By way of brief recap, Heritage Row was a planned unit development for the site, which would have preserved a row of seven houses to historic district standards (in the version presented to the city council in summer 2010) and constructed three apartment buildings behind them. City Place is a “matter-of-right” project that will likely start construction in the next few weeks. [Most recent Chronicle coverage: "Chapter Added to Fifth Ave. Historic Saga"]

Why will we likely see the demolition of those seven houses instead of their preservation in some form? At the city council’s Oct. 24 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) called it a failure by the city council to reach a compromise – on something that was less than ideal, but still reasonable.

The functioning of the city council as a body is an issue that has emerged as part of the Ward 2 city council race this year, which is being contested between independent Jane Lumm and Democratic incumbent Stephen Rapundalo. Lumm served on the council in the mid-1990s and has faced criticism from Rapundalo for being part of a group that he contends was characterized by brinksmanship and an inability to work constructively despite disagreements.

The functioning of the city council as a body is one of the themes of a email message written earlier today to members of the city council by Larry Kestenbaum. As far as I’m aware, Kestenbaum is not involved in the campaign of either Ward 2 candidate – that’s not his home ward, and he is not listed as a supporter on either of the candidates’ websites. In any case, the specific point of his email message was about the demolition of the seven houses on Fifth Avenue.

Kestenbaum is known to many in the community as the Washtenaw County clerk, an elected position. But he was not writing to the council as the clerk. He’s also an attorney who has a degree in land use and historic preservation from Cornell University. He served on Ann Arbor’s historic district commission in the 1990s. Also in that decade, he taught a course in historic preservation law at Eastern Michigan University. He lives in Ann Arbor.

Though his message to the council comes now, after the decisions on the South Fifth Avenue development seem to have finally been made, Kestenbaum did not exactly come late to the party as far as expressing his views on that area of the city. Writing on the now defunct ArborUpdate in August 2008, Kestenbaum stated: “I’d redesignate all of the former individual historic properties that were left unprotected after that bad court decision on 9/11/2001. And I think the area immediately south of William Street, along Fifth and Hamilton for example, should be a [historic] district.”

I think Kestenbaum’s recent email is unlikely to persuade any member of the council to take the action he suggests. But in my view, it’s a particularly well-written exposition of the idea that a city council is fairly judged by what it accomplishes as a body, not by the individual actions of its members. I think it’s important to preserve that exposition in The Chronicle’s archives.

It’s also important to preserve in the archives if it turns out that Kestenbaum’s message does manage to convince the council to set a process in motion to establish a historic district for the area.

And that’s why we’re sharing it with readers. Kestenbaum’s message begins after the jump.

Kestenbaum’s Email

The following email was sent to all councilmembers on Oct. 27, 2011 and forwarded to The Chronicle.

I write, not as County Clerk, but as a citizen of Ann Arbor.

My daughter is a student at Herbert M. Slauson Middle School.

Herbert M. Slauson (1853-1936), the namesake of that school, was Ann Arbor’s superintendent of schools for many years. It was under his leadership that our schools moved into the 20th century, taking on an enormously larger and more discerning population along the way.

Mr. Slauson lived for many years and died at 433 S. Fifth Avenue, one of the houses in the City Place/Heritage Row controversy. Samuel Beakes, the congressman for whom Beakes Street is named, also lived in one of those houses.

I spoke with some of the staff, students, and teachers at Slauson Middle School. They were shocked to hear that the City Council had passed up the opportunity to preserve the Slauson house for future generations.

What has happened, as I wrote in a previous email, is that the council has, by default, chosen the worst possible alternative for this site. By your action and inaction, you are leaving a scar in the middle of Ann Arbor.

I know that each of you want to take me aside to say, “Larry, I voted …” or “I did my best to …” But that is not enough.

A city council is not judged by the good intentions of its members. It is judged by what it accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, as a body.

Each one of you is well qualified to sit where you do, and most of you are my friends.

But your group process has completely failed. All I hear is mutual blame, and no investment in the group’s endeavor. Your total is much less than the sum of the parts.

I have been a defender and apologist for this council since long before any of you were members of it. I spoke up for you when your deliberations looked messy, or your priorities seemed odd. I spoke up for you when you were embarrassed about emails you exchanged. I have supported most of you in your individual campaigns.

But even I can see that difficulty with group process has gotten this body into trouble again and again. If you are worried about the council’s image, you should think back on all those events and hang your heads in shame.

Now, I understand that at a recent meeting, a proposal was made to revive the Germantown historic district, in a last-ditch effort to undo the damage you have done. I read with incredulity that some of you were angry that this was brought forward, and attempted to stop it from even being discussed.

Given that the current developer chose to enter into this project which already had a long and contentious history, I don’t see that he is owed “finality” on previous bad decisions. This is not someone who has owned the property for years and finds unexpected hurdles to development. It is entirely predictable that the city council would be interested in other development options.

