Animated .gif of the Burton Commons property showing the demolition of single-family homes on the parcels – from aerial images in the Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system.

If the parcels are available for sale, the council has also requested that the park advisory commission review the two properties and advise the city council by  Oct. 1, 2014 about whether they are desirable for city purchase using parkland acquisition funds and private contributions.

Originally on the agenda was just an item related to the Burton Road property, brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). During the meeting, the resolution was amended – at the request of Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) – to include the Glendale property. The deliberations that led to the amendment and that resulted in the final wording of the resolution are reflected in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting.

The Burton Road property is the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

The land is immediately adjacent to US-23 to the east and Sylvan Park to the north. A residential neighborhood lies to the west of the land.

Kunselman had told his council colleagues at their June 2, 2014 meeting that he’d be bringing forward such a resolution for the Burton Road property. The idea would be to use funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage to purchase the land. The resolution states that the estimated fair market value, according to the city assessor, is $628,800.

One-third of the open space millage proceeds are supposed to be allocated to acquisition of land within the city limits. At the June 2 meeting, Kunselman argued for the purchase based on the positive impact on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north.

The purchase of the land would also be consistent with a sentiment Kunselman expressed at a recent mayoral candidate forum – that there was resistance in Ward 3, which he represents, to “dumping and piling on” affordable housing in that ward.

Aerial view of proposed Glendale Condominiums site, south of Jackson Avenue.

Kunselman is a candidate for mayor in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, along with three other councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The Glendale property is the site of a proposed development that was just recently in front of the city planning commission on July 1, 2014, but postponed. That meeting drew 22 speakers at the public hearing on the project, nearly all in opposition to it.

The plan calls for removing two vacant single-family houses and building six duplexes, each with two two-bedroom condos. (The original proposal had been for eight duplexes.) Based on the size of the parcel and the site’s zoning – R4B (multi-family residential) – up to 39 units would be allowed by right. Each unit would include two garage parking spaces, with 12 additional surface spaces on the site. That’s double the number of spaces required by zoning.

The amendment put forward by Warpehoski to include the 312 Glendale parcel in Kunselman’s resolution indicated that the estimated land value of the 2.64-acre parcel is $345,200.

On the combined resolution for both the Burton Road and the Glendale parcels, the vote was 8-2, with dissent from mayor John Hieftje and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) was absent due to illness.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

Residents who live near the proposed Glendale Condos development turned out to oppose the project, which was postponed by planning commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

Nearly two dozen residents spoke during a public hearing to oppose the project at 312 Glendale, citing concerns about increased flooding and other stormwater problems, dangers of a proposed retention/detention pond, increased traffic, and a loss of landmark tress and green space.

The project had been previously postponed a year ago, at the planning commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting. That meeting had drawn about an hour of commentary from residents who opposed it then as well.

The current proposal has been scaled back – but still drew considerably opposition. The plan now calls for six duplexes, each with two two-bedroom condos. (The original proposal had been for eight duplexes.) Based on the size of the parcel and the site’s zoning, up to 39 units would be allowed by right.

It was a retention/detention pond that drew most concern from commissioners. Wendy Woods said the potential danger it posed would prevent her from supporting the project. Ken Clein questioned the contention of the architect, Scott Bowers, that the pond had been mandated by the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. Clein and other commissioners asked planning staff to get more information from the water resources commissioner about whether there are other options to handle all of the site’s water detention – such as additional underground systems.

The water resources commissioner is Evan Pratt, who formerly served on the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Also prompting some concerns – but ultimately gaining a recommendation of approval from commissioners – was a proposal for new condominiums on West Liberty Street, called The Mark. The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. Each condo would have its own two-car tandem garage for a total of 14 parking spaces, although no parking is required.

The lot, on the north side of Liberty, is east of the historic Peter Brehme house at 326 W. Liberty and located in the Old West Side historic district. Concerns raised during a public hearing focused on the fact that a small portion of the site’s corner lies within the floodplain, as well as a general objection to high-end development in the downtown core. One woman also criticized the aesthetics and height of the project. The project’s architect, Brad Moore, responded to concerns about the floodplain by saying that none of the building is within the floodplain. The garages are out of the floodplain, and the living space is located above the garages, he noted.

Two other projects were recommended for approval during the 4.5-hour meeting. Delta Chi plans to tear down its existing fraternity house at the corner of Hill and Oxford and build a much larger structure in its place. The current occupancy of 23 residents would increase to 34 people, including a resident manager. A fraternity representative fielded questions about the decision not to make a voluntary parks contribution. Some commissioners expressed skepticism at the contention that fraternity members didn’t use city parks, and asked that the contribution be reconsidered.

Finally, a $10.5 million expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive is moving forward to city council, after planning commissioners recommended approval of a site plan and rezoning. The nonprofit wants to build a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive. The additional space will accommodate offices, a special events auditorium and “organ procurement suites.” The nonprofit’s website states that the Gift of Life is Michigan’s only federally designated organ and tissue recovery program.

Glendale Condos

The July 1 agenda included a residential project at 312 Glendale, south of Jackson Avenue, which had been previously postponed a year ago at the planning commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting. That meeting had drawn about an hour of commentary from residents who raised concerns about the project, including increased flooding, the lack of pedestrian access, increased traffic and the loss of landmark trees. The site, owned by Jeffrey Starman, includes a former orchard.

Vacant houses at 312 Glendale. Nearby neighbors use the driveway as a cut-through to the west segment of Charlton Avenue. (Photos by The Chronicle.)

The project has been scaled back since then – but still drew considerably opposition. The plan now calls for removing two vacant single-family houses and building six duplexes, each with two two-bedroom condos. (The original proposal had been for eight duplexes.) Based on the size of the parcel and the site’s zoning – R4B (multi-family residential) – up to 39 units would be allowed by right.

Each unit would include two garage parking spaces, with 12 additional surface spaces on the site. That’s double the number of spaces required by zoning.

Sixteen of the 23 landmark trees would be removed, and 103 new trees would be planted. The developer has also agreed to make a voluntary $7,440 contribution to the city’s parks system. There are two areas on the north with steep slopes, which are considered natural features.

A public sidewalk would be built along Glendale. There would also be pedestrian connection between two buildings on the site, connecting the drive and the new public sidewalk on Glendale. Another sidewalk connection would be built between the end of the east/west portion of the drive and the Hillside Terrace property to the west.

There would be a new curbcut onto Glendale Drive, slightly north of the existing curbcut, which would be removed. A traffic study wasn’t done because the projected increase in traffic during peak hours wasn’t large enough to trigger that requirement.

Regarding stormwater management, the development agreement requires that the developer pay for disconnecting three footing drains from residences in the nearby neighborhood – or “an equivalent amount of sanitary flow removal.” On the site itself, the proposal called for stormwater facilities to be located on either side of the entrance driveway – an underground basin on the north, and a surface retention/detention pond on the south. The intent is for any stormwater runoff to be captured within the site, and not to affect the surrounding neighborhood.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff gave all the staff reports at the July 1 meeting.

Planning staff recommended approval of this project. [.pdf of staff report]

By way of additional background, a year ago, both Ward 5 city council representatives attended the planning commission meeting when this project was brought forward. One of them – Chuck Warpehoski – was among the speakers at that public hearing. He was cut off at that meeting by commissioner Diane Giannola, who cited the commission’s bylaws: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.” Warpehoski, who’d been unaware of that rule, stepped away from the podium.

The situation prompted additional discussion of that section of the bylaws, which were ultimately revised in an attempt to clarify the ability of councilmembers to address the commission, among other things. The planning commission approved a bylaws revision at its Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. The changes also require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office held back the revisions and they have not yet been forwarded to the council.

At a July 8 working session, planning commissioners were provided with a new draft that had been developed by assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald. His changes focused on how to handle public hearings in general. [.pdf of McDonald's draft] It’s likely that the commission will reconsider these bylaws revisions later this summer.

Glendale Condos: Public Hearing

The public hearing drew 22 speakers – the project’s architect, and 21 residents who were opposed to the development. Issues that were raised were similar to those expressed a year ago, and included concerns about increased flooding and other stormwater problems, dangers of the proposed retention/detention pond, increased traffic, and a loss of landmark tress and green space.

No trespassing signs are posted in the former orchard.

In addition to commentary during the public hearing, the planning commission received several letters about the project, which were included in the online meeting packet.

Here’s a summary from the July 1 public hearing.

Vince Caruso introduced himself as the coordinating member for the Allen’s Creek Watershed Group. The neighbors have a lot of concerns, because the development would be on a de facto park, he said. He wondered if there’s a calculation comparing the amount of impervious surface in this new plan compared to the old one. There are major flooding issues on Glendale, he said.

Caruso said the developer, speaking at a public forum on the project, had to be directly challenged after making the statement that no stormwater would leave the site. The developer also hadn’t notified all residents of Hillside Terrace about the forum, Caruso said. His daughter worked there, and told him there’s a very active residents’ group.

The drive out of the site will result in cars shining lights directly into houses across the street, devaluing their property, Caruso continued.

Regarding stormwater management, he said the design hadn’t changed “but the labels have been swapped.” The retention/detention pond, which is 7 feet deep, is a hazard to the community and an eyesore. It’s an extreme solution and indicative of the fact that this is way too much development for the site, he said. These kinds of basins are notoriously under-managed, he added. In recent years, there was a drowning in a similar basin near Target, he said. In years to come, when the fence around the basin is in disrepair, he said, “children and pets will have access to a clear and present danger to the community.”

Caruso also said the models for flooding in the Allen’s Creek watershed aren’t very accurate, since they don’t reflect the stormwater problems in the Glendale area. When Hillside Terrace was build, residents in the Glendale neighborhood sued and eventually settled with the city for flooding damages. “I think that’s a fairly clear indication that there’s stormwater issues to be addressed,” he said.

Libby Hunter read aloud a letter from Charles Dunlop, who lives on Glendale Circle. [.pdf of Dunlop's letter] He opposed the project, having concerns about traffic and water run-off.

Diane Robins of Old Orchard Court told commissioners that several of her neighbors were also at the meeting. They lived just north of the proposed project. They had concerns about stormwater runoff, flooding and sewage overflow, which she said are already severe in the neighborhood. The development is likely to adversely affect downstream property owners, she said. They’re concerned that the development will damage the environment and neighborhood “beyond its already fragile state.”

Vince Caruso and Diane Robins.

To document these issues, the neighbors created a flood, stormwater and sewage survey, modeled after the city’s water survey. Results from the first survey were presented to the planning commission a year ago, she noted – on July 16, 2013. More recently, they did another survey and doubled the number of responses. About 135 surveys were distributed, with 70 responses – a response rate of over 50%. The vast majority of respondents had problems with water, she noted. Copies of this information were sent to commissioners. [.pdf of Robins' correspondence]

There’s extensive flooding in the neighborhood, Robins reported, and she hoped commissioners would take these concerns into consideration. She requested that the stormwater modeling and evaluation be completed by the city prior to further consideration of this development.

