The city’s planning commission had voted to recommend the rezoning at its Nov. 20, 2012 meeting and the city council gave initial approval at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting.

When the council gave its initial approval, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had indicated that while he was voting for the zoning on that occasion, he wanted to alert his council colleagues to the fact that he’d heard some concerns about the type of progress and development that the zoning represents. Taylor represents Ward 3, where the proposed project is located. So Taylor said the issue might be a point of discussion when the council was asked to give the zoning its final approval. That reflected concerns also expressed at the planning commission’s June 19, 2012 meeting from residents of the nearby Forest Hills Cooperative.

At the Feb. 4 meeting, a half dozen people spoke during the public hearing, in opposition to the zoning – citing concerns about congestion and overcrowding. Andy LaBarre, a Washtenaw County commissioner in whose district the parcel sits, also addressed the councilmembers, telling them that he’d heard the concerns of many of the nearby residents. LaBarre offered to help find a way to put the land to a use that fits the desires of the residents.

In referring the zoning back to the planning commission, councilmembers indicated interest in hearing more detail on drainage issues, and the level of recreational services offered in that general area of the city, as well as information about public safety issues.

R3 zoning is consistent with the intended development of the site – to be called Summit Townhomes – for which the city’s planning commission recommended approval at its Jan. 3, 2013 meeting. The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

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]

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, center, and Diane Giannola at the Dec. 27 meeting of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee. (Photos by the writer.)

The Dec. 27 meeting of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee was the latest in a long, politically fraught process of overhauling the city’s R4C/R2A zoning – with an eye toward encouraging density while preserving the character of the neighborhoods.

R4C allows for multiple-family residential dwellings, such as apartment buildings, while R2A zoning limits density to two-family residential structures. Although both types of zoning are being addressed, R4C zoning is receiving the most attention. That type of zoning classification – which allowed for the controversial City Place development on South Fifth Avenue – has been characterized by city planners as “broken,” and in 2009 the city council formed an advisory committee to study the issue. That group presented a final report in May of 2012 to the planning commission, with a set of recommendations and analysis.

Since then, planning commissioners who are members of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee have been reviewing the recommendations and talking through other possible changes as well.

On Dec. 27, ORC members met again, this time focusing on parking requirements. Generally, commissioners seemed to lean toward discouraging parking on site. But commissioner Bonnie Bona felt the advantage of keeping parking requirements is that the city can then offer incentives for property owners to satisfy the requirements without actually providing on-site parking – by including other alternatives on site, like covered bike parking, or by paying into a fund that would support the launch of programs like car-sharing, for example. Commissioner Diane Giannola expressed concern about the impact of parking on residential streets. She also noted that in general, some of these changes might not be appropriate for all neighborhoods that are zoned R4C.

Commissioners reached a consensus to explore linking the parking requirement to the square footage of a structure. The current approach links the parking requirement to the number of units in a structure. Also related to square footage, commissioners briefly recapped a previous discussion they’d had about a possible approach to accessory structures. The idea would be to encourage owners to fix up their accessory structures, by allowing them to renovate or replace the buildings – as long as the renovated or new structures conform to the same size as the existing structures, and are on the same location within the site. Commissioners expressed interest in allowing these structures to be used as accessory dwellings, acknowledging that the previous effort to do that – floated in the 1990s – was strongly opposed by some community members and never taken up by the city council.

These ideas for R4C/R2A zoning are still being developed and are not yet even in draft form. The ORC is working toward a goal of crafting a final set of recommendations for the full planning commission to consider, possibly in March. If the recommendations receive planning commission approval, the next step would be for city councilmembers to take action on specific ordinance changes.

R4C/R2A Zoning: Background

Appointed by the Ann Arbor city council, an R4C/R2A zoning district study advisory committee began working on the issue in December 2009. The committee’s appointment was in part a response to concerns related to the City Place project – which was planned to replaced several older houses with a large two-building apartment complex. The project has since been completed on South Fifth Avenue. Committee members were: Chuck Carver (rental property owner representative), Ilene Tyler and David Merchant (Ward 1 residents), Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2 residents), Ellen Rambo and Michele Derr (Ward 3 residents), Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4 residents), Ethel Potts (Ward 5 resident). Also on the committee were Jean Carlberg, who at that time served on the planning commission, and Tony Derezinski, who was a city councilmember at the time.

The advisory group completed a report that was presented to the planning commission earlier this year. Commissioners were briefed on the report at a May 2012 working session. [.pdf of advisory committee report. For a detailed background on the issues leading up to this current study – which dates back several decades – see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Group Weighs R4C/R2A Report."]

R4C and R2A zoning districts were established in the 1960s, and applied to existing neighborhoods – resulting in many parcels that did not conform to the zoning regulations. R4C allows for multiple-family residential dwellings, such as apartment buildings, while R2A zoning limits density to two-family residential structures. Most of the advisory committee recommendations relate to R4C districts.

The dark red areas are those locations that are zoned R4C in the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to Google Map)

The advisory committee’s report includes 10 recommendations, with accompanying analysis. [.pdf of recommendations] The major recommendations relate to: (1) rebuilding structures that don’t conform to existing zoning; (2) rezoning certain areas from R4C to R2A; (3) reducing minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths; (4) exploring the creation of zoning overlay districts; (5) revising density calculations; (6) revising parking standards; and (7) changing requirements for lot combinations. The report also recommended no changes to zoning for rooming houses or group housing (such as fraternities or sororities).

Aside from a general recommendation regarding non-conformance, the recommendations all relate to R4C districts.

In May 2012 – after the advisory committee report was presented at a planning commission working session – it was decided that the commission’s ordinance revisions committee would take a closer look at the report. The committee was to draft a set of recommendations to bring before the full planning commission. Members of the ordinance revisions committee are Bonnie Bona, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods. ORC meetings are open to any commissioner, however.

The planning commission’s fiscal 2013 work program, approved by commissioners in June of 2012, set a target of December 2012 as the completion date for R4C/R2A recommendations. That target date has shifted to March of 2013, when recommendations are to be brought to a full planning commission meeting. Commissioners would then vote on recommendations that would be forwarded to the city council for final action. Due to the controversial nature of the issue, it’s likely that further changes would also be made by the council.

The Dec. 27 meeting was attended by city planner Matt Kowalski, who’s the staff point person for the R4C/R2A project, and planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola and Kirk Westphal. Westphal participated via speakerphone.

Accessory Structures

The Dec. 27 ORC meeting began with a recap of ideas regarding an approach to accessory structures, which commissioners had discussed at a previous committee meeting on Dec. 10. City planner Matt Kowalski said that after the Dec. 10 meeting, he’d walked through some of the R4C neighborhoods west of State Street to assess the status of accessory structures in that area – including garages and other detached out-buildings.

Kowalski noted that there are quite a few of these buildings, and he estimated that 75% of them aren’t usable at this point – owners just haven’t torn them down.

Kirk Westphal, the planning commission’s chair, asked for clarification about the previous discussion. Kowalski explained that the idea that had been discussed was to encourage owners to fix up their accessory structures, by allowing them to renovate or replace the buildings – as long as the renovated or new structures conform to the same size as the existing structures, and are on the same location within the site.

Diane Giannola noted that this would provide a way for people to have accessory dwellings, where people could live, or to use as a place for parking their vehicles.

An accessory structure in the back of a house on the city’s Old West Side.

By way of background, the issue of accessory dwellings has been a controversial one in Ann Arbor. The planning commission has looked at the issue several times, including a major effort in the late 1990s. The planning commission at that time brought forward recommendations that received major pushback from some members of the community, and mayor John Hieftje ultimately did not bring the recommended changes to the council for consideration. The forcefulness of that opposition is typically noted by anyone who has raised the issue since then.

Currently, the only kind of accessory dwellings allowed in Ann Arbor must be attached to the principal dwelling and be less than 600 square feet. Other requirements include: (1) the principal dwelling must be owner-occupied; and (2) the occupant of the accessory apartment must be a relative of the owner. An available special exception use for accessory apartments has been sought only two times since it was added to the zoning regulations for residential properties in the 1980s.

At the Dec. 27 ORC meeting, planning commissioner Bonnie Bona said these secondary structures already have “spatial preference” within the neighborhood, so it would be a way to allow an existing accessory unit to be used. Kowalski added that now, the structures are just taking up space and most of them are used as storage, with “crap piled up in there.”

Bona said she suspected that very few of the structures could be saved. But she noted that the important piece of any ordinance change would be to require any new buildings to be the same size that’s currently on the site, in the same location. The structures have a smaller footprint and lower height than the main buildings that are in R4C districts, and are typically in the back yard.

Kowalski pointed out that moving this issue forward would require revisiting the accessory dwelling unit debate of the 1990s.

Parking Requirements

The main focus of the Dec. 27 meeting was on parking requirements in the R4C/R2A zoning districts. Matt Kowalski began by reviewing the recommendations of the advisory committee.

From The Chronicle’s report on the advisory committee recommendations:

Currently, the same number of parking spaces – 1.5 spaces per unit – are required, regardless of how many bedrooms are in each unit. It was felt that this approach encourages developers to put more bedrooms per unit, [Matt Kowalski] said. Committee members and public participation indicated a strong desire to encourage a mix of different number of bedrooms per unit, so a graduated scale of parking requirements is recommended.

Recommendation: Adopt a graduated scale of calculating required parking based on unit type (above), increasing parking requirements as number of bedrooms in units increase. The Advisory Committee also recommends investigating an off-site parking storage concept and other alternative parking methods.

The recommendation calls for keeping the same parking requirement – 1.5 spaces per unit – for units with 0-4 bedrooms, but increasing the requirement to 2 spaces per unit for units with 5-6 bedrooms.

The 2011 draft report had recommended a more fine-grained parking requirement, corresponding to the three recommended unit types: 0.5 spaces for each 0-2 bedroom unit; 1 space for each 3-4 bedroom unit; and 2 spaces for each 5-6 bedroom unit.

According to the final report, a majority of committee members felt that the parking requirement shouldn’t control a building’s site design, and that open space shouldn’t be converted to parking in order to meet the requirement. But some committee members expressed concern about ensuring adequate on-site parking. The report states that the committee also recommends that parking requirements be studied further, in conjunction with all the other R4C recommendations.

In recapping the recommendations on Dec. 27, Kowalski characterized the advisory committee as being unable to come to a consensus about parking. “Some wanted more parking, some wanted less,” he said. But he added that no one wanted to completely eliminate parking requirements.

Bonnie Bona wanted to explore the argument in favor of not having a parking requirement, even if the committee ultimately doesn’t make that recommendation. She said she intuitively knew why, but needed to work through how to articulate the reasoning.

Diane Giannola noted that if there are no parking requirements, then that’s incentive for housing targeted at undergraduates. Even if you are a graduate student or young professional who walks to school or work, you still own a car, she said. So by eliminating the parking requirement, Giannola reasoned, those neighborhoods would become more focused on undergraduate housing.

Bona disagreed, saying that even if the city doesn’t require parking, the landlords could still provide it if they wanted to market their properties to graduate students or young professionals.

Giannola clarified she wasn’t necessarily opposed to eliminating parking requirements, but she had concerns about the impact on neighborhoods. Almost all residents have cars, she said, even if they don’t drive it every day.

Parking Requirements: Other Options

Bona identified one advantage of having parking requirements: That the city can then give developers some options to provide instead of parking. If there are no parking requirements, that’s not possible. “If we take it away, we don’t get anything for it,” she observed. Westphal agreed, saying it was something to use as a carrot for providing other things that the city might want.

Bona pointed to the city’s payment-in-lieu-of-parking for the downtown development districts as an example of that. Developers can buy out of the city’s on-site parking requirement by paying for parking permits within the city’s parking system. Most recently, the proposed residential development at 624 Church St. in downtown Ann Arbor – a 13- or 14-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds – was granted the payment-in-lieu option by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The developer will be able to provide 40 spaces of required parking by contracting for the spaces in the public parking system, instead of building the spaces on site as part of the project.

Ann Arbor city planner Matt Kowalski.

Bona also supported a more holistic approach. If the city eliminates parking, then other transportation sources need to be provided at the same time. The city has buses and bike racks, she said, and services like Zipcar. But the big element that’s missing is a car-sharing program, she said. It’s only being done experimentally in other places – that is, the concept of a private individual being able to rent out their car. That kind of approach needs to be integral to whatever zoning changes are made, she said, because we live in a community where grocery stores aren’t very close to residential areas. “Parking in lieu might help pay for getting something like [car-sharing] going.”

Commissioners discussed the difference between Zipcar, a private company that offers a membership-based car rental service, and car-sharing programs, in which individuals rent out their own vehicles. It’s like a ride board, Bona explained – except that instead of giving someone a ride, “you let them use your car.” She said there are only a couple of cities that had such programs on an experimental basis, including Portland, Oregon.

Kowalski thought it was an idea worth exploring. But he noted that if the parking requirement is reduced based on someone’s participation in Zipcar or another car-sharing program, then the city has to monitor that participation. “And what happens if they drop out?”

Tandem parking and car elevators were other ideas mentioned during the meeting, as was the possibility of remote parking lots where owners could rent spaces for long-term parking. Kowalski noted that if remote parking involved privately-owned lots, it would be difficult to include that incentive in zoning regulations.

Westphal pointed to the city’s goals of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging alternative transportation. He said those goals would be more likely achieved if there are fewer cars in the neighborhoods. Eliminating parking requirements would be one way that the city could work toward that.

Bona urged her colleagues to watch a recent TED talk regarding the effects of “nudging” – encouraging slight changes in behavior that have dramatic impacts. [TED stands for technology, entertainment and design, and the 18-minute lectures at its conferences – known as TED Talks – are focused on what organizers call “ideas worth spreading.” Bona was referring to a September 2012 talk by Jonas Eliasson that focused on changing driver habits to alleviate traffic congestion. The concept of nudging was also addressed in a 2009 TED talk by Sendhil Mullainathan, titled "Solving social problems with a nudge."]

Bona felt that Ann Arbor could provide a nudge by keeping a parking requirement in R4C districts – either the current requirement or a new one that the advisory committee recommended. But in addition, the city could make premiums available so that property owners could avoid the parking requirement.

In addition to Zipcar and car-sharing, there are also ride-sharing programs offered by companies like Zimride and GreenRide, Bona said. Currently, Zimride and GreenRide are only offered to people affiliated with the University of Michigan. She said she’d support exploring how to expand those ride-sharing programs to the rest of the community, too.

Kowalski wondered why more people didn’t use taxis. There was some discussion about the cost, and Bona suggested inviting someone from the city’s taxicab board to talk to ORC members about those services. It was also worth learning more about other transportation alternatives, she said, like bus passes. ORC’s recommendations should include some analysis about what’s available and why it’s not being taken advantage of, she said.

Parking Requirements: Other Options – Bike Parking

Kowalski noted that Portland allows bicycle parking to substitute for up to 25% of required vehicle parking on a site. For every five non-required bike spaces, the motor vehicle parking requirement is reduced by one space. Portland allows existing parking to be converted to take advantage of that provision.

Bicycle lockers and hoops at the city’s Fourth and William parking structure. The city’s bike lockers are managed by the getDowntown program.

Bona felt that any credit given to a property owner for bike parking should be given only if the bike parking is covered – “and not those darn bike lockers.” She said she recently discovered a bike locker behind a large recycling bin at her workplace. The locker was “surrounded by lawn tools – you couldn’t get to it if you wanted to.” They also take up a lot of space and are ugly, she added.

Bona asked if the city’s planning intern could look into other options for covered bike parking. She suggested surveying University of Michigan students about what they wanted, and then incorporating that into the new R4C requirements. She said she could imagine that students might want indoor bike storage in an accessory structure – similar to the bike rooms that are part of some of the new apartment buildings in the city.

Kowalski noted that students probably would like bike storage that’s easy to access, with just a cover over the top. He reported that the bike room at the Landmark apartment building is nearly empty, while the bike hoops are entirely filled. Students in that building are so close to campus that they might not use the bikes as much, he said. Bona noted that the bike room at Liberty Lofts – a condo building on the Old West Side – is packed, but people there use their bikes primarily for recreation.

Westphal felt that a certain number of covered bike spaces should be required. Beyond that minimum, additional covered spaces could be part of a premium.

Parking Requirements: Floor Area Ratio

The conversation about parking requirements also touched on previous discussions that commissioners have had about premiums based on floor area ratio (FAR) in the R4C districts, as a way of encouraging density.

FAR – a measure of density – is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.

In D1 areas – city’s densest zoning district – there are no parking requirements, as long as the total floor area does not exceed 400% FAR. But if a developer wants to increase a project’s FAR, the city has a requirement of 1 parking space for each 1,000 square feet of additional floor area.

Bona said it might make sense to think of floor area ratios in R4C districts as “something to dip our toe in the water a little bit, and not get too crazy” – so that any changes wouldn’t result in a flurry of additions to existing structures. The idea is that renovations could be encouraged for existing small structures or those that are really dilapidated, “but not necessarily motivating every single property to make additions,” Bona said. She said she didn’t want to make structures bigger, but she did want to stop owners from building six-bedroom units.

Giannola said that if the city does try to incentivize add-ons or accessory structures, there needs to be some requirement for the front of structures to be renovated too. Westphal noted that that’s where premiums would come in – for example, an owner could get incentives for rehabbing a building or bringing it up to Secretary of the Interior standards.

Bona asked Westphal to clarify: Did he mean that there would be one standard FAR, then an owner could increase the FAR if renovation work was done to the front of a building? Yes, he replied – either use that as a premium tied to additional FAR, or tied to waiving a parking requirement on the site.

Kowalski said that any improvements should include the entire building, not just the front. Westphal noted the difficulty in defining what “improvement” means. Does that then lead into the issue of design? he wondered. One possibility would be to just have a checklist of items, he said, rather than a subjective evaluation.

Kowalski noted that in reviewing similar types of zoning for other cities, quite a few of them have general massing requirements – covering a building’s scale and shape – which Ann Arbor doesn’t have, he said. That would address many of the issues that arise in the R4C districts, he noted.

Massing requirements could cover areas like porches too, he added. For example, some massing requirements in other cities call for porches to cover at least 50% of the facade, and that porches had to be offset from the house, not inset into the building. “I think we could come up with something that could be done without becoming onerous to the staff, property owners or the general public who are trying to figure out what’s going on,” Kowalski said.

Westphal suggested that the city could reduce or eliminate parking on site in exchange for some design elements, renovations, and/or increased density – within certain constraints to height and other aspects of the building. Kowalski clarified that none of the committee discussions so far have touched the height limit in R4C districts. So height limits would remain unchanged, he said.

Related to height, Bona thought the issue of dormers should be addressed. [The City Place project, which included dormers on the two buildings, added to the building's height. It was argued that the large structures identified as "dormers" weren't actually dormers at all, but rather were a way to artificially lower the “eave” of the building. And that, it was contended, resulted in a calculation of the building's height that was lower than its actual height – which would have exceeded the city's height limit in that zoning district.]

Parking Requirement: Tied to Square Footage, Not Units

The current parking requirement is linked to the number of dwelling units are in a building – 1.5 spaces per unit. Westphal suggested that instead, the parking requirement could be linked to a building’s square footage. For example, the requirement could be expressed as one space per X square feet, similar to the way that parking requirements for commercial properties are calculated.

Kowalski said the square footage idea is interesting – saying it goes along with the idea of letting the market drive at least some of the parking availability. Then, as a premium to lower the amount of parking required on a site, a property owner could do certain things – like offer covered bike storage.

Bona noted that they were discussing two things: (1) providing a premium if the owner wanted a higher floor area ratio (FAR); and (2) providing a premium so that the owner could avoid the on-site parking requirement. The FAR premium could be tied to building renovations, she said, while the parking premium could be tied to bike parking or payment into an alternative transportation fund – to help pay for projects like a car-sharing program.

Commissioners agreed that they should run some scenarios to see how parking requirements would be calculated if linked to square footage, by looking at older buildings as well as some of the newer projects.

Parking Requirement: Residential Permits

Westphal asked about the advisory committee’s resistance to completely eliminating the parking requirement in R4C districts: Was that because they were concerned that there wouldn’t be enough on-street parking for residents and their visitors? He thought the city’s residential parking permit program might factor into the discussion.

A sign indicating permission for residential permit parking on West Washington Street.

Giannola wondered whether the city could require that if a property owner uses premiums to eliminate on-site parking, then they also couldn’t use a residential permit.

Kowalski related the advisory committee’s concern – that every student living in a building would bring a car, and if there’s no place on site to park, then students will take up parking on neighborhood streets. Westphal argued that the premise is false – contending that not every student has a car. He also noted that students can’t store cars on the street, because the law prohibits parking on a residential street for more than 48 hours. “That’s a matter of enforcement,” Westphal said.

Bona felt that street parking should be addressed in the R4C recommendations, and suggested that Kowalski gather information about how the residential parking permits are issued, and how compliance is enforced. She said it’s an open question as to whether street parking is migrating into adjacent neighborhoods that don’t have residential permits. If so, what can be done to address that?

By way of additional background, some of that information is available on the city’s website for residential parking permits. The residential parking permits are obtained by individuals who live in the area – regardless of whether they own or rent. The permits allow residents to park on neighborhood streets without being ticketed. That differs from the permits associated with large residential developments in the city’s downtown zoning districts (D1 and D2). For those projects, the developer must provide a certain number of parking spaces on site, or buy permits in the city’s public parking system.

Next Steps

It’s likely that the ORC will meet again in mid-January, though no meeting has been scheduled yet. Matt Kowalski intends to write up a summary of the group’s work so far, indicating areas of consensus on possible changes.

The committee will prepare recommendations to be brought to the full planning commission, possibly in March. At that point the commission would review the recommendations, hold a public hearing about the proposed changes, make additional revisions, and vote on recommending the changes to city council. Councilmembers would have the final say on any ordinance changes to the R4C/R2A zoning, with additional public hearings.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal (via speakerphone). Also: city planner Matt Kowalski.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to plan on doing the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Claudia Myszke, managing agent of the Forest Hills Cooperative, spoke on behalf of residents there who have concerns about a proposed townhome project on Ellsworth. (Photos by the writer.)

The annexation request for the site of the Summit Townhomes project was recommended for city council approval by the planning commission. However the planning commission postponed action on a related zoning and area plan proposal.

The 2.95-acre site at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, east of Stone School Road, is currently located in Pittsfield Township. The developer wants to remove an existing single-family home and detached garage, and build 24 townhomes in four, two-story buildings, with attached single-car garages for each unit. The plan calls for R3 (townhouse dwelling district) zoning.

Several residents from the nearby Forest Hills Cooperative townhouse complex came to the June 19 meeting to speak in opposition to the project. They argued that this area is already densely developed, with several major housing developments and a lack of services, like places for children to play. Traffic along Ellsworth was also a concern, especially in light of the soon-to-open Costco on that road, west of South State Street.

In part based on that feedback, commissioners unanimously voted to postpone the zoning and area plan proposals, and asked city planning staff a range of questions that they’d like to have answered before considering those requests. The concerns related to zoning options, traffic volume, the location and amount of parkland in that area, and the capacity of utilities to handle increased density. However, the annexation request will move forward to be considered by the Ann Arbor city council. It was recommended for approval on a 6-1 vote, with Erica Briggs dissenting. Eric Mahler and Wendy Woods were absent.

Briggs also dissented on another request considered by the the planning commission at its meeting – to approve the rezoning and site plan for an expansion of Knight’s Market, and Spring and Miller. The proposal – which had been originally discussed, but ultimately postponed, at the planning commission’s May 15, 2012 meeting – won approval from the other six commissioners, and will be forwarded to the city council for their consideration. Several commissioners expressed concerns, but felt comfortable enough to approve the rezoning and site plan. Briggs said the potential for future commercial expansion and other issues made it impossible for her to support the project.

In other action, the commission unanimously approved their annual work plan, as well as a resolution affirming the city’s master plan. Both actions are required annually under the planning commission’s bylaws.

It was the final meeting for Briggs, who is ending her term this month. She did not request reappointment. Her colleagues on the commission praised her work, with Bonnie Bona saying: ”You may not realize it, but you’ve had a strong influence on all of us.” Ken Clein – a principal with Quinn Evans Architects – has been nominated to replace her and will likely receive city council confirmation at the council’s July 2 meeting.

Summit Townhomes

An annexation request for the site of the Summit Townhomes project was on the planning commission agenda, as was a related zoning and area plan proposal.

City planner Matt Kowalski gave the staff report. The 2.95-acre site at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, east of Stone School Road, is currently located in Pittsfield Township. The developer – Shawn Barrow of Orlando, Fla. – wants to remove an existing single-family home and detached garage, and build 24 townhomes in four, two-story buildings, with attached single-car garages for each unit. The plan calls for R3 (townhouse dwelling district) zoning.

Aerial photo of property for Summit Townhomes, outlined in black. The property fronts Ellsworth Road. The north/south road to the left is Stone School. The north/south road to the right is Shadowwood Drive, leading into the Forest Hills Cooperative townhome development. The structure in the top center of this image is Bryant Elementary School.

The development calls for extensive grading on the site, which includes steep slopes. Staff had expressed concerns about the grading and had requested revisions to the plans, which are currently under review.

There are 12 landmark trees on the site that would be removed, because they are in poor health.

According to a staff report, the site is adjacent to land owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools, abutting Bryant Elementary School. Planning staff have suggested that the developer include pedestrian access for future connection with the school. Planning staff also asked the developer to consider the city master plan’s community-oriented design guidelines when developing the project’s site plan. Those guidelines for townhome developments include rear-accessed garages, front porches, clustered design to preserve natural features, an on-site playground, open space, and pedestrian links with adjacent developments.

Annexation of the site is required because it is located within the city’s utility service boundary, and can’t tap into the city’s water and sewer system until it is annexed.

Summit Townhomes: Public Hearing

About 10 residents of Forest Hills Cooperative attended the meeting, and four of them spoke during the project’s public hearing.

Claudia Myszke, managing agent for Forest Hills Cooperative, told commissioners that there’s a huge human element that’s not addressed by the city’s master plan or ordinances. Forest Hills Cooperative is a townhome development built in the 1970s with federal subsidies. It has 306 units, Myszke said, and is near other large townhome developments: University Townhomes (630 units) and Colonial Square Cooperative (470 units). Including these and other multi-family housing, she said, there are already 2,557 units within a five-mile radius of Forest Hills.

There are insufficient city services to handle the current density, she said. There’s no place for children to play except a city park that’s a former dump, with no pool or other amenities. [The reference is to Southeast Area Park, at the corner of Platt and Ellsworth.] Residents asked for a water feature at the park, she said, but were told that there wasn’t funding for it. Myszke praised the work of the Community Action Network (CAN), which runs the Bryant Community Center under contract with the city. But she noted that most of the programs and services there are restricted to residents of the Bryant neighborhood.