Let me remind you that the city has vast powers to control development, and all kinds of tools that you’re not using here.

Here’s a very modest suggestion.

First, set out a territory that includes only the front portion of the seven properties, where the houses themselves stand. Reappoint your Germantown study committee and charge them with studying only that limited area. Since studies of the neighborhood have already been completed, it should not take long to create a recommendation. Give them a very short deadline, like 30 or 45 days, and limit the demolition moratorium to that time.

Second, while that is pending, rezone those properties to the higher density that is justified by close proximity to the transit center and the new underground parking facility.

You have ample legal justification to support both of those actions.

Under these different constraints, any reasonably creative developer ought to be able to come up with a profitable project, closely similar to the Heritage Row project, perhaps even without a PUD. And this combination of action would limit historic district protection and restriction to a specific ensemble of well-documented historic and architectural resources.

It’s time for the Ann Arbor City Council to redeem itself, to work together instead of separately, to show some creativity and compromise. Please don’t be so dug in to your past mistakes that you disdain positive outcomes in favor of scorched earth.

Larry Kestenbaum

Note: Dave Askins is editor of The Ann Arbor Chronicle. The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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!

Ruppel’s role at the meeting was not just to run the computer. He was second up to speak after the project leader on the city’s side, Chris Cheng, ticked through a list of his own questions, which included (i) the possible connection of the garage to the old YMCA site [answer: no connections now but designed for future connections on three levels] (ii) location of the speed ramp along Fifth Avenue and its relation to existing curb cuts at the federal building [answer: more discussion required, but the project team felt the ramp accommodated the existing curb cuts] (iii) the accommodation of future development on or above Library Lane – the proposed new east-west connector, which will split the block [answer: no such accommodation is planned] and (iv) the potential glare from 2-3 foot-candle lighting on residential structures along Division Street [answer: use of wall-mounted lighting and shields could address the issue].

Next came Ruppel, who dove into the nitty-gritty of natural features, ranging from storm water control to the impact on an existing landmark elm tree. Discussion of the storm water management for the site included the question of whether the storm water from Fifth Avenue should be included for capture in the storm water detention system. From Ruppel’s memo to the project team:

The garage structure under Fifth Avenue is indicated not to be captured by the storm water detention system, per the Drainage Area Plan on Sheet SPA-6. Please provide storm water management for the entire parking structure.

Ruppel’s memo also includes suggestions for how to achieve greater consistency with the Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner’s recommended best practice of using infiltration (letting it soak into the ground) as a part of the storm water management system, which would be suitable in light of the site’s Fox Sandy Loam soil. Ruppel also recommended exploration of ways to reduce the amount of pumping neccesary for the proposed storm water detention tanks, by locating them in areas where they could gravity drain to the public storm sewer.

Some of the city staff, who could not attend the meeting in person, sent their concerns along in memos. A memo from Patrick Cawley, for example, made specific some of the concerns about layout mentioned by Cheng at the start of the meeting. For example:

The southern driveway to the post office has its sight line blocked by the speed ramp. It will need to be shifted and likely need to truncate the bike lane.

Meetings between Cawley and the project team will be scheduled between now and Sept. 24, when revisions to the site plan are due, to clarify identified traffic issues.

Park planning sent along a question about whether the proposed class B bicycle parking would be covered. Answer: yes, they’re located next to a stairway with an extended roof canopy overhang that will cover the racks.

Landmark elm tree just in front of the carriage house to the rear of the A.L. Noble house on Division Street.

In addition to the landmark elm tree mentioned by Ruppel, the trees proposed along Library Lane drew the interest of Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest and natural resource planning coordinator. She discussed with Deb Cooper of Beckett & Raeder the proposed density of trees along the lane, suggesting that the spacing between them needed to be doubled in order to ensure long-term health of the trees. Cooper, for her part, said she was responding to public input that made clear there was an expectation that Library Lane would be something “very special,” and said she was confident that the trees – to be grown in structural soil that would extend under the sidewalks – would thrive. One of the specific challenges to tree plantings in connection with the project is that any trees will be growing on top of an underground parking garage. Gray and Cooper agreed that they would meet individually later to discuss required revisions.

As the meeting wound down, The Chronicle asked Ruppel if he knew the exact location of the landmark elm he’d mentioned. Yes. He first fired up an aerial image and zoomed in on the tree, then switched to Google Streetview, which offered a [view from Division Street] into the back of the A.L. Noble House lot, which allowed The Chronicle to navigate to the tree’s location after the meeting. Ruppel gave us the caveat that from that view, the elm was obscured by a tree of heaven, which stands just in front of it, when viewed from that angle.

What happens next

• Resubmission of plans due Sept. 24
• If resubmitted plans adequately address city staff questions, the project could come before planning commission’s regular meeting on Oct. 21

Aerial view of block where the proposed underground parking garage would be built.

[.pdf at maximum resolution: 19MB]