Ethel Potts also expressed concerns about stormwater issues, and described how the current trees, shrubs and lawn help contain the water on that site. The development would make most of the site impermeable, she said. Potts questioned whether the retention/detention pond was safe, even with a fence. She described other aspects of the project that she characterized as badly planned, and told commissioners they could not approve the development.

Kira Slovacek, another resident of Old Orchard Court, was also concerned about the threat to the health and safety of residents. The pond would be a breeding ground for mosquitoes, she said, and increases the risk of West Nile virus. Such ponds are also frequently described as an “attractive nuisance,” she noted, and given this one’s proximity to a public sidewalk, “the risks of exploration are even greater.” Drowning is the most serious risk, she said, especially in a neighborhood heavily populated with children. Fencing isn’t an effective solution, she added. As the mother of two small children, with another one on the way, Slovacek said she’s very concerned, and she wanted to know what additional safety measures will be taken.

Slovacek’s husband, Ian Hubert, spoke next. He referenced a handout that he’d given to commissioners. He’d also sent an email to commissioners prior to the meeting. [.pdf of Hubert's email] He said the proposed buildings are much larger than existing single-family homes, and don’t fit will with the neighborhood. Hubert also expressed concern about the proposed locations for snow storage, noting that melting snow would run down the hill or clog the retention/detention pond with debris.

Tom O’Connell told commissioners he’s lived on Orchard Street for 47 years. He expressed concerns about flooding in the neighborhood. He said he lived there when neighbors sued the city over the Hillside Terrace development. He wondered why the city would allow a retention pond in a residential neighborhood. The city should fix the existing flooding problem before starting a new problem with this development, he said.

Kathy Boris, a Charlton resident, asked about the detention apparatus and the retention/detention pond. The fact that this development requires so much stormwater management indicates to her that it’s too large for the site. There’s too much impervious surface in the site plan. She asked if the land would be graded so that stormwater would flow into the catch basins. She also wondered if the development agreement would stipulate what maintenance would be required for the stormwater system. She listed several types of maintenance that the EPA recommended for such systems. Is there a legal mechanism to ensure that this maintenance occurs? Who’ll be held accountable if the system fails?

Josh Greenberg opposed the Glendale development.

Another Charlton residents, Kris Kaul, said she also has a rental property at the corner of Abbott and Glendale – directly across from the proposed development. The neighborhood feels very quiet and enclosed, and not a place that would support this development. Her main concerns were traffic and stormwater. Right now, it’s very difficult trying to turn left onto Jackson from Glendale, she said. Adding possibly 24 more cars will only increase the problem. It’ll make the quality of life there much worse. She was also concerned about the retention/detention pond. “It’s just a matter of time before a pet drowns in that retention pond,” she said.

Josh Greenberg lives on Glendale, and said he moved to the neighborhood because it’s very quaint with beautiful trees that have been there for decades or even a century. This project will change the neighborhood and he didn’t know if the development was worth it.

Sandra Berman of Glendale Circle thought that one of Ann Arbor’s goals is to create green spaces. There’s a beautiful orchard there now. She walks past there and sees children playing in the orchard, neighbors talking to each other – but now a condo development is proposed, despite the concerns. “My question is why would we do it?” she asked. Maybe there are financial reasons, but “that’s really not what our town is about,” she said.

Priscilla Parker, another Charlton resident, said she carefully reviewed the city’s master plan land use element section, and it’s clear that this development doesn’t meet two of the goals. Goal A is “to ensure that development projects are designed and constructed in a way that preserves or enhances the integrity of natural systems.” But this project will destroy natural systems, she said. Goal D is “to support the continued viability, health and safety of City residential neighborhoods.” Parker noted that there are serious issues regarding the retention/detention pond. She said everyone pays taxes for green space inside the city, and 312 Glendale is the perfect place to do that. She asked anyone who opposed the project to stand up – almost everyone in council chambers did.

Kira Slovacek.

Several other residents spoke against the project, including Melissa Whitney, Mary Cronin, and Andrea Pertosa. They raised similar objections and concerns about the retention/detention pond, flooding, traffic, impervious surface, and the elimination of green space. Gretchen Hahn read a letter from Rita Mitchell, who advocated that the city use funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage to buy the land for a park and green infrastructure. Susan Cybulski agreed with other speakers, and expressed concern that residents of Hillside Terrace – many who are elderly and infirm – couldn’t attend this meeting so that their voices can be heard.

Steve Thorpe thought developers should foot the bill for sending out notices. He also noted that when he was chair of the planning commission several years ago, he allowed people to applaud – it was a discretionary matter, “and the city didn’t come to a grinding halt.” Thorpe then spent the remainder of his speaking turn applauding, and was joined by others in the room. [Thorpe was responding to a request by the current chair, Kirk Westphal, not to applaud speakers during the public hearing.]

Ed Vielmetti said he wasn’t directly affected by this project, except to the extent “that we’re all citizens of Ann Arbor and we’re all affected by everything that goes on.” He talked about sump pumps in residences throughout Ann Arbor, and problems related to them. Because of the city’s footing drain disconnect program, the risk of sump pump failure is put on the residents to mitigate. “There’s no Internet of sump pumps in this town, and maybe there should be.” The city might be able to do something to help citizens manage stormwater issues in some way, especially in cases where it’s being made worse by new development, he said.

Lynn Borset spoke on behalf of the Virginia Park neighborhood. She referred to a communication she’d sent to commissioners last year, titled “Speaking for the Trees.” The information is still relevant, she said. [.pdf of Borset's 2013 email] Borset noted that the city forester also has noted concerns about the impact of construction on this site. She also wondered why there wasn’t a vehicle connection between Hillside Terrace and the proposed development.

Lynn Borset raised several objections to the project.

Other concerns related to density, open space and the retention/detention pond. She had raised some of these issues in a recent email. [.pdf of Borset's 2014 email] The development is over-capacity for this site, she said.

Gus Teschke pointed out that the development will include dumpsters, even though there are no other places with dumpsters in the neighborhood. It doesn’t align with community standards, he said. He questioned whether the site would meet the county requirements for containing stormwater. Teschke also noted that the local chapter of the Sierra Club is opposing the project. [.pdf of Sierra Club letter]

The final speaker was Scott Bowers, the project’s architect. They haven’t taken the neighbors’ comments lightly, he said. There have been several iterations of this plan. The project has been scaled back, he noted, and they’d designed the stormwater management system based on direction from the county water resources commissioner. “This is what they told us we needed to do,” he said. He explained how the retention/detention pond worked, saying it was the best spot to be located. Maintenance would be the responsibility of the condo association. There is additional parking on the site, compared to the previous plan, in response to neighborhood concerns about parking on the streets, he said. Two buildings had been eliminated to protect the natural feature of the steep slope and vegetation on the north side.

Bowers said they’ve gone to great lengths to preserve the existing trees as well as they can, and they’re grading the site so that stormwater will drain into catch basins. He noted that the buildings are duplexes, and that there are duplexes in the neighborhood already. The initial plan had called for four-plex units, he said.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion

Commissioners discussed this project for about 90 minutes and covered a range of issues, including stormwater management, traffic, open space, and design. Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said that commissioners aren’t unsympathetic to issues connected with this project, but their charge is to look at developments with regard to the city’s code and master plan. So while the site is pastoral and hasn’t been developed, it’s private property, he noted. “It’s not really in our purview to decide whether this should be a park or not, or whether the private property owner should develop it or not.”

This report organizes the commission’s discussion thematically.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Stormwater, Flooding

Diane Giannola asked how long water would remain in the retention/detention pond. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff replied that it would depend on the size of the storm. Giannola wondered whether there would constantly be standing water – because that would determine whether mosquitoes would breed there.

Kirk Westphal.

Paras Parekh asked how common it is for ponds to be used in developments like this. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, explained that most recently within the downtown, most of the stormwater detention for developments has been below ground. But when land is available on a site, most of the post-1970s development – both residential and non-residential – has incorporated detention ponds. Sometimes the ponds have water, like those around Briarwood mall. A lot of times the ponds are dry, and simply appear as depressions within a development, she explained.

Parekh noted that the Glendale Condos site uses both underground detention as well as the pond. Was there a reason why it couldn’t all be handled below grade? Rampson replied that she thought it was because this site’s design is constrained by the steep slope.

Ken Clein asked if the soils are suitable for infiltration. Thacher said that was part of the county water resources commissioner’s review, and they determined that the soils were suitable. Clein wondered if there’d be any discussion about using more below-ground infiltration in the stormwater system, rather than a retention/detention pond. Rampson noted that the county water resources commissioner has jurisdiction over these issues. That’s why the planning staff isn’t able to answer questions in the same level of detail as they can on other issues, she explained. The county has jurisdiction because the stormwater system will be shared among several units within the site.

Wendy Woods asked for an explanation of the difference between retention and detention. Rampson explained that for detention, a pond is designed to hold water in a large storm. Water flows into the pond, then gradually goes into an underground pipe system. The idea is to hold it on the site as long as possible, so that all the water doesn’t feed into the city’s stormwater system at the same time.

A retention pond, in contrast, keeps water for a longer period while it infiltrates and evaporates. Examples are at Briarwood mall or large residential complexes, like Traver Lakes or Geddes Lakes. In some cases, detention ponds are attached to retention ponds, Rampson noted.

Aerial view of 312 Glendale.

Jeremy Peters asked if there was any oversight for maintenance. Thacher replied that the development agreement includes requirements for construction and management of the stormwater management. The responsibility will be assigned to the condo owners, with annual inspections to be conducted by a professional engineer. Written copies of those inspections must be provided to the city’s public services staff.

Kirk Westphal asked who would neighbors call if there are problems with the system? Thacher said they could call public services staff at city hall. He asked if there is any redress for the community, if something goes wrong. Thacher said that if the pond fails, the development agreement states that the city can force the owners to repair it, or put liens on the property for work that the city does.

Westphal then asked who should be contacted if someone has concerns about existing requirements for stormwater management – such as the open retention/detention pond. Rampson replied that the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner sets the rules that the city uses. Possible revisions to those rules will be discussed by the county board later this year. [The position of water resources commissioner is an elected countywide post with a four-year term. The current water resources commissioner is Evan Pratt, who served on the Ann Arbor planning commission before his 2012 election.]

Responding to another query from Westphal, Thacher explained that this project’s stormwater standards are slightly stricter, because of the neighborhood issues. That’s why there can’t be any net increase of water leaving the site, which required a beefed-up stormwater system. “They’ve taken the neighborhood concerns very seriously, and made the developers put in extra precautionary measures because of that,” she said.