Myszke also cited heavy traffic on Ellsworth as a major issue. She said her questions weren’t for the developer, but for city officials. If the 2,557 housing units average three people per unit, that’s 7,671 people living in a five-mile radius, without adequate services. This isn’t about NIMBYism, she said, and it’s just the beginning of potentially even more development. There are concerns that the another property on the west side of Forest Hills will also be developed, adding even more density. The residents of Forest Hills oppose the Summit Townhomes project, she said. She told commissioners that she doubted whether any of them lived in such a dense area with inadequate services.

Aiji Pipho told commissioners that residents of Forest Hills Cooperative are already experiencing brownouts and power surges – her computer was destroyed because of that. Water and sewer capacity is also insufficient to support more development in that part of town, she said. Where else in Ann Arbor is there this kind of density? she asked. Maybe on the University of Michigan campus, but there, students have amenities. Pipho said that foot traffic from people cutting through her property is increasing, and this project will potentially bring even more. With increased foot traffic comes the increased potential for people to “appropriate” items out of the yards, she said.

Pipho also noted that new developments typically don’t have places for children to play. She again cited concerns about density, and said that the vacant parcel next to the Summit Townhomes project could also be developed, which would add even more to the problem.

Ghada Hussein introduced herself as president of the board for the Forest Hills Cooperative, and said she was also opposed to the development. She encouraged others from Forest Hills who were attending the meeting to speak up. [When asked by another resident to indicate who was there from Forest Hills, about 10 people stood up.] Hussein said she’s a mother of three and already the traffic is too heavy for children. It’s difficult now to exit onto Ellsworth, she said, and that would get worse.

Makan Lajevardi, another Forest Hills resident, spoke briefly about traffic concerns. It will increase even more when the new Costco opens, he said. [Costco is opening later this summer, north of Ellsworth just west of South State.]

The last speaker was Leonard Michaels of CIW Engineering in Rossford, Ohio – he represented the developer. He noted that only two people had attended a citizen participation meeting in March. The developer originally wanted zoning for higher density – R4B (multi-family dwelling) – but after talking with planning staff, agreed to seek the lower density zoning of R3 (townhouse dwelling). Even with R3 zoning, their plans aren’t maximizing the number of housing units allowed, he said. Michaels said the plan also will have some kind of recreational area, which would address some of the residents’ concerns.

Michaels told commissioners that several options for the site, to minimize impact, had been submitted to planning staff. It’s difficult, he said, because of the steep grading on the land. They’ve tried to accommodate suggestions. For example, staff requested that there be only one drive onto Ellsworth instead of two, and the developer agreed. Michaels observed that at some point, the city made a decision to limit sprawl. That means there needs to be more density, he said.

Summit Townhomes: Commission Discussion – Annexation

Tony Derezinski asked how interrelated the annexation is with the zoning and area plan. What happens if the city annexes the site, but later doesn’t approve the zoning and area plan?

From left: City planner Alexis DiLeo and planning commissioner Bonnie Bona. At the start of the June 19 meeting, Bona gave a short report on a recent International Living Future Institute conference that she attended in Portland, Oregon.

Matt Kowalski said the developer hoped to move the annexation process forward, because it also needs approval from the state, which could take a couple of months. The zoning and area plan – or a more detailed site plan – can’t move forward until the property is annexed, he said. If annexation occurs but the developer walks away from the project, the city could initiate a process to zone the site, Kowalski explained.

Bonnie Bona noted that the property in question is obviously a township island and needs to be annexed. She said she didn’t think that decision would impact what zoning is ultimately decided. But the vacant parcel to the north – that’s also in the township, she observed. What’s the status there?

Kowalski said the property is owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that the city council has directed staff to annex publicly owned land, and the parcel to the north is on the list.

Erica Briggs said it had seemed obvious to annex the property. She said she hadn’t had a problem with the project until hearing comments during the public hearing. Annexation moves the city down the path of zoning the property quickly, she said, but residents have raised substantive concerns. Briggs said she wasn’t familiar with city services in that area, but residents have indicated that services are inadequate for the amount of density there. She worried about bringing in another residential project if current residents aren’t being adequately served.

Briggs said she’d like more information, including what the sewer system constraints are, and whether there should be more multi-family dwellings added to the area. She also wondered how the project fits into the city’s sustainability goals – which the commission has recommended for approval – and with the climate action plan that’s being developed. It sounded like the developer was being accommodating and that’s great, she added, but questions remain.

Outcome on annexation: On a 6-1 vote, commissioners recommended annexing the property into the city. Erica Briggs dissented. Eric Mahler and Wendy Woods were absent.

Summit Townhomes: Commission Discussion – Zoning, Area Plan

Evan Pratt clarified with city planner Matt Kowalski that R3 zoning fits with the type of zoning called for in the city’s master plan. R3 does fit, Kowalski said. The plan calls for single family homes in that area, which could be detached or attached, like townhomes. He noted that the adjacent Cloverly Village development to the west is also R3.

In response to another question from Pratt about the water detention issues, Leonard Michaels – the developer’s representative – noted that water currently runs off the site and into the property to the west. The Summit Townhomes development would flatten the site, he said, capture the stormwater runoff and reroute it into the city’s stormwater system. So flooding won’t be as much of an issue for that property to the west, he said.

Pratt also asked if there are bus stops along that stretch of Ellsworth. Kowalski wasn’t sure, but noted that when a site plan is submitted, it would be sent to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority staff for review. Diane Giannola reported that Route #6 goes down Ellsworth, and there are several stops along the way.

Pratt next asked about the comments in the staff report about the need for noise buffering in that area, due to the proximity of the Ann Arbor airport. This was part of the language in the master plan, Kowalski explained. He said he’d like to do more research on that issue, noting that the master plan is about 20 years old. Perhaps back then, more air traffic had been anticipated, Kowalski ventured.

Tony Derezinski asked whether the questions raised at the meeting would be addressed before proposals for the zoning and area plan are acted on. Yes and no, Kowalski replied. Some of the issues won’t be addressed because the area plan is more conceptual than a site plan, and certain details won’t be known until a site plan is submitted.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson suggested that the commission might want to have a more robust discussion about zoning when the project comes back for consideration. If there are questions that commissioners want the staff to research, she said, those can be addressed.

Giannola said she travels in that area frequently, and the traffic isn’t necessarily heavier than downtown Ann Arbor, but it’s faster moving. She was also curious about whether a commercial development on the site would bring more or less traffic than a residential development.

Pratt brought up the issue of infrastructure, which had been criticized during public commentary. He noted that the staff report had indicated that utilities are adequate for this development, but he asked for more details to be provided. Pratt also suggested that the city’s Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan could be a resource for identifying whether there are sufficient parks and recreational amenities in the area.

Kirk Westphal, vice chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, led the June 19 meeting in the absence of chair Eric Mahler.

Bonnie Bona was concerned that decisions are being based on a master plan that’s more than 20 years old. The city is looking at things quite differently now, she noted, with an eye toward issues of sustainability, for example. She also noted that if the plan calls for single-family homes, then R1A zoning would also be possible – that would allow only six units on the site. Bona echoed Pratt’s request for more details about what’s meant by “adequate” utilities in the staff report. She also wanted more information about what impact this development might have on traffic.

Bona felt it was unfortunate that only two residents attended a neighborhood meeting held by the developer. She hoped that the developer would communicate with the people who came to the planning commission meeting, and find out what kind of amenities they’d like to see.

Kirk Westphal asked for clarification about what it means to approve the area plan. Kowalski replied that the intent is to show a conceptual plan for what might be developed, but it can change quite a bit from what’s ultimately submitted as a more detailed site plan. The zoning of the property will have more of an impact on what can actually be built, he noted.

Rampson added that by submitting an area plan, developers get three years to submit a site plan based on the regulations that are in place when the area plan is first submitted.

Westphal said he echoed concerns that other commissioners had raised. He also said it would be nice if some of the trees could be preserved. Like others, he was in favor of postponement.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Summit Townhomes zoning and area plan.

Knight’s Market Expansion

An expansion plan for Knight’s Market – which includes converting a single-family home into a bakery – had first been discussed, but ultimately postponed, at the planning commission’s May 15, 2012 meeting. The market is located at the northeast corner of Spring and Miller. The market’s owner, Ray Knight, also owns two separate, adjacent parcels. (Knight is perhaps best known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.)

City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report. The store is on land zoned zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Another parcel at 306-308 Spring St. is zoned R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1, and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. is zoned R2A and MI, and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels are currently non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

Aerial view of the Knight's property – the three parcels that are part of the project are outlined in black. Spring Street is the north-south street on the west side of the property. Miller Avenue runs east-west along the market's southern edge.

The proposal from Knight’s involves several steps. The request calls for 306, 308 and 310 Spring to be rezoned to C1. That rezoning would allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning would also allow for approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot. In addition, the plan requests that 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery – also be rezoned to C1.

The proposed work to the parking lot includes providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curbcut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring would remain a single-family dwelling.

The staff report notes that a neighborhood meeting in September 2011 drew about 10 people, who raised concerns about the proposed bakery at 306 Spring, as well as possible future uses for adjacent land also owned by Knight at 314 and 422 Spring, which are not part of the current proposal. A public hearing held at the May 15 meeting drew 10 speakers, including several neighbors who praised the Knight family and their business, but expressed concerns about “commercial creep” and increased traffic. Commissioners echoed those concerns on May 15, including fears about what might happen if the ownership of the property changes hands – if it were bought by a national retailer, for example, that might want to put a convenience store or fast food restaurant there.

During her June 19 report, DiLeo noted that C1 zoning would allow for a building up to 17,812 square feet, but would limit tenant spaces in the building to a maximum of 8,000 square feet each. That amount of retail space would also require between 58 and 63 off-street parking spaces – given the site, that would mean that almost all off-street parking would need to be located below ground or in a multi-level structure. This scenario would likely make it financially impractical to develop the property to that extent, she said, especially in a floodplain.

Concerns about “commercial creep” were also addressed in the planning staff’s written memo:

Commercial creep is not a desirable situation, but when it has occurred, it can be hard to argue that improvements should be taken out and everything should be undone. The parking lot for the market that is in the rear yards of two residentially-zoned lots (306-308 and 310 Spring Street) has been in place for almost 30 years. In 1979, the Knights received site plan approval for an addition to their building, and the site plan clearly showed the parking currently in place. City officials have been successful in keeping the uses on this site from expanding further, but the fact is that the decision to functionally expand the commercial nature of this site was made long ago when the parking lot was originally installed.

In sum, for the past 30 years, 306-308 and 310 Spring Street have been operating as a single mixed use site containing both residential uses and local commercial. Staff considers the proposed rezoning to be improving the site conditions of an existing situation, supporting the continued success of an established neighborhood, and striking a balance between varied land use goals. Further, any future expansion of commercial in this area would require the type of debate that characterizes this request.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Public Hearing

Although more than a dozen residents and members of the Knight family turned out for the previous public hearing, only two speakers attended the June 19 hearing. Both had spoken at the May 15 hearing, too.

Tim Athan, who lives on Spring Street, told commissioners that the city is seeing pushback from residents because it’s really rare to have this kind of residential neighborhood so close to the downtown, and they want to protect it. He described how large trucks already use the street, and traffic has increased. That might make it more attractive for additional commercial development. He noted that just two blocks away, on Ashley Street, the feel is quite different from Spring Street – it’s more commercial. He also felt that the floodplain was being considered as a factor in rezoning the site for commercial uses, and that’s scary. The floodplain covers several other properties up the street – it seems as though those could also be eligible for rezoning, he said.

Richard Fry, the project’s architect, had introduced himself earlier in the meeting during the time for general public commentary. He spoke during the public hearing only to respond to Athan’s comments, saying that at a neighborhood meeting the Knights had held, about 10-12 people showed up but only one person had pushed back against the project.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Zoning

Tony Derezinski began the discussion by noting that at the May 15 meeting, commissioners and staff had discussed natural barriers on the site that might prevent “commercial creep.” He asked for staff to review those barriers.

Alexis DiLeo said that on the east side, the adjacent railroad track and embankment provide a natural barrier. To the north, there is no other quasi-commercial development – it’s clearly residential. She noted that the parking on the site has been there for about 30 years.

Richard Fry, the architect for the Knight's Market expansion.

Derezinski picked up on that comment, suggesting that the city would simply be approving the zoning for a use that’s been going on at that site for decades. In all that time, there had not been any commercial expansion to the north, he noted. If someone wanted to expand a commercial operation to the north, then that would require a separate rezoning request.

Derezinski asked how the configuration of the site and other constraints would preclude someone building a strip mall there in the future. DiLeo said it would allow for only a small strip mall, with perhaps two tenants. The amount of required parking would be a significant limiting factor, she said.

Derezinski noted that the Knight family had previously stated their intent. Neighbors had told commissioners at the previous meeting about how they shopped at the market, and in some cases worked there. It’s part of the neighborhood’s charm, he said – even to the point of the Knights lending money to some residents to cover a grocery tab. As he’d noted at the May 15 meeting, Derezinski said it reminded him about the debate over the Zingerman’s Deli expansion on Detroit Street. [The planning commission recommended approval of the Zingerman's expansion at its May 18, 2010 meeting. The project was later approved by the city council and construction is well underway.] A number of neighbors raised concerns, but not enough to stop the project, he said.

Erica Briggs said she’d struggled with this project. Knight’s is a great market and a wonderful addition to the neighborhood, she said. There’s a lot of desire to facilitate that. But she had concerns about the precedent that would be set. The parking lot expansion might set the tone for a long time. If the parcels are rezoned, there will be a small expansion but the potential for more commercial creep up the street.

The floodplain partially covers those lots to the north, and Briggs wondered if a future planning commission might ask: What’s the harm in rezoning those, too? There have been recent unintended consequences from rezoning, she noted, when neighbors don’t get what they expect. [This was likely an allusion to the Maple Cove project on North Maple Road, which received planning commission approval at its June 5, 2012 meeting. The property had been rezoned years ago for an office building that was never constructed. Neighbors there hadn't opposed the rezoning at the time, but said they hadn't realized that it would allow for a residential development like the one that was ultimately proposed.]

Briggs said she wished she could support the project, because the market is an asset. But unless those concerns are addressed, she couldn’t vote for it.

Bonnie Bona thanked DiLeo for the clear and thorough explanation in her staff report of the challenges that this project presents. Bona agreed with the description that there’s one situation for rezoning the current sites, and a different type of review that would be needed for residential sites to the north. She didn’t think there would be commercial expansion up the street. That wouldn’t be an easy decision for a future planning commission to make.

Diane Giannola said she was also torn about this project, and agreed with other commissioners. Her main concern is what might happen in the future. It would make her feel better to see the Knights make an investment in the market, to make it more attractive – because it would make her believe they weren’t intending to sell it.

The property to the north remains residential, she noted, and anyone who wanted to put a business there would need to return to the city to seek rezoning. The corner where the market is located is just a small bit of commercial creep, she said, and not enough to turn down the project.

Kirk Westphal said it was good to understand the scope of potential development that is possible with the rezoning. He confirmed with DiLeo that area, height and placement (AHP) standards would reflect changes that had been made as part of the city’s A2D2 zoning project. DiLeo describe generally how a development would be constrained on the site by those standards.

Westphal said he was comforted by the scenarios that DiLeo described. And given the limited nature of the current project, it was a benefit, he said.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Floodplain

Bona highlighted the floodplain issue, and said there needs to be a community conversation about residences located in the floodplain. It puts people in greater danger, she said, and people who are economically challenged tend to live in those floodplain areas. She didn’t think every home in the floodplain would disappear, but the city needs to be thoughtful about the issue.

Westphal described the floodplain issue as an interesting one. He wondered if the city had known about the real location of the floodplain when the area was initially zoned, would the city  have put split zoning on the site – part of it M1 and part of it C1 or R2A? DiLeo said she thought the split zoning was related to the railroad track. She said it was difficult to play “zoning detective,” but her guess was that the split zoning had more to do with poor cartography and the railroad.

Wendy Rampson noted that the FEMA floodplain maps were developed in the 1980s, while the zoning dated back to the 1960s. The floodplain maps were originally more figurative – in that they were supposed to reflect elevations, but good elevation data wasn’t available at the time. That’s why the floodplain maps have changed more recently.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Regarding traffic, Bona said there’s only so much that the community can do to regulate it. As long as residents and businesses talk to each other – as reasonable and bright human beings – they can work through it, she said. It shouldn’t require an ordinance to regulate.

Giannola said that Zingerman’s Deli had offered to ask their vendors if smaller trucks could be used to make deliveries. Perhaps that’s something Knight’s Market could do as well, she suggested.

In response to a later question from Eleanore Adenekan, Knight’s market manager Vernon Bedolla said they don’t expect the number of trucks to increase after the expansion. More likely, they’ll just get larger orders with the same number of deliveries, he said.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Design

Bona made a plea to the architect and owners to design a more pedestrian-friendly storefront, with more windows and “eyes on the street,” making it easier to tell if the store is even open. ”That would really be a huge asset to the neighborhood,” she said. Richard Fry, the project’s architect, indicated that was the owners’ intent.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 6-1 to recommend approval, with Erica Briggs dissenting. Commissioners Eric Mahler and Wendy Woods were absent. The rezoning and site plan requests will be considered next by city council.

Master Plan Reviewed

The planning commission’s June 19 agenda included an item to approve the city’s master plan resolution. The planning commission’s bylaws require that the group review the city’s master plan each May. At its May 1 meeting, the commission held a public hearing on the item – though no one attended – and postponed action until after it held a  planning retreat on May 29.

The resolution affirmed the existing master plan, which consists of (1) Land Use Element (2009); (2) Downtown Plan (2009); (3) Transportation Plan Update (2009); (4) Non-motorized Transportation Plan (2007); (5) Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan (2011); and (6) Natural Features Master Plan (2004). These documents can be downloaded from the city’s master plan website.

The resolution stated that the commission will continue to develop comprehensive plans for the Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street corridors. The State Street Corridor was the focus of the May 29 retreat – see Chronicle coverage: “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look.”

In addition, three minor changes were incorporated: (1) Adding the city’s park advisory commission, housing commission, and housing & human services board to the list of groups that are developing a sustainability framework for the city. Initially, only the planning, energy and environmental commissions had been involved. (2) Stating that the planning commission will assist in updating the Non-motorized Transportation Plan, which was adopted in 2007. (3) Stating that the planning commission will update the land use element of the city’s master plan to include land use recommendations from the Huron River and Impoundments Management Plan (HRIMP). This had been discussed at a March 2012 meeting of the commission’s master plan revisions committee.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the master plan resolution.

Annual Work Plan

A work plan for a wide range of city planning commission and staff projects in fiscal 2013 was on the June 19 agenda. [.pdf of work plan]

The plan, covering the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2012, had been reviewed at a June 12 working session. Items include  development of (1) corridor plans for Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street, (2) a sustainability framework action plan, (3) Zoning Ordinance Re-Organization (ZORO) amendments, and (4) R4C/R2A amendments. Among other things, the plan also includes evaluation of the city’s citizen participation ordinance and A2D2 zoning.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the annual work plan.

Farewell to Briggs

The June 19 meeting was the last one for commissioner Erica Briggs, whose three-year term ends this month. She did not seek reappointment. At the city council’s June 18 session, Ken Clein – a principal with Quinn Evans Architects – was nominated to replace her.

From left: Planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Erica Briggs.

At the end of Tuesday’s meeting, Briggs thanked her colleagues on the commission and joked that she knew she could be cantankerous at times. She said she had learned a lot while on the commission – from staff, other commissioners and the public – and she had been honored to serve.

Several commissioners praised Briggs for her work. Tony Derezinski said that although commissioners don’t always agree, they disagree with respect and still like each other.

Bonnie Bona thanked Briggs for adding to the comprehensiveness of the group’s discussions. She said Briggs might find that her legacy lives on – often, when a commissioner steps down, other commissioners bring up points that the former commissioner would have made. ”You may not realize it,” Bona said, “but you’ve had a strong influence on all of us.”

Other commissioners expressed similar sentiments, with Kirk Westphal noting that he especially appreciated how welcoming Briggs was of commentary from the public. Planning manager Wendy Rampson said that one of her biggest disappointments is that the staff wasn’t able to fully develop the type of public engagement process that Briggs had advocated. Time constraints made that difficult, Rampson said, but she pledged to continue to improve communication and transparency. She appreciated that Briggs had pushed the envelope in that area.

The exchange ended with commissioners and staff giving Briggs a round of applause.

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

Absent: Eric Mahler, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to plan on doing the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Matt Kowalski, right, gives a report on recommendations from the R4C/R2A advisory committee at a May 8, 2012 work session of the Ann Arbor planning commission. Next to him is Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner and city council member who served on the advisory committee. To the left is Wendy Carman, an advisory committee member who took issue with some aspects of the final report. Two other committee members – Eppie Potts and Julie Weatherbee – attended the working session.

Both kinds of zoning districts were established in the 1960s, and applied to existing neighborhoods. R4C allows for multiple-family residential dwellings, such as apartment buildings, while R2A zoning limits density to two-family residential structures. Planning manager Wendy Rampson described the R4C zoning as “broken” –and most of the committee recommendations relate to R4C districts.

Concerns about R4C/R2A districts have been raised since at least the mid-1980s, and are tied to the question of how dense these areas can be. Although there were smaller projects that caused concern,  two more recent large housing proposals – The Moravian, and City Place – brought the issue to the forefront for people on both sides of the density debate.

In particular, the controversial City Place project on South Fifth Avenue, which combined multiple lots and demolished seven residential houses to build two apartment buildings, has been cited as an example of the need to address R4C zoning. City Place changes the streetscape of that neighborhood, but is analyzed as conforming to current zoning code.

The final committee report includes 10 recommendations, with accompanying analysis. [.pdf of recommendations] The major recommendations relate to: (1) rebuilding structures that don’t conform to existing zoning; (2) rezoning certain areas from R4C to R2A; (3) reducing minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths; (4) exploring the creation of zoning overlay districts; (5) revising density calculations; (6) revising parking standards; and (7) changing requirements for lot combinations.

Commissioners praised the work of the committee, but much of the discussion related to future process: What are the next steps to take, now that the report has been completed? It’s likely that the group’s ordinance revisions committee will tackle the job of making recommendations for specific ordinance language to implement the changes. Those ordinance revisions would then be reviewed by the planning commission, which would forward its recommendations to city council.

In terms of content, commissioners mostly focused on the idea of overlay districts, which would be a way of preserving the character of different, distinct R4C neighborhoods. Commissioner Bonnie Bona floated the concept of form-based code as an option. Described in a very general way, a form-based approach tends to be more proscriptive regarding the types of buildings that the community wants to see in a particular district, including their design. In contrast, traditional zoning typically sets an allowable range of uses, sizes, placements, and other aspects for a development, but generally leaves the details of those decisions to the developer.

It was generally acknowledged that either approach – form-based or one with overlay districts – would be a complex issue to tackle.

Three advisory committee members – Wendy Carman, Ethel “Eppie” Potts, and Julie Weatherbee – attended the May 8 session. Carman and Potts spoke during public commentary to amplify written comments they had provided as supplements to the report, expressing concerns that some aspects of the report don’t accurately reflect the committee’s views.

During the May 8 session, commissioners also were updated on the city’s sustainability goals, which they’ll be asked to vote on at their May 15 meeting. This report focuses only on the R4C/R2A portion of the working session.

R4C/R2A Zoning: Background

The city of Ann Arbor has undertaken several major initiatives to overhaul regulations related to development. Two of those  are completed: A2D2 (downtown zoning) and AHP (revisions to area, height and placement requirements). A third one, ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization), which is a comprehensive zoning code review, is wrapping up. The city council was briefed on a consultant’s report on ZORO at its May 14, 2012 working session.

Another major initiative has been the review of R4C (multiple-family residential dwelling) and R2A (two-family residential dwelling) districts, which were set up in the 1960s, The issue has been around since at least the mid-1980s. At that time, city planning staff conducted a review of the North Burns Park area, which ultimately led to a downzoning of that neighborhood to R2A from R2B – a zoning category that allows for group housing like fraternities and sororities. The sense at that time was that R4C districts were appropriate places for greater density and student housing.

That sentiment is reflected in the city’s central area plan, which was developed in the early 1990s and later incorporated into the city’s master plan. [.pdf of central area map] The central area plan included several recommendations related to zoning, but the planning commission at that time didn’t act on those proposed changes.

The issue emerged again a few years ago, when there seemed to be a change in attitude about whether R4C was still appropriate for certain areas in the city. In particular, residents in Lower Burns Park lobbied for rezoning of R4C districts to R2A or R1A (single-family houses). And in October of 2007, the council passed a resolution directing planning staff to explore rezoning in that neighborhood. According to reports in the Ann Arbor News, in late 2007 the planning commission recommended that only Golden Avenue be downzoned to R1D (single family) – a recommendation that the council approved on Feb. 19, 2008. Other parts of Lower Burns Park were not rezoned.

At that same Feb. 19, 2008 meeting, the council unanimously passed a resolution directing the planning commission and planning staff to do a more comprehensive review of residential zoning in the central area. However, no action resulted from that resolution. A nearly identical resolution was introduced a year later by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – which the council passed at its March 2, 2009 meeting.

The resolution identifies the rationale for undertaking this zoning review effort:

Whereas, the Central Area Plan, dated December 21, 1992, recommends four Implementation Program “Priority Action Strategies” as follows:

• HN1 – Analyze zoning nonconformities related to area, height and placement regulations for the Central Area neighborhoods and determine if amendments are needed to make the regulations more consistent with established development patterns;
• HN12 – Amend the zoning ordinance and map to clearly identify areas to be maintained or encouraged as housing;
• HN14 – Reinforce student neighborhoods in the area south and west of Central Campus by developing new zoning definitions and standards that support organized group housing opportunities;
• HP17 – Develop site design standards that encourage creative design while maintaining sensitivity for existing neighborhood character;

Whereas, The Non-Motorized Plan, dated December 6, 2006, provides guidance for land use and zoning to support walking, bicycling and transit;

Whereas, The Downtown Plan, amended December 1992, recommends in Section III to protect the livability of residentially-zoned areas adjacent to downtown;

Whereas, A majority of the lots in the residential districts in the Central Area are non-conforming due to lot size and lot width, and a significant number require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals to make modifications or additions to the existing non-conforming structures;

Whereas, The resolution of October 15, 2007 directing the City Planning Commission to review rezoning in the Lower Burns Park neighborhood revealed (through the staff report, public hearing, written public comments and Planning Commission discussion) the need to review the R2A and R4C zoning districts more comprehensively within the Central Area rather than one isolated neighborhood at a time;

Whereas, The City Planning Commission believes that modifications to the zoning and ordinance requirements for residential districts in the Central Area could enhance the livability of these neighborhoods for owner-occupants and renters through a comprehensive review and appropriate changes to the minimum lot size, minimum lot width, setback, density, building height, open space, parking, landscaping and possibly other site related issues; and

Whereas, The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission and City staff find ways to reduce the need for developers to utilize Planned Project development applications as a way to accomplish the City’s goal to ensure that development proposals are more sustainable and that all efforts involving changes to City Zoning regulations involve extensive public involvement …

That resolution led to the formation, in the summer of 2009, of an advisory committee that was charged with studying the R4C/R2A issue, getting input from the public and community stakeholders, and presenting recommendations to the planning commission and city council for possible changes in these zoning districts. The committee convened for the first time in December of 2009.

