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

The commission’s Oct. 15 meeting also included a public hearing on the recommendations. Ten people spoke.

Although commissioners spent about two hours on this agenda item, they ultimately voted to postpone action and will continue their discussion at a future meeting.

In general, the recommendations – prepared by consultants ENP & Associates – call for some sections of the downtown to be downzoned, to create better transitions between residential neighborhoods and property that’s zoned for denser development. The recommendations also call for mandatory approval from the city’s design review board for any projects that are seeking premiums.

The report had been revised following feedback on Oct. 8. [See Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase."] The recommendations reviewed on Oct. 15 include: (1) rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) rezone the Municipal Center parcel from PL (public land) to D2; (3) reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 130 feet; (4) rezone the D-zoned parcels on the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue (where city hall is located) from East Huron 2 Character District to East Huron 1 Character District; (5) change the maximum height in the Main Street Character District to 150 feet when within 20 feet of a residentially zoned area and add a tower diagonal requirement of 50% of the maximum parcel diagonal; (6) rezone the south half of the parcel at 425 S. Main (between William and Packard) from D1 to D2.

In addition, several recommendations relate to premiums: (1) require approval of the design review board for a project to be eligible for any premium; (2) revise the residential premium to be more specific about the types of units that will be eligible for premiums; (3) revise the affordable housing premium so that the provision of affordable housing is mandatory for receiving any premiums; (4) eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) include other types of premiums in addition to those currently available.

This zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission that was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development. Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2, which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu has taken the lead on this project, and attended the commission’s Oct. 15 meeting to answer questions.

The public hearing was held prior to a discussion by the commission. After the public hearing was opened and four people had spoken, Sabra Briere challenged a statement that commission chair Kirk Westphal had made at the opening of the hearing. Westphal had stated that anyone speaking at the Oct. 15 public hearing could not speak again when the hearing is continued at a future meeting. After debating the issue, commissioners voted 5-3 to allow people to speak at the public hearing over multiple meetings. Supporting that approach were Briere, Jeremy Peters, Paras Parekh, Bonnie Bona and Eleanore Adenekan. Three commissioners – Westphal, Diane Giannola and Wendy Woods – were in favor of one speaking turn only.

The commission will eventually vote on a final set of recommendations to be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

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

RESOLVED, That City Council requests the City Planning Commission to specifically address these issues:
(i) whether D1 zoning is appropriately located on the north side of Huron Street between Division and S. State and the south side of William Street between S. Main and Fourth Avenue;
(ii) whether the D1 residential FAR premiums effectively encourage a diverse downtown population; and
(iii) consider a parcel on the south side of Ann St. adjacent to north of city hall that is currently zoned D1 to be rezoned to the appropriate zoning for this neighborhood; and

RESOLVED, That City Council requests that Planning Commission complete its review and report to the City Council by October 1, 2013.

The parcel that the planning commission is supposed to consider downzoning is the parking lot currently owned by the University of Michigan Credit Union, formerly owned by the Ann Arbor News. The vote on the council’s specific direction came at its April 1, 2013 meeting, which leaves the planning commission six months to complete its work.

The three points of inquiry are similar in spirit, but different in their details from those put forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the council’s March 18 meeting. At that meeting, the council had deliberated on the question of whether to give the planning commission direction to conduct the D1 review and to impose a moratorium on the D1 site plans.

The orange-ish area denotes an area zoned as D2 (interface). Darker red areas, including the UM Credit Union parcel (pink arrow), are zoned D1 (downtown core). The red line denotes the boundary of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district.

At their March 18 session, the council decided to delete the mention of a moratorium from their resolution and to include a promise to define by April 1 the scope of the planning commission’s review and a time frame for its work.

The first point of inquiry adopted by the council on April 1 differs from that offered on March 18 by omitting mention of historic districts – although the appropriateness of D1 zoning will almost certainly include the relation of D1-zoned areas to historic districts.

The second point of inquiry – about residential FAR (floor area ratio) premiums – had been proposed by Taylor on March 18.

The third point of inquiry is new. The parcel in question is the surface parking lot currently owned by the University of Michigan Credit Union, formerly owned by the now defunct Ann Arbor News.

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

Would a moratorium on D1 zoning site plan review be consistent with a view that Ann Arbor is “radioactive” to development? Components of this graphic include the D1 zoned areas of downtown Ann Arbor (darker red), D2 zoned areas (orange-ish), the symbol for radioactivity and a question mark. At a recent public meeting, the characterization of Ann Arbor as “radioactive” for developers was cheered by some residents who would prefer to see smaller-scale growth, if any. The city council considered but did not enact a moratorium on March 18.