Rampson noted that much of that neighborhood was developed prior to the existing stormwater management requirements. So on most residential sites, the water runs off impervious surfaces and flows downstream. More modern development must meet requirements to manage the stormwater on-site, so that the new impervious surface doesn’t increase the runoff.

Architect Scott Bowers.

Sabra Briere asked whether the runoff from Hillside Terrace that flows onto the Glendale Condos site will be retained or detained. Architect Scott Bowers stated that the stormwater management system captures everything that come onto the site. The pond is open because it allows the water to evaporate or be sucked up by vegetation or percolate into the ground. That handles the water faster than simply an underground percolation system, he said. The system also has a mechanism that releases water into the city’s stormwater system at the “pre-development rate,” he said.

Responding to a follow-up question from Briere, Bowers said that all the runoff from roofs, sidewalks and other impervious surface enters the site’s retention/detention system through a stormwater piping system. Those are either catch basins in the roadway, or swales that lead to the retention/detention pond. All the downspouts are connected into this system directly or through swales.

Woods wanted to know the dimensions of the retention/detention pond. Bowers replied that it’s about 78 feet by 78 feet, and about 7 feet deep at its lowest point. Woods asked whether those dimensions were required by the county water resources staff. Bowers said the development team figured out the volume and provided that information to the water resources staff, and the development team’s engineers calculated the size of the pond that would be needed to deal with that volume.

Woods said she couldn’t get past the concerns about safety related to this pond. She pointed to a goal in the city’s master plan “to support the continued viability, health and safety of City residential neighborhoods.” A pond with those dimensions is a safety concern, she said – how would that be mitigated?

Bowers replied that there will be a six-foot security fence around the entire pond, with a locked gate. “Again, this was directed by Washtenaw water resources. This was a mandate for us to do this,” he said.

Woods imagined that children would be attracted to the water and fence, and climbing over it. She didn’t think she could overcome the concern, and didn’t think she’d support this project. “For me, it really is a hurdle.”

Giannola asked if it would be an actual pond, or whether it will be a grassy area in general that holds water only after a storm. Bowers indicated that the retention part of the pond will likely hold some water most of the time, until it percolates or evaporates. “It will constantly go up and down, depending on the weather,” Bowers said.

Ken Clein.

Clein questioned whether the water resources commissioner actually mandated the design. In his experience, that office typically tells a developer what the design must accomplish, but they don’t mandate a particular design.

Bowers replied that for this project, a year ago the planning commission sent the development team back to talk with the county water resources staff. Originally, all of the detention was underground, he said. But after talking with Evan Pratt and his staff, this design emerged – to hold the water while it either percolates or evaporates. The developer, Bowers said, was told to hold all water on the site – aside from the volume of water that leached off the site pre-development. It’s a very expensive system, he added. “This wasn’t something that we really chose to do, but this is where we were directed.”

Clein said that in his experience, open systems are typically less expensive than underground systems. Bowers replied that this site is doing both, because the project is being held to higher standards. “We’re off the charts on what we’re doing – this isn’t normal,” Bowers said. They even eliminated two dwelling units to be able to do this, he added.

Clein said he wasn’t comfortable moving forward with the petition, without getting further clarification from the water resources commissioner.

Susan Bowers, who’s also working on this project, said that Pratt and other county and city officials had held a closed meeting that the project’s civil engineers were not allowed to attend. That group decided that the project needed additional stormwater management, she said.

Clein pointed out that the city hall property also retained all of the water that fell on the site, but it’s all handled underground. [Clein is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, which designed the city hall renovation.] He said he could imagine that the county water resources staff indicated that a pond would be the cheapest and easiest way to handle the additional stormwater capacity.

Wendy Woods.

The open pond approach is done elsewhere, Clein acknowledged, but considering that it’s a development that needs to fit into the neighborhood, it’s different from a pond in a commercial area like South State or South Industrial. “It is inconsistent with the fabric of the neighborhood to have a detention pond there,” Clein said – no matter how nice the fence looks. So he wanted to get more information about whether it was mandated by the water resources commissioner or just a suggestion.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Bowers that a security fence is required because of the pond’s depth and slope. She assumed that if there was more space on the site, the pond would be shallower and wouldn’t need a fence.

Clein said it wouldn’t be fair to reject the project because of something that the developer was mandated to do. On the other hand, if there was a misunderstanding and there are alternative ways to design it, then the planning commission should know that, he said.

Responding to a query from Westphal, Wendy Rampson said the commission could ask the water resources commissioner for documentation about the county’s decision-making process. Rampson wondered whether it would be more direct to ask the water resources staff if an underground system would be acceptable. Clein said that would be a good follow-up question.

Rampson clarified for Westphal that the city’s stormwater requirements, in Chapter 63 of the city code, state that projects must meet the standards of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. If a project meets code, essentially the city is obligated to approve it, she said.

Woods responded, saying that even if a project is meeting code, if there are concerns about health and safety, then the planning commission – as an advisory group – needs to make its own determination about that. It would ultimately be up to the city council to decide, she said.

From left: Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona.

Jeremy Peters asked if it would be theoretically possible to design a stormwater system that’s entirely underground and still meet the county’s requirements. Yes, Scott Bowers replied – though it takes more land mass, because it would need to hold more water. The water only percolates underground – it doesn’t evaporate, so it stays in the detention system longer than an above-ground pond.

Briere asked if it’s possible to put the detention system underneath the site’s internal streets. Yes, Bowers said. For large commercial projects, such systems are sometimes located under parking lots and drives.

Responding to a query from Giannola, Bowers said the system needs to be in that front corner because of the grade changes and slopes on the site – it can’t be placed in one of the higher elevations.

Giannola said she wasn’t afraid of these retention ponds. They’re ugly, she added, but she didn’t think they were dangerous. Most of the ponds she’s seen in her neighborhood, tied to commercial developments, aren’t full of water.

Bona asked what kind of contaminants would fill the retention/detention pond – and ultimately end up in the sediment. Bowers replied that sediment would include debris, sand, dirt, and petroleum from cars. Bona replied that if people didn’t want contaminant to collect, they should probably not fertilize their lawns and not drive cars. But people do drive cars, she added, so the good news is that the contaminants are being collected and not sent to the Huron River. She asked how often the sediment would get cleaned out. Bowers replied that in this case, the system will be checked annually, and cleaned out as needed.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Streets, Parking Pedestrian Issues

Sabra Briere clarified with staff that the streets inside the development would be private, not public. The developer is responsible for snow removal. Eleanore Adenekan asked where snow would be stored. Jill Thacher replied that one location is at the top of a hill, with another spot near the pond.

Eleanore Adenekan.

Briere noted that snow storage on the northeast side of the site is by a slope down to the public sidewalk. She wondered how the complex would deal with melted water, “because that new sidewalk should not get icy.” Scott Bowers acknowledged that it’s an issue, and said they could look at other areas of the site to designate for snow storage. Or they could eliminate some surface parking and put the snow in those spots, he said. They’d like to put it by the retention/detention pond, because it would then melt into the pond.

Responding to a query from Ken Clein, Thacher reported that the site plan was reviewed by the fire marshal, and the site is required to include a turnaround area for emergency vehicles. Permeable pavers will be used for that area, she noted.

Clein observed that the city requires 18 parking spaces for this size development, but the site plan includes 36 parking spaces. He wondered if the additional spaces are in response to community feedback. Thacher said she believed that was the case, because of concerns raised about overflow parking on Glendale. Clein noted that additional parking means more impervious surfaces, which in turn leads to more stormwater issues. “These things are tied together,” he said.

Briere noted that a year ago when this project was being considered by the planning commission, one of the issues was the location of the new drive into the site. Commissioners had talked about aligning the drive with Charlton, so that headlights from cars exiting the complex wouldn’t shine into houses across the way. She wondered why that alignment didn’t happen.

Architect Scott Bowers replied that there were issues with grading, and how to configure buildings on the site. That southeast corner has been difficult, he said. That’s where the detention system and retention pond will be located.

Adenekan asked whether there could be a traffic light at the intersection of Glendale and Jackson. Jerry Spears, one of the project’s developers, said they’d be willing to consider that.

Paras Parekh wondered how many parking spots were in the original plan. There were eight surface spaces in that plan, replied Susan Bowers, one of the project’s architects.

Susan Bowers, Jill Thacher

Parekh asked how many parking spaces per dwelling were in the original plan, noting that there are now three per unit – a total of 36 spaces. Scott Bowers replied that there were 24 spaces originally – eight surface spaces, and two for each of the eight dwelling units. Parekh asked if they’d consider reducing the number of surface spots to eight again, to decrease the amount of impervious surface – and potentially decreasing the cost of the stormwater management. Bowers replied they’d like to have some spaces for guest parking.

Bona also supported reducing the surface spaces. She noted that realistically, there are two spaces available in each driveway – though those aren’t counted in the total, for site plan purposes. Bowers explained that only three of the buildings have driveways with sufficient depth to allow two parked cars.

Clein asked about the retaining wall along the sidewalk. At its highest point, the wall is five feet tall, Scott Bowers said. It will be a masonry wall.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Trash, Recycling

Responding to a query from Briere, Thacher explained that dumpsters will be located at each end of the private drive “stubs.” There will be bins for recycling and solid waste. She wasn’t sure how composting would be handled.

Bona asked how the site would accommodate recyclables. Susan Bowers, an architect with the project, replied that recycling bins are located next to the dumpsters. The city’s solid waste staff told the developers that they needed 300-gallon containers.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Trees

Clein asked about the root zone of one of the landmark trees, and whether it would be impacted by the development – a point raised during the public hearing. Thacher replied that the city forester, Kerry Gray, had extensive discussions about that tree and others, and had ultimately signed off on the plan. The goal was to keep as many of the landmark trees as possible.

Bona asked what kinds of trees will be added. Susan Bowers listed several varieties, including Allegany serviceberry, balsam fir, American hornbeam, Dawyck beech, Princeton Sentry ginkgo and others. Bowers noted that the trees are being planted according to the city’s requirements.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Density, Open Space

Bona noted that only 12 units are proposed, but the zoning allows for up to 39 units for a parcel that size. She reviewed the density allowed for adjacent zoning districts. The Glendale Condo site and Hillside Terrace have the same zoning. She pointed out that the project is proposing about half of the allowable density.

Developer Jerry Spears.

Responding to a query from Bona, Thacher explained that in calculating the percentage of open space on a site, the elements that aren’t considered open space are all the structures, drives, and parking spaces. Sidewalks count as open space, as does the retention/detention pond.

Peters asked if the property has ever been a public park. No, Thacher said. It was annexed into the city in 1987, but not zoned until 1994. It was zoned R4B as part of a proposed expansion of Hillside Terrace. That project wasn’t constructed and the site plan for it expired in 1999. It’s been in private hands, she said.