One of two apartment buildings in the City Place development on South Fifth Avenue, south of William. Walking in front on his way to the library is local attorney Kurt Berggren.

Underpinning discussions of changes to R4C/R2A is the question of how much dense these areas should be. Though there were smaller projects that caused concern, two large housing proposals in particular – The Moravian, and City Place – brought the debate to the forefront for people on both sides of the issue.

The Moravian, a five-story, 62-unit building proposed for the section of East Madison Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor, was ultimately rejected by the city council in April of 2010. It was proposed as a planned unit development (PUD), located in an area zoned R4C.

City Place is a “by right” housing project that was proposed in an R4C district on the east side of South Fifth Avenue just south of William. Approved by the council in September 2009, it called for tearing down several older houses and constructing two new apartment buildings. However, its developer, Alex de Parry, subsequently proposed a different project on that same site (Heritage Row) – which would have renovated the houses and built new apartment buildings behind them. That project, a planned unit development (PUD), was rejected by the council.

Earlier,  in in July 2009, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had proposed a moratorium in R4C/R2A districts, with the intent of halting the Moravian and City Place projects until the advisory committee work was completed. The moratorium was voted down at the council’s Aug. 6, 2009 meeting, though a different moratorium was approved at that same meeting. It applied to demolition only in a limited geographic area. It was the assigned area of study for a committee appointed by the council to weigh the possibility of establishing a historic district there – a two-block area just south of William Street on Fourth and Fifth avenues. The study committee recommended establishing a historic district in the area, but that recommendation was rejected by the council, and the moratorium expired.

Subsequently, de Parry sold his interest in the City Place development and the new owners moved ahead with that project – it is now well underway and is expected to be finished later this year. [Chronicle timeline of events related to the City Place project.]

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report

The planning commission had first been briefed on a draft report of the R4C/R2A committee at a June 2011 working session. At that time, planning staff had indicated that the committee had been unable to reach consensus on the recommendations, and  frustration about the outcome was expressed by two planning commissioners who had been appointed to the committee – Jean Carlberg and Tony Derezinski. [Carlberg's term on the planning commission ended on June 30, 2011 and she did not seek reappointment.]

Yet advisory committee members disputed the characterization that they couldn’t reach consensus, and continued to work on the report.

Since meeting for the first time in December of 2009, the committee has met a total of 11 times, and provided feedback and input via email and individual communications with planning staff. Opportunities for public commentary were provided during the committee meetings, and members of the group met with various stakeholders, including representatives of neighborhood associations, landlords, city boards and commissions, city rental housing inspectors, and students. An online survey was also emailed to all University of Michigan students, receiving more than 240 responses.

Some of the members of the R4C/R2A advisory committee at a November 2011 meeting.

Committee members are: Chuck Carver (rental property owner representative), Ilene Tyler and David Merchant (Ward 1 residents), Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2 residents), Ellen Rambo and Michele Derr (Ward 3 residents), Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4 residents), Ethel Potts (Ward 5 resident), Tony Derezinski (city council representative), Jean Carlberg (former planning commission representative). Anya Dale, who had previously served on the committee as a Ward 5 resident, was not listed in the final report.

The final report includes 10 recommendations, with accompanying analysis. [.pdf of recommendations] The major recommendations relate to: (1) rebuilding structures that don’t conform to existing zoning; (2) rezoning certain areas from R4C to R2A; (3) reducing minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths; (4) exploring the creation of zoning overlay districts; (5) revising density calculations; (6) revising parking standards; and (7) changing requirements for lot combinations.

The report also recommends no changes to zoning for rooming houses or group housing (such as fraternities or sororities).

Aside from a general recommendation regarding non-conformance, the recommendations all relate to R4C districts. The report did address R2A zoning, but noted that the issues for that zoning district were minimal. No changes to lot area, lot width, density or parking were proposed for R2A, though the committee suggested downzoning some current R4C districts to R2A.

City planner Matt Kowalski was the city staff point person for the R4C/R2A committee, and he briefed commissioners on the report at their May 8 working session. Three committee members – Wendy Carman, Ethel “Eppie” Potts, and Julie Weatherbee – attended the session. Carman and Potts spoke during public commentary to amplify written comments they’d provided as supplements to the report, expressing concerns that some aspects of the report don’t accurately reflect the committee’s views. Their remarks are reported below.

The report’s introduction ends with this caveat:

Due to the complexity and extent of the issues identified, the goal of the study was not to reach consensus on all issues, but rather to identify possible solutions based on majority opinion of the Advisory Committee. The draft recommendations below are the best effort at addressing the concerns of the Advisory Committee and the general public, and represent the majority opinion of the Advisory Committee.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Non-Conformance

The report’s first recommendation relates to zoning non-conformance. The fact that many structures don’t currently conform to R4C/R2A zoning was a big issue, Kowalsk told commissioners. As an example, existing zoning requires an 8,500-square-foot lot area, but 83% of parcels don’t meet that requirement, he said. Many of the current buildings were constructed before existing zoning standards, and are non-conforming – especially related to lot size and setbacks. If a building is destroyed, current ordinances would require that whatever is rebuilt would need to conform to existing zoning.

Most of the committee and the overwhelming public feedback were in favor of keeping the existing streetscape in R4C/R2A neighborhoods, Kowalski said. So the committee supported allowing buildings to be reconstructed, under certain conditions, with a similar size and dimensions as the original structure, even though the new building would not conform to zoning.

Recommendation: Chapter 55, Section 5:87 (Structure Non-Conformance) should be revised to allow reconstruction of non-conforming structures in R2A and R4C districts when construction meets all of  the following standards:

• Allow the ability to re-construct a structure if damaged due to fire, flood, or other calamity. Reconstruction should not be allowed in the case of voluntary destruction or demolition by neglect.
• Establish time limit (18 months) on how long after destruction the reconstruction of a non-conforming structure is permitted.
• Establish time limit (18 months) on building completion, once construction has started.
• Require that replacement structures must be of similar style, placement, massing dimensions of the original structure and character as the building before destruction.
• This section would apply to non-conforming structures only, and does not include non-conforming uses.

Two recommendations related to non-conformance that were in the original draft report presented at the June 2011 working session were subsequently removed, and are not in the final report:

• Allow non-conforming multiple-family structures to add units and floor area without ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals] approval, if the additional units or floor area is located within the existing building footprint. Additional units must meet density requirements; however structure can be non-conforming for lot area and setbacks.
• Allow for additions to existing multiple-family structures without ZBA approval if the addition complies with all setback and required open space standards for that district. This is currently permitted for single-family houses ONLY.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: R2A District

No significant changes were proposed for the R2A zoning districts. Many of the issues that arise in R4C districts aren’t a problem in R2A neighborhoods, Kowalski said. Aside from the non-conformance changes, the report does not recommend any changes to R2A lot area, lot width, density, setbacks or parking.

However, the committee does recommend that some areas now zoned R4C would be more appropriately zoned as R2A. [See R4C Rezoning section below.]

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: R4C Rezoning

Kowalski said the committee looked at recommendations from the city’s central area plan, which was adopted in 1992. Many things have changed over the past 20 years, he said, so those recommendations aren’t all applicable.

According to Chapter 55, Section 5:10.8 of the city’s zoning code (for multiple-family dwelling districts),  the R4C zoning is intended for the central area of the city, near to the central business district and the University of Michigan. However, there are some parcels outside of the central area that are also zoned R4C, Kowalski noted – along South State Street, for example. It wouldn’t be appropriate to apply some of the recommended R4C zoning changes to those parcels, so the report suggests downzoning those areas:

Recommendation: Select areas should be rezoned from R4C to R2A and additional study be given to other areas that could warrant rezoning based on current conditions. Large R4C parcels outside of the Central Area should be rezoned to a more appropriate zoning district.

The 1992 central area plan recommended that another specific area be rezoned from R4C to R2A – the  Hoover/Davis neighborhood. That recommendation was supported by the current advisory committee. [The previous draft report had also specifically recommended rezoning the Dewey/Packard/Brookwood area to R2A, but that reference is omitted from the final report.]

The final report notes that there might be other areas where rezoning should be considered, stating that “but more research is needed in order to determine where additional rezonings are appropriate based on a more detailed analysis of existing land uses.”

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report:  Minimum Lot Size/Lot Width/Setbacks

“This was a big one,” Kowalski told commissioners. The existing minimum lot size in R4C districts is 8,500 square feet, but 83% of parcels – 1,970 lots – are non-conforming for this requirement. The majority of these parcels are also non-conforming for lot width. The committee felt it was important to bring zoning closer to the established development in these areas.

Recommendations: Reduce the minimum lot size to 4,350 square feet for all parcels in R4C zoning districts. Require the minimum lot width requirement for existing original platted lots and reduce the minimum lot width to 40 feet if not an original platted lot. No changes to existing setbacks are proposed.

Kowalski noted that the current average R4C lot size is 6,052 square feet – but he said he did not include large church lots or UM property in his calculations of that average. The proposed recommendation would bring 875 lots into conformance. If the proposed revisions are implemented, 62% of R4C lots would conform to the minimum lot area requirement. [The draft report from 2011 had recommended a reduction of minimum lot sizes to 4,000 square feet for all parcels in R4C zoning district and elimination of the minimum lot width requirement.]

The final report’s recommendation not to change existing setbacks, which are 12 feet on each side, will help reduce the scale of new construction and prevent larger additions from being built closer to the property lines, according to the report. Existing setbacks could help preserve the scale and massing of existing streetscapes, the report states.

The report notes that when combined with a revised density standard (see below), the changes could allow for more flexibility in configuring new buildings or remodeling existing buildings. The revisions could also result in increased density for some parcels, according to the report.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Overlay District

Kowalski noted that R4C neighborhoods differ widely. Some R4C areas have tiny lots with almost no setbacks, while in other parts of the city – like the Oakland neighborhood – lots have 60-70 foot setbacks. You can also find everything in between those two extremes, he said.

To create one set of regulations for all neighborhoods would be really difficult, he said. One of the goals is to preserve what already exists, so overlay districts could be used to “customize” regulations and keep future development compatible with the current streetscape.

Recommendation: Zoning overlay districts should be explored as a tool for protecting massing, setbacks and streetscape of unique neighborhoods experiencing redevelopment pressure within the R4C zone. Overlay districts should be implemented on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson likened the R4C overlay districts to those created for D1 and D2 zoning, as part of the A2D2 zoning process.

According to the report, the advisory committee identified several issues that an overlay district might address:

• Out-of scale development: A maximum building footprint could be instituted based on the historic development patterns of the neighborhood.
• Design not compatible with neighborhoods: Guidelines can be developed on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis to control general massing and front setbacks.
• Increased/decreased flexibility of site design: For example, an overlay district could be created that modifies the area, height and placement (AHP) standard based on existing development pattern for a selected neighborhood.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Density Calculation

Committee members felt that the current way of calculating density acts as an incentive for a developer to add more bedrooms, Kowalski said. Specifically, current zoning encourages the construction of six-bedroom units, because the same minimum lot area is required (2,175 square feet per unit) no matter what size the units are – one-bedroom or six-bedroom. The report notes that the majority of units recently built in R4C districts have had six bedrooms – and those typically appeal more to students, compared to other potential renters.

Recommendation: Adopt a graduated scale of calculating density based on the total number of bedrooms provided in each unit. As detailed below, the majority of the committee recommends requiring 2,175 square feet of lot area per unit for 0-4 bedroom units and 3,000 square feet of lot area for 5-6 bedroom units.

The committee received strong input that a mix of bedroom unit sizes – from one to six bedrooms – was desired, Kowalski said. According to the report, a majority of committee members support code revisions that would encourage construction of units with four bedrooms or fewer, and discourage five- or six-bedroom units. Existing zoning code regulates only the number of occupants in a unit, not the number of bedrooms.

The new density calculation relies on the interplay of (1) lot size, (2) required lot area per unit, and (3) caps on the number of bedrooms/occupants. The report states that when combined with proposed reductions in lot area/width, the proposed graduated scale will create incentives to build smaller units with fewer bedrooms per unit.

As an example for comparison, the existing minimum lot size in R4C districts is 8,500 square feet. A lot that size currently allows for up to three units with as many as six occupants each, or as many as 18 occupants/bedrooms total. Under proposed density standards, up to three units would also be allowed on that same size lot if the units have 0-4 bedrooms each, based on the requirement of 2,175-square-feet per unit. So under the proposed standards, only up to 12 bedrooms, not 18, would be allowed.

What happens with the proposed minimum lot size of 4,350 square feet? For a lot that size, the proposed density standard (with the requirement of 2,175-square-feet per unit), only two units with 0-4 bedrooms would be allowed – or a maximum of eight bedrooms. Six occupants would still be allowed for each of those two units however, for a maximum of 12 occupants. (A limit of 20 units per acre would remain in place in these examples. One acre is 43,560 square feet.)

Or consider again a 8,500-square-foot lot, but built with 5-6 bedroom units. Under the proposed density standard, which requires 3,000 feet for each 5-6 bedroom unit, only two units would be allowed – which is a maximum of 12 occupants/bedrooms. Currently, as many as 18 occupants/bedrooms are allowed on a lot that size.

Another feature of the proposed density standard, which applies to 5-6 bedroom units, would drop the maximum number of such units per acre from 20 to 14.

For a 4,350-square-foot lot, only one unit with 5-6 bedrooms would be allowed under the proposed density requirements – or a maximum of six occupants.

The report lays out proposed regulations for the two different unit types – 0-4 bedroom units, and 5-6 bedroom units:

Type A: 0-4 bedrooms: 2,175-square-foot lot area required per unit

• EXISTING: An 8,500-square-foot lot will permit 3 units, 20 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 18 occupants at 6 per unit and up to 18 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• PROPOSED new density standard: An 8,500-square-foot lot would permit 3 units, 20 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 18 occupants at 6 per unit and up to 12 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• NEW MINIMUM LOT SIZE: A 4,350-square-foot lot would permit a maximum of 2 units (with a maximum 4 bedrooms each and up to a maximum of 12 occupants, or a total maximum of 8 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.

Type B: 5-6 bedrooms: 3,000-square-foot lot area required per unit

• EXISTING: An 8,500-square-foot lot will permit 3 units, 20 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 18 occupants at 6 per unit and up to 18 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• PROPOSED new density standard: An 8,500-square-foot lot would permit 2 units, 14 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 12 occupants and up to 12 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size (in square feet) under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• NEW MINIMUM LOT SIZE: A 4,350-square-foot lot would permit a maximum of 1 unit (with a maximum of 6 bedrooms and a maximum of 6 occupants). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size (in square feet) under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Rooming Houses/Group Housing

No changes were proposed for zoning related to rooming houses or group housing, such as fraternities, sororities and co-operatives. The existing 8,500-square-foot lot requirement and parking requirement are recommended to remain in place. For group housing, a requirement to obtain a special exception use from the planning commission would also remain unchanged.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Parking Standard

Kowalski described parking standards as another big issue. Currently, the same number of parking spaces – 1.5 spaces per unit – are required, regardless of how many bedrooms are in each unit. It was felt that this approach encourages developers to put more bedrooms per unit, he said. Committee members and public participation indicated a strong desire to encourage a mix of different number of bedrooms per unit, so a graduated scale of parking requirements is recommended.

Recommendation: Adopt a graduated scale of calculating required parking based on unit type (above), increasing parking requirements as number of bedrooms in units increase. The Advisory Committee also recommends investigating an off-site parking storage concept and other alternative parking methods.

The recommendation calls for keeping the same parking requirement – 1.5 spaces per unit – for units with 0-4 bedrooms, but increasing the requirement to 2 spaces per unit for units with 5-6 bedrooms.

The 2011 draft report had recommended a more fine-grained parking requirement, corresponding to the three recommended unit types: 0.5 spaces for each 0-2 bedroom unit; 1 space for each 3-4 bedroom unit; and 2 spaces for each 5-6 bedroom unit.

According to the final report, a majority of committee members felt that the parking requirement shouldn’t control a building’s site design, and that open space shouldn’t be converted to parking in order to meet the requirement. But some committee members expressed concern about ensuring adequate on-site parking. The report states that the committee also recommends that parking requirements be studied further, in conjunction with all the other R4C recommendations.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Lot Combinations

Lot combinations was another hot button issue, Kowalski told planning commissioners. The report states that no consensus was reached about how to address the issue, but that the committee recommends limiting or prohibiting lot combinations in order to help prevent construction of large buildings that would disrupt the existing streetscape.

Recommendation: The Advisory Committee recommends a limit on lot combinations within the R4C District.

Kowalski said most committee members who supported a limitation wanted to limit the maximum lot size to 6,525 square feet – the area needed to allow three units at the current density, or three units of 0-4 bedrooms each at the proposed density. It is a square footage that’s based on the current average R4C lot size, according to the report.

Kowalski noted that there are a lot of other limiting factors in place that would limit construction of large buildings.

The 2011 draft report had also indicated that the committee couldn’t reach consensus on this issue, but that the majority supported a recommendation that no more than two parcels be allowed to be combined, with the resulting parcel not to exceed 10,000 square feet.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Conclusion

Wrapping up his staff report, Kowalski observed that it was a longer process than they’d originally anticipated, with a lot of complex issues. R4C zoning districts are one of the most complicated, diverse districts in the city, he said, and changing the zoning is not a simple fix.

He also noted that committee members are interested in pursuing other issues in depth – issues that weren’t part of the committee’s original council directive. Those issues include dealing with trash, noise from student parties, and code enforcement, among other things. The issues are relevant to the R4C district, he said, but are not part of the committee’s report.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Public Commentary

Unlike the working sessions for city council, the planning commission’s working sessions include an opportunity for public commentary. On May 8, three members of the R4C/R2A advisory committee attended: Wendy Carman, Ethel “Eppie” Potts, and Julie Weatherbee.

Planning commissioner Erica Briggs suggested that since the committee members were there and it wasn’t a formal setting, perhaps the discussion could be more informal than just the standard three minutes for each speaker, which Briggs said seemed weird in this case.

Kirk Westphal was chairing the meeting at this point – commission chair Eric Mahler was stuck in an elevator for the first hour of the meeting. Westphal said he’d be open to sticking with the initial three-minute commentary, then playing it by ear during the discussion. He also felt the commissioners should limit the scope of their discussion for this meeting, perhaps by just focusing on the process they’d like to set for handling the report.

Tony Derezinski suggested sticking with a “semi-formal” process regarding commentary. The expectation for the outcome of the R4C/R2A work is high, he noted. Several actions by city council have been deferred, he said, waiting for the outcome of this process. [As an example, proposed revisions to the city's landscape and screening ordinance were rejected by council at its March 19, 2012 meeting, in part because some councilmembers wanted to wait until recommendations for R4C zoning had been completed.]

All of this effort and public input should yield something substantial, and there will be even more public forums in the future, Derezinski said. This working session obviously won’t be the only discussion that planning commissioners have on these recommendations, he said, but the product will ultimately be changes in zoning. He concluded by saying that no one wants this to be just another report on a shelf. [Derezinski is the city council representative to the city planning commission.]

Both Potts and Carman had submitted written comments to the commission that took issue with some aspects of the report, and they both spoke during public commentary to highlight their concerns.

Eppie Potts began by saying “I’ve given it a lot of thought, obviously.” She began by pointing to the areas that are zoned R4C but located outside of the city’s central area, and challenged commissioners to look at those areas and see if they could be rezoned to something more suitable.

Regarding parking, Potts said the committee had agreed that there should be a graduated scale for parking requirements, but that the recommendations included in the report “aren’t very graduated.”

Potts also took issue with the report’s conclusion, saying that it seemed too tentative. At some point, the report “is what it is,” she said. Who’s going to finalize the recommendations, and when? she asked.

In her written comments, Potts had suggested substituting the following paragraph, or something similar to it, instead of the conclusion provided in the staff report:

The recommendations above are the product of two years of comprehensive research, discussion and analysis. The issues identified throughout the course of this study are very complex. Those who gave input to the Advisory Committee expressed problems caused by such issues as unsustainable density, lack of parking, inadequate open space, and the number of small non-conforming lots. Our recommendations deal with these issues. The Advisory Committee recommends that the proposed changes be adopted, tried for a time, then be reviewed for effectiveness and possible amendment.

Wendy Carman said it’s important for everyone to recognize the hard work of the committee. The committee members had wanted to keep the density no greater than it is now, but to decrease the number of non-conforming parcels.  The R4C zoning had been imposed on existing neighborhoods, she noted. The committee had been unanimous in its desire to preserve the existing streetscapes, she said. They also had wanted to reduce the incentives for building six-bedroom apartments, which she noted are really targeted just for students.

Regarding the parking recommendations, Carman stated that the committee did not vote for the recommendations that are included in the report. They did vote to recommend a graduated scale for calculating required parking, to make it dependent not only on unit type and number of bedrooms, but also on a maximum potential occupancy and lot size, she said. The committee had asked Kowalski to develop a proposal, but they did not vote on the one that’s in this report, she said. That’s a staff recommendation, she noted, not one from the committee.

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion

Evan Pratt asked whether the report was just an FYI to planning commissioners and would go directly to city council, or whether planning commissioners would discuss it first. Matt Kowalski replied that the council’s directive had been to the planning commission and staff. He noted that advisory committee recommendations don’t include language that could be inserted into city code at this point, so that would need to be done before the council could act.

The dark red areas are those areas zoned R4C in the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to Google Map)

When Pratt said he was fishing to see what kind of action is expected of the planning commission, Kowalski said that would be up to commissioners to decide.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said there’s no set format for proceeding. One option would be to simply send the report to the city council as an item of information. Or the commission’s ordinance revisions committee could take a look first, she said, and bring back recommendations with specific ordinance language.

Tony Derezinski stressed that there needs to be some concrete outcome to this work. It’s too central and too controversial not to result in ordinance changes, eventually. It might take another step or two, he added, but his sense is that the council wants an action item.

Pratt responded by saying it would be good to get some direction from city council, to make sure planning commissioners are going in the same direction in developing ordinance language.

Derezinski said the question is whether the planning commission simply forwards the report to city council, or whether they do something more with it first. Bonnie Bona felt it would be helpful to provide some suggestions to the council about approaching the recommendations. For example, while in some cases there’s a lot of detail, there are other issues – like the overlay districts – that didn’t really get addressed in depth. She said she could imagine sending something to councilmembers that suggested making base zoning changes, plus recommendations for handling R4C lots outside of the central area, and for overlay districts.

Erica Briggs said she thought this was a great report, with a lot of consensus in terms of direction. The report provides solid recommendations, she said. However, Briggs felt that more attention needed to be paid to parking, adding ”but you know how I feel about parking, so I won’t go into that.” [Briggs has consistently been an advocate for requiring less on-site parking in developments, and encouraging alternative transportation or using other means to deal with the parking issue.]

Diane Giannola said her hope from this work is to make R4C zoning simpler, but that some of the recommendations seem to make it more complex. The overall message of the report is that something is being fixed, she said. Are the proposed changes actually fixing a problem, or just switching the problem to a different place? she asked. Giannola noted that the parking recommendations conflict with the views of some people on the planning commission – it’s important to be mindful of that.

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion – Overlay and Form-Based Code

Much of the commission’s discussion centered on the concept of overlay districts. Bonnie Bona noted that A2D2 overlay districts really helped with the downtown zoning, by acknowledging the different character and sizes of buildings. But she also said she’d prefer some kind of form-based code, instead of “shoehorning” zoning into neighborhoods that are distinct. [Described in a general way, a form-based approach is more proscriptive regarding the types of buildings the community wants to see in a particular district, including their design. In contrast, traditional zoning is structured to provide an allowable range of uses, sizes, placements, and other aspects of a development, but generally leaves the details of those decisions to the developer.]

Erica Briggs said her concern about overlay districts is that there’s no teeth to enforce them. She said she didn’t know much about form-based code, but she like the concept.

Wendy Rampson noted that true form-based code doesn’t look at land use, so it probably wouldn’t be an ideal candidate for R4C. But some aspects of it might be helpful, she said.

Briggs observed that a form-based approach might address some of the things that planning commissioners have discussed in the past, like having small neighborhood stores. Currently, residential zoning doesn’t allow for that. Briggs said she’d really like to see something substantial emerge from the recommendations.

Kirk Westphal said he’d like to think that the commission could expedite this process and produce draft ordinance language based on the committee’s recommendations. However, he noted that when he hears the word “overlay,” he thinks of lines on a map – and that becomes a much longer process. For R4C, it might be even more complicated than when the city created overlay districts for D1 and D2 zoning. He asked Kowalski whether there was general agreement on the committee regarding overlay districts or boundaries between neighborhoods.

Kowalski said there were only a couple of neighborhoods mentioned – like the Oakland area with large setbacks, or a street near Golden with really small lots. But the committee didn’t delve into details about possible overlay districts, he said. It could be a useful tool, he added, but not simple to do.

Pratt noted that historic districts are already one kind of overlay. If you look at a map, he said, most R4C districts are pretty distinct, and relatively small.

Rampson noted that compared to overlay districts, form-based code would be similarly complex. Kowalski added that a form-based approach would need to be citywide, and would not just apply to R4C zoning districts. That’s another complicating factor, he said.

Westphal noted that if the city opts for overlays, the other issue is to define the character of those overlay districts. You’d be drafting a whole new set of rules, he said, but if you don’t have them in place, some of the other zoning revisions might encourage development or renovations that wouldn’t fit the character of the existing neighborhood.

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion – Next Steps

Tony Derezinski pointed out that other zoning projects were underway – most significantly, the ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project, a comprehensive zoning code review. [A consultant hired by the city has submitted his recommendations, which were the topic of a May 14 city council working session. The ZORO recommendations have not yet been made available to the public.] He asked Rampson how the R4C/R2A effort fits into other zoning projects.

Rampson called R4C a broken district, and said she’d rather deal with a complexity of ordinances that make sense, rather than continuing to have a broken zoning district. The recommendations could be considered an evolution from the Calthorpe process, she said. [Calthorpe Associates was a California-based consultant whose work resulted in the city's A2D2 downtown zoning.]

