]

Local banks will likely be involved in the effort as well – the Bank of Ann Arbor, for example, has been talking with the city for several months about how a “green lending” program might be structured.

Appleyard says that the DTE program certainly changed the economics of solar installation, but he hopes a feed-in tariff law will be enacted, too. He contends that it’s a case of politicians saying they want to do it and then having the political will to back it up. “It’s just a question of how long we wait and how many more droughts we have and sea level rises and all those other things that are happening – climate change – before we go ahead and decide that we have to do something.”

Hayley Byrnes is an intern with The Ann Arbor Chronicle. Chronicle Publisher Mary Morgan contributed to this report.

Plans to build an addition behind the brick Zingerman’s Deli building will ultimately require approval from the city’s historic district commission. (Photos by the writer.)

Zingerman’s itself is “handling a complaint” from the city’s Historic District Commission (HDC) – one that can be traced back to a June 2008 Zingerman’s request to demolish two houses, which are located in the city’s Old Fourth Ward historic district.

Now Zingerman’s is bringing back another proposal, but this time they’re not starting formally with the HDC. Instead, they’ll begin by seeking approvals from the city’s planning commission and the city council.

The site plan calls for a two-story, 9,500-square-foot structure to be added to the rear of the deli building, which will carry a price tag of around $4 million. The new building would replace the house at 322 E. Kingsley St. and extend lengthwise towards Community High School.

Zingerman’s started satisfying the formal steps for getting approval of their expansion project this week, on Monday, March 8, by holding a citizens participation meeting.

But Zingerman’s has also met informally with the HDC at two separate work sessions since the start of the year – one in January and the other on Thursday, March 11. Based on a significant change in design between those two meetings, which integrates “the orange house” into the project instead of demolishing it, Zingerman’s is trying to “make it right” for the HDC.

Still, at Thursday’s HDC work session, the Zingerman’s team stressed how great the challenges were – financial and logistical – to preserving the orange house as part of the project design. It seemed apparent that Zingerman’s was making an implicit pitch for members of the HDC to give a green light for the previously proposed project – the one minus both houses.

It was clear enough, in any case, that Jill Thacher – the city planning department’s historic preservation specialist – finally said towards the end of the meeting: “We’ve been over that. I want to keep you from going back to that.”

Background: Certificates, Notices, Zoning Change

In June 2008, the first step Zingerman’s took with their project was to request permission to demolish the two houses from the city’s historic district commission. This time around, Zingerman’s will first seek approval from the city’s planning commission and city council, and then ask for approval from the historic district commission.

Understanding the reason for ordering things differently this time requires a clear understanding of the difference between two notions: (i) a certificate of appropriateness; and (ii) a notice to proceed.

It’s also useful to understand how the zoning code has changed for part of the land since June 2008.

Background:  Certificates of Appropriateness

The minutes from the historic district commission’s June 12, 2008 meeting show that the commission considered Zingerman’s application to demolish two houses – along with a garage – as an application for a certificate of appropriateness. This is one “flavor” of the kind of permission that the HDC can grant.

That application was brought before the HDC without a site plan or drawings to show what Zingerman’s planned to build there. What Zingerman’s had planned at that point was a 3-story new building, compared to the 2-story building that is now being proposed.

During the June 12, 2008 HDC public hearing on the matter, the lack of a presentation on their actual plans was a point on which  Zingerman’s drew criticism. Responding to that criticism, Ken Clein, an architect with Quinn Evans who is working on the project, explained the absence of a specific site plan. From the HDC minutes of that meeting:

Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Clein – [...] the fact that they are not presenting plans or designs to replace these structures with. It was at the suggestion of staff that we separate that issue from the issue for request for demolition.

The issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for work in an historic district depends in part on whether the building in question is a “contributing” or  a “non-contributing” resource. A building that’s determined to be “non-contributing” is more easily altered than a building that’s “contributing,” under the Secretary of the Interior standards governing historic renovation.