Bona noted that the original condo proposal presented a year ago called for eight buildings, and now there are six. The zoning allows for a building height of 35 feet, but the proposed buildings are only 17.5 feet tall. She asked whether they’d considered making a couple of two-story buildings and eliminating another building, so that there would be more open area to work with for stormwater management.

Scott Bowers said they looked at that option, but it wasn’t favorable to the developers.

Bona said she didn’t have a problem with more density than what is proposed. The current proposal is less dense than the surrounding neighborhood, she noted. She pointed out that if there are fewer buildings, there will be less impervious surface.

“Land is scarce and precious in this community, and to put a few big units on a large lot of land is contrary to the way I think about Ann Arbor,” Bona said.

Bona told Bowers that she’d love it if the units were much smaller, “but we haven’t enacted that ordinance revision yet – I’ll work on it.”

Bona said she’d like Bowers or the developer to consider making some of the units taller, and possibly eliminating a building. She said she appreciated the financial and marketing balance that’s at play. But she hoped the developer would “at least take a shot at that.”

Sabra Briere (left) talked with Diane Robins (standing) and other residents during a break in the July 1 planning commission meeting.

Scott Bowers replied that the project’s first design was for four buildings, each with four smaller, two-story townhomes. Neighbors didn’t like it at all, he said. Bona noted that to be fair to the neighbors, the site feels like a park – they wouldn’t have liked it even if just two houses were being added, she said. “All I’m asking is just to open your mind and reconsider.”

Giannola said she liked how the buildings look. The ranch houses with garages are a style that Ann Arbor doesn’t have much of. But townhouses would also be great, she said. To her, the project actually fits into the neighborhood.

Later in the meeting, Jerry Spears – one of the project’s developers – responded to some of the issues that had been raised. He noted that this has been a two-year effort so far. The density has been decreased, and now it’s a very low-density project, he said. The engineers on the project have said that they’ve never developed such an extensive stormwater system for such a small development. Spears said he’s built many projects in Ann Arbor, and takes a lot of pride in them.

“These are not monstrous individual spaces,” he said, referring to the size of the units. “I don’t know how I could make them any smaller. I tried to make it taller – they [the neighbors] said it was too tall. I tried to make it denser – they said it was too dense.” The project has come full circle, he said, and he recommended that the planning commission vote on it that night. He said the project meets every county requirement, “so that’s my position.”

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Postponement

Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said he understood the developer’s request to take a vote on the project that night, but it was still up to the commission as to whether they want to do that. Because the retention/detention system is unusual for a neighborhood like this, Westphal was in favor of getting more information about what other options are available. Westphal said he understood the concerns that have been raised – because he has small children, too.

Wendy Rampson.

Wendy Woods said she wanted to make sure her decision is based on the correct information. She moved to postpone the item, so that planning staff can get more information from the water resources commissioner.

Sabra Briere wanted to make certain that the planning commission gets a clear understanding of the options that the developer can choose from. The proposed stormwater management system works, but several commissioners aren’t happy with this solution, she noted. “We find a 7-foot-deep pond not a positive, in a residential neighborhood,” she said. “So if other things would work, it would be good to know that too.”

Ken Clein supported the motion to postpone. He had little doubt that the proposed system meets code. But he wasn’t sure it was the most appropriate solution for this location. He had no problem with the density and general layout of the site. The big issue for him is the retention/detention pond and security fence, and whether that’s appropriate for this neighborhood. He wanted to clarify whether the water resources commissioner had mandated this design, or whether an underground system would be an option.

Bonnie Bona said she typically didn’t support postponement unless the developer was willing to reconsider aspects of the plan. But in this case, if the planning commission voted that night, she thought they’d just be passing the buck to city council. While there might be a technical adherence to the code, Bona thought that Woods’ comments about the public’s health and safety is relevant. So she’d prefer to postpone and get the developer to take one more look at this proposal.

Bona also said she sympathized with the developers for responding to neighborhood concerns “almost to their own detriment.” All of the vacant sites that are close to downtown are difficult sites to develop, she said, so there’s no easy solution.

Paras Parekh also supported postponement. In addition to the stormwater issues, he’d like the developers to consider reducing the number of surface parking spots.

Westphal said that occasionally, a mismatch emerges between a project and the city’s code or master plan. In this case, it’s further complicated because the regulations in play – regarding stormwater management – are set by a body that supersedes the city’s jurisdiction. He supported postponement, but it gave him pause that they aren’t following the recommendations of the county water resources commissioner, who had signed off on the stormwater aspects of this project. “Hopefully we’re OK with the consequences of that,” he said.

Paras Parekh, Sabra Briere.

Jeremy Peters said he didn’t think the planning commission was not following the recommendation of the water resources commissioner. Rather, they’re just interested in seeing what all the options are for this project – especially since the depth of the proposed pond is a widely held concern. It’s definitely within the planning commission’s purview, he said, and appropriate to ask about other possible solutions.

Eleanore Adenekan asked if the postponement would be for a certain date. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said the planning staff would try to get the requested information as quickly as they could.

Diane Giannola stressed that the commission should be very clear about the information that they want, and that it should relate to this specific site. There are tradeoffs, she said. If people want low density, it might have to include a pond in the front. The question is whether this is the only stormwater detention system that works, she said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone the project.

Glendale Condos: Coda

At a July 8 working session, planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that when the project is brought back to the planning commission it will incorporate a revised stormwater management system.

The Mark Condos

After being postponed by Ann Arbor planning commissioners in May, a site plan for new condominiums on West Liberty Street was back on the July 1 agenda.

The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build a three-story, 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. Each condo would have its own two-car tandem garage for a total of 14 parking spaces, although no parking is required.

Rendering of Mark Condominium proposal, as viewed from West Liberty next to the former Moveable Feast building.

The 0.25-acre lot, on the north side of Liberty, is east of the historic Peter Brehme house at 326 W. Liberty – where the Moveable Feast restaurant was located several years ago. On the other side is a city-owned parcel that’s now used as a surface parking lot, connected to 415 W. Washington.

The site is located in the Old West Side historic district. The historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness for the project on March 13, 2014. It’s located in Ward 5 and is zoned D2 (downtown interface).

The project would require two footing drain disconnects on other properties or the equivalent mitigation, according to a planning staff report. [.pdf of staff report]

In May, De Parry was told that the existing six-inch water main in West Liberty Street would need to be upsized to a 12-inch water main. The city staff told him that the six-inch main wouldn’t have the capacity to handle the additional development, in particular the building’s fire-suppression system. That was the reason for postponement at the planning commission’s May 20, 2014 meeting.

At that time, De Parry told commissioners that the development team had just been informed about the issue, and they were analyzing the budget impact and alternatives that they might pursue.

The current agreement is for De Parry to pay for installation of an eight-inch water main, rather than the 12-inch water main.

The Mark Condos: Public Hearing

During the public hearing on July 1, four people spoke – three of them with concerns about the project.

Vince Caruso.

Vince Caruso introduced himself as the coordinating member for the Allen’s Creek Watershed Group. He noticed that the packet of material for this project doesn’t mention the floodplain, but the parcel is actually in the floodplain in the back corner, he said. Caruso urged caution with this development. There are several new developments in and around the Allen’s Creek watershed. He noted that the first plan for the homeless shelter on West Huron had to be scrapped because it was shown to be in the floodway, which would have been illegal, he said. It cost about $1 million to modify the plan. Even then, he added, they violated many city regulations that they initial said they’d meet. The shelter is built right up to the edge of the floodway, and is still in the floodplain, he said.

The city has received a letter of map revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding an area very close to The Mark project, Caruso reported, for an area that includes the YMCA site, 415 W. Washington and the homeless shelter. The revision raised the floodplain 33%, he said. The affordable housing project on North Main was also scrapped because of floodplain miscalculations, he contended. The Allen’s Creek Watershed Group is hoping to do a study that would provide better information about flood hazard issues. He described several initiatives that the group is involved with, saying “we can make big changes, but we need to make sure we don’t put people in harm’s way.” People have drowned in Ohio in recent years trying to get their cars out of buildings that were in the floodplain or very close to it, he said. People might not realize they’re moving into a structure that’s so close to the floodplain, he noted. The issue needs more study, he concluded.

Lynn Borset told commissioners that she hadn’t realized this project was on the agenda and she wasn’t planning to speak. But aesthetically, she thought it was a shame that this apartment building will be taller than adjacent historic building, and “will not have anything to recommend it, in terms of the exterior design.”

Brad Moore, the project’s architect, noted that the civil engineer for this development was available to answer questions. The floodplain is below the level of the garages, and all of the living space is above the garages. The entrances to the living space are on the west side of the building, a level above the garages. Even if there were some adjustments to the existing floodplain boundary, there wouldn’t be a problem, Moore indicated. The developer’s team has worked closely with Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain program coordinator, he said. There wouldn’t be water on the site even with a 100-year storm event, he added, so that issue had been addressed adequately.

Architect Brad Moore showing plans for The Mark condominiums on West Liberty.

In terms of aesthetics, Moore described the design as a long negotiation process with the city’s historic district commission, which has jurisdiction over design issues and placement of the building. He noted that the HDC had given approval to the project, and at those meetings, Moore said the president and vice president of Old West Side association had spoken in favor of the project. He hoped that planning commissioners would also vote in favor of it.

Steve Thorpe supported what Caruso had said. If any portion of the site is within the floodplain, the city has a legal obligation to address it, he said. He’d noticed that the staff report had included excerpts of goals from the city’s downtown plan. But he thought two of the goals that were cited weren’t compatible with this development. One of the goals was to “encourage a diversity of new downtown housing opportunities,” but Thorpe expressed skepticism that The Mark’s units would be affordable for median income families or individuals. “When is this gonna stop?” he asked. More high-end residences downtown are being built, and it seems like that’s changing the city’s character, at least in the downtown core, he said. He thought one of the objectives of the downtown plan is to emphasize diversity.

Thorpe also pointed to this goal cited in the staff report, excerpted from the downtown plan: “Protect the livability of residentially zoned neighborhoods adjacent to downtown.” He’s been a resident of one of these neighborhoods for 30 years, and there are traffic and parking issues that are directly related to downtown development, he said. Also, property taxes are going up because property values are going up – and downtown development might be contributing to that, he contended.

Thorpe said he walked by the site recently, and the developer’s sign had some graffiti on it that said something like “More yuppified housing for Ann Arbor.” To him, that said a lot. “I just think at some point we’ve got to put the brakes on this and try to rectify the imbalance that’s taking place,” he concluded.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion

Commissioners discussed a range of issues, including the floodplain and stormwater management, traffic, design, and aspects related to the Old West Side historic district. This report organizes the discussion thematically.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Floodplain, Stormwater

Ken Clein began the discussion by asking about the floodplain issues that had been raised during the public hearing. City planner Jill Thacher described the floodplain as located in a small area in the rear corner, in the northeast portion of the site. She noted that no development is proposed in that corner.

Alex de Parry.