Derezinski said it was good to start with the premise that R4C is broken, and he liked the description of the zoning revisions as an evolution. That helps justify doing things a little differently in R4C than in other zoning districts, he said.

Evan Pratt said there’s nothing to dislike in this report. The main problems are listed out, and the recommendations make sense. He asked staff if they had any advice on how to tackle the other issues in R4C that hadn’t been addressed – is it just a matter of prioritizing?

Rampon said the ZORO project will help, making it easier to find and understand the existing zoning.

As the discussion wound down, Eric Mahler asked for recommendations on next steps. Rampson said it sounded like commissioners were inclined to discuss the report in more detail, before starting to develop ordinance language. She suggested convening the ordinance revisions committee as a starting point. Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on the city council, offered to update councilmembers as an interim step.

Bonnie Bona said the ordinance revisions committee could perhaps develop a cover memo for the report, which could then be discussed by the planning commission as a whole. [Members of the ordinance revisions committee are planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.]

Rampson suggested that this might be a topic for another commission working session. But first, she would look at their schedules and set a time for an ordinance revisions committee meeting to discuss the report, and then take it from there. She thanked Matt Kowalski and the advisory committee for their work, noting that it hadn’t been easy, but that the result was an excellent report.

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

Absent: Wendy Woods

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to plan on doing the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The dark red areas are those areas zoned R4C in the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to Google Map)

At a recent working session, planning commissioners were briefed on a draft report from the R4C/R2A advisory committee, which has been meeting since December 2009. Both kinds of zoning district were established in the 1960s: R4C allows for multiple-family residential dwellings, such as apartment buildings, while R2A zoning limits density to two-family residential structures. The committee was unable to reach consensus on its recommendations, nearly all of which relate to the R4C districts.

At the June 14 planning commission working session, two commissioners who serve on the committee – Jean Carlberg and Tony Derezinski – expressed frustration at the outcome. The draft recommendations don’t provide any guidance about where the city might encourage greater density, Carlberg said.

Derezinski, who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, added that many committee members worked hard, but were interested in protecting what they’re used to, especially concerning density and parking in their neighborhoods. As it stands, he said, the report won’t be helpful to the city council. Derezinski supported the idea of having the planning commission study the issue and make its own recommendations.

Commissioner Evan Pratt suggested that the first question to ask is whether there should be greater density, and where – the answer to that would guide the recommendations.

In a follow-up phone interview with The Chronicle, Wendy Rampson – the city’s planning manager, who also attended the working session – said there are several possibilities that planning commissioners might pursue. They could discuss the report at one of their regular meetings and make their own recommendations or comments about it. Those recommendations and comments could be made either informally – communicated to the council via Derezinski – or through a formal resolution or memorandum.

Another option would be for the commission’s ordinance revisions committee to tackle it first, developing specific ordinance language that the full commission could then review and possibly recommend to the city council. Or commissioners could ask to hold a joint session with the council, she said, to talk through these issues directly.

Regardless of how the planning commission proceeds, Carlberg will no longer be at the table. The June 14 working session was her last meeting as a commissioner. Her term ends on June 30, and she did not seek reappointment. The former city councilmember served 16 years on the planning commission, overlapping with her 12 years (1994-2006) as a Democrat representing Ward 3 on the council. Eleanore Adenekan was nominated during the council’s June 20 meeting as a replacement for Carlberg – her nomination is expected to be confirmed at the council’s July 5 meeting.

R4C/R2A Zoning: Background

In recent years, the city of Ann Arbor has undertaken several major initiatives to overhaul regulations related to development. Two of those – A2D2 (downtown zoning) and AHP (revisions to area, height and placement requirements) – are completed. Still in the works is ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization), a comprehensive zoning code review.

Another major initiative has been the review of R4C (multiple-family residential dwelling) and R2A (two-family residential dwelling) districts, which were set up in the 1960s. Though a formal review process started about two years ago, the issue has been around since at least the mid-1980s. At that time, city planning staff conducted a review of the North Burns Park area, which ultimately led to a downzoning of that neighborhood from R2B – a zoning category that allows for group housing like fraternities and sororities – to R2A. The sense at that time, according to Rampson, was that R4C districts were appropriate places for greater density and student housing.

Rampson said that sentiment is reflected in the city’s central area plan, which was developed in the early 1990s and later incorporated into the city’s master plan. [.pdf of central area map] The central area plan included several recommendations related to zoning, but the planning commission at that time didn’t act on those proposed changes.

The issue emerged again a few years ago – Rampson said there seemed to be a change in attitude about whether R4C was still appropriate for certain areas in the city. In particular, residents in Lower Burns Park lobbied for rezoning of R4C districts to R2A or R1A (single-family houses), and in October of 2007, the council passed a resolution directing planning staff to explore rezoning in that neighborhood. According to reports in the Ann Arbor News, in late 2007 the planning commission recommended that only Golden Avenue be downzoned to R2A R1D (single family) – a recommendation that the council approved on Feb. 19, 2008. Other parts of Lower Burns Park were not rezoned.

At that same Feb. 19, 2008 meeting, the council unanimously passed a resolution directing the planning commission and planning staff to do a more comprehensive review of residential zoning in the central area. However, no action resulted from that resolution. A nearly identical resolution was introduced a year later by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – which the council passed at its March 2, 2009 meeting.

The resolution identifies the rationale for undertaking this effort:

Whereas, the Central Area Plan, dated December 21, 1992, recommends four Implementation Program “Priority Action Strategies” as follows:

• HN1 – Analyze zoning nonconformities related to area, height and placement regulations for the Central Area neighborhoods and determine if amendments are needed to make the regulations more consistent with established development patterns;
• HN12 – Amend the zoning ordinance and map to clearly identify areas to be maintained or encouraged as housing;
• HN14 – Reinforce student neighborhoods in the area south and west of Central Campus by developing new zoning definitions and standards that support organized group housing opportunities;
• HP17 – Develop site design standards that encourage creative design while maintaining sensitivity for existing neighborhood character;

Whereas, The Non-Motorized Plan, dated December 6, 2006, provides guidance for land use and zoning to support walking, bicycling and transit;

Whereas, The Downtown Plan, amended December 1992, recommends in Section III to protect the livability of residentially-zoned areas adjacent to downtown;

Whereas, A majority of the lots in the residential districts in the Central Area are non-conforming due to lot size and lot width, and a significant number require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals to make modifications or additions to the existing non-conforming structures;

Whereas, The resolution of October 15, 2007 directing the City Planning Commission to review rezoning in the Lower Burns Park neighborhood revealed (through the staff report, public hearing, written public comments and Planning Commission discussion) the need to review the R2A and R4C zoning districts more comprehensively within the Central Area rather than one isolated neighborhood at a time;

Whereas, The City Planning Commission believes that modifications to the zoning and ordinance requirements for residential districts in the Central Area could enhance the livability of these neighborhoods for owner-occupants and renters through a comprehensive review and appropriate changes to the minimum lot size, minimum lot width, setback, density, building height, open space, parking, landscaping and possibly other site related issues; and

Whereas, The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission and City staff find ways to reduce the need for developers to utilize Planned Project development applications as a way to accomplish the City’s goal to ensure that development proposals are more sustainable and that all efforts involving changes to City Zoning regulations involve extensive public involvement …

That resolution led to the formation, in the summer of 2009, of an advisory committee that was charged with studying the R4C/R2A issue, getting input from the public and community stakeholders, and presenting recommendations to the planning commission and city council for possible changes in these zoning districts.

Underpinning discussions of changes to R4C/R2A is the question of how much density should be allowed in these areas. Though there were smaller projects that caused concern, two large housing proposals in particular – The Moravian, and City Place – brought the debate to the forefront for people on both sides of the issue.

The Moravian, a five-story, 62-unit building proposed for the section of East Madison Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor, was rejected by the city council in April of 2010. It was proposed as a planned unit development (PUD), located in an area zoned R4C. City Place is a “by right” housing project proposed in an R4C district on the east side of South Fifth Avenue just south of William. Approved by the council in September 2009, it called for tearing down several older houses and constructing two new apartment buildings. However, its developer, Alex de Parry, subsequently proposed a different project on that same site – Heritage Row – which would renovate the houses and build new apartment buildings behind them. That project, a planned unit development (PUD), has been rejected by council. City Place has not yet been built.

In July 2009, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) proposed a moratorium in R4C/R2A districts, with the intent of halting the Moravian and City Place projects until the advisory committee work was completed. The moratorium was voted down at the council’s Aug. 6, 2009 meeting, though a different moratorium was approved at that same meeting. It applied to demolition only in a limited geographic area. It was the assigned area of study for a committee appointed by the council to weigh the possibility of establishing a historic district there – a two-block area just south of William Street on Fourth and Fifth avenues. The study committee recommended establishing a historic district in the area, but that recommendation was rejected by the council, and the moratorium expired.

The R4C/R2A advisory committee was initially expected to complete its work by September 2010.

Committee members are: Tony Derezinski (city council representative), Jean Carlberg (planning commission representative), Chuck Carver (rental property owner representative), Ilene Tyler and David Merchant (Ward 1 residents), Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2 residents), Ellen Rambo and Michele Derr (Ward 3 residents), Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4 residents), and Ethel Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5 residents).

R4C/R2A Zoning: Draft Committee Report

The introduction to the nine-page draft report of advisory committee recommendations includes this caveat:

Due to the complexity and extent of the issues identified during the study, it was not possible to reach a consensus on all of the recommendations listed below. The draft recommendations are the best effort at addressing all Advisory Committee concerns and represent the majority opinion of the Advisory Committee.

The report includes seven primary recommendations, with accompanying analysis. [.pdf of draft recommendations] Recommendations relate to: (1) rebuilding structures that don’t conform to existing zoning; (2) rezoning certain areas from R4C to R2A; (3) reducing minimum lot sizes and eliminating minimum lot widths; (4) revising density calculations; (5) exploring the creation of zoning overlays; (6) revising parking standards; (7) changing requirements for lot combinations.

Aside from a general recommendation regarding non-conformance, the recommendations all relate to R4C districts. Although R2A zoning was also discussed, the report noted that the committee felt the issues for that zoning district were minimal. No changes to lot area, lot width, density or parking were proposed for R2A, though the committee suggested downzoning some current R4C districts to R2A.

Draft Committee Report: Non-Conformance

The report states that committee members, backed by public feedback, wanted to keep the existing streetscape in the residentially-zoned,  R4C/R2A areas, including the size and massing of current buildings there. This was of primary importance, more so than facilitating greater density. Many of the current buildings were constructed before existing zoning standards, and are non-conforming – especially related to lot size and setbacks. If a building is destroyed, current ordinances would require that whatever is rebuilt would need to conform to existing zoning.

The committee supported allowing buildings to be reconstructed, under certain conditions, with a similar size and dimensions as the original structure, even though it would not conform to zoning.

Recommendation: The Advisory Committee recommends that Chapter 55, Section 5:87 (Structure Non-Conformance) be revised to allow reconstruction of non-conforming structures in R2A and R4C districts according to the following standards:

• Allow the ability to re-construct structure if damaged due to fire, flood, or other calamity.
• Reconstruction should not be allowed in case of voluntary destruction or demolition by neglect.
• Establish time limit (18 months) on how long after destruction the reconstruction of nonconforming structure is permitted.
• Establish time limit on building completion, once construction has started.
• Require that replacement structures must be of similar style, massing and character.
• Allow non-conforming multiple-family structures to add units and floor area without ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals] approval, if the additional units or floor area is located within the existing building footprint. Additional units must meet density requirements; however structure can be non-conforming for lot area and setbacks.
• Allow for additions to existing multiple-family structures without ZBA approval if the addition complies with all setback and required open space standards for that district. This is currently permitted for single-family houses ONLY.

Draft Committee Report: Rezoning

Two areas – Hoover/Davis, and Dewey/Packard/Brookwood – were identified by the committee as priority areas for rezoning. The areas had been previously recommended for rezoning as part of the city’s central area plan, to help maintain the existing pattern of development in those neighborhoods. According to the report, the committee felt there might be other areas that should be rezoned as well, but that more research is needed.

Recommendation: The Advisory Committee recommends that select areas [Hoover/Davis and Dewey/Packard/Brookwood] be rezoned from R4C to R2A.

Draft Committee Report: Minimum Lot Size/Lot Width/Setbacks

The existing minimum lot size in R4C districts is 8,500 square feet, but 83% of parcels are non-conforming for this requirement. The majority of these parcels are also non-conforming for lot width, which is about 40 feet. The committee felt it was important to bring zoning closer to the established development in these areas, according to the report.

Recommendations: The Advisory Committee recommends the reduction of minimum lot sizes to 4,000 square feet for all parcels in R4C zoning district and elimination of the minimum lot width requirement. No changes to existing setbacks are proposed.

This change would bring 985 parcels into compliance, out of a total of 1,633 R4C parcels that currently don’t comply with existing zoning. The changes would allow for more flexibility in configuring new building and in remodeling existing structures, according to the report.

Draft Committee Report: Density Calculations

The report notes that the city’s current method of calculating density encourages the construction of six-bedroom units – the same minimum lot area is required, regardless of the number of bedrooms in a unit. This type of apartment appeals primarily to students, the report states, and the committee wanted to encourage a mix of bedroom types that would appeal to a broader range of renters.

Recommendations: The Advisory Committee recommends instituting a graduated scale of calculating density based on the total number of bedrooms provided in each unit. Existing density is calculated based solely on lot area per unit, regardless of the number of bedrooms within unit.

Regulations were proposed for three different unit types: 0-2 bedrooms, 3-4 bedrooms and 5-6 bedrooms. [.pdf of draft density calculations] No changes were proposed for rooming houses or group housing, such as fraternities, sororities and co-ops.

Draft Committee Report: Overlay District

The committee was interested in protecting the existing pattern of development and streetscape in R4C neighborhoods. The most feasible way to do that, according to the report, would be to form guidelines that would protect against: (1) out-of-scale buildings; (2) design that’s incompatible with the neighborhood; and (3) inappropriate lot combinations. An overlay could also allow for flexibility in the site design – for example, possibly modifying area, height and placement (AHP) standards in certain areas.

Recommendation: The committee recommends that zoning overlay districts be explored as a tool for protecting massing, setbacks and streetscape of neighborhoods experiencing redevelopment pressure within the R4C zone.

Draft Committee Report: Parking Standard

The committee felt the current method of calculating parking encourages the construction of six-bedroom units. The same number of parking spaces is required – 1.5 spaces per unit – regardless of the number of bedrooms. The goal is to encourage limited infill of smaller units, while giving property owners the option of providing more units with fewer bedrooms, according to the report.

Recommendation: Revise parking standards based on unit type (above), increasing parking requirements as number of bedrooms in units increase. Existing parking standards require 1.5 spaces per unit. Investigate off-site parking storage concept and alternative parking methods.

The proposed parking requirement is:

• 0.5 spaces for each 0-2 bedroom unit
• 1 space for each 3-4 bedroom unit
• 2 spaces for each 5-6 bedroom unit

Draft Committee Report: Lot Combination

No consensus was reached on this issue, but most committee members wanted to put a limit on lot combinations to prevent construction of large buildings that might undercut the historical scale of the streetscape, according to the report.

Recommendations: The committee recommends that no more than two parcels be allowed to be combined with the resulting parcel not to exceed 10,000 square feet.

R4C/R2A Zoning: Planning Commission Discussion

At the planning commission’s June 14 working session, Matt Kowalski, the city planner who’s taken the lead on this project, gave a brief review of the advisory committee’s work, and presented a draft report to commissioners that was discussed at the committee’s final meeting earlier this month.

He noted that the committee had been formed in mid-2009, and started meeting in December of that year. It held a total of 10 meetings, plus public forums with different groups: neighborhood associations, rental owners, housing inspectors and others. A survey of students was conducted as well, to gauge what kind of housing students currently live in, and what their preferred options would be. The survey yielded 223 responses. [.pdf of survey results]

After presenting draft recommendations at a public meeting in March of 2011, the group made some tweaks, Kowalski said. They met in early June to go over the final version of recommendations, he said, but “there’s not a consensus on the vast majority of the issues.” The report he presented to planning commissioners at the June 14 working session did not yet reflect the discussion at the committee’s final meeting. [.pdf of draft recommendations]

Tony Derezinski, the city councilmember from Ward 2 who served on the committee and who sponsored the council resolution creating it, described the final meeting as the most productive one they’ve had, but said the overall effort was contentious. A lot of people are protecting what they’re used to, he said, especially concerning density and parking. And because the committee members represented so many different perspectives, it was difficult to reach agreement. He noted that initially the committee did not include representatives from landlords, but Jean Carlberg had pushed for that, and it had been a good addition to the group, Derezinski said.

Derezinski acknowledged that he hadn’t attended all the meetings, but felt that the committee had done all it could do. He suggested that planning staff were in the best position to come up with consensus recommendations for the city council, adding that councilmembers would no doubt get direct feedback about it from the community, too.

R4C/R2A Zoning: PC Discussion – Density

Carlberg spoke next, saying she would choose her words very carefully. One challenge was that the committee members consisted of primarily single-family homeowners and agents for rental properties, she said. So when they were looking at where to have greater density, or where to remove multi-family zoning, the results weren’t surprising. Many times it seemed like the group would take one step forward, she said, then at the next meeting take two steps back.

The draft recommendations don’t provide any guidance about where the city might encourage greater density, Carlberg said. No committee members represented people living in apartments, or people interested in developing more dense housing – those voices weren’t at the table. It was a very unrepresentative group on the issue of where to locate denser housing, she said, and additional meetings wouldn’t help. “I found it very frustrating.”

Erica Briggs asked if there was any consensus on what areas should have less density. The draft report recommends that two areas be downzoned from R4C to R2A: (1) the Hoover/Davis area; and (2) the Dewey/Packard/Brookwood area.

Evan Pratt asked what the role of the planning commission should be. Should commissioners review the report and make comments, or make their own recommendations to city council?

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, recommended that given its outcome, the report should probably go directly to the council. Many issues are intricately related, she said, which adds to the challenge. In addition to density, another issue is the physical configuration of houses that have been converted into multi-family dwellings. The goal is to try to keep the same pattern and massing, she said, and not end up with bigger buildings and bigger lot sizes.

Form and density are definitely challenges, Pratt said. He wondered whether a zoning overlay district might be the best option.

Bonnie Bona agreed with Pratt that they need to wrap their arms around the issues of form and density. Rampson said a lot of the committee’s discussion for increasing density related to how the zoning could allow for additions to existing structures so that units could be increased without tearing down buildings or “sticking people in basements.”

Bona said she hoped they wouldn’t see downzoning like the city council authorized in Lower Burns Park, without balancing it with upzoning for greater density elsewhere. She added that she would hate to see this process get bogged down because they can’t reach consensus. The result will be projects like they’re seeing on South Fifth Avenue, she said, with houses being torn down and big box structures built.

Bona was referring to the City Place development by Alex de Parry, which the city council approved in September 2009. It conforms to existing zoning, and calls for demolition of several houses on South Fifth, to be replaced by two buildings separated by a surface parking lot with 24 total units, each with six bedrooms. De Parry hasn’t started building that project. He has proposed an alternative development called Heritage Row, which would entail renovating seven houses and constructing three new apartment buildings behind those houses, with an underground parking garage. That project, a planned unit development (PUD), has been rejected multiple times by council. See Chronicle coverage: “Heritage Row Status Update”

R4C/R2A Zoning: PC Discussion – Non-Conforming Structures

Diane Giannola brought up another issue: Zoning non-conformance. She questioned the draft recommendation, which calls for revising city code to allow for reconstruction of non-conforming structures in R4C and R2A districts, under certain conditions. That is, if a structure that doesn’t conform to zoning is damaged by fire or flooding, for example, it could be rebuilt in a way that was also non-conforming to zoning in that area. Shouldn’t the zoning simply be changed instead? she asked.

Derezinski said that was originally proposed, and it “got nailed” by committee members. The question is whether you rely on experts, or on people’s feelings, he said – it’s a tension.

Giannola argued that they should either revise the zoning or leave it as is – but they shouldn’t give people permission to ignore the zoning. Isn’t that the purpose of zoning – to tell people what they can do? She said she has a problem with making an exception for something that’s already wrong. That seems ridiculous, she said.

Reconstruction of non-conforming buildings was something that the owners of rental property on the committee wanted, Carlberg said. They don’t want the zoning to change, and they want the ability to rebuild without losing their property’s economic benefit.

Bona said it might be good to have an exception, especially for smaller lots. Kowalski noted that most lots aren’t wide enough to conform to existing zoning. The majority of structures don’t conform and couldn’t be rebuilt, he said – and owners like what they have.

R4C/R2A Zoning: PC Discussion – Second Opinion?

Kirk Westphal wondered whether the city council might want another opinion – perhaps the planning commission should weigh in. Derezinski noted that with so many non-conforming properties, you end up getting a lot of projects that are planned unit developments. Those PUDs allow for variances in zoning – essentially, a type of customized zoning for each project – which often results in a “hailstorm of opposition,” Derezinski said. He suggested that the planning commission at the least review the committee’s work and make recommendations to the council. Whatever they do will be controversial, he said.

Carlberg noted that the recommendations should also substantiate why they’re suggesting certain changes. Yes, Derezinski said, and also how the recommendations fit into the city’s master plan. Where do they want the community to go, with respect to zoning? If the planning commission believes that density is a good goal, they should say that, he added.

The committee’s process was as good as it could get, Derezinski said. They bent over backwards to get input – it took twice as long as expected. There were good people on the committee who spent a lot of time on the effort, he said, but he didn’t think anyone’s mind was changed. If the draft recommendations go directly to the council, he added, they won’t be useful.

Westphal asked whether the city council has discussed this issue. Not since it formed the advisory committee, Derezinski said.

R4C/R2A Zoning: PC Discussion – More on Density

Pratt returned to the topic of density, saying he wasn’t sure whether the draft report recommendations would result in greater or less housing density. That’s the first question that should be addressed, he said – they shouldn’t dive into details until it’s clear what the goal is for these zoning districts. What do people want to accomplish?

If the city council wants to scale back density and have less of a threat to existing neighborhoods, that’s one thing, Pratt said. But if councilmembers want to clean up the rental stock and add density in these districts, that would result in different recommendations.

Derezinski indicated that he’d prefer the second alternative, and that as a councilmember, he’d welcome the planning commission’s input. The city council has a lot on its plate, he said. Councilmembers want the expertise of people who know the issue – planning commission, supported by staff. Then it’s up to the council to accept or reject whatever recommendations they’re given.

One place to start, Pratt said, is to ask whether existing zoning in those R4C/R2A areas is a good thing. Is it the highest and best use of zoning for that area? If not, what changes can be made to reach the density goal that they feel is appropriate? And it’s not just density, he noted. There’s a boxy building at the corner of Liberty and Third that’s just two stories, but it’s really ugly, he said. How can they regulate zoning that won’t result in big box buildings – perhaps a zoning overlay would be the best approach.

Briggs said that density makes some sense for the city’s future, but not at the cost of destroying a neighborhood’s fabric. Although some people say that increased density is an assault on neighborhoods, she said, she believes it’s possible to achieve some sort of balance.

Carlberg noted that another challenge: There’s no financial gain for someone to build an apartment that looks nice and fits into the neighborhood. There was no one on the advisory committee who represented the perspective of a developer, she said. Many members didn’t even live in an R4C district – they lived next to one. So they didn’t have the experience of living in a mixed-use neighborhood with large apartment buildings from the 1950s.

Westphal clarified that the city’s master plan makes mention of density, but doesn’t have any action items related to it. He said he liked the idea of a zoning overlay – for many people, the issue isn’t so much about the size as it is about the form and massing of a building, he said.

Carlberg pointed out that small lots in these districts pose another challenge. The zoning currently calls for a minimum lot size of 8,500 square feet – and 83% of parcels in the R4C zoning districts do not conform to that size. Even for lots that meet that minimum standard, it would be hard to build a structure with the appropriate form on a lot that size. Carlberg also noted that for many people, it wouldn’t matter what the building looked like – they don’t want apartment buildings in a residential area with single-family homes.

Bona suggested a couple of approaches that the city council could take. The council could direct the planning commission to change the zoning to match structures that are already on the parcels in R4C and R2A districts. Or the council could direct the commission to make recommendations for increasing density in other ways, such as creating new zoning for certain areas, or using design guidelines.

Carlberg voiced support for the planning commission to weigh in, saying that the city council could then wrestle with both the advisory committee report as well as the commission’s recommendations.

Derezinski said the council shouldn’t be intimidated by the politics of it – there’s going to be controversy. “Isn’t that really inevitable?” he said. It goes back to whether they are a direct democracy or a representative democracy – and he’s in favor of adding the filter of councilmembers’ own judgement. There was a decent public process, he said, but the council will ultimately need to decide.

Pratt asked if the committee had discussed parking. That was a big concern, Rampson replied. [The committee's draft report calls for an increase in parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms, not the number of units.]

Briggs noted that you can’t separate the issues of parking and density. You can’t talk about the need for density because of sustainability, she said, then turn around and say you also need more space for cars.

Rampson said the student survey yielded some interesting results related to parking. [Among the results: 70% of respondents said they have a car, 98% said they use the car to run errands, and 66% said that having more options for shopping and amenities within walking distance of their home would encourage them to not have a car.]

Based on the discussion by planning commissioners, Rampson said, it seemed there was consensus for the commission to review the R4C/R2A issue. She said she’d schedule a time for commissioners to be more fully briefed by staff.

In a follow-up phone conversation with The Chronicle, Kowalski said he’s revising the draft report based on committee member comments at their final meeting, and will present that version to planning commissioners at one of their regular meetings later this summer. In a separate phone interview this week, Rampson said it’s possible that some advisory committee members will submit a “minority report” to accompany the full committee report, giving their alternative recommendations.

Rampson described several possibilities that planning commissioners might pursue. They could discuss the report at one of their regular meetings and make their own recommendations or comments about it, either informally – communicated to council via Derezinski – or through a formal resolution or memorandum. Another option would be for the commission’s ordinance revisions committee to tackle changes to R4C/R2A districts, developing specific ordinance language that the full commission could then review and possibly recommend to city council. Or commissioners could ask to hold a joint session with the council, she said, to talk through these issues directly.

Ultimately, it will be city councilmembers who decide what action, if any, to take on proposed zoning changes.

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor planning commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

A rendering of one of four buildings planned at Arbor Hills Crossing, located on the southeast corner of Platt and Washtenaw. This view is looking northwest from the center of the site. (Image by ReFORM Studios)

The project involves tearing down several vacant structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site is also directly north of the new location for Summers-Knoll School. Planning commissioners had approved the Summers-Knoll project at their May 17 meeting.