A recent case of requested demolition in the Old West Side historic district – unrelated to Zingerman’s proposal in the Old Fourth Ward – highlighted the same issue of “contributing” versus “non-contributing” buildings. Permission to demolish two houses and a gas station on Second Street was sought by the developer of the Liberty Lofts project, to make it possible to construct additional parking spaces. He’d hoped that the potential for adding parking spaces would help attract a retail tenant for the still-vacant space in the greenhouse structure at First & Washington. [Chronicle coverage: "Demolition in Historic District?" and "Historic Commission: No Approval for Demolition"]

The HDC found the gas station – at the corner of Liberty & Second – to be non-contributing, but found the houses to be contributing. Commissioners voted to issue a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the garage, but wound up splitting 3-3 on all possible resolutions on the two houses.

Similarly, in June 2008 the HDC voted to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the Zingerman’s non-contributing garage, but voted to deny the request to demolish the two houses, which commissioners found to be contributing to the Old Fourth Ward. While the HDC vote on the house at 420 Detroit St. was unanimously against demolition, the vote on the fire-damaged 322 E. Kingsley St. house was only 4-3 against demolition.

Background: Notices to Proceed

It seems impossible to reconcile Secretary of Interior standards for appropriate work in an historic district – one of which concerns “reversibility” of the work – with demolition of a building that the commission has determined to be a contributing resource.

However, another option to contemplate – a second “flavor” of permission – is that the HDC could issue a “notice to proceed.” The criteria for issuance of such a notice, from the city code, are as follows:

8:416. Notice to proceed.
(1) Work within a historic district shall be permitted through the issuance of a notice to proceed by the commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions:
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structure’s occupants.
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.
(d) Retaining the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.

In the case of the recent request in the Old West Side for demolition, the Liberty Lofts developer argued that all of the criteria might apply, including (b). However, the commission – in consultation with the city attorney’s office – seemed ultimately to reject (b) as a possibility, citing the fact that the developer had no “planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances” as required by (b).

And when Zingerman’s went before the HDC in June 2008, they also did not have planning commission or city council approval for the project.

With their current plan to obtain permissions from the planning commission and the city council first, before returning to the HDC, Zingerman’s would be in a position to make a case for alteration of contributing structures, based on criterion (b).

At the earlier public hearing in June 2008, Peter Pollack, a landscape architect who also lives near Zingerman’s Deli, laid out the case based on exactly that criterion. From the summary of Pollack’s remarks in the HDC minutes of that meeting:

[...] I ask you to put in context with the historic development of what has occurred on this property. Buildings have been  relocated, reoriented and adjusted. This is in the same spirit of that reorientation and adjustment. If you look at the “Notice to Proceed,’ this is a major deterrent to an  improvement program, and I say that this is exactly the case.

Background: Zoning

The Zingerman’s project that will be brought before the planning commission – probably in May – will be intended to meet all applicable zoning codes. That will make it a so-called “matter of right” project. That is possible due in part to a rezoning of the 322 E. Kingsley St. parcel, which took place last summer as part of the Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2) rezoning project for all of downtown.

The previous zoning for 322 E. Kingsley St. was R4C, which is designated for residential, not commercial use. The new D2 zoning classification allows for various commercial uses, including restaurants and offices.

The rezoning of 322 Kingsley St. was given preliminary approval by the city council in April 2009 as part of a comprehensive rezoning of downtown Ann Arbor. That required review of the change by the planning commission, which ultimately approved it, in connection with its revision of the city’s downtown plan.

The 322 E. Kingsley St. rezoning was controversial for the planning commission, passing on a 4-3 vote. From The Chronicle’s report of the May 19, 2009 planning commission meeting, when the revision was approved.

During the public hearing, the  planning commission heard from several speakers who objected to the assignment of the D2 designation to the property, on the grounds of  “fairness” and “favoritism” – everyone loves Zingerman’s, themselves included, they said. But that didn’t translate into changing the zoning, just because Zingerman’s asked for it.

They also heard from representatives of Zingerman’s about why the D2 zoning was requested, as well as from a speaker who noted that he’d just witnessed two hours of “serious participation” by citizens who were engaged, and had been properly noticed, and concluded that the notion of fairness had not been violated.