Clein clarified with Thacher that even if a portion of the site is in the floodplain, there’s no prohibition to building on the site. You just can’t build residential or inhabitable space within a certain distance of the floodplain. That’s the reason this development’s building won’t be in that part of the site, Thacher said.

At Clein’s request, architect Brad Moore showed the commission drawings of the buildings in relation to the floodplain. There’s no habitable space on the lower level, Moore noted – just garages, bike parking and trash bins.

When Clein observed that he only saw stairs on the architect’s drawings for two units, Moore explained that the other units will have private elevators – operated by hydraulic lifts. Only the north and south units will access the garage via stairs.

Bonnie Bona said it was important to explain to the public the differences between floodway and floodplain. A floodway is where water “moves like a river” during a flood, she said. A floodplain is the area where water backs up. Even if the floodplain cut through the middle of the site, she noted, you could still build residential units there – they would just need to be elevated above the floodplain.

Bona asked Moore to explain how the floodplain line was determined. Kathy Keineth of Perimeter Engineering came to the podium – she’s the project’s civil engineer, and described how the analysis was conducted using computer models.

Jeremy Peters.

Bona then asked what the project will do to mitigate the risk of flooding – not just for this site, but for the rest of the city. Moore replied that currently, the site has no stormwater management and water just sheets off the pavement. For the condo project, there will be a detention system so that all stormwater falling on the site will be contained there and allowed to infiltrate.

Sabra Briere asked staff about the footing drain disconnects, saying that there’s been a lot of discussion about that program. “Are we helping developers find alternatives to the developer offset mitigation program?” she asked.

Thacher replied that the program continues to operate. Briere indicated that she knew it was still operating, but also that it’s under review.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the residential footing drain disconnect program is under review, and “there’s been a lot of discussion on the developer side of the equation.” Staff have been meeting almost weekly for the past few weeks, she said. In the development agreements, the staff is trying to leave the language flexible and to refer to sanitary sewer mitigation, Rampson explained, adding that “it may or may not be footing drains.” The staff is also trying to identify some multi-family buildings that could be disconnected, rather than performing work on individual homes.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Landscaping

Bona noted that aside from the public land that abuts the site, the other adjacent parcels were zoned D2 – so there was no requirement for landscaping buffers. She asked about the plans for landscaping, adding “I hope it’s not lawn.” Kathy Keineth of Perimeter Engineering reported that two street trees will be planted in front, with some landscaping closer to the building. A series of terraced walls will be located in front, and an existing retaining wall on the west side will be removed.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Historic District Commission

Bonnie Bona confirmed with the developer’s team that they didn’t go through the city’s design review process. Architect Brad Moore said that if a project requires approval from the historic district commission, it’s not required to go to the design review board. He noted that compliance with the design review board is voluntary, but a developer must comply with the HDC recommendations – or the HDC won’t issue a certificate of appropriateness.

Jeremy Peters asked about the guidelines for new buildings within an historic district. He said aesthetics weren’t in the planning commission’s purview, but he knew there are guidelines for historic districts. Jill Thacher replied that the Secretary of the Interior’s standards are the guiding principles for the HDC. Summarizing, she said, the HDC is looking for new construction that’s compatible with the district – in terms of height, massing and materials – that doesn’t overwhelm or detract from the district’s historic structures.

Bonnie Bona.

In this case, Thacher said, the height of the building was one issue, but the biggest issue for the HDC was the front setback. The zoning requirement is for a 15-foot setback, but the HDC pushed for a larger setback of about 30 feet. The point was to set back the building so that the new construction didn’t completely obscure the historic house to the west, she said. One of the HDC’s charges is to preserve viewsheds, she noted.

In terms of design, new buildings are supposed to look “of their time,” Thacher explained, and should not try to mimic something that was built a long time ago.

Ken Clein said the design had done an admirable job in finding a nice moderation between modern and historic. Pushing it back off the street helps make the new building feel more in context with the neighborhood, he said.

Clein clarified with Moore that mechanicals will likely be small rooftop units, but Moore noted that the mechanical design hasn’t been completed. Clein also asked about the exterior building materials. Moore explained that there will be traditional glazed windows, some ironwork, brick and some smooth panels that are similar to a hardiepanel. The accents around the windows and copings would match the ironwork, he said. Responding to a query from Clein, Moore said the brick will be four-inch and one-inch veneers, depending on where it’s located. He stressed that there will be no visual difference between the different types of brick.

Bona said it would have been nice if Moore had considered using some other lightweight material, rather than a thin brick veneer. She said perhaps the HDC could be more critical of that in the future. Moore replied that the design originally didn’t include that brick, but the HDC requested that they add it. Bona quipped: “I guess ‘of our time’ means playing tricks.”

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Diversity of Housing

Bona addressed the comments made by Steve Thorpe during the public hearing, about the master plan’s goals for increasing housing diversity. That’s something that the planning commission is continuously challenged with, she said – trying to put something affordable on high-valued property is difficult. The city’s zoning code currently includes a premium that developers can earn, getting more floor area if they provide affordable housing in their development. But that premium isn’t being used, Bona noted.

So the commission is working on how to create incentives for getting more affordable housing throughout the city, she said, including downtown. “The current premium mechanism we have in place just is not working.” She noted that the commission would completely agree about the need for more diversity, but it can’t always happen on site – especially on smaller sites, like the one for The Mark condos.

Regarding Thorpe’s comments that development is raising property values and creating hardships for people paying higher property taxes, Bona pointed out that recently the planning commission heard from residents who were concerned about an action that they thought might lower property values. She hoped that values wouldn’t move in either direction very quickly.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Bona also disputed Thorpe’s claim that more density causes more traffic problems. “Denser housing tends to produce less traffic – most of the studies are saying that,” she said. The traffic issues downtown are more likely related to the attractiveness of Ann Arbor for people who live outside the city, she said. Personally, she thought that downtown development was helping improve the traffic situation.

Wendy Woods wanted to know what will happen to traffic on West Liberty when the new water main is installed. Kathy Keineth of Perimeter Engineering said they haven’t yet designed the water main. That will happen after the city approves the site plan, she said. The tentative plan is to install the water main about 3 to 5 feet behind the curb, then just abandon the old water main that’s located under West Liberty. However, that plan hasn’t been cleared with city staff yet, Keineth said. The goal is to minimize work on West Liberty, so the intent is to keep at least one lane open. Brad Moore clarified that the work would only take a few days at most.

Outcome: The project was unanimously recommended for approval. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Delta Chi Fraternity

Planning commissioners considered a proposal to tear down the existing Delta Chi fraternity house on Hill Street and build a much larger structure in its place.

The Delta Chi fraternity house at 1705 Hill St. was built in 1915, designed by the architect Samuel Stanton.

The fraternity plans to demolish the existing 4,990-square-foot house at 1705 Hill St. – at the northwest corner of Hill and Oxford. It was built in 1915 for a University of Michigan professor and designed by the architect Samuel Stanton. Delta Chi has owned it since 1947.

The house would be replaced with a 12,760-square-foot structure on three levels, including a basement. The current occupancy of 23 residents would increase to 34 people, including a resident manager.

The house is now on the northwest corner of the site, and a curbcut for the driveway is located at the intersection of Hill and Oxford. The proposal calls for building the new house closer to the southeast corner of the lot, with a parking lot on the west side and a new curbcut onto Hill – away from the intersection. [.pdf of staff report]

The minimum parking requirement is for seven spaces, but the plan calls for 16 spaces on the parking lot. There will be a shed with spaces for 20 bikes, and another four bike spaces in the back yard. Stormwater would be detained beneath the parking area.

The site is zoned R2B (two-family dwelling and student housing). All of the neighboring parcels are also zoned R2B, and contain fraternity houses or duplex residential homes.

The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million.

None of the large trees on the site will be removed. The fraternity declined to make a recommended voluntary parks contribution of $3,100 to the city.

Aerial view of Delta Chi site.

A statement from the fraternity gives their rationale for that decision: “While we can see the merit of such a donation for a large, new development that may bring additional residents to the city, we feel that this is not fitting in our situation. The Delta Chi Building Association has owned this property continuously since 1947, and during that time has consistently paid our property taxes and special millage assessments designated for Parks and Recreation. During our 67 years of ownership, we believe that we have contributed much more than the contribution suggested to support the Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation system.”

The planning commission was asked to recommend approval of a site plan and, in a separate resolution, to grant a special exception use for the project. A special exception use is required because the property is zoned R2B (two-family dwelling district and student dwelling district). Fraternities are allowed in R2B districts only if granted special exception use by the planning commission. No additional city council approval is required for that.

The site plan does require city council approval.

Delta Chi Fraternity: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked about the decision to reject the voluntary contribution to parks and recreation. She encouraged the fraternity to rethink that position. She asked that a representative of the fraternity talk about that decision.

John Levinson, treasurer of the Delta Chi alumni board.

John Levinson introduced himself as treasurer of the Delta Chi alumni building corporation, which owns the house. He’s been a member of the fraternity since 1969, and has been on the alumni board since he graduated from UM in the mid-1970s. It’s their experience and belief that students don’t use any of the city parks and recreation facilities, he said.

Levinson noted that city staff had explained that increased density on the site would result in additional use of the parks, so the fraternity should “pay to play.” But “we just don’t think we’re going to be playing,” he said, and that’s why they declined to make the voluntary contribution.

Woods asked whether that meant the fraternity members don’t ever go to Gallup Park, Argo Park, the new skatepark, or any of the other city parks and recreation facilities. Levinson said that’s their opinion, though he hadn’t surveyed members. He said he keeps in close contact with the house, and most of the activities are with the university’s intramural sports and facilities.

Woods said it would be highly unusual for any residents of the city not to use the city’s parks and recreation facilities at some time. Levinson replied that he knows the fraternity members use the city’s golf courses, but he characterized that as “pay to play” because they pay fees to use the courses.

It’s true that the parks contribution is voluntary, Woods noted, “but when you have a public good, it’s always worth a conversation.”

Levinson explained that the fraternity hasn’t raised all the money it needs for this project. He said after they know whether they have enough money for the project, they’d be willing to reconsider the parks contribution.

Site plan for the new Delta Chi fraternity house at 1705 Hill.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that the golf courses are subsidized by city taxes – the fees that players are charged doesn’t cover the expenses. She noted that she works near Argo Pond, and there are a lot of university students who use the Argo Cascades. She also observed that The Rock is located on a small city park at the corner of Hill and Washtenaw. Levinson acknowledged that fraternity members have used that park. “And who pays to maintain that little park? The city of Ann Arbor,” Bona replied. Levinson stressed that it was indeed a very little park, however.

Levinson told commissioners that he never said the parks weren’t valued, but he didn’t think fraternity members used the parks as much as “regular citizens of Ann Arbor.” He noted that the fraternity also pays taxes, which supports things like the golf courses.