Comments from commissioners about Arbor Hills Crossing ranged from disappointment in the lack of density to concerns about pedestrian safety. Commissioners generally expressed the sense that they were glad to see the site developed.

Citing some outstanding issues, planning staff recommended postponing action on the plan. Several commissioners raised other issues they’d like to see addressed before the site plans come back to the commission for approval. Among those issues: future plans for bike lanes along Washtenaw Avenue, as identified in the city’s non-motorized transportation plan; and possible pedestrian access to a wetland area. The vote to pospone was unanimous.

Later in the meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson got feedback on a draft memo to Pittsfield Township, providing input from the commission on the township’s draft master plan. In part, the memo states an objection to the township’s description of itself as “providing an Ann Arbor mailing address while placing a much lower tax burden on businesses.” The memo points out that the plan could be improved by emphasizing regional cooperation.

Arbor Hills Crossing Site Plan

The planning commission was asked to consider the site plan for Arbor Hills Crossing at 3100 Washtenaw Avenue, a property at the southeast corner of Washtenaw and Platt, owned by Campus Realty. [In 2006, the city had approved a site plan for a different retail development at that location, but it was never built.] Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning department gave the staff report.

The plan calls for demolishing several commercial buildings and constructing a 90,700-square-foot retail and office center with four buildings, 310 parking spaces and 30 covered bike parking spaces on a 7.45-acre site. Retail space would primarily include smaller stores that would be visible from Washtenaw Avenue – three of the buildings face that road.

Aerial drawing of Arbor Hills Crossing proposal. Washtenaw Avenue runs along the north border of the property. Platt Road is on the property's west edge. The project is across Washtenaw from Huron Village Plaza, where a Whole Foods grocery is located.

The developer is proposing to consolidate five existing curb cuts along Washtenaw into one entrance. Vehicles could also access the site from Platt Road. An exit-only road onto Platt on the south side of the site will also be available through an easement from the adjacent property owner.

A wetlands area is located in the southwest corner of the site – the developer plans to build a “pocket park” near it, as a gathering place for customers. The plan also calls for removing two landmark trees – a 64-inch silver maple and a 12-inch ginkgo – as well as 36 non-landmark trees. The developer proposes planting a total of 106 trees throughout the site.

DiLeo described results of a traffic impact study, which found that the proposed project is likely to generate 306 trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 692 trips during the weekday evening peak hour. Traffic is simply bad along that stretch, DiLeo said, but would be improved if a traffic signal at Platt and Washtenaw is installed.

As part of the site plan, the developer is proposing a 23-foot-wide easement along Washtenaw Avenue for a 10-foot shared use path, a bus pullout, and landscaping. The concept is amenable to planning staff, DiLeo said, but they’re trying to determine whether an easement is the right mechanism for it. A dedicated right-of-way might be more appropriate.

DiLeo noted that a citizens participation meeting was held on Feb. 16, 2011; it was attended by 28 people.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponement, citing several unresolved issues: (1) a formal decision from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) on installation of a traffic signal at the Washtenaw/Platt intersection; (2) approval of the plan by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner; and (3) resolution of issues related to the 23-foot easement along Washtenaw Avenue, including which parties will be involved and what mechanism would be used to handle that easement.

Separately, the developer has filed a brownfield plan for the site that’s being considered by the city’s brownfield plan review committee. The brownfield plan would allow for a TIF (tax increment finance) to reimburse the developer for removal of contaminated soil, caused by a repair shop at an auto dealership previously located at the site.

Arbor Hills Crossing: Public Hearing

Two people representing the developer spoke during the project’s public hearing. Tom Covert of Atwell, an Ann Arbor civil engineering and landscape architecture firm, said he was there along with others in the project team, including Tom Stegeman and Norm Hyman from the ownership group. Covert highlighted several aspects of the development, noting that the wetlands area is a central focal feature and wouldn’t be impacted by the project – it would become part of a pocket park, and would be a place for patrons to congregate, he said.

This rendering shows a bird's-eye view of Arbor Hills Crossing, looking southeast. The intersection of Washtenaw and Platt is at the bottom right of this drawing.

Because there’s a 30-40 foot difference in grade between the property’s northwest and southeast corners, they looked at the design as a series of plateaus, he said. The layout is designed to give the development a sense of scale, creating pedestrian space along Washtenaw that invites people into the site, he said. Covert pointed out that they’re consolidating five curb cuts on the property along Washtenaw Avenue into a single cut. There, the exit onto Washtenaw will be limited to a right turn only, Covert said, though vehicles can enter from either direction. The other access is from Platt.

The distance between buildings is designed to be similar to a city block, Covert said – if you drive to the site, you could park and easily walk to two or three of the four buildings without moving your car. Landscaping features on the site include a planned rain garden between two of the buildings, and use of native plants so that no irrigation is required. Part of the stormwater management system includes capturing water in the rain garden, then releasing it to an underground detention basin and into the preserved wetland.

Robb Burroughs of ReFORM Studios Inc., the project’s architect, described some of the project’s design aspects. He highlighted the building at the northwest corner, at Washtenaw and Platt. To balance out the site and deal with the grade changes, the first floor will be below grade, with entrances facing the parking area on the east side. The second floor of that building will be at street level facing Washtenaw, visible from the intersection of Platt and Washtenaw. The strategy is to create a walkable, pedestrian-friendly experience internal to the site, Burroughs said.

They’ve designed a “contemporary building palette,” Burroughs said, integrating pedestrian elements like awnings, windows, and unique corner treatments. A tall vertical element on the northwest building will anchor the Platt and Washtenaw corner – it will likely be made of regionally sourced wood, he said, or latticed steel.

Arbor Hills Crossing: Commissioner Discussion

Jean Carlberg opened the discussion by expressing her concern over how close the sidewalk is to Washtenaw Avenue at the front of the property. Cars typically travel at 40-45 miles per hour, she noted, indicating it can be dangerous to pedestrians. On the opposite side of Washtenaw, there’s a grass buffer between the sidewalk and street.

Internal to the site, the development includes sidewalks, Carlberg said, but it’s more likely that people will walk across the parking lot to get from building to building. That’s also a safety issue. And though she said she was glad to see the site being redeveloped, she criticized the design of the building facing Platt, saying it was plain and unwelcoming. There was nothing to attract people who used the county recreation center across the street, she said. ”I think you’re missing an opportunity there.”

Kirk Westphal asked planning staff what the city’s recourse is if construction isn’t completed. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, described two different scenarios. If the incomplete work relates to the infrastructure portion of the project – such as installing a water main – then the city can step in and complete the work, and bill the developer. If the bill is unpaid, the city can place a lien on the property. However, if the work that’s incomplete is a building or other parts of the development that don’t relate to city infrastructure, it’s considered a nuisance case – it’s trickier, she said, but the city would have the option of taking the developer to court.

Related to the site’s proximity to Whole Foods, Westphal said he could imagine pedestrians crossing Washtenaw Avenue either coming from or going to the Huron Village Plaza, where the grocery store is located. Rampson said that as part of the Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement project, there have been discussions about having a mid-block crossing along that stretch.

However, she said, a traffic engineer who’s looked at that section of Washtenaw is concerned about traffic “stacking” – vehicles backing up as they wait for pedestrians to cross mid-block. If there’s a stoplight installed at Washtenaw and Platt, that would ensure a safe pedestrian crossing, she noted. Pedestrians might still try to cross mid-block anyway, Rampson said, but since there’s a bus stop located close to the intersection, there’s a better chance that people would cross at the light.

From left: Planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods, and Diane Giannola review documents at their June 7, 2011 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Erica Briggs began her comments by saying it would obviously be a great improvement to have this development on the site. She shared Carlberg’s concerns about pedestrian safety along Washtenaw. Briggs also wondered whether the 23-foot easement on the north side of the parcel next to Washtenaw – to accommodate the sidewalk and a “tree lawn” – would also be sufficient for a bike lane at some point in the future.

Covert said a bike lane would need to use land intended for the tree lawn, which would be 10-12 feet wide. Briggs confirmed with Covert that the bike lane design would result in sacrificing the pedestrian experience in favor of cyclists.

Briggs also wondered whether there could be trails through the wetland area. Covert described the design as including a sidewalk that would wrap around the wetland, and a landscaped area for people to congregate on the east side of the wetland. But when he’s been physically on the site, the wetlands have been wet – there are no plans to put trails through it.

Finally, Briggs asked whether they had considered aligning the Washtenaw entrance/exit with the Whole Foods entrance/exit across Washtenaw Avenue – in the current design, you’d have a slight jog to get from one to the other, she noted. Covert said they looked at that possibility, but felt there’d be too much potential traffic conflict with people turning into and out of both spots, or trying to drive straight across.

Bonnie Bona spoke next, saying she would start with the “big question” – floor area ratio (FAR). She noted that the city had recently revised its area, height and placement (AHP) zoning. [City council approved the AHP amendments at its Jan. 3, 2011 meeting. FAR, a measure of density, is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to an FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in an FAR of 200%. For more background, see Chronicle coverage: "Zoning 101: Area, Height, Placement"]

The AHP changes include allowing for up to 200% FAR at that location, Bona said, but Arbor Hills Crossing has a FAR of 28%. ”What didn’t we do right?” she asked. ”What did we not do to encourage density on your site?”

It’s disappointing to see the site being underused, Bona said, especially considering the increased number of commuters coming into Ann Arbor. She noted that according to the 2010 census, there are 60,000 people commuting to Ann Arbor, compared to 45,000 commuters in 2000.

Tom Stegeman of Campus Realty came to the podium to respond to Bona. Financial feasibility and the project’s viability were paramount, he said, noting that the site plan for the previous development at that location proposed greater density – but the developer wasn’t able to build it. It would be nice to have more mixed-use options, including residential, but they have to respect market conditions, he said.

They’re confident they can build the proposed project, Stegeman said, and they won’t start construction until they have pre-leased the buildings and have their financing in place.

Bona said she would have preferred a more phased-in site plan, that would eventually have created a denser development, because whatever is built will likely be there for 50 years, she said. The site is also on the city’s most efficient bus route – Route 4, traveling between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – with the most frequent number of buses. It’s unfortunate that the project doesn’t take advantage of that, she said.

Turning to parking, Bona asked what it would have taken for them to have built a parking structure, rather than a surface lot. Stegeman said the expense of a structure, coupled with market demand, were the main factors.

Bona then asked if they’d considered providing vehicle access from their development to the site east of their land. Whenever possible, it’s important that interior connections are provided between developments, she said – that keeps at least some traffic off of Washtenaw. She urged them to explore that possibility.

Diane Giannola asked whether the project would be relying on brownfield tax credits – those are being eliminated by the state, she said. Her question was answered by Anne Jamieson-Urena, director of brownfield and redevelopment incentives for AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services. [Jamieson-Urena is also involved in the Packard Square project at the former Georgetown Mall site – Washtenaw County commissioners approved the brownfield plan and grant application for that project last month.]

Jamieson-Urena said it’s no longer feasible to seek brownfield tax credits, because of state legislative changes. However, brownfield status would still allow them to seek tax increment financing, which would offset costs of cleaning contaminated soil on the site.

Wendy Woods directed her initial comments at the project’s south side, noting that it adjoins property that will soon be used for a school. [At their May 17, 2011 meeting, planning commissioners approved a special exception use for the property at 2203 Platt. The approval allows Summers-Knoll – a private school for grades K-8 – to convert the office building there into a school.]

Woods said she could imagine there’d be conflicts with vehicles coming out of the school, near the Arbor Hills Crossing exit onto Platt. She suggested that perhaps left turns could be restricted at certain times of the day, when traffic might be higher coming out of the school.

Covert shared some traffic count data, and said they anticipated that peak hours for their development wouldn’t coincide with peak hours for the school. Stegeman said he’d talked multiple times with Ron Weiser – a Summers-Knoll supporter and founder of McKinley, a real estate development firm – and that they’ll continue to communicate regularly with representatives from the school as the project progresses.

Eric Mahler, chair of the planning commission, asked about the status of the traffic signal at Platt and Washtenaw. Covert reported that they had submitted a traffic report and their project plans to MDOT, and paid application fees. They’ve had discussions with several MDOT representatives, he said, but don’t have anything in writing about the traffic signal installation. He said they’ve also had many discussions with AATA about the bus pullout, and have resubmitted their plans for stormwater management to the county water resources commissioner – they expect approval on that part of the project soon.

In wrapping up the discussion, several commissioners weighed in with issues they’d like the developer to address – in addition to the issues that staff had identified. They included: (1) looking at future plans for bike lanes along Washtenaw Avenue, as identified in the city’s non-motorized transportation plan; (2) identifying possible access to the wetland area; (3) aligning the Washtenaw entrance/exit with the Whole Foods/Huron Village Plaza entrance/exit across the street; (4) exploring the possibility of getting an easement and opening up vehicle traffic to the property on the east side of the development; and (5) addressing the width of the sidewalks along Washtenaw to ensure a sufficient buffer for pedestrians.

Carlberg also suggested looking at alternatives for tree placement along Washtenaw, keeping in mind that bike lanes might be added in the future. Trees should be located so that they wouldn’t have to be taken down in the future to make room for a bike lane, she said, “because taking down trees in this city is like taking your life in your hands.”

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Arbor Hills Crossing site plan. No date has been set for reconsideration.

Feedback for Pittsfield Township Master Plan

Based on input from planning commissioners, city planning staff had drafted some comments to give to Pittsfield Township regarding the township’s draft master plan. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, asked commissioners for feedback on the document – which includes some questions and recommendations – before sending the memo to township officials. [.pdf of draft memo]

In particular, she wondered about the tone of the last recommendation – did it sound too defensive? Ann Arbor’s draft memo states:

The “Successful Economy” section indicates that, “Pittsfield Township has the critical advantage of being located to the immediate south of the City of Ann Arbor and providing an Ann Arbor mailing address while placing a much lower tax burden on businesses”. It should be noted that by far the largest tax burden on both City and Township businesses is for school systems, which the plan rightfully notes is competitive advantage for attracting residents. Given this fact, the statement can be interpreted as indicating that Pittsfield Township is a better place to do business than the City of Ann Arbor. This can also be interpreted as being inconsistent with language in the same chapter that emphasizes regional cooperation.

City of Ann Arbor taxpayers support the economic vitality of the region by subsidizing transit service to outlying communities, providing an outstanding park and recreation system available free of charge to Township residents, providing recycling and composting facilities that are available to township residents, maintaining roads and non-motorized facilities that township residents depend on to get to work and services, and contributing substantially to human service organizations that provide a safety net for County residents. The plan would be more successful in emphasizing inter-jurisdictional cooperation if it highlighted those things that the Township is doing to benefit the region rather than indicating that it is a better place to do business than the City of Ann Arbor.

Several commissioners weighed in, generally supportive of the statement. Evan Pratt indicated that while it was pointed, it wasn’t the first recommendation on the list. Wendy Woods noted that the statement is all true, and Diane Giannola added that it needs to be said – even if the township doesn’t respond to it.

Bonnie Bona suggested one additional word for the last sentence [indicated in italics]:

The plan would be more successful in emphasizing inter-jurisdictional cooperation if it also highlighted those things that the Township is doing to benefit the region rather than indicating that it is a better place to do business than the City of Ann Arbor.

Other minor changes in the draft were recommended – Rampson said she’d run the final version past Eric Mahler, the commission’s chair, before sending it to Pittsfield.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the revised response to Pittsfield Township’s master plan.

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

Absent: Tony Derezinski

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, June 21  at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city's planning staff, and Eric Mahler, newly elected chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, at the commission's July 8, 2010 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

That business included approval of revised area, height and placement (AHP) standards that have been under review for more than two years. The revisions have pulled back from some of the original proposals – for example, there’s no longer an uncapped building height in certain districts. It’s the first significant overhaul of these standards in roughly 50 years, with the goal of reflecting prevailing community values. The recommendations will now be forwarded to city council for final approval.

The planning commission also voted to postpone action on a project at the Kroger on South Maple. The grocery is adding a drive-thru pharmacy, and needs city approval to reconfigure its parking lot to accommodate the drive-thru lane. A few unresolved issues led commissioners to push back consideration until their July 20 meeting.

And the commission elected a new slate of officers, with local attorney Eric Mahler replacing architect Bonnie Bona as chair.

Area, Height & Placement

The fact that no one spoke during the meeting’s public hearing on changes to the city’s area, height and placement standards might be attributable to the July 4th holiday week, or it could be related to the multiple public forums held on the topic over the past year, most recently on June 16, 2010. [For a primer on AHP, see Chronicle coverage: "Zoning 101: Area, Height, Placement." Additional information is on a page of the city's website dedicated to the AHP revision process.]

Revisions to these standards have been in the works since 2007, when the planning commission and staff started looking at doing a comprehensive update – for the first time in more than 50 years. The rationale for making revisions is summarized in a planning staff report that accompanied the proposed changes:

More recently, best practices in urban planning and environmental design recommend a more sustainable approach to land use practices including: a) more compact use of land and infrastructure, b) the preservation of natural systems, c) accommodating new growth along transit corridors in existing urban areas which have existing infrastructure, d) locating buildings closer to the right-of-way to promote non-motorized access, and e) mixed land uses. The challenge that decision makers in Ann Arbor now face is that current ordinances related to area, height and placement do not encourage these land use practices.

After working with an advisory committee, in the summer of 2008 the planning commission passed a recommendation for initial revisions.

Planning staff presented the recommendations to a city council work session in September 2008, and got direction from council to get additional public input about the changes. Eight public workshops were held, and at its Dec. 7, 2009 meeting, the council passed a resolution kicking the issue back to the planning commission for further consideration. Since then, planning staff and the commission’s ordinance revisions committee have been working on further revisions. Those revisions were presented to the full commission at their July 8 meeting.

AHP: Proposed Changes to Draft

Based on public input, as well as staff and committee review, there are a raft of proposed changes to the AHP amendments that were originally drafted. [.pdf of summarized list of substantive AHP changes and .pdf of complete revisions] Here’s a general overview of some of the current proposed changes:

• Area: “Area” is a measure of density, specifically using a floor-area ratio (FAR). FAR is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to an FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in an FAR of 200%. Originally, three retail zoning districts had a proposed FAR of 200%, an increase compared to the current maximum of 40-50%. Some of those increases were scaled back under the revised draft. Now, the proposed FARs are: 1) 100% in the C1 retail district; 2) 150% in the C1B retail district; and 3) 200% in the C3 retail district.
• Height: Building heights in four zoning districts – office, retail, research, and research & light industrial – had originally been proposed as uncapped, but now have height limits of 55 feet and four stories. The maximum height for hotel districts – originally proposed for 120 feet – now have height limits of 50 feet, or up to 80 if there is parking below at least 35% of the building. The maximum height in the C2B (business service) zoning district has been reduced from 60 feet to 55 feet.
• Placement/Setbacks: “Placement” regulations govern where a building can be constructed within a particular lot, and are expressed in terms of “setbacks.” For example, a 25-foot minimum front setback would mean that a building needs to have a 25-foot buffer between it and the front lot line. There are several setback changes proposed. In the original proposal, setbacks in two retail zoning districts – C1 and C1B – had no minimum setback, compared to the existing 25-foot minimum. Now, the minimum setback is proposed at 10 feet.

Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff is the point person for the AHP initiative, and gave the staff report to commissioners.

No one spoke during a public hearing on the AHP changes. Earlier in the meeting, Rampson had said that the official notice of the meeting had included an incorrect start time – 7 p.m. – which might result in people coming late. Though planning commission meetings typically start at 7 p.m., Thursday’s meeting began at 6 p.m. to accommodate the change of venue. However, no one arrived to address the commission – there were no speakers during the final opportunity for general public commentary, either.

AHP: Commissioner Discussion

During their discussion of the AHP changes, commissioners primarily asked clarificational questions and gave some feedback, but did not suggest substantive revisions.

Evan Pratt asked a question about instances when a “skinny” piece of land doesn’t abut a residential property, but comes close. He asked whether they could modify the language to indicate a distance, rather than specify only parcels that abut residential.

Pratt was referring to the following changes, as outlined in a memo from the planning staff:

• Increase side and rear setbacks where non-residential abuts residentially zoned land from 20’ to 30’ wherever 20’ was required

• Require additional 1 foot side and rear setback for each 1 foot of building height above 30’ (e.g. a new 55’ building abutting residential would need to be set back 55’ from the residential property line)

• Restore the 100’ setback requirement for RE (Research) for side and rear setbacks

• Proposed adding modifications to Chapter 62 (Landscaping & Screening) in the following manner: a) add multiple family uses to those uses requiring a conflicting land use buffer when abutting residential property; b) increase the number of required trees in the conflicting land use buffer from 1 tree per 20 lineal feet to 1 tree per 15 lineal feet. This change is being coordinated with Public Services (Systems Planning) which is currently pursuing amendments to Chapter 62.

Kahan said he could talk to Kerry Gray and Jerry Hancock, members of the city staff who are handling revisions to Chapter 62. The overall goal is to provide a buffer to residential areas, he said.

Pratt next asked whether the lower building height for hotels (R5 zoning districts) was in response to public input. He noted that those parcels don’t seem to be imposing on any residential areas. Kahan confirmed that the R5 districts are proximate to freeways: the South State corridor at I-94, Plymouth Road at US-23, and Jackson Road at I-94. The main concern from the public had been uncapping height limits, he said. Responding to a follow-up from Pratt, he clarified that there are no FAR restrictions in those districts – there are no limits to a building’s massing.

Pratt said that Ann Arbor isn’t currently a big hotel town, but looking to the future, that might change.

Bonnie Bona spoke next, noting that other than Kahan, she was the only other person on the commission who’d been around throughout the long AHP process. The longer they’ve worked on it, she said, the more it feels like they’re going backwards – but that’s not the case. The current changes are a step back from a year ago, but are far better than the existing standards.

She made several observations about the revisions – noting, for example, that restrictions to height limitations in R4 (residential) districts do not include the R4C district. That’s because a separate study committee is looking at revisions to R4C and R2A districts.

Overall, “we’ve come a long way with this,” Bona said, adding that she thinks it will reduce number of planned projects that are proposed. [Planned projects are those requiring zoning variances, but not a rezoning as with planned unit developments.]

Diane Giannola raised a question about an additional one-foot setback requirement:

Require additional 1 foot side and rear setback for each 1 foot of building height above 30’ (e.g. a new 55’ building abutting residential would need to be set back 55’ from the residential property line)

Not many parcels – other than Georgetown Mall on Packard – would fit into this category, she noted. She wondered why it was necessary to include it, given that there were so few parcels to which the requirement would apply.

Kahan cited a few other applicable properties: The Colonnade on Eisenhower, the Cranbrook shopping plaza at Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower, the Busch’s plaza on Green Road. These “micro-sized” lots won’t be able to easily build up to 55 feet, he noted, unless they put parking underground, which is expensive. Smaller developers won’t likely take advantage of the extra height option, but larger developers would be able to afford it.

Jean Carlberg added that in looking toward potential future development, there needed to be those safeguards on height and setback.

Planning commissioners Evan Pratt, left, and Kirk Westphal at the July 8, 2010 planning commission meeting.

Kirk Westphal asked about changes in the C2B retail district. FAR isn’t changing, but rear setbacks are going from none to 30 feet when abutting residential, plus an extra foot for every additional foot of height. He wondered whether that would pose an additional hardship for property owners – for example, along Stadium Boulevard. In other districts, there’s been an increase in FAR to promote compact development closer to the street.

Kahan said that overall, the intent is not only to increase workability, but also to ensure consistency among the city’s employment and commercial districts. He noted that a big plus is the large reduction in the required front setback – a minimum of 40 feet is being reduced to 10. They’re hoping that it will increase pedestrian-oriented development, Kahan said, with buildings positioned closer to the street and away from neighborhoods.

Westphal said he’d forgotten about the dramatic decrease in front setbacks.

Eric Mahler said he was a little confused about the phrase “below at least 35% of the building,” in reference to parking. Kahan clarified that at least 35% of the building’s footprint would need to include underground parking, in order to gain height premiums in certain districts. The intent is to encourage putting parking underground, he said.

Wendy Woods noted that there had been a lot of public input and staff input in this process, and that it truly was a community effort. She applauded planning staff for attending the many public meetings on the topic.

Outcome: Changes to the area, height and placement standards were unanimously approved. The city council will consider and vote on the issue at an upcoming meeting before the changes can take effect.

After the vote, Mahler wrapped up by saying, “That long saga comes to an end – good work.”

Kroger Site Plan Postponed

Owners of the Kroger store on South Maple, near the Westgate Shopping Center, want to add a drive-thru pharmacy on the south side of the building, and need city approval to reconfigure the parking lot to add a drive-thru lane.

The proposal includes widening the driveway along the south side of the building, and removing 14 of the 22 existing parking spaces there. Even after eliminating those spaces, the site will have 42 spaces more than the maximum allowed by code. [The grocery store site pre-dates changes to zoning that imposed a maximum number of parking spaces.] The existing walkway and landscaped areas will be reconfigured, with a pedestrian walkway flowing through an island that’s encircled by the pharmacy drive-thru lane. Bicycle parking will be moved to the front of the store.

Staff is proposing modifications to the driveway width and configuration, narrowing a proposed east-west lane from 35 feet to 26 feet.

The planning staff presentation was made by Alexis DiLeo, and the staff recommendation was for postponement.

Kroger Site Plan: Public Hearing

Two representatives of the Kroger project spoke during the public hearing.

Jeffery Scott, an architect based in Farmington, is working on the Kroger addition and spoke to the planning commission about the project at their July 8 meeting.

Jeffery Scott introduced himself as the architect on the project. He explained that trucks going back to the store’s loading dock often jump the curb on the southwest corner, and the reconfiguration would give those semis a wider turning radius. He said he was confident that they could tweak the project to the city’s satisfaction, with the caution that they didn’t want to make the overall configuration “too curvy.” He asked that the planning commission approve the project, contingent on “fine tuning” some of the details with city staff.

Stephan Hennard of Kroger’s Michigan operations, based in Novi, introduced himself and indicated he was there to answer questions, if commissioners had any.

Kroger Site Plan: Commissioner Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by asking for additional clarification from Scott about the driveway width. Scott said the site plan proposes to widen the driveway to allow trucks more room to maneuver. Bona indicated that the city staff would work with Kroger on that.

She then asked whether Kroger considered moving the parking spaces further west, noting that there’s 32 additional feet beyond the end of the parking area. She also wondered whether they could eliminate one or two of the parking spots along that stretch. DiLeo said they hadn’t considered that, but it might be possible, given the excess amount of parking on the overall site. She said the staff wouldn’t mind if all the spaces were removed from the south side and replaced with landscaping – a suggestion that Bona endorsed.