The vote on the commission was 4-3 for following council’s lead in assigning D2 zoning to the parcel. Voting for the D2 designation were: Eric Mahler, Tony Derezinski, Jean Carlberg, and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were: Bonnie Bona, Kirk Westphal, and Ethel Potts. Mahler, responding to an argument made by Peter Pollack at the previous week’s work session, said that the option of pursuing a PUD for a particular project (as an alternative to having the D2 zoning) would, in his opinion, be difficult. For a PUD, Mahler said, a public benefit would have to be demonstrated – and from what he could tell, the kind of project Zingerman’s was contemplating would most likely be for Zingerman’s benefit.

Westphal did not cite “fairness” in voting against the D2 designation, but rather a respect for the long, extended process of community participation that had extended over a few years – none of which had included discussion of the 322 E. Kingsley parcel.

Background: Timeline Overview

• June 12, 2008: Historic district commission denies request for demolition of 322 E. Kingsley St. and 420 Detroit St. [Rocco Disderide's former residence, aka "the orange house."]
• Feb. 19, 2009: Planning commission adopts downtown plan with various revisions but no change to existing R4C zoning of 322 E. Kingsley St.
• April 6, 2009: City council gives initial approval to zoning revisions to downtown requiring alterations to the downtown plan adopted by the planning commission; major alterations include changes in South University area, but also included a rezoning of 322 E. Kingsley St. from R4C to the new D2 classification. The amendment on 322 E. Kingsley St. is introduced by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and passes with dissent only from Sabra Briere (Ward 1). [link]
• May 19, 2009: Planning commission approves revisions to the downtown plan to accommodate part of the city council’s South University zoning revisions, an East Huron zoning revision, and the 322 E. Kingsley St. revision. [link]
• June 15, 2009: City council adopts downtown plan as revised by the planning commission. [link]
• Nov. 16, 2009: City council gives final approval to downtown zoning revisions, including the D2 designation to 322 E. Kingsley St.
• Jan. 14, 2010: At an HDC work session, Zingerman’s presents plan showing demolition of two houses.
• March 8, 2010: Zingerman’s holds a public participation open house on its proposed expansion.
• March 11, 2010: At an HDC work session, Zingerman’s presents a plan showing demolition of one house only.

Zingerman’s Expansion: January 2010 HDC Work Session

The city’s historic district commission typically conducts its work sessions just after its regular meetings conclude – in the city council workroom, which adjoins the council chambers where the commission holds its regular meetings.

At the Jan. 14, 2010 HDC work session, Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects was joined by Gary Bruder, Zingerman’s legal counsel, and Nancy Rucker, who works in Zingerman’s Deli operations.

Clein presented the project with conceptual drawings and a study model – which at that time showed the removal of both the 322 E. Kingsley St. house and the 420 Detroit St. house.

Clein explained that the proposal to expand was related to an interest in preserving the original historic deli building. The current cooking and dishwashing operations in the building, he explained, generated moisture that escaped through the exterior brick, and caused deterioration of the wall. The evidence of the toll that it takes, he said, can be seen on the exterior of the wall facing Kingsley in the form of efflorescence – white salt deposits.

Clein also outlined a number of challenges associated with the Zingerman’s campus, one of them the seven-inch elevation change, which has an impact on what’s required to meet ADA accessibility standards, as well as the tight quarters, which has an impact on where stormwater detention can be undertaken.

The key issue for commissioners, naturally, was the question of removing both houses. Generally, commissioners did not seem wed to the idea of preserving the 322 E. Kingsley St. house.

[The June 2008 vote on that house had been close: 4-3 against demolition. One of the votes against demolition was Michael Bruner, who has since been replaced on the HDC with Patrick McCauley. McCauley's comments at the work session suggest he could be supportive of removing the 322 E. Kingsley St. house.]

On the 420 Detroit St. house, however, McCauley was unambiguous: “I’ll just come out and say it. I don’t think you should tear that house down.”

What McCauley pointed to was the fact that the proposed new building seemed to impinge on just one corner of the house, and for that reason, he did not think the condition was met that the removal of the house be “necessary.”

Clein countered by saying that there was more to it than just the small corner of the house. Among the specific issues he enumerated were: the impact on accessibility and the need to construct ramps; plus proximity of the house to the new structure triggering a requirement of fire-proof sheathing, which added to the expense; and the need to temporarily move the house to accommodate the actual construction of the new building.

Key for Clein was the idea that if cost were no object, then anything was possible – but it was a matter of how much cost was reasonable to ask of someone in order to rehabilitate an historic property.