Levinson explained that although the new house will hold more residents, they won’t be increasing the overall population. The fraternity members will just be relocating from university housing or other non-university housing. Bona pointed out that the spots vacated by the fraternity members will be filled by others, so the change will, in fact, be adding more residents to the city.

It’s a good thing to increase density and to have students living near the university, so that they can walk and use public transit, Bona said. It’s also a very nice project, she added.

Levinson said they’re trying to fix problems that exist with the current house. “I go to sleep at night wondering what’s going to happen if that old place burns, to be very honest – because it’s old.” The house contains plaster and lathe, and although there are functional smoke alarms, there’s no sprinkler system, he noted.

Sabra Briere reported that she also lives in a house with original plaster and lathe, which was built in the 1830s. She appreciated the fraternity’s efforts to “retain the charm of the existing house” and to retain some tradition. Levinson said it had been a somewhat selfish motivation, because they knew that contributions from alumni would be tied to the look of the house.

Ken Clein clarified that there would be no retention/detention pond on the site – a reference to the controversial Glendale Condos project that had been postponed earlier in the meeting.

In response to another query from Clein about ADA features, Levinson explained how the first floor is designed to include an accessible residential unit, and that there’s a lift that allows access to the first and second floors.

Outcome: In separate votes, commissioners unanimously approved the special exception use and recommended approval of the site plan. The site plan proposal will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Gift of Life Expansion

A $10.5 million expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive was on the July 1 agenda.

Aerial view of Gift of Life Michigan site.

The proposal calls for building a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive, which are owned and occupied by the nonprofit. According to a staff report, the additional space will accommodate offices, a special events auditorium and “organ procurement suites.” The nonprofit’s website states that the Gift of Life is Michigan’s only federally designated organ and tissue recovery program.

The proposal includes a site plan and a request to rezone the properties from office (O) and research (RE) to office/research/limited industrial (ORL). The parcel at 3161 Research Park Drive is currently zoned O. The parcel at 3169 Research Park is zoned RE. The plan is to combine those lots before the city issues building permits.

The project would reduce the four existing curb cuts to Research Park Drive to three, connecting one of the loop driveways to an existing driveway at the east end of the site. A parking lot at the back of the site will be expanded by 38 parking spaces. Two alternate vehicle fueling stations are proposed in parking spaces near the main entry, with the driveway at the center of the site providing access for ambulances. A new shipping and receiving facility will be located on the northeast corner of the site. [.pdf of staff report]

The only speaker during the public hearing was Curt Penny of Eckert Wordell, a Kalamazoo-based architectural firm. He stated that the project team was on hand to answer any questions.

Gift of Life Expansion: Commission Discussion

This item was considered late in the meeting – after 11 p.m. – and discussion was brief. Wendy Woods praised the Gift of Life’s work. Jeremy Peters said he appreciated a reduction in the number of curbcuts, saying that it helped promote pedestrian usage.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and rezoning. It will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners. Here are other highlights from July 1.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

In addition to the public hearings held for specific projects, there were two opportunities for general public commentary. Steve Thorpe spoke during the first slot for public commentary, introducing himself as a downtown resident and former chair of the city’s planning commission 14 years ago.

Steve Thorpe.

He wanted to raise the issue of height limits. He thought that D1 and D2 districts are a good idea, although the city made some mistakes on the location of those downtown zoning districts.

When he was chair, Thorpe said, the public and the commission were moving fairly rapidly toward considering height limits. At that time, commissioners felt that the public was receptive to height limits, he said. “Unfortunately, I think city council kind of pulled the rug out from under us” and instead established the downtown residential task force, which he was a member of. Thorpe said he resigned before the task force issued its final report, because he didn’t agree with its projections for the number of downtown residents.

The buildings that are being constructed downtown are changing the density, he noted, and that’s bringing other problems. It’s beginning to alienate people and how they remember Ann Arbor. He said he wasn’t resisting change, but the city needs to manage it better. “Let’s not close the door on downtown height limits,” he said, and perhaps something can be done that’s consistent with the D1 and D2 districts. [The overlay character districts for D1 and D2 include height limits of 180 feet and 60 feet, respectively.]

Communications & Commentary: Affordable Housing

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters gave an update on work that’s being done to add affordable housing units to the city. He and planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan are working with members of the city’s housing & human services advisory board and staff of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development. The intent is to look at issues where these three groups have similar interests, and eventually to provide some strong guidance for city and county leaders.

Based on the last needs assessment, about 1,500 more units of affordable housing are needed in this community, he said. The group is trying to identify questions that they need to have answered, as well as information that each of their respective boards and commissions might want. One of those questions is the definition of affordable housing, which he noted could mean a wide range of things.

Another issue is to look at the city’s premiums that are offered to developers, and how to modify those so that the premiums are more effective as a tool to build more affordable housing units.

The group’s next meeting is on July 24 at the county annex, 110 N. Fourth Ave., starting at 6:30 p.m.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Next meeting: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s 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.

Vacant houses at 312 Glendale. Nearby neighbors use the driveway as a cut-through to the west segment of Charlton Avenue. (Photos by The Chronicle.)

The project at 312 Glendale, south of Jackson Avenue, had been previously postponed a year ago at the planning commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting. That meeting had drawn about an hour of commentary from residents who raised concerns about the project, including increased flooding, the lack of pedestrian access, increased traffic and the loss of landmark trees. The site, owned by Jeffrey Starman, includes a former orchard.

The project has been scaled back since then – but still drew considerably opposition. The plan now calls for six duplexes, each with two two-bedroom condos. (The original proposal had been for eight duplexes.) Based on the size of the parcel and the site’s zoning, up to 39 units would be allowed by right.

Each unit would include two garage parking spaces, with 12 additional surface spaces on the site. That’s double the number of spaces required by zoning.

Sixteen of the 23 landmark trees would be removed, and 103 new trees would be planted. The developer also agreed to make a voluntary $7,440 contribution to the city’s parks system. A public sidewalk would be built along Glendale. There would also be pedestrian connection between two buildings on the site, connecting the drive and the new public sidewalk on Glendale. Another sidewalk connection would be built between the end of the east/west portion of the drive and the Hillside Terrace property to the west.

Regarding stormwater management, the development agreement requires that the developer pay for disconnecting three footing drains from residences in the nearby neighborhood. On the site itself, the proposal called for stormwater facilities to be located on either side of the entrance driveway – an underground basin on the north, and a surface detention pond on the south. The intent is for any stormwater runoff to be captured within the site, and not to affect the surrounding neighborhood.

The public hearing on this project at the July 1 meeting drew 22 speakers – the project’s architect, and 21 residents who were opposed to the development. Issues that were raised were similar to those expressed a year ago, and included concerns about increased flooding and other stormwater problems, dangers of the proposed detention pond, increased traffic, and a loss of landmark tress and green space.

It was the detention pond that drew most concern from commissioners. Wendy Woods said the potential danger it posed would prevent her from supporting the project. Ken Clein questioned the contention of the architect, Scott Bowers, that the pond had been mandated by the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. Clein and other commissioners asked planning staff to get more information from the water resources commissioner about whether there are other options to handle all of the site’s water detention – such as additional underground systems.

The water resources commissioner is Evan Pratt, who formerly served on the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Aerial view of the Glendale condominium site.

Trees in the former orchard at 312 Glendale are marked with No Trespassing signs.

A year ago, both Ward 5 city council representatives attended the planning commission meeting when this project was brought forward, and one of them – Chuck Warpehoski – was among the speakers at that public hearing. He was cut off at that meeting by commissioner Diane Giannola, who cited the commission’s bylaws: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.” Warpehoski, who’d been unaware of that rule, stepped away from the podium.

That incident prompted additional discussion of that section of the bylaws, which were ultimately revised in an attempt to clarify the ability of councilmembers to address the commission. The planning commission approved a bylaws revision at its Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. The changes also require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office is still reviewing the revisions and they have not yet been forwarded to the council.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow.

Residents attended the July 16, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission to express concerns about the proposed Glendale Condominiums project. A public hearing on the project lasted about an hour. (Photos by the writer.)

In a public hearing that lasted about an hour, neighbors cited a range of issues, including concerns about increased flooding, the lack of pedestrian access, increased traffic and the loss of landmark trees. One resident told commissioners that she already has a sump pump “that could probably pump pudding to Ypsilanti, it’s so powerful.” She’s concerned it will need to run continuously if the project gets built.

The proposal for the 2.54-acre site at 312 Glendale Drive includes demolishing two single-family homes on the south end of the property and building eight two-bedroom duplexes. Each unit would include a one-car garage, with eight additional surface parking spaces on the site.

The project is located in Ward 5, and both city councilmembers representing that ward – Mike Anglin and Chuck Warpehoski – attended the July 16 meeting. Warpehoski was among the speakers at the public hearing, but was cut off by commissioner Diane Giannola, who cited the commission’s bylaws. The bylaws state: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.” Warpehoski, who had been unaware of that rule, stepped away from the podium but stayed for the remainder of the public hearing and the commission’s deliberations on this item.

After discussing the proposal, commissioners followed a staff recommendation and postponed action on the project, to allow for time to address unresolved issues related to the site plan.

In other action, commissioners recommended approval of a drive-thru addition for the Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower, near the I-94 interchange. As a “public amenity,” the owner proposes putting in a 140-square-foot brick-paved area near the intersection, with two park benches and shrubbery. Some commissioners questioned whether anyone would use that spot, given its location next to heavy traffic. Wendy Woods, saying she had family nearby, indicated that there is a fair amount of pedestrian and bike traffic in that area. She also floated the idea of putting public art on that corner, given that it’s a “gateway” to the city. Sabra Briere indicated that the city wouldn’t fund public art on the privately owned site, but would “applaud” the owner if he chose to put artwork there.

Also gaining unanimous approval was a request by the Glacier Hills retirement community for adding 31 parking spaces to its property, near US-23 on the city’s east side. A representative from the nearby Earhart Village spoke against the project, saying that the parking is primarily for commercial uses, even though the area is residential. He argued that Glacier Hills is drawing customers to the property, who use the cafe there and other services, and that it negatively impacts the adjoining neighborhoods. He also complained about changes to the site that can be approved via administrative amendments, with no oversight by the planning commission. One such change – an addition to one of the Glacier Hills “villas” – is currently pending with the planning staff.

Commissioners also approved minor changes to their bylaws, and got updates on the R4C citizens advisory committee and the review of A2D2 zoning. Just prior to the July 16 regular commission meeting, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) had met with Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates, the Ann Arbor consultant that’s been hired to handle the city council-mandated review of downtown zoning. The work includes a series of events aimed at seeking public input. Upcoming events include Thursday morning coffee hours with consultants that are open to the public from 8-10 a.m. at the new Zingerman’s Deli building, starting on July 25. And two focus groups are scheduled for next week: on Monday, July 29, 8-9:30 a.m. at Kerrytown Concert House, 415 N. Fourth Ave.; and on Tuesday, July 30, 7-8:30 p.m. at the lower level conference room in city hall, 301 E. Huron St. More events are listed on the city’s website.