Wendy Woods agreed with Bona that reducing some of the parking to the west of the drive-thru would be good. She was concerned that customers parking in those spots would have to walk across the drive-thru lane in order to get to the store’s entrance. She was also concerned about pushing carts along that path in inclement weather. Scott noted that the volume for drive-thru customers isn’t high – typically four cars per hour, on a good day.

Woods asked whether the pharmacy would be open 24/7. Hennard indicated that the pharmacy would close at 9 p.m. on Monday-Saturday, and at 6 p.m. on Sunday. Responding to other queries, he said that there is lighting on that side of the building, and that there would be yield signs and pavement markings to guide both traffic and pedestrians.

A site plan detail of the proposed pharmacy drive-thru at the Kroger on South Maple Road. (Links to larger image)

Erica Briggs wondered whether it would be possible to remove the parking spaces along the store’s southwest side, saying it’s potentially confusing for customers to have parking there. She also asked whether the sidewalk next to the parking was envisioned as a staff break area.

Hennard said that Kroger could mark those spots as employee-only parking. The area next to the parking has picnic tables and is the only outside break area for staff, he said.

Earlier in the discussion, Tony Derezinski had noted that they needed to decide between two options: 1) approve the site plan, contingent on working out any unresolved issues, and 2) postpone the vote. He pointed out that Scott would like to know generally whether the commission approves of the project, and it seemed that they did, he said. Derezinski then asked DiLeo whether this could be brought up at the commission’s next meeting – was there sufficient time to wrap things up by then?

DiLeo noted that the next regular meeting was on July 20, and if they canceled their Aug. 3 meeting [which they did, later in the meeting], then the next meeting after that was Aug. 17. Two weeks would be tight, she said, and there are no guarantees that they could finish, but they’d make every effort.

DiLeo said there were five outstanding issues to address, including 1) coming to agreement about modifying the driveway width; 2) updating the “existing conditions” sheet to reflect the current site, specifically showing the wireless communications tower, accessory buildings and enclosure; 3) revising a comparison chart to include all variances that had been previously granted for the site; and 4) showing documentation that Kroger will get a temporary grading easement from the adjacent property owner.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone the project until their July 20, 2010 meeting.

New Officers Elected, Election Day Meeting Canceled

The commission elected a slate of new officers at their July 8 meeting, which had been moved from Tuesday to Thursday because of the July 5 holiday. Slips of paper were distributed for anonymous voting, but when it became clear that none of the seats were contested, they bagged the written ballots and held elections by a show of hands.

Eric Mahler is the new chair, taking over from Bonnie Bona. Vice chair is Kirk Westphal, and Diane Giannola was elected secretary. Bona walked over to Mahler, handed him the wooden gavel, shook his hand – and once again, a smooth democratic transition was secured.

Diane Giannola, the planning commission's newly elected secretary, proposed canceling their Aug. 3 meeting to accommodate the primary election.

Later in the meeting, another organizational issue emerged. Giannola proposed canceling the commission’s Aug. 3 meeting, since it falls on the date of the primary elections. Giannola said that in general, she didn’t think that any city business should be done on that day, in order to give people the chance to vote.

Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff indicated that things were pretty quiet – the Kroger site plan was the only item coming up that she was aware of. Giannola asked whether they could make it a standard practice not to schedule meetings on primary election days – it would be consistent with the practice of not holding meetings on the date of the November general election. Bona said that one good thing about having it as a standing practice is that they could set their official meeting calendar with that in mind, rather than setting the date and then canceling it.

Tony Derezinski said it would be possible to consider, given that they were currently revising their bylaws. But he noted that the next batch of commissioners might have a different view, and perhaps they’d want the flexibility to make that call themselves.

Mahler suggested running the question by the city attorney’s office. A vote to cancel the Aug. 3, 2010 meeting passed unanimously.

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

Bonnie Bona, chair of Ann Arbor's city planning commission, listens to a presentation about Zaragon Place 2. A rendering of the proposed project is on the screen in the background, viewed from the William Street perspective. (Photos by the writer.)

The project – to be located at the southeast corner of William and Thompson, next to Cottage Inn restaurant – drew support from two representatives of neighboring businesses, who said they were eager for new residents to arrive as potential customers. The site has been vacant and considered blighted for more than a decade.

Unlike recent proposals for two other residential developments – Heritage Row and The Moravian – Zaragon Place 2 does not require special zoning and has not faced opposition from neighborhood groups.

Some of the discussion by commissioners centered on the 40 parking spaces to be provided within the structure, as well as 40 spaces for bikes in a secured storage room. The ground level will include retail space fronting William. Also as part of the project, the city’s parks unit is asking the developer for $48,000 to help pay for new parks in the area, or to enhance existing parks.

In other business, the commission approved a special exemption use for Big Shot Fireworks to set up a tent in front of the Quarter Bistro, in the Westgate Shopping Center. Commissioners were schooled in fireworks-related legislation – anything that spins, explodes or leaves the ground can’t be sold in Michigan to the general public.

And a rezoning of a previously unzoned parcel on Jackson Avenue – site of the former Barnard Plating factory, next to Hillside Terrace Retirement Center – passed without discussion.

Finally, the commission discussed and passed a resolution that more formally outlines their plan to work with the city’s environmental and energy commissions toward the goal of building a sustainable Ann Arbor. It’s the outgrowth of a joint meeting the three commissions held in April, and was characterized by planning commission chair Bonnie Bona as the beginning of a community conversation about sustainability.

Zaragon Place 2:

Rick Perlman, the Chicago-based developer of Zaragon Place – a 10-story apartment building on East University – is proposing a second structure on the west side of campus, dubbed Zaragon Place 2. The new 96,685-square-foot residential building would be 14 stories tall, located on the southwest corner of Thompson and William – now an empty lot next to Cottage Inn restaurant.

The building meets the site’s D1 zoning, and is therefore a “by-right” project – no rezoning is required. It is the first project to move forward under the city’s new A2D2 zoning regulations, and would include 99 units, 40 parking spaces on levels two and three, 40 spots for bike storage in a secured room on the third level, and ground floor retail space facing William Street. The apartment entrance, along with an entrance to the parking levels, would be on the Thompson Street side. Each of the floors from levels four through 14 would include nine apartments: one 4-bedroom unit, six 2-bedroom units, and two 1-bedroom units.

According to the staff report, the city’s parks and recreation unit is asking developers to contribute $48,000 toward acquiring or enhancing parkland near the development.

In describing the project to commissioners, Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff mentioned some outstanding issues: A traffic impact statement that’s under review; the possible need to relocate the building’s fire hydrant; and additional modeling being done to look at the project’s impact on the sanitary sewer system.

During their deliberations, commissioners praised the project, with only relatively minor criticisms and suggestions. Several commented on the lack of opposition to the development – in contrast to two other recent controversial projects that have come before the commission and the city council: Heritage Row and The Moravian. General support for Zaragon Place 2 was also evident at a public meeting in April held by the project team and attended by several residents who have strongly opposed Heritage Row and The Moravian – in contrast, they said they supported Zaragon Place 2, citing the appropriateness of its location. [See Chronicle coverage: "Zaragon, Heritage Row and The Moravian"]

Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, speaks in favor of Zaragon Place 2.

Zaragon Place 2: Public Commentary

Five people spoke during the public hearing on Zaragon Place 2 – all of them in favor of the project.

Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, said that when he came to town 15 years ago, there were three blighted properties in that area: An abandoned Olga’s restaurant at the southeast corner of State and Washington, a former McDonald’s building on Maynard, and an empty bank at the southeast corner of Thompson and William. The first two properties have since been developed – Zaragon Place 2 would complete the redevelopment of those three sites. In March, the association’s board unanimously voted to support the project, he reported. While he couldn’t speak for all his members, Heywood said that the vast majority of them are overjoyed, to say the least. The association is looking forward to having them as members.

Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, the Southfield firm that’s designing this project, reviewed several of the building’s design features. He described it as a sister building to Zaragon Place on East University, and noted that they planned to use essentially the same materials as they did for Zaragon Place. He pointed out some design differences between ZP2 and the original Zaragon – all the bedrooms in the new building would have at least one window, for example, and they’ll use clear glass for the street level retail space. The structure will be fully compliant with the city’s new D1-D2 zoning, he said, as well as with the draft design guidelines that the city is developing.

Roger Hewitt said he’s been operating businesses in the State Street area for 25 years or so. [He owns the Red Hawk restaurant on State Street, as well as a café and market called revive + replenish in the ground floor of Zaragon Place, on East University. He is also a board member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.] Hewitt said he strongly supports this project. There used to be a wonderful mix of retail in that area, but strip malls have pulled away business and it’s been clear that they need denser housing to have a vibrant urban area. He said he’s been pushing for that over the past several years, as a member of the A2D2 steering committee. He could not be happier that a quality building like this is being proposed. It will be a boon to the area, he said, and everyone is looking forward to having the new residents as customers.

Reporting from the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, Ray Detter said the group had seen a presentation of the project at their May meeting, and strongly supported it. By complying with D1 zoning, the building meets the community’s expectations for downtown density, he said. It requires no zoning variances, and meets the design guidelines that are being drafted. They recognize that these units don’t qualify as affordable housing, but the city will just have to satisfy its commitment to affordable housing on other sites, he said. For all of these reasons, the DACAC supports the project.

Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting, the project’s civil engineer, described several elements of the site plan. An easement on the south and east sides will provide access for the neighboring Cottage Inn restaurant. The project meets all D1 zoning requirements. It will include streetscape improvements per Downtown Development Authority standards, he said, including light fixtures in excess of what’s required. If the retail space becomes a café, they anticipate sidewalk dining, he said. They are installing a stormwater management system that’s already been approved by the county’s water resources commissioner, and it should help address issues in the Allen Creek watershed. There’s no open space, he said, but the developer is including a fitness center in lieu of that. Betzoldt said the issues that staff has raised are very small problems, and they don’t anticipate any difficulty in addressing them.

Zaragon Place 2: Commissioner Deliberations

Tony Derezinski began by calling Zaragon Place 2 an impressive project. It’s the first one done under the new zoning ordinance, he noted, and tests how a by-right project meets those new requirements. Based on staff reports, it’s clear that’s been done, he said. There’s also a model of success, he said – Zaragon Place 1 – both in the building’s design and the fact that there’s a high occupancy rate. He joked that in the drawings for Zaragon Place 2, it shows people crossing the street to the church, so it will be good for that “business” as well. He said he was particularly happy to see the report about a public meeting held by the developer – it showed that there was strong support by people who attended, including some who have opposed other developments in the past.

Jean Carlberg asked about noise complaints that the city had received from residents of other buildings, such as the Lofts on State Street. How were those issues being addressed in this new project? Bonney said there had been complaints at Zaragon Place, too. He described a variety of retrofits that they’d done on Zaragon Place, including door sweeps and the addition of insulation between the walls. For Zaragon Place 2, they’ll be doing those things and more, he said. They’ll use more solid materials between the units – solid concrete, rather than concrete block, for example – and they’ll install baffles in the air ducts to buffer noise.

Carlberg said she was glad to hear this, and asked that they outline these measures before the plan goes to city council. It would be good to have this information on hand so that city staff can use it the next time a similar project comes along.

She then asked about the problem of melting ice dripping from the roof on Zaragon Place. Bonney said they are modifying the design of the cornice for the new building so that water would be diverted into a gutter system. The cornice is made of fiberglass, which is slicker than stone and makes it easier for ice to form.

Carlberg asked why Zaragon Place has been successful in getting full tenancy, and what makes them think that Zaragon Place 2 will be successful. She also asked where the students’ cars end up – or don’t the student tenants have cars? she asked.

Bonney said Zaragon Place offers an alternative to other housing – dorms, or older apartments. Zaragon uses higher-quality materials, fully furnished units with Italian cabinetry, granite countertops and other amenities. Students are tired of older apartments, he said – they want to feel that this is their first home away from home, that it’s a special place. Plus, the location is superb, he said.

Regarding cars, he said the building’s parking meets D1 requirements. There are a lot of public parking structures nearby, but most of the tenants don’t own cars – that’s the beauty of living in a walkable town, he said. Students and young professionals want that type of location. Carlberg asked how many tenants in Zaragon Place use public parking structures.

The building manager for Zaragon Place, Liza Lax, came to the podium to answer the question. The 40 parking spaces in the building are all filled, she reported, and there were about 10 more people who wanted spots. They were referred to Republic Parking, which manages the city’s municipal lots. Lax said she also pointed people to the university’s off-campus housing website, which provides information on parking spots for sale in the area. It hasn’t been a big issue, she said.

Carlberg noted that the site plan shows trees on the north side of the building. When the DDA puts in trees, it doesn’t put them on the north sides of streets, she said, because there’s not enough sunlight. She wondered if they’d discussed whether trees can actually grow there. Betzoldt said the trees selected for that location are hornbeams, and don’t require a lot of light.

Eric Mahler asked for further explanation about the stormwater system planned for the site. Betzoldt said since the building footprint covered almost the entire site, they were mainly detaining roof drainage, which would be routed down through the building into underground storage tanks. From there it would discharge into a public storm sewer – meeting all county water resources guidelines.

Mahler then asked about the parking ramp – how wide is it, and what’s the grade? Betzoldt said the ramp had a 9% grade, similar to Zaragon Place, and the lane is about 16 feet wide.

Mahler said his concern is that the floor-to-area ratio (FAR) – at 681.5% – is very high, but his concerns are far outweighed by the parking arrangement, which is highly desirable, and the density it adds, which the city is always clamoring for. He said it doesn’t go unnoticed that there’s no significant opposition to the project, which is “no mean feat.” He liked the fact that they wrote LEED certification, to some extent, into the development agreement, which he finds commendable.

Wendy Woods wondered how they’ll address concerns raised by the fire department about the names of the two buildings, which could be easily confused. She said she’s done ride-alongs with the fire department, and you wouldn’t want there to be confusion when they make a run. Betzoldt agreed that it could be confusing, though the names are different, he noted – the new building is Zaragon Place 2. They’re relying on a brand and banking on the success of Zaragon Place, he said. He noted that when he looks in the phone book, he can find a dozen McDonald’s, eight to 10 Cottage Inns, four Krogers – in all of those cases, people have to be clear about the location when they call for help.

Woods said that because it’s a high-rise, there will be more people possibly at risk, which increases the need for clarity. She noted that within the past year, there was a fire that resulted in someone’s death – in part, because there was confusion about the address. It wouldn’t stop her from supporting the project, but she wanted to raise those concerns. “It works until it doesn’t work,” she said. Betzoldt said they might want to do some education with the building manager and residents, to ensure that people are specific about the address.

Woods also asked about the bicycle room. Bonney clarified that there would be a secured storage room for 40 bicycles on the third floor parking level. Originally they had tried to find a location on the ground floor, he said, but it’s a tight site. At Zaragon Place, they’ve found that students will either park on the street or they’ll use the elevators to take bikes to their apartments. [The bike storage room there is in an underground parking level.] Bonney said they believe at the new building, students will use the oversized elevators to go to the third floor storage area.

Woods clarified that the parking levels are open to the air. The bicycle room, however, is enclosed, with glass windows.

Evan Pratt said he liked the high amount of glass on the building’s facade, and its contemporary look. He wondered if any of the windows opened. All living rooms and bedrooms have windows that open, Bonney said.

Pratt then pointed out that the retail space on the street level is recessed – what’s the reason for that? He noted that there’s a lot at 1 Huron Street lot that is recessed, and doesn’t seem to work well, from the pedestrian’s perspective. Bonney said the city’s draft design guidelines state that if a sidewalk is 12 feet wide, they can widen 80% of the building’s facade by 4 feet. They wanted the option for outdoor dining, he said, and a bit of a protected area at the entrance. At the corner, it’s pulled back a little more, Bonney said, to 8 feet – that’s so the design can meet the guidelines for creating architectural interest by modulating the facades.

Kirk Westphal picked up on Pratt’s comments, saying he appreciated that the draft design guidelines were taken into account. He noted the cornice on the building’s west side, and wondered why they didn’t put a continuing cornice along the north, east and south facades. Bonney said the cornice wraps slightly around the north and south sides, but that the intent was to visually orient the building to the west side, facing Thompson Street. He said that since it’s a corner lot, the design also serves to distinguish the Maynard side from the Thompson side.

Westphal said it certainly is different, but that in his experience working on the design guidelines, there still should be a defining element that goes all the way around the top of the building. He said he appreciated the transparency on the major first-floor facades. However, he noted in the area that might be used for outdoor dining, people would be staring at a solid wall. He asked if the wall needs to be solid. Yes, Bonney said – structurally, it needs to be load-bearing.

Finally, Westphal commented that the aesthetic of the recessed area “doesn’t remind me of the strongest retail or restaurant areas in our town.” Bonney said it’s possible that the area might be enhanced with a canopy, depending on the tenant. He clarified that no one has committed to leasing the space yet. Westphal expressed his personal hope that it wouldn’t become a bank. He described it as a great project and a real enhancement to the neighborhood.

Erica Briggs echoed other commissioners’ comments about it being a wonderful project. She asked whether they would have put in 40 parking spaces if they hadn’t been required to do so, or if they would have preferred to use that space for additional residences. Bonney said they think it’s the right amount, especially with nearby parking in the underground structure being built next to the library.

Briggs also asked about bike parking – is the same amount provided in the original Zaragon Place? Bonney said it’s the same amount, but perhaps because the Zaragon Place bike storage is in the lower level parking, people are more reluctant to use it. People like to take their expensive bikes to their residences. Briggs said she suspected the convenience or security isn’t there – even secured bike rooms might have problems with theft, and she encouraged them to think of ways to make it as secure as possible.

She said it looked like they were doing just the minimum amount of bike parking, and with about 200 residents, more than 40 bike spaces would be a benefit. Bonney noted that there are also 10 spaces in front of the building – Briggs clarified that she was referring to secured spaces. Was there room for more in the storage room? Bonney said the room is spacious and the spaces aren’t crammed, so in theory there would be room for more wall storage. There are also little nooks and crannies elsewhere in the garage, where spaces could be added.

Briggs said she didn’t know how much the spaces were used, so it was hard to know what the demand would be like. Bonney then noted that in the north campus apartment complex that they designed, called The Courtyards – there are 900 units and spaces for 40 bikes. Only two bikes are stored there, he said – “way less than we thought it would be.”

“All right,” Briggs quipped, “I’ll stop talking.”

Diane Giannola spoke next, saying she thought it was a wonderful project, and agreeing with other commissioners’ comments. She asked for a view and description of the building’s east side, which Bonney provided.

Bonnie Bona wrapped up the discussion. She mentioned the issue that Woods had raised about clarifying the address, and said that as a planning issue, she wanted to encourage them to use an address that matched the entrance to the apartments. She pointed to the Lofts on State Street as an example of something that didn’t work – the door on the building’s State Street side has a sign saying that residents should use the Washington Street entrance, which she described as “the dumbest, ugliest door.”

She said she noticed that the alley behind the building toward Cottage Inn is an easement. Giving alley access to the backs of other buildings would be good – she thanked them for making that an easement. She said she appreciated her fellow commissioners’ concerns about the sidewalk width, but noted that in that neighborhood, sidewalks tend to be a bit too-narrow – she’s more okay with it at that location than she would be in other parts of the city.

Regarding design issues, Bona said that the intent of the design guidelines – to have a “top” design element around most of the building – hasn’t been met in Zaragon Place 2. It looks like half of the building doesn’t have a top, she said. When she looks at the drawings, it reminds her of Ashley Terrace, which has a heavy bottom and looks like they didn’t finish building it. It won’t make any difference in the planning commission’s vote, she said, but she encouraged them to address that design issue before bringing the project to city council.

Derezinski then asked when the project would come before city council. DiLeo said it depends on how quickly the developers can address the few outstanding issues that staff had identified. It would be Aug. 5 at the earliest, she said, but possibly not until September.

Derezinski then asked what the timetable would be for construction. Bonney said they’d start as soon as possible, applying for a building permit not long after getting final approval. They’d hope to start in the fall, and it’s about an 18-24-month construction period, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the site plan for Zaragon Place 2. The city council will consider the proposal at an upcoming meeting, likely in August.

Big Shot Fireworks

Earlier in the meeting, commissioners considered a special exemption use request for Big Shot Fireworks to set up a tent in front of the Quarter Bistro, in the Westgate Shopping Center. This is the second recent special exemption use request at the shopping center – at its May 18, 2010 meeting, the planning commission approved a request for the Westside Farmers Market, which operates on Thursday afternoons next to Zingerman’s Roadhouse.

The owner of Big Shot Fireworks wants to set up a 30-foot by 50-foot tent in the parking lot, facing South Maple Road, to sell Class C fireworks and other items. The business would be open from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, with longer hours – until midnight – during the week before July 4.

The permit would be valid for one calendar year. Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff said that the business has operated there since 2006, and the city has received no complaints about it. No one spoke during the public hearing for the request.

Fireworks: Commissioner Deliberations

Jean Carlberg asked how signs would be handled. Rudy Rodriguez, Jr. of Big Shot Fireworks said there would be temporary banners along the bottom of the tent and near the curb area. Carlberg said she didn’t like fireworks, but had learned that these are legal. She found it reassuring to know that there hadn’t been complaints in previous years.

Bonnie Bona asked for clarification of the differences between Class A, B and C fireworks. Rodriguez explained that in Michigan, you need permits to use Class A and B fireworks – anything that spins, explodes or leaves the ground can’t be sold in the state to the general public. There’s the possibility that state law governing fireworks will be changed, he said – if it does, then they would no longer be able to sell in a tent, and would need to find a permanent, indoor facility. He later noted that the tent they use is made of fire retardant material, and that they have a million-dollar insurance policy for the location.

Wendy Woods asked if they would sell apparel as well – Rodriguez said they would. He added that they would likely return to the location for special events – if a sports team wins a championship, for example – to sell specialty items. Each time they put up the tent anew, they are required to have new inspections by the fire marshal, he noted.

Woods asked if there are age restrictions regarding their customers for fireworks. Rodriguez said that it was funny – you have to be 18 years old to sell fireworks, but there are no age requirements to buy them.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the special exemption use request, which will now be forwarded to the city council.

Rezoning Jackson Road Property

A 1.2-acre parcel at 1943 Jackson Avenue, west of Hillside Terrace Retirement Center, is unzoned. The city’s planning staff recommended that it be rezoned to R4C (multi-family dwelling), compatible with the surrounding residential area and recommended in the city’s West Area plan. The site – the former location for the Barnard Plating factory – includes a single-family home and a brick building. According to the staff report, the property owner has indicated that the proposed rezoning is acceptable.

No one spoke at the public hearing, and there was no discussion among commissioners about the item.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved a recommendation that 1943 Jackson Road be rezoned from an unzoned property to R4C (multi-family dwelling). The rezoning request will be forwarded to the city council for approval at an upcoming meeting.

Resolution on Sustainability

Following the vote on Zaragon Place 2, the commission considered a resolution that was an outgrowth of efforts by leaders of three city commissions: planning, environmental and energy. The three commissions held a joint working session on sustainability in April, discussing ways that the groups can work together. [See Chronicle coverage: "Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor"]

Bonnie Bona, who chairs the planning commission, drafted a resolution that commissioners initially discussed at their June 8 working session. The intent is to outline how the three commissions will coordinate toward the goal of incorporating sustainability into their work, and possibly broadening that scope to include other city commissions and the University of Michigan. [.pdf of sustainability resolution]

There are five resolved clauses:

Resolved, the City Planning Commission will seek input from the Environmental Commission and Energy Commission regarding policy recommendations for Master Plan updates, planning studies and zoning ordinance revisions, at the discretion of the Planning Commission chair, which promote a broader view of sustainability.

Resolved, the City Planning Commission will request participation by a representative from the Environmental Commission and the Energy Commission in the Citizen Outreach Committee’s efforts to broaden the community-wide discussion of planning.

Resolved, the City Planning Commission Chair will be available to meet periodically, as deemed necessary, with the Chair of the Environmental Commission and the Chair of the Energy Commission to discuss progress on joint commission coordination toward a sustainable Ann Arbor and to consider this coordination with other City commissions, the University of Michigan’s sustainability representatives and other regional representatives.

Resolved, the City Planning Commission representative on the Environmental Commission will keep each commission updated on policy recommendations being considered by the other commission.

Resolved, the City Planning Commission requests a supporting resolution for joint coordination toward a sustainable Ann Arbor by the Environmental Commission and Energy Commission.

Tony Derezinski began by saying he still had the same concerns he had originally voiced at the June 8 working session – namely, that the resolution added steps to the commission’s process that, if not met, could leave the city vulnerable. He specifically objected to the first resolved clause, and said he thought they had agreed not to include the reference to zoning ordinance revisions.

He said it’s not that he’s against the concept of sustainability – though he thought there had been discussion that it should be defined. But given the language of the resolution, it wasn’t one he could support.

Jean Carlberg said it didn’t seem to her that the resolution made it a mandatory process – it doesn’t set timeframes or require a response. She didn’t see it as creating new strictures, so she wasn’t troubled by it.

Eric Mahler agreed with Derezinski that adding any process that isn’t mandated by law, especially related to a legally binding thing like an ordinance, is a little troubling. But the phrase “at the discretion of the chair” adds some leeway, he said. The commission could just seek input from other commissions – they didn’t have to wait for it. He was okay with the language, saying that there was enough “clever drafting” to make him comfortable with it.

Kirk Westphal congratulated Bona on her work, and said it was a big step that a lot of folks had been meaning to take, but no one else had. He said he shared some of the concerns of the attorneys on the commission – Derezinski and Mahler – and asked whether the resolution could be brought to bear in any legal process.

Wendy Rampson, head of the planning staff, started off by saying that she was not providing legal advice. She said the resolution simply directed staff to seek input from the two other commissions. If it becomes a concern, she added, then future commissions can simply vote it out. She said she didn’t know if someone could fault them for not following the process, from a legal standpoint.

Westphal said he was comfortable with it as is.

Wendy Woods asked whether the citizen outreach committee had met yet, and whether they saw a role for the other two commissions in their work. Erica Briggs, who’s on that committee, replied that it’s great to have the energy and environmental commissions as part of the community-wide discussion of planning, and since the resolution doesn’t tie it directly to sustainability, they would just be part of the broader discussion. Perhaps even more commissions can be involved, she said, talking about how to do outreach well and how to reach a broader segment of the community.

Woods pointed out that the resolution is related to sustainability. She asked for examples of previous decisions that the planning commission made that would have benefited from input from the other commissions.

Evan Pratt cited the flood plain ordinance, which they ran past the environmental commission. Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, took the flood plain ordinance to that commission, to get their feedback.

Rampson said when they were working on the A2D2 zoning, looking at “green” premiums, the planning staff was trying to get a sense of the best metrics to use – LEED certification or some other method. They approached both the environmental and energy commissions for input on that, she said. This resolution would just formalize that approach.