The resolution gives specific direction to the planning commission to review the D1 zoning code and to make recommendations to the city council on possible revisions to the code.

In the original resolution, the planning commission was supposed to complete its work on or before June 4, 2013, and the city council was to act on the planning commission’s recommendations on or before August 19, 2013. But the specific timeline for the review was amended out of the resolution, in favor of a clause that indicates a specific timeline and scope of work will be forthcoming from the council. Also amended out of the resolution was any reference to a moratorium on site plans in areas zoned as D1.

There was some sentiment on the council for a moratorium, but possibly with the exclusion of projects already in the review process. Voting to keep some kind of moratorium as a part of the resolution were Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The vote on the final resolution, without the moratorium, was unanimous.

Not affected by the council’s resolution is 413 E. Huron, located on the northeast corner of Huron and Division streets. It’s a 14-story apartment building that would include 216 units totaling 533 bedrooms, with underground parking for 132 vehicles.

Also not affected by the council’s resolution is a proposed project at 624 Church Street – a 14-story building with 75 apartments and a total of about 175 bedrooms. The council gave the site plan for 624 Church Street unanimous approval at its March 4 meeting.

The wording of the original resolution exempted site plans that had already received the planning commission’s recommendation of approval by Feb. 19. So the 624 Church Street project would not have been encompassed by the originally proposed moratorium, because it received a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission on Jan. 15, 2013.

The moratorium was initially postponed from the council’s Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. That was the first council meeting after the 413 E. Huron project failed to achieve a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission. Under the originally proposed language of the moratorium resolution, the 413 E. Huron project would not have been allowed to move forward, because its site plan did not receive that recommendation of approval.

The outcome of the planning commission’s vote on Feb. 4, 2013 was not a recommendation for approval of 413 E. Huron, because the 5-3 tally in favor did not give the project the required six-vote majority. But even without a planning commission recommendation, a developer has the option of bringing a site plan proposal for consideration by the city council, which the 413 E. Huron developer did. The project appeared on the March 18 agenda, but had not been considered by the time this brief was filed at around midnight.

As they had at the council’s Feb. 19 and March 4 meetings, supporters and opponents of the moratorium addressed the city council during the public commentary period at the March 18 meeting. In written correspondence, legal action was intimated by some on both sides of the issue. A partial list of written correspondence included:

• A2Y Chamber opposition to moratorium
• Zaragon Place (Larry Deitch) in support of moratorium
• Norm Hyman in support of moratorium
• Norm Hyman comments in support of moratorium
• Christine Brummer in support of moratorium
• Multiple residents in support of moratorium
• historic district commission’s resolution in support of moratorium
• Susan Friedlaender (developer’s attorney) opposition to moratorium
• Pat Lennon (developer’s attorney) opposition to moratorium

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

The conditions on the D1 designation would have included restrictions on height and floor area that are less than what’s allowed in “unconditioned” D1. For example, the by-right height limit in D1 is 180 feet, but one condition the owner of the property – Philip Sotiroff – wanted to place on the property was a 145-foot height limit.

That 145-foot limit, however, is more than twice the limit of the parcel’s current D2 zoning, which allows buildings only as tall as 60 feet. Currently at the site – on the south side of South University, between Forest and Washtenaw avenues – is the three-story Park Plaza apartment building.

The site is adjacent to a D1 parcel to the east, where the Landmark apartment building is being constructed, at 601 S. Forest. But the 1320 S. University property also abuts lower-density residential zoning. Single-family homes are located to the south of the site, and a fraternity is located to the west.

The South University area was an intensely debated part of the A2D2 downtown rezoning initiative, which the city council finally ratified on Nov. 16, 2009 after more than two years of planning work. As part of that process, the city planning commission had initially recommended a zoning map that assigned D1 zoning to the 1320 S. University parcel. The city council subsequently drew the lines differently, which resulted in a D2 designation for the parcel, and sent the map back to the planning commission. The planning commission then revised some parts of its map, including the designation for 1320 S. University.

More recently, at its Feb. 7, 2012 meeting, planning commissioners voted unanimously not to recommend that 1320 S. University be rezoned from D2 to D1.

The city council’s vote was just its initial consideration of the request – a “first reading.” A rezoning request, like any ordinance change, requires initial approval, followed by a public hearing and a final approval at a subsequent meeting. But often, councilmembers will advance an ordinance change to a second reading, if they have not settled on a position and are interested in hearing the sentiments that might be expressed at a public hearing. So the fact that the council rejected the proposal on first reading can be taken as a measure of the council’s strong opposition to changing the zoning that was agreed on as part of the A2D2 process.

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