Glendale Condominiums

The proposed Glendale Condominiums at 312 Glendale Drive was on the July 16 agenda, with a recommendation by the planning staff for postponement.

Aerial view of proposed Glendale Condominiums site, south of Jackson Avenue.

The project is located south of Jackson Avenue and east of Hillside Terrace on the city’s west side. The proposal calls for tearing down two single-family homes on the south side of the 2.54-acre site and building eight two-bedroom duplexes. Each unit would include a one-car garage, with eight additional surface parking spaces on the site. There would be one driveway into the site off of Glendale, for an internal drive connecting the duplexes within the site. There are no interior sidewalks in the development, but there is a sidewalk planned along Glendale, on the property’s east side.

The property is zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling).

In giving the staff report, Jill Thacher highlighted the site’s topography, noting steep slopes on the north side of the property.

Eighteen of the 23 landmark trees in a former orchard on the site would be removed, but many are in poor health, Thacher noted, and the city requires that only six of those be replaced. However, because of the city’s conflicting land use buffer requirements, 105 new trees will be planted on the property’s north, south and west sides. The developer also has agreed to make a $9,920 contribution to the city’s park system.

Thacher noted that there’s currently a cut-through used by pedestrians, located at the west end of the current driveway and leading to Hillside Terrace, where pedestrians can then continue walking west on Charlton Avenue. Although the developer initially rejected making a pedestrian connection there, plans now call for putting in a pathway from Glendale to the Hillside Terrace property. A public sidewalk would be built along Glendale Drive, but there are no internal sidewalks proposed within the development to connect the duplexes.

The planning staff had requested that the site’s drive connect to the driveway at Hillside Terrace to the west. The project’s architect, Scott Bowers, reported that Hillside Terrace will not agree to a driveway connection.

There will be an on-site stormwater management system consisting of an underground detention basin designed to handle runoff from a 100-year storm. The developer would be required to pay for footing drain disconnects in four homes located in the vicinity of the site.

The development, which is targeting “empty nesters,” is estimated to cost $2.3 million. The owner is listed as Jeffrey Starman of Ann Arbor.

Rendering of the front of a proposed Glendale Condo duplex.

Planning staff had recommended postponement to resolve several outstanding issues. Among those issues are the protection of landmark trees and unresolved utility and sidewalk easements. The developer also had submitted a revised site plan recently that the planning staff hasn’t had time to review. That revised site plan – which Thacher described as “quite a bit different” from the previous version – was developed in response to feedback in the staff report that was included in the planning commission’s meeting packet. The revised plan still calls for eight two-bedroom duplexes. [.pdf of written staff report]

Other concerns about the project – related to design, traffic, pedestrian access and other issues – had been raised during two citizen participation meetings earlier this year. [.pdf of citizen participation reports]

Neighbors also have concerns about possible soil contamination from the former Barnard Plating Company building at 1943 Jackson Ave., about 300 feet west of the site. Thacher noted that an environmental site assessment report that was done in 1989 identified heavy metal soil contamination on the Glendale property. There might be other contaminants on the site, such as pesticides used on the orchard, she said, but the city doesn’t regulate soil contamination or removal. That’s the purview of the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, and it’s the developer’s responsibility to follow MDEQ rules and regulations.

Glendale Condos: Public Commentary

More than 40 people attended the commission’s July 16 meeting, and 14 residents spoke during a public hearing on the project that lasted about an hour. Most of their remarks focused on problems of flooding, sewage backups and drainage in that area, which they fear will be exacerbated by this new development. Other issues related to traffic and the preservation of landmark trees and open space.

Diane Robins expressed concern about stormwater runoff and sewage overflow, saying that water-related issues are very problematic in the neighborhood. Residents expect those problems will increase if the site is developed. The plans for underground stormwater detention are inadequate, she said, given the amount of impervious surface that’s planned.

To document their concerns, residents created a flood, stormwater and sewage survey modeled after the city’s water survey. The surveys were distributed via email and a door-to-door campaign in April and May. They got 51 responses out of 100 surveys distributed, Robins said. Of those, 33 respondents indicated they had basement flooding, 24 had yard flooding, 13 had flooding in the adjacent street, 11 had sewage overflow, and about 18 needed extensive repairs due to water damage.

From this data, residents created a map showing where the affected houses are located. It shows sewage overflow concentrated on Charlton, and basement flooding problems on Abbott, Robins said. Those streets are downhill from the site, which currently “acts as a giant 2.2-acre sponge,” she said. She requested that the project be postponed until a stormwater evaluation is undertaken. [.pdf of email from Robins and Kira Slovacek regarding neighborhood survey results] [.pdf of email from Robins highlighting concerns about grading]

Lynn Borset, a resident who lives near the proposed Glendale Condo development, spoke during a public hearing on the project.

Mark Hieber identified himself as a landscape architect and land planner. He had reviewed the plans online and said the topographic survey doesn’t appear to include trees that are off-site but near the property line. It appears that drip lines of those trees extend significantly onto the property. It looks like the proposed grading on the north side would be altered near those trees, so he suggested that the implications of that grading be understood in order to preserve the trees.

Hieber recommended that the developer provide more detailed renderings for each unit, showing how the building would look within the site’s topography. Some residents had met with the design team and discussed a more sensitive arrangement of buildings – that would follow the topography, to limit the amount of grading. He encouraged a driveway connection to Hillside Terrace, and to align the driveway entrance off Glendale so that it would be directly across from one of the streets, rather than facing a house.

Tom O’Connell told commissioners he’s lived on Orchard Street for 47 years. He expressed concerns about flooding in the neighborhood. More than 20 years ago, he said, there had been a class action lawsuit against 1939 Jackson Ave., where Hillside Terrace is located, and against the city of Ann Arbor. Most people involved in that lawsuit are deceased or have moved, he said. Houses are still having problems because of 1939 Jackson Ave., he said, and residents will have more water in their basements if this new project is built.

The next speaker was Vince Caruso, speaking as coordinating manager of the Allen Creek Watershed Group. He lives on Glendale Circle, near the proposed development. He advocated for a watershed study to be done before the project is allowed. Such a study has been in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) since 2008, he noted, but it’s been postponed. Most neighborhood groups on the city’s west side have signed on for such a study, he said.

Caruso referenced a range of flooding issues, saying that these issues aren’t very well understood by city planners. As an example, on June 27 10,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled into the Huron River, he noted – “and this was not even a 100-year rain.” Caruso cited several other projects in the Allen Creek watershed that have experienced or contributed to flooding problems, or that have resulted in problems due to their location in the floodway. The city needs to protect existing homes and the existing tax base, Caruso said.

The Allen Creek Watershed Group is also concerned about climate change, Caruso said, mentioning studies that show Michigan will have much more rain in the future, and Ann Arbor needs to plan for that. Public health, safety and welfare is clearly at stake with unaddressed sewage and stormwater issues, he concluded. [.pdf of email from Caruso]

Robert Beane lives at the corner of Abbot and Glendale, directly across the street from the proposed project. He said his house was built in 1948 with a footprint that’s almost six times smaller than the buildings at Glendale Condos. His comments focused on concerns about the steep slope on the property’s north side. One of the proposed buildings would cut right into the slope, he said, so it’s hard to see how the slope is being protected. The slope runs directly down to the houses on Orchard Court to the north, and then further down to Orchard Street to the northeast. Nearly half of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces, he noted, and it’s hard to see how the proposed stormwater management system will capture all the runoff. Beane also pointed out that for 40 years – until Hillside Terrace was built – the orchard was directly connected to the former Barnard Plating Company, so heavy metal contamination is a concern.

From left: Ann Arbor Ward 5 city councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin with Robert Beane, a resident who lives across from the proposed Glendale Condos site. The project is in Ward 5.

Gretchen Hahn told commissioners that she lived at the corner of Abbott and Virginia, in a house built in 1926. She has a sump pump “that could probably pump pudding to Ypsilanti, it’s so powerful.” It runs non-stop when it rains, she said.

The fact that four footing drain disconnects are recommended by the city to help mitigate stormwater runoff just adds insult to injury for the neighborhood, she said. Residents are being asked to do something else to accommodate a plan that doesn’t fit well. Hahn also reported that residents have requested a traffic study. She noted that the staff report indicates the developer won’t connect a driveway to the Hillside Terrace property because of liability concerns. “What they’re really saying is they’re willing to push those traffic concerns right off onto the neighborhood,” she said.

Hahn’s other concern was the proposal to eliminate lanes on Jackson Avenue, a project to be undertaken by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. She teaches at the middle school that’s four blocks from her home. There are no stop signs on Abbott, Charlton or Orchard for the east- or westbound traffic, and it’s a route used by lots of kids, she said. Hahn is concerned that traffic will increase on those roads, and noted that MDOT didn’t do a traffic study about the impact that changes on Jackson will have on these residential streets.

Ethel Potts, a former planning commissioner, said she assumed the commissioners had followed the usual tradition of visiting the sites of projects that are on their agenda. The entire site is a hill, she noted, and the city’s code considers steep or medium slopes to be natural features to be protected. There’s a 22-foot difference in height on the site, or about two stories, she said. The site plan doesn’t show how the buildings will be made level, Potts noted, which will require either digging into the slope or filling it up. It will require major moving of earth, she contended. The site plan should indicate how much of the land will remain untouched, she argued – that information is what site plans are for. Without that information, there can be nothing to enforce later, she said.

Matt Keefe lives on Abbott one block east of Glendale. He read a statement from his 86-year-old neighbor, Griselda Cuadros, who has lived in her house since 1965. He said her thoughts, written by her son Paul, are representative of others in the neighborhood. Her house began experiencing basement flooding in the 1970s, but her father regraded the back yard to prevent stormwater from leaking into the house. This solution worked for decades, but in the past three years the basement has again experienced flooding. She suspects that erosion, construction and other factors have taken a toll. She urged the city to carefully consider the impact that the Glendale Condo project would have on long-time residents, people who have paid property taxes over their lifetimes and created an attractive neighborhood close to downtown. The city needs to develop a plan to deal with these stormwater issues before the project is approved. Keefe concluded by saying that the comments by Cuadros should remind the city to protect the property of existing homeowners who have invested so much for so many years.

Doug Aikenhead thanked the city planning staff, commissioners and the design team for trying to respond to community concerns. However, “I think it’s a puzzle that might not be fixable.” His neighbors have already addressed concerns about stormwater and traffic. He noted that the stretch of Glendale where this project would be located is pretty narrow, and street parking is inevitable – adding to concerns about congestion and pedestrian safety. Glendale is also very steep where it intersects with Jackson, and it’s already challenging to enter Jackson there. Proposed lane reductions on Jackson will exacerbate the situation, he said.