Westphal, who also serves on the environmental commission, brought up another example. That group had recently been briefed on the city’s area, height & placement project, and they raised concerns over how building height might affect shading over houses that have solar panels on their roofs.

Briggs said she didn’t have concerns with the wording, and she appreciated the intent of the resolution, to reach out to the other commissions and think more broadly about these issues. They’re just at the beginning of this discussion about sustainability, she said, and it was important to formalize it.

Bona spoke next, saying she had some things to add “without being defensive.” She said she’s been reading books by professionals who are having trouble defining sustainability, so if the commissioners tried to do that first, she felt they’d get nowhere. She hoped they’d be having the conversation more and more about what sustainability means for this city.

She reminded commissioners of the generic example she’d mentioned at the working session, when they face a planned unit development (PUD) or planned project that wants to build higher than zoning allows. For a variety of reasons, she said, she tends to be pro-density in developed areas, “but I never know when to stop.” When someone comes to them with a 10-story building, her first response is, “Why only 10 stories?” Is that just the political spot – the height that would allow it to get through the city council without neighborhood opposition?

The chair of the energy commission, Wayne Appleyard, had shared with Bona an article that stated a sustainable building in the Midwest would be five stories – that’s because you could generate the renewable energy from the roof and the ground that would be sufficient for the building. A bigger building would require outside renewable energy sources, she said.

“I don’t know if five stories is it,” she said, “but I’d like to have a more intelligent conversation than just watching the political winds.”

Bona also said that she thinks the conversations with the public will be much more fulfilling when it’s not just planning – it’s about planning based on smart energy and smart environmental thinking.

Outcome: The resolution passed, with dissent from Derezinski.

Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen spoke during the two times available for general public commentary, at the beginning and end of the meeting. His theme was transportation.

On June 15, 2006, he said, the mayor sent out a press release announcing the new transportation approach – mobility in the 21st century. So what was mobility in the 20th century? In 1953 when the Michigan constitution had just been passed, it included Act 55 – that was the act under which the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority was created. In 1968, Ann Arbor was having trouble paying a private bus company, Mogensen said, so they decided to create a transportation authority.

In 1969, a local state senator helped change state law to allow a local municipality to operate its transportation authority 10 miles outside the city, he said – the reason was so that Ypsilanti could be included in the AATA service area. Then in 1973 a millage was passed, and in 1974 the area was enlarged. People were already thinking about regional coverage then – several communities, including Ypsilanti and several surrounding townships, had purchase of service agreements to get service from AATA.

Things have pretty much stayed the same since then, he said, but now we’re starting to see cracks. Most people who use the system are lower-income people – that’s the reality of it, he said.

During his second turn, Mogensen recapped his initial comments, saying he was there – first, because he’s always there – but also because it was the fourth anniversary of the mayor unveiling his Model for Mobility. When the model for mobility had been developed in the 20th century, he said, there were transportation planners involved in that process – some of the details of that are not well known. AATA was not initially thought to be a regional system, but it became one a few years later – a fixed route bus service in the urban area. And mostly low-income people are using the bus.

The barriers to middle class people using the bus are time, money and convenience. Most people say it takes too long to use the bus, he said, and they don’t have time. Fares for the middle class are subsidized through various programs – he calls it “association” versus “application.” If you’re associated with the downtown through an employer, your fare is subsidized through the getDowntown program. If you’re associated with the university, it’s free – federal funding subsidizes the MRide program. If you’re a low-income person, you can apply for assistance, but only to get your fare cut in half. So there are these discontinuities in the system, Mogensen said.

The newest mobility system is essentially for middle class people who live in sprawl. But you can’t pay for both these approaches, he said. So what’s happening is that the city is converting the old system, which is for people in the urban area, to incentivize people who live in sprawl. What concerns him is that people in the urban areas will have to buy cars if they’re not affiliated with the university.

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

Next meeting: The planning commission next meets on Thursday, July 8 at 6 p.m. in fourth floor boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

On an architect's scale model of the neighborhood, Tom Luczak points to a house on Fourth Avenue, next to the proposed project, The Moravian. The view is roughly from the northwest. Luczak spoke in opposition to the project. (Photos by the writer.)

The five-story, 62-unit building proposed for the section of East Madison Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor had come before the council with the recommendation of the city’s planning staff and a 7-1 vote recommendation from the city’s planning commission.

The public hearing on The Moravian included remarks from around 90 people on both sides of the issue. The Moravian alone – counting the public hearing, plus the deliberations by the council – took up over four hours of the meeting, which lasted well past 1 a.m.

Besides The Moravian, the council’s business included an item that would have reconsidered its recent decision to replace the entire Ann Arbor housing commission board. The motion for reconsideration was voted down, with no support, not even from its two sponsors – Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Kunselman cited the late hour as part of the reason for his lack of enthusiasm for pursuing the matter.

The council also tabled a proposed city ordinance that would ban cell phone use while driving. The council had postponed the measure to a specific date a few times previously. The tabling means that the ordinance can be brought back for consideration by the council, but by council rule it will die unless it is brought back within six months.

Also receiving brief discussion was a possible council rule on email that the council is now forced to  consider publicly at its next meeting under terms of a recent lawsuit settlement.

In Part 1 of this report, we focus exclusively on The Moravian.

The Moravian

Based on city council’s deliberations at the first reading of the project, at its March 1, 2010 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was a sure vote against the project, with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) also showing indications of a negative inclination. While also hinting a negative leaning, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) laid out parts of the city’s central area plan that highlight the difficulty in finding suitable locations to increase density.

On Monday, when the second reading of the proposal was before the council, the lack of support from those four councilmembers was enough to doom the project, which needed an 8-vote super-majority to win approval. [Hohnke was absent from Monday's meeting – thus he could not throw a vote in support of the project. But his Ward 5 colleague, Mike Anglin, read a statement from Hohnke against the project.] Mayor John Hieftje added a no vote, leaving the council with a simple six-vote majority, which left the project short by two votes.

The requirement of a super-majority had been triggered by submission of a protest petition under the city’s planned unit development (PUD) ordinance. [Chronicle coverage: "The Moravian Goes Before City Council"]

On the protest petition, Chapter 55 Article XI, Section 5:107 (5) of the city code specifies that:

(5) A protest against any proposed amendment to this chapter may be presented in writing to the City Clerk at or before the public hearing thereon. Such protest shall be duly signed by the owners of at least 20% of the area of land included in the proposed change, or the owners of at least 20% of the area of land included within an area extending outward 100 feet from any point on the boundary of the land included in the proposed change, excluding any other publicly owned land. Following the filing of a valid protest petition, adoption of an amendment to this chapter shall require at least 8 affirmative votes of the Council at the second reading on the ordinance.

The Moravian Public Hearing: General Climate

During the public hearing, some made allusions to “name-calling” by others. Possibly fitting that description could be the labeling of Moravian supporter Anya Dale as “Ms. Planning,” or the description of the neighborhood itself by numerous speakers  as “blighted,” or a description of opponents of the project as “sulkers.”

The controversy over The Moravian filled city council chambers with over 100 people.

The word NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard] was also dropped once or twice. Likely not fitting the description of “name calling” was a speaker who introduced himself saying, “I’m the mushroom!” The general atmosphere could fairly be described as imbued with a little awkward tension, with the council chambers filled with over a hundred people, many on both sides of the issue.

Still, the interactions between supporters and opponents seemed more good-natured and lighthearted than vicious. Before the meeting started, Beverly Strassmann was distributing pink 8.5 x 11 sheets of paper printed with “No Moravian PUD” throughout council chambers, but paused when she came to Joe Ferrario, saying she didn’t know who he was. Ferrario, who spoke in favor of the project – eased through the moment by quipping, “Is that a Butler or a Duke sign?” [The NCAA basketball finals were played that evening. Duke won.] Ferrario told The Chronicle that his son-in-law had attended Butler, and that there was a connection to Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski through his wife – so he was okay either way.

Of course, most speakers at the public hearing were not that ambivalent about the outcome of The Moravian vote. The sampling below is not exhaustive of the speakers or of the sentiments they expressed. They’re not presented in chronological order – they’re grouped somewhat thematically.

The Moravian Public Hearing: Where to Put Development

The opening tip went to the Moravian supporters opponents, with Tom Luczak working from a 1/25 scale model of the block – bounded on the north and south by Packard and Madison streets, and Fourth and Fifth avenues on the east and west – concluding that the model showed the proposed building was vastly out of scale. He characterized The Moravian as a good project in the wrong spot. An example of a good project in the right spot, said Luczak, was Zaragon Place 2. Luczak speculated that the house immediately adjacent to The Moravian would be so persistently in shadows that it would turn into a mushroom farm.

Walt Spiller, property owner and resident of the Fifth Avenue neighborhood, spoke against The Moravian.

Later, the owner of the house, Walt Spiller, began his speaking turn by announcing, “I’m the mushroom.” Spiller emphasized in his remarks that the city’s zoning represents a contract between the citizens and the city. [Spiller is a retired postal worker who used to deliver mail in the neighborhood, where he still lives.]

Jim Mogensen noted that developers were always “pushing the envelope” of what was possible, which was somewhat understandable given that there are limited areas left to develop. However, he wondered if the council would approve a similar project in the middle of Ann Arbor Hills – a relatively wealthy subdivision on the east side of Ann Arbor.

The theme of limited land on which to develop urban density was one picked up by Scott Munzel – in service of an argument for The Moravian. Munzel, who stressed he was speaking as a private citizen – he’s appeared before the city council in the past representing other developments – pointed to the reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reduction in sprawl, and the strengthening of the city core as specific benefits of the project. Once you take away the historic districts, the floodplain, the university’s property, parkland, and other properties unlikely to ever be developed, said Munzel, there was little land left. The idea that urban density should be limited to the area inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority boundary, said Munzel, allowed people to say they were for density, knowing it won’t happen.

Lou Glorie, a declared candidate for city council in Ward 5, echoed the sentiment that the project was inappropriate for its location. She said that anything could be pointed to as “blight” and that neighborhoods are the heart of a city. She suggested that the council should review how it was that staff and the planning commission had approved it.

Also objecting to the project as being in the wrong place was Deanne Relyea.

Deirdra Stockmann said she supported the project because it offered density in and near the downtown area where Ann Arbor needed a diversity of housing options. She said that on that evening there were voices and perspectives not heard enough in the forum of the city council chambers.

Responding to the idea from another speaker that there is “no magic line” that says things start and stop at a particular place, Claudius Vincenz stated that “it’s called ‘zoning.’” The Moravian did not, he said, add to the neighborhood, but rather took over the neighborhood.

Vivienne Armentrout suggested that the discussion surrounding The Moravian had shown that “the mask has slipped” and that the real objective is to expand downtown.

Emphasizing that the area where The Moravian is proposed is not in downtown, Richard Jacobson said that the city’s future land use plan calls for residential use in the area. [This is an allusion to the live/work units that are offered as part of the project.]

Describing herself as a resident of the “gritty urban edge” of the Old West Side neighborhood, Margaret Wong said that a project needed to be appropriate to a particular location. She wondered why in this instance the city was thinking about coloring outside the lines. The claimed benefits, she said, were not site specific.

Anya Dale spoke in favor of the project, objecting to the use of an architect's model that showed just the block where The Moravian was proposed, without surrounding blocks.

The architect’s model used by Luczak, which had been commissioned by opponents of the project, came under criticism from Anya Dale, who suggested that it illustrated something taught in Planning 101 courses: How to lie with maps. “You crop out what would make it relevant,” she said. She allowed that it was a very good job of cropping, but that it was cropping nonetheless. She emphasized that the city’s professional planning staff understands that density is not just about numbers but also about design.

Jean Pierre Nogues, responding to Anya Dale’s criticism that the buildings surrounding The Moravian had been cropped out of the model, noted that there was, in fact, a university building in the model, but it was hidden behind the “behemoth” of The Moravian. He observed that The Moravian did not offer many of the 1-2 bedroom units that young professionals would likely rent, but rather consisted predominantly of 3-4 bedroom units.

Nogues suggested that people would not move to New York City because they can’t find housing in Ann Arbor. Also picking up on the idea that The Moravian offered 3-4 bedroom units, Shirley Zempel contended that the project was being misrepresented as suitable for young professionals.

The Moravian Public Hearing: Who Wants to Live Where?

A number of people spoke, citing the perspective of young professionals who were looking for suitable, reasonably priced housing near the downtown area. Among them were Michele Heisler, an associate professor at the University of Michigan medical school, who introduced herself as a physician and a researcher who had secured three National Institute of Health grants and employed around 20 people at $40,000 to $70,000 a year. She expressed concern that housing options for her employees were limited near downtown – they don’t want to live in poorly-maintained rentals with other students and can’t afford the more expensive downtown lofts. She said the neighborhood where The Moravian is proposed struck her as blighted, saying, “I’m going to be honest about how it’s perceived.”

Tony Lupo who moved to Ann Arbor from New York and works for Salon Vox as the marketing director, reported that the Liberty Street salon employs 21 people, yet there is no viable housing for them to live in near downtown. Roger Hewitt, a member of the Downtown Development Authority board as well as a downtown business owner (Red Hawk, Revive and Replenish), reported that one of his employees lives close to the proposed Moravian project and is enthusiastic about it.

Chad Wiebesick said he would be one of the first people to move in. Part owner of the Necto Night Club, Scot Greig, lamented the lack of adequate housing for his employees – they all drive in, he said. None live in Ann Arbor.

Laurie Blakeney characterized herself as an “old townie” who moved here in 1971. She’d seen the downtown lose movie theaters and mid-sized department stores – now it consisted of restaurants, galleries and coffee shops, she said. She wanted to bring back the kind of downtown that used to exist that could support urban life, not just be a weekend destination. She said the downtown should be the kind of place that Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods could locate.

Linda Foit, a Ph.D student at the University of Michigan, spoke in favor of the project.

Megan Jenkins said she’d moved to Ann Arbor seven years ago, had fallen in love with it, and supported the project. Linda Foit, who’s a Ph.D student in biology at UM, described how she was only able to live near downtown because she was willing to live with three roommates in a “shitty place” – one that is old, not well-maintained, not well-insulated, with single-pane windows. She supported The Moravian, she said, because if it had been built three years ago when she came to Ann Arbor, she wouldn’t have to live in a place like that.

Downtown resident Nick Hoffman recounted how difficult it had been to find the place he lives in now – he’d put his name on wait lists and was renting elsewhere month-to-month to be as flexible as possible. He got the place because he was the first person to look at it – within 24 hours seven others came to look at the place. It had not even been advertised, he said, so strong was the word-of-mouth demand.

Norm Cox allowed that there was no such thing as a perfect development, but that the pros outweighed the cons. As a downtown business owner who employs young professionals, he said, he felt it was a nice balance of context and scale.

Saying it was the first time he’d spoken at a forum like this, Matt Turner supported the project. He allowed that it is difficult when things change, but said there was a lot of pent-up demand for housing for young professionals. More than a NIMBY issue, he said, was the sound of people leaving this town.

A software developer for entrepreneurial companies, Nick Stanley spoke in favor of the project. He said he currently lives in an historic house subdivided into apartments and that he and his wife will likely move after his wife finishes her masters degree. He allowed that the existing housing is cheap, but is not the same as affordable housing in a PUD – he’d happily occupy one of those units with his wife and cat, he said.

Ashley Terrace resident and 1998 UM grad Jennifer Raft said she enjoyed living there. She started by renting and has now purchased her unit, because someone else wanted to buy it. She suggested that 50-80 years from now, Ashley Terrace might seem small.

Kim Kachadoorian told the council that they had now close to 200 signatures on petitions against the project. She contended that there would be a net loss of affordable housing. What would keep people in Ann Arbor, she said, was not housing, but jobs.

After hearing several speakers support the project on the grounds that it offered housing suitable for young professionals, Piotr Michalowski said he wanted to “bring us back to reality.” He described The Moravian as a “student apartment complex.”

Citing his lack of success listing a two-bedroom apartment on Craigslist, Sean Ferris questioned whether The Moravian was really set up for young professionals.

Recent UM graduate Idy Usoro reported that she lived off Plymouth Road on the east side because she wanted a more professional housing option, but she would really like to live downtown. She said that some of her peers had chosen to live in Plymouth because housing is more affordable there, and there’s “kind of a downtown” there, too.

Valerie Brugeman described herself as “blessed” to find a job in Ann Arbor upon graduation and had lived for a time in a house converted to rental. She’d have appreciated a nicer option, she said. She said the council should listen to young professionals.

Christina Sherry said she lives on the far western edge of Ann Arbor, near the “Welcome to Ann Arbor” sign, because she could not find a place to live downtown, though she had looked. One problem, she said, was that housing in downtown Ann Arbor was about the same price as housing in downtown Chicago.

Michael Papadopoulos introduced himself as a resident of Ashley Mews – “Yes, that’s a PUD!” he said. Out of 70 students in his masters program at the UM Ross School of Business, he said, he was the only student who plans to stay in Ann Arbor. He suggested that one reason Ann Arbor “fell flat on its face” with respect to retention was the fact that there was a lack of housing accessible to young professionals.

On the question of affordable housing units offered by The Moravian, Michael Zeidler observed that if less than 20% of the units were affordable, that meant that the other 80% were unaffordable – so it’d be wealthy young professionals who took those units. He concluded, “It seems kind of murky to me.”

Al McWilliams spoke about the difficulty of finding a place to live in downtown Ann Arbor if you make $35,000 to $50,000 a year. If they had not tried to find a place accessible to someone in that salary range, then he told the council they should ask someone who’s tried to do that.

Seventy-year-old Victor Munoz reported that when his mother- and father-in-law visited Ann Arbor 25 years ago, the thing they remarked on was that Ann Arbor was filled with young people and that we needed to keep young people in Ann Arbor. “You have to approve it,” he said about The Moravian. “We need it. We need three or four more like it.” What’s young? he asked. His answer of someone under 70 drew a laugh.

The Moravian Public Hearing: Historic Area or Blighted Neighborhood?

Currently under study by the city is the possibility of establishing an historic district close to the neighborhood where The Moravian is proposed. The area of study mandated by city council as part of the study committee’s charge includes the area roughly bounded by William Street on the north, Packard Street on the south, Fifth Avenue on the east, and Fourth Avenue on the west.

Bob Snyder and Betsy Price were seated just behind an architect's model of the block where The Moravian is proposed. Snyder spoke in opposition to the project.

The committee’s preliminary report recommends establishing an historic district that is essentially the same as the study area, but also includes the south side of Packard between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Parcel by parcel, the committee also inventoried and assessed the relative merits of the buildings south of Packard along Fourth and Fifth avenues, which includes the parcel where The Moravian was proposed.

In weighing the relative merits of buildings within an historic district, a structure is designated as “contributing” or “non-contributing” to the district depending on whether the structure is part of what justifies the designation of the area as a historic district.

The committee’s decision to expand the area of study was a conscious and deliberate one, and weighed the possibility of expanding the area recommended as an historic district – so that it would include the parcels where The Moravian was proposed to be built. [Some Chronicle coverage of the historic district study committee's work through 2009: "Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards"]

Ultimately, however, the committee chose not to risk the rejection of a district on the grounds that they’d recommended a district substantially larger than area they’d been asked to study. From earlier Chronicle coverage:

Committee member Rebecca Lopez Kriss indicated that she’d talked to a number of councilmembers about the possibility of expanding the district. What she’d heard, she said, was for the most part “wishy-washy political speak.” But councilmember Sandi Smith and mayor John Hieftje had said, according to Lopez Kriss, that they would not support an expanded district.

So the committee’s preliminary report – which is currently under review – recommends an area for an historic district that does not include The Moravian.

It’s in that context that some speakers at the public hearing mentioned the idea of an historic district.

Also alluding to the more than 200 signatures on petitions against the project was Beverly Strassmann, who is president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association. She suggested that the developer had deluded young professionals into thinking that the project offered them viable housing alternatives, when the actual mix was mostly 3-4 bedroom units. Strassmann objected to the characterization of the neighborhood as blighted, and cited the fact that the historic district study committee had found that seven of the eight houses slated for demolition would have been contributing to an historic district for that area. [The committee's preliminary report – available for download from the city's website – does not recommend an historic district for that area.]

Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, spoke against the project.

With the phrase “young professional” deployed by others with great frequency, Bob Snyder – who is president of the South University Neighborhood Association, and who can fairly be described as a senior member of the community – drew a laugh from the audience when he began with the quip, “I was once a young professional.” Snyder said the area should be part of the historic district proposed farther north, just south of William Street.

Owner of a property adjacent to the proposed project, Mustafa Ali described it as too big for that location. He said that property owners were interested in having their properties included in the proposed historic district. Responding to the implication of some speakers that the rental properties in the area were not safe and were blighted, he noted that the properties were regularly inspected and met safety codes.

In his remarks, Jeff Meyers suggested that we “stop pretending” that the neighborhood was worth preserving, characterizing it as a “blighted block that could become a vibrant hub.”

Reacting in part to the description of the neighborhood as blighted, Graham Miles said that property owners had put a lot of money into them, and tried to keep them up.

Mariah Cherem reported that she used to live in the neighborhood near The Moravian, which she characterized as surrounded by student rentals in which the tenants and landlords took little pride. She cited an improvement in public safety as a benefit to the project. Esha Krishnaswamy introduced herself as a UM law student, who had survived a house fire in which 50% of her body was burned. She pointed to the fact The Moravian would be safe – equipped with sprinklers.

Twelve-year Ann Arbor resident Joshua Brugeman said the project would add value to the block and would create a nice “bookend.” Citing Jane Jacobs’ work on urban planning, he suggested that more eyes on the street would mean greater safety.

Patrick Macoska spoke about how there can be a coexistence between houses in older neighborhoods and newer construction. He said that “blight” was a strong word – “shabby” might be better, he said, like a corduroy jacket worn around the edges.

Ted Kennedy said he supported the process that allowed change to happen. But he said he did like punk, rundown houses, and that the only way he was able to live near downtown was to share.

Citing the many reasons to approve the project and the few reasons not to approve the project, Bruce Worden said he supported it. A student slum, he said, is not a neighborhood. If you vote based on popular support, he said, he hoped they were keeping score.

Wiltrud Simbuerger compared riding her bike through the neighborhood of The Moravian to get to the Washtenaw Dairy to riding through a wasteland. The Moravian would mean more options for people who don’t want to purchase their own homes and who don’t want to live in a run-down rental.

Jason Costello supported the project on the grounds that it would redevelop a blighted neighborhood and increase the economic value of the community.

Bob Giles, owner of a rental property in the neighborhood, said that until that night he had not realized it was a “blighted” neighborhood. He reported that he had a current tenant who had no interest in continuing to live there if The Moravian were built. He wondered why anyone would want to build a beautiful building in a “blighted” neighborhood.

Graduating UM senior Jacob Smith told the council that he had started his own business in the field of new energy and that he planned to stay in Ann Arbor. He said that living in a place like The Moravian, which is proposed to use alternative energy, would be a great addition to his personal narrative.

Doug Galante spoke briefly, offering his support of the project.

Saying that the project was green and affordable and seemed to make sense, Jeremy Daly, a UM student, said he supported the project.

Introducing herself as a member of the board of the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce and a member of the Fourth/Fifth Avenue historic district study committee, Rebecca Lopez Kriss urged the council to vote yes. As a young professional and graduate student, she said, she did not want to live in a dilapidated old house or in a “white box” out by Briarwood Mall. She questioned the criticism that The Moravian would be out of character with the neighborhood, pointing to the Perry School, the university building and the light industrial uses across the street. She described The Moravian as functioning as a buffer between those uses and the neighborhood to the north. She encouraged people to read Jonathan Levine’s book, “Zoned Out,” which discusses zoning as a tool of exclusion.

Business Community

Co-founder of Motawi Tileworks, Karim Motawi told the council that he lived in Ann Arbor for 10 years and would have liked to have had an option to live somewhere like The Moravian. He asked for a show of hands from those who supported the project – several hands were raised in response.

Richard Sheridan, CEO of Menlo Innovations, announced he was there to support The Moravian. He told the council that he’d supported every park and greenbelt millage that had been put before him, and that the other side of that was a need to support housing options like The Moravian. Not just people on his team need those options, he said, but the teams of his customers did as well.

Peter Schork, CEO of Ann Arbor State Bank, weighed in for The Moravian, citing its financial viability.

The president and CEO of Ann Arbor State Bank, Peter Schork, said he supported the project because of its financial viability. He drew a distinction between affordable housing like The Moravian offered and reasonably priced housing like the houses it would replace. He noted that he did not agree that they were “blighted,” saying he had been in the houses and that he’d in fact financed them. He wouldn’t have financed them if they were blighted, he said, then quipped, “maybe, I would have.”

Kyle Mazurek is vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce. He spoke in favor of the project on behalf of the chamber, citing as benefits the higher density, the provision of workforce housing, the removal of blight, improvement of floodwater storage, and increased tax revenue. Mazurek said he also supported the project on a personal level.

The owner of the Renaissance clothing store, Roger Pothus, lamented the fact that there seemed to be no vision for Ann Arbor, but rather each project was approved or disapproved on a per-parcel basis. He described the neighborhood as a few old rooming houses that were inefficient as to space utilization. He described how Nordstrom had looked at Ann Arbor’s downtown a few years ago as a possible location but had eventually abandoned Ann Arbor as too conflicted about development and eventually settled for Novi. Pothus also suggested that the fire that killed a student on South State Street a few days prior would not have happened in a building like The Moravian, which was to be built with a sprinkler system.

Stewart Beal said he runs a company with 130 construction professionals. What about the blue collar workers? he asked. He saw construction of The Moravian as an opportunity to put some of them to work.

Appealing to statistical projections from SEMCOG, Joe Ferrario noted that the population of Ann Arbor was not projected to grow very much in the next few decades – perhaps by about as many people as had filtered in and out of the room that night. He contrasted that with the projection that employment was going to grow by 18,000 jobs. That meant, he said, that the council would be debating the Madison Street Parking Structure – unless they approved projects like The Moravian. Nothing detracts from a neighborhood more, he said, than potholes and other neglected infrastructure due to a lack of adequate tax revenue.

Ken Fischer, president of the University Musical Society and board member of Ann Arbor SPARK, said he was speaking as a private citizen, but with the perspective of those two organizations. He said he supported the project and that it was consistent with various kinds of attraction projects to make Ann Arbor friendly to the demographic of young professionals.

Introducing himself as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, Tim Galea said that the city should encourage density for the benefit of culture and business environment.

The Moravian Public Hearing: Various Technical Standards

Susan Morrison, an attorney who spoke on behalf of Beverly Strassmann and Claudius Vincenz at the public hearing, also submitted a letter that included multiple points about whether the PUD ordinance standards were met by the project. Among them was the fact that the historic district study committee had designated buildings as contributing to a potential historic district – buildings that would be demolished in order to build The Moravian. [Note that the area currently proposed as an historic district in the committee's preliminary report does not include The Moravian's parcels.]