On the question of expense, commissioner Diane Giannola wondered what the cut-off was for rehabilitation being “too expensive.” She allowed that it was “something to think about.” On the cost question, McCauley contended that it was only a small part of the overall project budget. Clein countered that in ballpark numbers, the rehabilitation of the house would likely be $0.5 million out of a project budget of $3.5 million to $4 million – or 1/7 of the budget, which he did not consider to be a small part of it.

Giannola raised the question of whether the 420 Detroit St. house could be seen from the street, to which McCauley responded: “You can totally see it from the street!” Giannola maintained that it was not a part of the streetscape, but noted that it was still a part of going to Zingerman’s Deli.

On the topic of location, Jill Thacher, the city planning department’s specialist in historic preservation, addressed the topic of the house’s history. It had been moved from the corner where the brick deli building now stands, she said, but that was during the district’s period of significance. This meant the fact that it had been moved was not an argument that it wasn’t a contributing structure. “Let me get the ‘it’s been moved’ argument off the table,” she said. [The same issue had been discussed fairly thoroughly at the HDC's June 2008 meeting.]

Commissioners discussed how far the notion of “necessity” in the criteria for a notice to proceed extended – was it “necessary” that Zingerman’s undertake the expansion at that location?

Commissioner Ellen Ramsburgh wondered if the expansion was more than the site could take. She noted that the Zingerman’s Creamery and Bake House had moved to peripheral locations. “Do you need to be there?”

In her remarks, Ramsburgh was echoing sentiments expressed by then-commissioner Michael Bruner back in June 2008, when he had made the suggestion that Zingerman’s think of moving their operations. The specific location he had in mind was the Old West Side structure adjoining the Liberty Lofts development:

Commissioner Bruner – [...] This may be less than what they need, but there stands today, a project that we reviewed and was approved, a development that includes a 20,000 square foot commercial retail area with parking that is begging to be occupied. [An apparent allusion to the Liberty Lofts greenhouse building.] As preservationists that want to encourage the success of economic projects in the city, perhaps Zingerman’s should consider moving their location as they have with their Creamery, which is at a satellite location, their Bakery which is at a satellite location, their Roadhouse that is a satellite location – this could be relocated as a satellite component at another location, nevertheless retaining this location as it is.

Clein responded to Ramsburgh at the January 2010 HDC working session by wondering if there were another historic district in another town where Zingerman’s could contemplate locating their operations. Ramsburgh: “That’s a threat!”

Zingerman’s Expansion: March Public Meeting, HDC Work Session

At the open house event held on March 8 to introduce the new project to the public, a key difference in the plan was apparent, made since the January HDC work session: The 420 Detroit St. house – “the orange house” –  is now incorporated into the design, both in the drawings and the study model.

HDC work session, March 11, 2010. From the far end of the table, at right, going clockwise: Paul Saginaw, Lori Saginaw, Lesa Rozmarek, Kristina Glusac, Diane Giannola, Ellen Ramsburgh, Nancy Rucker, Gary Bruder, Bill Kinley, Deb Cooper, Ken Clein, Jill Thacher, Patrick McCauley, Rick Strutz, Grace Singleton.

At the open house, Ray Detter, president of the city’s downtown citizen’s advisory council, responded to a mention that the plan now included “the orange house” with the clarification: “You mean the Disderide house?”

Rocco Disderide was the proprietor of a grocery in the brick deli building, who moved the house from the corner to make way for that building.

Detter had told the board of the Downtown Development Authority at their last meeting, on March 3, 2010, that the advisory council was concerned about Zingerman’s plan to expand:

Zingerman’s plan generated “heated discussion” at DCAC, said Detter. The deli is located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. He said they agreed that Zingerman’s is an essential part of the community, but that they needed to make sure there’s not a precedent set that would undermine planning. The decision needed to be oriented around the city’s planning documents: the downtown plan, the central area plan, and the historic district.

At the March 11, 2010 HDC work session, Ken Clein mentioned that some of the attendees of their March 8 open house were puzzled as to why they were keeping the 420 Detroit St. house as a part of the design.

As a designer and an architect, Clein said, he did have some concern for the judgment of history – would people look back 50 or 100 years from now and wonder why that house was incorporated into the design? “Will they look back and say, ‘What the …? Stupid preservationists!’” Patrick McCauley joked in response: “They’re going to say that anyway!”