An attorney with Dickinson Wright, Peter Webster, stated that The Moravian did meet the PUD ordinance requirement and that affordable housing is not being taken away. The neighborhood, he said, included more than just the one block of single-family houses.

Marianne Zorza took issue with the way that other PUDs – The Gallery, Kingsley Lane and Glen Ann Place – had been compared to The Moravian as a way to argue for the project based on consistency of applying the ordinance.

An architect on the project, Scott Bonney, noted that they had “buried as much parking as possible.” The minimal setback of the building to Madison Street, which some speakers criticized, was something the city’s planning commission had requested, he said.

Among several points made by Brad Mikus was a note in the planning commission minutes of Jan. 6, 2010 that in a major storm event there would be 1-2 feet of water standing in the parking structure under the building. “That sounds like a problem,” he suggested. Vince Caruso expressed concern about the project’s proximity to the Allen Creek floodway. Describing a vote for the project as a “big mistake,” Barbara Copi said it would be premature, given that the FEMA maps showing the floodplain were not yet finalized.

The site engineer for the project, Midwestern Consulting’s, Scott Betzoldt, addressed two different studies: a traffic study and a stormwater study. On the stormwater study, he said that the FEMA maps were not yet published, but they knew what they would be based on the data underlying the maps. The project would increase the stormwater detention beyond the required levels from 17,500 cubic feet to 38,000 cubic feet of storage, he said. He noted the traffic study he performed was not required of the project, but that it had been undertaken voluntarily. It had been reviewed and approved by the city’s traffic engineer, he said.

A sound engineer, Kenric Van Wyk, who’d been retained by neighbors of the project, noted that there was no acoustical screening specified for various elements of the project, and that the project would need to meet the standards of the city’s noise ordinance. A transportation engineer with Professional Engineering Associates, Michael Labadie critiqued the traffic study undertaken by the developer, noting that it had not been undertaken during the school year.

John Jackson criticized the 5-story streetwall of the building, saying that even in the core downtown areas, the streetwall is supposed to step back after four stories. Rita Mitchell addressed various technical problems with conformity with the PUD ordinance, including open space.

Resident and former planning commissioner Ethel Potts weighed in against The Moravian, saying that the council could not legally approve it – an adequate public benefit had not been achieved, she said. The demolition of affordable housing to build the project, she said, had to be considered against the benefit of affordable housing units offered by the project. Kathy Boris questioned how the demolition of eight two-story homes was consistent with the PUD ordinance requirement that the project provide a community benefit.

Anne Eisen said that some of the people opposed to The Moravian, and who’d opposed it for two years, had been inaccurately described as supporting the project.

The Moravian Public Hearing: City Sulkers

Appealing to the notion of “sustainability,” Joan Lowenstein noted that we often talk about sustainable cars, buses, and buildings, but asked, What about a sustainable population? She rejected the idea that neighborhoods are the building blocks of sustainability and suggested instead that the building blocks are people. The city allocates money to Ann Arbor SPARK to try to bring business to the area, she said, but there’s no place for people to live.

Former councilmember and current DDA board member Joan Lowenstein called people, not neighborhoods, the building blocks of the community. She spoke in favor of the project.

Lowenstein then suggested that people in Ann Arbor like to sulk. For example, they like to sulk about the fact that there’s no local newspaper anymore. They like to sulk about the fact that the whole city might flood. She concluded by encouraging the council to say no to the sulkers and yes to The Moravian.

Following Lowenstein to the podium, Charles Loucks allowed that he opposed the project but that he was not a sulker. He was against it, he said, because he said it set a bad precedent for process. Peter Nagourney also rejected the idea that it was a matter of whether people sulked or not. Instead, he said, it was the fact that the project violated the city’s central area plan, the standards of the PUD ordinance, as well as the floodplain regulations.

Former planning commissioner James D’Amour encouraged the council not to think of the staff recommendation for approval as a “holy writ.” He said he disagreed with the idea that Joan Lowenstein had expressed that neighborhoods weren’t the building blocks of the community. He also said he wanted an apology from the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce because they were not representing him on this issue.

The Moravian Public Hearing: How Do We Decide What We Want?

The principle that Ray Detter cited, which he encouraged the council to follow, was essentially this one: “A proposal that is opposed by a clear majority of the residents in a neighborhood should not be forced upon those people, unless there is no other way to accomplish something that would be good for the community as a whole.” That came in a email from mayor John Hieftje sent the previous Sunday morning to multiple recipients in response to the suggestion that he would be wise in an election year to vote against the project. Detter emphasized that density should be kept in downtown, not near downtown.

John Floyd opposed the project, suggesting that the discussion was a proxy for a larger conversation about what we should do with Ann Arbor's historic neighborhoods.

A declared candidate for the city council in Ward 5, John Floyd offered the perspective of a homeowner, saying it was difficult to judge how people felt about their own homes for someone who has never owned a home they loved. He allowed that youth has not just energy, but also inexperience.

Floyd suggested that the real discussion the community needed to have was about what we wanted to do with the historic neighborhoods. He described the discussion about The Moravian as a proxy for that larger discussion, and that it was the wrong time to have it.

The Moravian Public Hearing: The Developers

Speaking for The Moravian’s development team, Newcombe Clark noted that many of the project’s features that had been criticized – rooftop patios, for example – had been added because they had been asked to add them. He traced the process back two years of getting input about what people wanted to see. He emphasized that the project was financially viable. He asked the council for “the courage of leadership” and not to act in fear of a “minority of voters who show up in August [for the Democratic primary].”

Newcombe Clark signs in after delivering his remarks for the public hearing. The task of riding herd on speakers to sign in fell to Margie Teall (Ward 4), whose seat at the table is next to the sign in sheet.

The project’s developer, Jeff Helminski, observed that there was an unprecedented level of support for a private development in the room, which he found both inspiring and humbling. Helminski said they had looked at every PUD proposal approved by the city to gauge the city’s past administration of its PUD ordinance. He said his team believed it was clear that The Moravian met the standard. As far as the contract with the community that zoning reflected, Helminski asked the council to consider the contract with everyone for a consistent application of the law and the standards.

The Moravian: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off council deliberations by asking if the noise engineer was still in the room to answer some questions. He was not.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) then read aloud from a statement that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had asked be read in his absence. The statement contended that when a project tears the social compact reflected in the zoning, then the public benefits offered by the project needed to be “bold enough to mend that tear.” The statement also compared the idea of allowing density at the location of The Moravian to pricking holes in the membrane to allow “density leakage” outside of the downtown. Hohnke was against the project.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – the council’s representative to the planning commission, which had recommended the project on a 7-1 vote – cited the planning commission’s vote, plus the city planning staff’s recommendation. On planning commission, he had voted for the project. [See Chronicle coverage: "Moravian Moves Forward, Despite Protests"]

Derezinski also asked for commentary from city planning staff – Wendy Rampson and Alexis DiLeo – on the letter from Peter Webster that outlined a comparison of The Moravian to some past PUD developments the city council had approved – Glen Ann Place, The Gallery, and Kingsley Lane. Rampson explained that each PUD proposal is evaluated on its own merit.

The benefits of the project that Rampson ticked through included the live/work units as innovative land use, the variety in design, the efficiency of land use and alternative energy, additional stormwater holding capacity, below-grade parking, and the expansion of affordable housing.

Responding to a comment made during the public hearing, DiLeo noted that the supplemental regulations did address the maximum number of bedrooms and the unit mix.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know if it was true that there’d be 1-2 feet of standing water in the parking structure in the event of a 100-year storm. Rampson confirmed this was true – the idea was to design the building so that the water goes into the parking structure, not the living units. In response to questions from Higgins, Rampson also confirmed that the stormwater detention tanks would include swirl concentrators to help filter it, so that the quality and quantity of the stormwater was addressed. The water from the detention tanks would be outlet to the storm sewer system at a restricted rate, Rampson explained.

Jeff Helminski, developer of The Moravian, responded to questions from councilmembers.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked developer Jeff Helminski about the issue of noise and acoustical screening. Helmisnki confirmed that the project would need to meet the standards of the city’s noise ordinance, whether there was screening or not. Teall asked about the contention that neighbors had been misled by Helminski originally telling them that it would be a two-story building. Helminski said he had never presented the project as a two-story building.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the underlying zoning of The Moravian – existing zoning that would need to be changed. He wanted to know why a previous project – Avery House, which had been proposed by the Black Elks on the north side of town – had not come up in comparing previous PUD projects. [Avery House was rejected by the city council.] Rampson clarified that Avery House had not been a PUD, but rather a planned project.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) confirmed with Rampson that the The Moravian did not fall inside of the historic district study committee’s recommended area, based on their preliminary report.

Smith noted that the geothermal system was “optional” – she wanted to know what would make the geothermal system actually be implemented? Helminski explained that the ability to implement geothermal couldn’t be confirmed until a full depth well – around 300 feet – was drilled and the thermal conductivity of the soils was confirmed for a full well. They’d drilled test bores to this point. In the event it was not possible to implement a geothermal system, Helminski said, they would possibly use photovoltaic, wind, or purchase green energy from an alternate source.

Asked what level of LEED the project intended to achieve, Helminski said that they would achieve basic certification, and possibly achieve the Silver LEED designation.

Smith asked about some of the accommodations that had been made to the project design in response to feedback from neighbors. Helminski cited the shape of the building, the minimization of the frontage on Fifth Avenue, the change of the basic design from its initial modern theme, and pulling the building as far south as possible.

Anglin asked what would happen if there were a mishap with the geothermal system – would that be even more serious, given its location in a floodplain? Helminski said that of the two options for media used in geothermal systems – glycol and water – the planned option was for water. So any leakage from the system would mean that it was simply water.

Asked by Anglin about the status of the project’s brownfield application, Helminski said that there’d been a couple of meetings scheduled but canceled due to budget work that the city was doing. He’d talked to Matt Naud, Helmiski said. [Naud is the city's environmental coordinator.]

Briere then suggested that “we should be talking about how we’re going to vote.” She then recounted how she’d met with the developers about their project four or five times over the course of two-and-a-half years. She said that Hohnke was right, in his written statement, to remind everyone of the social compact implicit in the city’s zoning, and said she’d be voting no.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asks someone to join her and city attorney Stephen Postema in a conversation before the council meeting started.

She noted that the The Moravian was larger than Perry School or the UM building in the neighborhood and that the mix of units was predominantly 3-4 bedroom units, not 1-2 bedrooms.

Briere noted that while the developer had studied and reviewed previous proposals that had been approved, he should have also studied those that had been rejected – Avery House, 42 North, and City Place.

Derezinski  said he’d vote yes, because he would defer to the city’s planning staff recommendation and their expertise. He cited the 7-1 vote by the planning commission in favor of the project. He allowed that the city council’s vote was the final one. Until the R4C zoning district is revised, he said, the city had the PUD as an available option. The Moravian, he concluded, did meet the criteria for a PUD.

Teall said she’d support the project and echoed Derezinski’s sentiments. Responding to Jim Mogensen’s comments during the public hearing, about the possibility of such a project in Ann Arbor Hills, Teall said that the council would not approve that kind of project – because it was not near downtown or walkable. Teall also cited the improved safety that The Moravian represented, calling it “a leap ahead.” She stated that Ann Arbor is a city, not a small town, and The Moravian would not turn it into a big city.

Smith also echoed Derezinski’s comments. She highlighted the underground parking as a bonus. She contended that much of the “open space” pointed to on the rest of the block was actually used as backyard parking. She recalled how a place at Madison and Fifth had been her first apartment and characterized it as a “transitional neighborhood.” She also cited the additional affordable housing units as a benefit, saying that even with their addition, the city had a ways to go to get to 100 units. [This is a reference to the 100 units of affordable housing lost when the old YMCA at Fifth and William was demolished. Chronicle coverage: "The  100 Units of Affordable Housing."]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that this was “not a perfect project.” He also allowed that it was a project about which reasonable people could differ in their conclusions. Taylor saw the decision as centering around how you see the neighborhood. In this, Taylor echoed the same framing he’d used to talk about his vote over a year ago during deliberations on another project in roughly the same neighborhood, City Place. [From the council's Jan. 5, 2009 meeting]:

How one views it, [Taylor] said, depends on whether you’re looking north or looking south. He suggested that residents are looking exclusively to the south, which discounts factually what the neighborhood is. To the north there’s an 8-story parking structure, a surface lot, a library, which are part and parcel of the neighborhood. He described the area as some species of interface that needed to be considered as such. He concluded by saying that the dedicated apartment buildings in the neighborhood itself and those structures to the north are all a part of the “gestalt of the space.”

On Monday, talking about The Moravian – located down the street from where City Place had been proposed, a bit farther from downtown Ann Arbor – Taylor said that whether the project was out of scale or appropriate depended on what area you considered. If you see the relevant area as that bounded by Madison Street and Fourth and Fifth avenues, he said, you could conclude that The Moravian was out of scale. If you see the relevant area as the corridor of Madison from the Fingerle lumberyard and Main Street, then one could conclude that it was appropriate in scale. Although he supported the project, Taylor cautioned that it should not have any implications for tear-downs in R4C neighborhoods – this was a unique case that also involved M-1 zoning.

Anglin allowed that the city did need additional 1-2 bedroom apartments, but that this project did not offer that. However, he acknowledged that the passion of the people who spoke in favor of the project that evening was “a clear message for us.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) echoed the sentiments of Taylor and Smith, saying he’d support the project. He rejected the term “buffer” for The Moravian, saying that to him, it was an excellent “interface.” He said that what The Moravian offered was more diversity of housing. In his day job [as executive director of MichBio], Rapundalo said, he sees the challenges of bringing highly-skilled 25- to 35-year-olds to the area. What they want, he said, is not just 1-2 bedroom units, but rather a diversity of options.

Mayor John Hieftje said he did not believe that the project met the PUD standards. In his review of the material, he said, he did not agree with the findings in the staff report. The 12 affordable units offered by the project, he said, were too little to offer in return for the rezoning. He did not think that the area would remain the way it was and would eventually change. He rejected the idea that if the council did not approve this project that it meant they didn’t believe in density.

Outcome: The council vote was 6-4 in favor of the Moravian, which left it two votes short of the 8-vote super-majority the project needed for approval. Voting for the project were: Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Voting against the project were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), mayor John Hieftje. Carsten Hohnke was absent.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor

Absent: Carsten Hohnke

Next council meeting: April 19, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Elizabeth Chen assembles a tetrahedron from connectors and straws. (Photos by the writer.)

In that way, at least, Ann Arbor is densely packed.

This is a story about that town-gown connection. It’s a story that connects a recent UM mathematics PhD thesis defense to the Ann Arbor planning commission – and takes a continuous path though topics like Klingons, grocery bags, affordable housing, yard waste collection and Valentine’s Day.

We begin with Elizabeth Chen, who successfully defended her PhD dissertation last Friday in East Hall on the UM campus. Her presentation included several hands-on assignments for those in the audience of around 30 people – several of whom assured The Chronicle that hers was an “unconventional” thesis defense.

Chen exhorted the assembled mathematicians to paste together plastic pyramid shapes with gummi putty to help them get an intuitive feel for the shapes: “It’s not so scary!” she admonished them. After half an hour, one member of her thesis committee prodded her to get to the mathematics part – he really had “better things to do.” The Chronicle, however, did not.

Packing Pyramids: Background

Never mind the answers – many of the questions themselves that mathematicians work at solving are completely inaccessible to (even very clever) non-mathematicians. That’s not the case with Chen’s work. Her dissertation title sounds almost like it could belong in the children’s section of a bookstore: “A Picturebook of Tetrahedral Packings.”

Certainly even small children can grasp the basic concept of the question Chen works on: How tightly can you pack pyramids together?

Example of a model of a regular tetrahedron in the form of a die. The way you tell which number is "up" on such a die is to look at the one that can be read in its usual orientation. For this one, someone rolled a "4."

The specific kind of pyramid Chen works with is a regular tetrahedron (plural: tetrahedra). Each of the four faces of a regular tetrahedron is an equilateral triangle – one with three congruent sides.

For longer than a little while, it was believed that tetrahedra could be packed together perfectly to fill all of space, leaving no gaps at all. It was Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC), writing in “On the Heavens,” who suggested that regular tetrahedra were space-filling.

But by the 1400s, German mathematician Johannes Müller had countered Aristotle’s claim. And by the end of the 1800s, another German mathematician, Hermann Minkowski, had begun looking at the general problem of packing convex shapes. [A tetrahedron is convex – if you take any two points in a tetrahedron, the straight line connecting those points stays completely inside the tetrahedron.]

In 1900, David Hilbert, also German, included the problem of tetrahedron packing as a special case of Problem 18 in a list of 23 problems he had identified as interesting.  Hilbert’s list has guided much of mathematical inquiry for the last century. From Hilbert’s paper [emphasis added]:

How can one arrange most densely in space an infinite number of equal solids of given form, e. g., spheres with given radii or regular tetrahedra with given edges (or in prescribed position), that is, how can one so fit them together that the ratio of the filled to the unfilled space may be as great as possible?

Already in the early 1600s Johannes Kepler had conjectured that the most efficient way to pack spheres was in a way that Chronicle readers would recognize as the same approach that any produce clerk would take to stacking oranges. What Hilbert was asking for, though, was an actual proof that this was the optimal configuration. That (computer-aided) proof came in 1998 from Thomas Hales, who began his work at the University of Michigan.

A cluster of 9 tetrahedra gummied together. Chen's approach to maximizing density involves taking copies of these locally dense clusters and fitting them into lattices.

The density of an optimal sphere-packing is approximately 0.74048. That is, given an infinite number of identically-sized spheres, about 74% of space can be filled up with them – and we know, per Hales’ proof, with 100% certainty that there’s no configuration of spheres that would be any denser than that.

The 0.74048 number is thus a kind of a benchmark against which tetrahedron packing can be measured.

In 1972 Stanislav Ulam, a Polish-American mathematician who worked on the Manhattan Project, conjectured that spheres were the worst-packing of all convex bodies. So from Ulam’s conjecture, it should follow that tetrahedra should pack denser than 0.74048.  But in the mid-2000s, investigations of tetrahedron packing that used computer simulations, as well as experiments using  physical tetrahedral dice, could not establish any configuration of tetrahedron packing that clearly surpassed the 0.74048 for spheres. Maybe tetrahedra were worse-packing than spheres?

Was Ulam wrong? No. We’ll get to that in a moment. Now’s a good chance to think about how very wrong Aristotle had been – wrong about tetrahedra and their ability to completely fill space. How did he manage to massively miss that one?

Part of the reason could have been that Aristotle had no ready source of tetrahedral dice and gummi putty to try pasting models of tetrahedra together – the way that Elizabeth Chen asked the audience of her thesis defense to do. Once you have them in your hands, it’s easy to paste together models and convince yourself that they will fill less than all of space – a pastes-great-less-filling experience.

Alex Mueller (foreground) and Zach Scherr (to Mueller's right), both graduate students in mathematics at the University of Michigan, stayed pretty well focused on the hands-on tasks provided by Chen during her thesis defense.

In 2008, Chen showed how to arrange tetrahedra to achieve a packing of around 0.7786 – clearly beating the maximal packing for spheres, and in some sense vindicating Ulam.

Since Chen’s 2008 paper, other researchers have ratcheted the number upward, to 0.855506. But in early January of 2010, in a paper published with Michael Engel and Sharon Glotzer – both faculty in the UM department of chemical engineering – Chen nudged that number a bit higher, to 0.856347. [The more recent activity in the field of tetrahedron packing is succinctly covered in a New York Times article by Kenneth Chang: "Packing Tetrahedrons, and Closing In on a Perfect Fit"]

The January paper’s result, which is not included in Chen’s PhD thesis, was all that some in the audience wanted hear about: “What about the ‘champion’? I want to know how you did it, and then I’m going to leave.”

Chen eventually produced what they were there to see, which was the culmination of her systematic investigation: how individual copies of clusters of tetrahedra can fit densely into lattices. And her committee gave her a passing grade on the thesis defense.

Ann Arbor’s Kind of Density

When the topic of dense packing shows up in the pages of The Chronicle, it’s typically not in the sense of how densely you can pack space with tetrahedra. It’s usually something less esoteric, like a caution from the city’s public services area administrator, Sue McCormick, about packing the city’s yard waste containers too densely with leaves. From a recent Chronicle report on a city council budget meeting:

McCormick cautioned against compacting too many leaves into the containers, as it sometimes made emptying them difficult. [The automated arms tilt the carts upside down – whereupon the contents are liberated from the confines of the cart through a physical attractive force, a so-called "gravity."] McCormick pointed to the benefit of bagging as (i) providing more control, and (ii) limiting the amount of disruption in the community.

Or, if not densely packing leaves, then it’s densely packing people that’s the topic of discussion. We reported resident Lou Glorie’s remarks made during public commentary at a June 2009 city council meeting this way:

She suggested that urban sprawl had been replaced by the desire to pack 1,000 more souls into the downtown of some city. “Concrete is the new green,” she concluded.

Discussion on the merits of planning for greater population density in the city of Ann Arbor has dominated the local political conversation at least over the last decade. So it’s worth noting that a former Ann Arbor planning commissioner, Eric Lipson, attended Elizabeth Chen’s dissertation defense on dense packings of tetrahedra.

Eric Lipson, former planning commissioner with the city of Ann Arbor, hold the hands-on materials provided to audience members at Elizabeth Chen's Feb. 12 thesis defense.

Lipson did not attend by random accident. He’s the general manager of the Inter-Cooperative Council, a housing cooperative started in 1932 by UM students. Chen lived in ICC housing, at the Georgia O’Keeffe House, from 2005-2008. She was the O’Keeffe work manager for most of her time there.

That’s how Lipson knew Chen, and knew that her dissertation defense was coming up.

But Chen and Lipson aren’t just linked by the ICC connection.

Lipson himself has a practical interest in geometric shapes. He holds a patent on a connector for construction panels, which can be used to create 10-sided dome-shaped buildings.

And those 10-sided buildings can be shipped flat-packed wherever they might be needed. The company formed to manufacture and sell the product is called DecaDome. Lipson has prototypes set up in his backyard. While the audience was waiting for Chen’s dissertation committee to confer on her presentation, he showed us images of those prototypes from his Blackberry.

Eric Lipson showed The Chronicle images of DecaDome protoypes while we waited for Elizabeth Chen's dissertation committee to confer.

Part of what makes the connector special, said Lipson, is that the opening doesn’t require absolutely perfect alignment in order to accept a panel, which makes the task easier. As far as tools, all that’s needed is a screwdriver – though he allowed that a cordless power screwdriver would be recommended.

Panel material for DecaDomes ranges from foam core, to fluted polycarbonate, to pressure-treated plywood, to foam core panels covered with resin cement and fiberglass mesh.

Klingons

Different kinds of material is also the basis of the Klingon connection to Chen’s thesis. After Chen’s presentation, Sharon Glotzer, a UM professor of chemical engineering, helped clarify for The Chronicle why she and chemical engineering colleague Michael Engel were co-authors with Chen on the world-record tetrahedron-packing paper.

Glotzer and Engel are interested in designing new materials with interesting properties – properties that could, say, affect how we visually perceive objects made from them. That is, they’re interested in materials that have some kind of cloaking property. Glotzer told us that the various tech blogs take their speculations on this kind of scientific work in the direction of the Klingon cloaking device from the Star Trek series. [A cursory look into the Star Trek archives suggests it's the Romulans who pioneered cloaking technology, not the Klingons, who may have simply stolen it, but that's an issue that lies beyond the scope of this article – in any case, the proof is left to the reader.]

The tetrahedron connection to Glotzer’s work is this: Starting with tiny tetrahedra composed only of a few thousand atoms and suspended in a liquid medium, they can self-assemble into ribbon-like lattices. Exposure to light causes these ribbons to twist. And it’s the twist that holds the potential for cloaking. The twist – or chiral property – makes a compound optically active. That is, it will rotate the plane of polarization of light that’s passed through it. Glotzer stressed that the key to these compounds is the starting shape of the nano-particles – it only works with tetrahedra.

Glotzer told The Chronicle that she’s focused on the purely scientific aspect of this work – she’s not hoping someday to run a private company manufacturing cloaking devices.

Groceries and Valentines

Glotzer’s perspective on tetrahedra is not that the densest packing of tetrahedra is the most interesting packing. Rather, it’s that an interesting packing of tiny tetrahedra is the one that results in a larger object with desirable properties.

It’s a similar principle that applies, for example, to packing grocery bags. The goal is not to fit as much as possible into each bag. The goal is to pack each bag so that the resulting larger object – the packed bag – has desirable properties. A commonly desired property of a packed grocery bag is that it will stand up on its own – a property that’s a function more of the way its contents are packed than of the bag itself, something that’s especially true with plastic grocery bags.

And in Ann Arbor, at least, properly packing “square bags” can lead to love. From a 2006 interview with former mayor of Ann Arbor Ingrid Sheldon, in which she describes how she met her husband, Cliff:

HD: So you were a checker at the Kroger in Lower Town and he was a produce clerk?

IS: He was. He was doing his management training. He had just gotten his MBA from Michigan and as a part of his training, he was anticipating going into finance, they had him work in the stores.

HD: So did this unfold … was it the break room, where you first met, or?

IS: It was five o’clock rush. And these were the old columns of numbers, you know, we didn’t have a nine-key or a ten-key. We had columns for one’s and ten’s and hundred’s. I was noted for being very fast! And for packing square bags! I could ring up blind, and do the division 3-for-79 in my head, and you had to just do it. So anyway, I turned around one day, during the five o’clock rush, and there was this scrawny kid, packing round bags slowly. Ugh! So, of course, I had to assist him. But I realized he was youngish and I thought maybe I ought to pursue this guy, and find out more about him, before I totally blow him off! … it was love in the produce aisle! … and we started dating.

Happy Valentine’s Day from The Chronicle.

More Photos

Additional photos from the thesis defense that could not be densely packed into the layout of the above text:

Prof. Jeffrey Lagarias, who chaired Elizabeth Chen's dissertation committee.

Julian Rosen, a graduate student in mathematics, holds the 17-er tetrahedral cluster he pasted together during the dissertation defense.

Igor Kriz, UM professor of mathematics and a member of Chen's thesis committee.

Elizabeth Chen distributes materials for the hands-on portion of her thesis defense presentation.

Tetrahedral die held by professor of mathematics David Winter.

Elizabeth Chen (far right) receives the verdict on the oral defense of her dissertation: she passed. Standing with documents (far left) is her committee chair, Jeffrey Lagarias. Standing to Chen's right around the corner from Chen is professor of chemical engineering Sharon Glotzer.