At the March 8 open house, Paul Saginaw, a founding partner of Zingerman’s, is not explaining how he fought his way through the curds, swimming to the surface after falling into a vat of cheese. He’s explaining to a neighbor how the Zingerman’s project is going to look.

The question of how much the preservation of the 420 Detroit St. house would cost arose again, just as it had at the January work session. In the interim, some more concrete numbers had been attached to the cost of rehabilitating the house for integration into the design. The house is shown in the design to be attached to the building at the rear via a glass connector.

Bill Kinley, who owns Phoenix Contractors Inc., was at the work session on Zingerman’s behalf to provide comment on some of the construction costs. McCauley was skeptical of the costs shown for electrical upgrades to the structure, citing some familiarity with the cost of a complete electrical replacement of a house. Kinley pointed out that there’s a rule of thumb for residential rewiring of $30-$35 per opening (switch plate or plug) versus a $120-$140 rule of thumb for work to bring things up to commercial code.

The code requirements that the 420 Detroit St. house would need to meet are commercial standards.

Clein reported that the kind of work that would be necessary, and which Zingerman’s had now had estimated in more detail, included a rebuild of the foundation, new floor framing for the first floor, new joist hangers for the second floor and the addition of exterior sheathing. [The house is built with the balloon-frame construction technique.]

The additional cost of the project attributable to the rehabilitation of the 420 Detroit St. house would be between $600,000-$750,000. In terms of cost per square foot, Clein said, it came out to $572/sq. ft.  By comparison, the new construction cost of a laboratory building at the University of Michigan – the Biomedical Sciences Research Building – was $100/sq. ft. less, at $480/sq. ft., Clein said. Kinley added that the new construction of a recent project that Phoenix had completed – the Towsley Children’s Center at Forest & Willard – came in at only $300/sq. ft.

Commissioners pointed to the importance of retaining the spatial relationships between the 420 Detroit St. house and the other buildings in the compound. At their regular meeting just before the work session, they’d turned down a request to add a second story to a 1-story garage, partly on the basis of those spatial relationships.

Picking up on this need to preserve the spatial relationships, Kinley suggested that they could simply rebuild the 420 Detroit St. house anew and replace it with new construction that would have the same shape and massing of the old house. Clein pointed out to the commissioners that with all of the work that would be required on the house to bring it up to code, there would likely be little of the original “fabric” of the house remaining.

Commissioners seemed cool to the implicit pitch that the Zingerman’s team was making to go back to a scenario where both houses would be demolished. Said Jill Thacher: “We’ve been over that. I want to keep you from going back to that.”

Commissioners also took care to stress that they were really happy with the proposal that removed the 322 E. Kingsley St. house but integrated the 420 Detroit St. house into the design, characterizing it as a good compromise. “I really like this,” said McCauley, allowing that he had been “the most strident person about the preservation of the orange house.”

On the fact that Zingerman’s had taken their feedback and incorporated it into their new proposal, McCauley summed it the contrast between the HDC’s experience with some applicants: “This is much preferable to getting yelled at.”

The current schedule calls for the proposal to come before the city’s planning commission in May. In the meantime, the Zingerman’s team will meet with the city’s building inspector on code issues related to the 420 Detroit St. house.

A rough study model of the area as it currently stands. The view is from the north. Detroit Street runs from front to back. Kingsley runs left and right. The Zingerman’s Deli brick building is on the corner of Detroit and Kingsley.

A study model of the Zingerman’s expansion viewed from Detroit Street, looking east. The finger is pointing at the screening for mechanicals on the roof of the proposed new building.

The Zingerman’s Deli building viewed from Detroit Street. The 420 Detroit St. property is the orange house to the right of the brick deli building.

Nancy Rucker and Gary Bruder with the Zingerman’s team at the January 2010 HDC working session.

City planner Jill Thacher and Rick Strutz, a partner in Zingerman’s Deli, inspect the current study model at the March 11 HDC work session. In the backround is Grace Singleton, another Zingerman’s Deli partner.

Efflorescence on the spawled brick of the Zingerman’s Deli building on the wall facing Kingsley Street.