Aikenhead noted that the proposed condos are much larger and disproportionate to other buildings in the neighborhood, and will quadruple housing density in the two-block stretch of Glendale. Another major concern is that the land is a unique, valuable piece of landscape, filling aesthetic and recreational needs. “It calms my soul when I walk through it, when I drive by it,” he said. If the development proceeds, this priceless natural landscape will disappear forever, he said. “Once it’s gone, there is no bringing it back. Please, don’t allow this to happen.”

Priscilla Parker, who lives on Charlton, argued that the proposed development doesn’t meet goals A and B in the land use element of the city’s master plan. Goal A states: “Ensure that development projects are designed and constructed in a way that preserves or enhances the integrity of natural systems.” This project will destroy natural systems, she said – increasing air pollution, reducing green space, increasing stormwater and sewage overflow, destroying landmark trees.

Goal B of the land use element states: “Promote land use designs that reduce reliance on the automobile… Improve the safety, accessibility and desirability of walking, biking or using mass transit.” The Glendale Condos project does the opposite of this, Parker said. Nor will the project help the city achieve its non-motorized transportation plan, she noted. Parker urged commissioners to recommend denial of the Glendale Condos.

David Gold lives on Orchard Street, one block east and downhill from the proposed project. He wanted to reiterate the need for a traffic study. He talked about the character of the neighborhood east of the site – on Orchard, Abbott and Charlton streets. His family moved there because it’s a quiet neighborhood of mostly single-family, owner-occupied homes. There are seven children on his street under the age of 10, and as many dogs. Children can play safely on all three streets, which are narrow and would not easily accommodate more traffic. On Orchard, parking is allowed on only one side of the street, so already there are parking issues, he said. Because Glendale is so steep at Jackson, it’s nearly impassable in the winter, Gold said. That means the residents of Glendale Condos would be driving down Orchard, Abbott or Charlton to get to Virginia and ultimately to Jackson. It will change the character of the neighborhood.

Kathy Boris, who lives on Charlton, stressed problem with stormwater and sewage backup – saying it makes no sense to approve this development that’s upstream from the neighborhood. Many residents have invested considerable money to mitigate the flooding on their properties, she said. Will their efforts be undone? One would suspect so, she added.

One of her neighbors also had raised concern about the West Nile virus, and the need to eliminate standing water that becomes a breeding ground for mosquitoes. It’s a public health issue, she argued. City code states that a development can gain approval only if it doesn’t create a public or private nuisance, she said, and won’t have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare. Boris maintained that Glendale Condos will undermine public health and welfare in her neighborhood. She urged commissioners “to first, do no harm.” Don’t make flooding problems worse by approving this project.

Ward 5 city councilmember Chuck Warpehoski.

Lynn Borset spoke as the representative of the Virginia Park neighborhood. She mentioned an email that commissioners had received that included a Power Point presentation about how the project’s grading and rooflines will make stormwater problems even worse. [.pdf of email from Diane Robins highlighting concerns about grading] Borset said she’s lived on Virginia Avenue for 30 years and has served on the advisory committee to help the city develop an urban forestry management plan. She focused her remarks on how the loss of mature trees and green space will impact the neighborhood, reading from the city’s website about the benefits of an urban forest. There are over 60 trees on this site, most of them 10 inches or more in diameter, but over 80% of them would be removed. There are 24 black walnut trees on the site ranging from 9 inches to 28 inches in diameter, and that collectively provide 27,160 gallons of stormwater mitigation, and 8,640 pounds of reduced carbon dioxide levels each year, she said. The underground detention basin on the site might address stormwater issues, she said, but it won’t replace the other benefits that the trees provide.

Borset also cited concerns about the sidewalk configuration on the north side of the site. They’ll have to build a retaining wall that will be seven feet high, she contended, and digging into the slope for that wall will harm nearby trees. She concluded by reading an excerpt from the planning commission bylaws – Article III, Section 3, which states that the commission’s recommendations “shall consider the impact which such development shall have on the physical, social, economic, and environmental condition of the City.” The Glendale Condos project will have a negative impact on all these conditions, she concluded.

Chuck Warpehoski began speaking next but was quickly interrupted by commissioner Diane Giannola, who raised a point of order. She said that according to the commission’s bylaws, city councilmembers can’t speak at planning commission meetings. Giannola cited Section 9 of Article V, which covers ethics and conflicts of interest:

A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

Warpehoski – who lives southwest of the proposed project, on Winewood – is one of two councilmembers representing Ward 5, where the project is located. The other Ward 5 councilmember, Mike Anglin, also attended the July 16 meeting. Anglin does not live in that part of the ward.

Susan Cybulski lives on the section of Charlton that’s west of the project, and reported that her mother is a resident of Hillside Terrace. About 100 of those residents are shut-ins because of their physical condition, she noted. The dining room of Hillside Terrace faces the orchard, and is a beautiful view, she said. If a development is built there, it will impact the quality of life for these residents who can’t easily leave Hillside Terrace. Cybulski asked commissioners to consider that issue.

The final speaker was Scott Bowers, the project’s architect. His associate Susan Bowers was also on hand to answer questions. As the design team, they didn’t take the neighbors concerns lightly, he said. The original plan was four buildings with four units in each building. But after the first citizens participation meeting, they immediately realized it was not something that would be well received. So they ultimately proposed duplexes. It allows the buildings to follow as much of the existing topography as they can, he said. They’ve turned in a new site grading plan, he reported, which now proposes no grading at all on the north slope. Additional soil borings will be done to prove that the site has the capacity to handle all the stormwater for the site.

Regarding pedestrian access to the Hillside Terrace site, Bowers reported that the developers were originally concerned about liability, but now they’re willing to put in a walkway for pedestrians. However, Hillside Terrace doesn’t want a vehicle connection to its property, he said. “I can’t make that work out.”

He noted that there’s room in front of each garage for a vehicle to park, and there is additional parking throughout the site. Bowers also stated that the design team has worked to preserve as many of the existing trees as possible.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, Kirk Westphal – the planning commission’s chair – noted that if the item is postponed, the public hearing would continue at the meeting when the project is reconsidered.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion

The discussion lasted about an hour and covered a range of issues, primarily focused on stormwater, natural features and traffic.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Stormwater

Sabra Briere began by noting that many residents had raised concerns about stormwater, and the site’s ability to manage runoff within the site as well as water flowing onto the site from uphill properties. She asked the project’s architects to explain how the site’s stormwater management system is supposed to function.

Scott Bowers, project architect for the proposed Glendale Condos.

Susan Bowers explained that runoff from all impervious surfaces will be contained within the site’s stormwater management system. The latest proposal, submitted on the Friday prior to the July 16 meeting, is to leave the north side of the property undisturbed, rather than grading it. Toward the center of the site, an underground catch basin will be installed that’s connected to the city’s stormwater system, to control runoff from that undisturbed higher ground as well as the rest of the site.

Scott Bowers noted that runoff on the site, including runoff from downspouts and gutters, will be directed into a drainage field – essentially a grassy area, with the catch basin underneath it. The basin is permeable, with 72-inch diameter pipes that temporarily store the water before it infiltrates deeper into the ground. He indicated that additional soil borings are being taken to verify that the infiltration will work.

Scott Bowers described the stormwater system as oversized for the site.

Briere noted that neighbors will be concerned about whether the water will flow out of the drainage field and onto Glendale, then from there into other nearby streets. “That’s an area that we will all be thinking about,” she said. Scott Bowers replied that the system is designed so that water won’t leach out.

Diane Giannola wondered if the architects had accounted for water that might flow onto the site from other properties. Susan Bowers replied: City code doesn’t require the developer to do that calculation. However, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office is reviewing the site plan as part of a broader picture, she said. Scott Bowers added that the site plan keeps the natural grade as much as possible, and with the site’s stormwater management system, they’re not worried about flooding on the site.

Bonnie Bona asked if there will be less runoff from the site after the project’s stormwater system is installed. “More than likely, yes,” Scott Bowers replied. Some of the site will be regraded so that runoff is redirected into the drainage field. Susan Bowers noted that currently water flows down the existing driveway onto Glendale “like a river” when it rains – and that issue would be eliminated. Bona again stated that it would be safe to say that the runoff should be less after the development than it is today.

A resident from the audience called out: “Were you expecting something different from them?” Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said he hoped the audience could accord some respect to the speakers. He noted that there would be another opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Bona clarified with the architects that the developer will pay for the four footing drain disconnects. The developer also paid for a flow analysis that the city used to calculate the number of footing drain disconnects that are needed, Scott Bowers said.

Bona wondered if the disconnects could be targeted specifically for houses downstream of the site. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff confirmed that the disconnects would be downstream. She noted that Troy Baughman in the city’s systems planning unit did the analysis, which is available online. [.pdf of Baughman's report]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified that the footing drain disconnect program is a sanitary sewer mitigation program, not stormwater mitigation. The purpose is to remove connections so that stormwater won’t flow into the sanitary sewer system.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Westphal noted that one of the residents had spoken about runoff from the roofs, and that the angle might cause runoff to spill outside the proposed catch basin area. Scott Bowers replied that the building’s 6-inch gutters are designed to direct runoff into the site’s stormwater system.

Westphal clarified with staff that the proposed stormwater system is a standard requirement for new developments of this kind. He also pointed out – addressing his remarks to the residents who were attending the meeting – that the commission’s purview is isolated to the site plan, rather than the broader capital improvements or other actions that the city might be taking. He asked whether planning staff could provide resources for residents, if they wanted more information about stormwater or other issues.

Thacher cited Troy Baughman in the city’s systems planning unit, saying that he’s been working with some of the residents in this neighborhood already about stormwater issues. There’s a citywide stormwater modeling and analysis project underway, she said, and Baughman is leading that effort. Rampson added that the systems planning staff has appreciated the flooding survey information that residents of that neighborhood have collected. The information is very helpful as staff try to identify solutions to the flooding issues.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Soil Contamination

Wendy Woods asked about the possible soil contamination. She hoped the planning commission would be given more information about this issue, even though she understood it’s not something the city regulates. She knew that soil borings were being done to determine the type of soil, but she wondered if soil would be analyzed for contamination, too.

Scott Bowers reported that the developer had done an environmental analysis several years ago before buying the property, and another one was conducted about two years ago when the developer refinanced. The studies found that the site isn’t contaminated, he said, and he indicated that those reports could be made available to the city.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Natural Features

In response to a query from Westphal, Jill Thacher said that the project’s alternatives analysis hadn’t provided the information required by city code. It needed to be tweaked in order to make it a viable alternative, she said, rather than just a different building configuration. The project’s design team needed to do more to preserve the natural features on the site.

From the staff report:

The alternatives analysis provided as justification for selection of the current layout is insufficient. Consider building orientation, grading options that will achieve the storm water management requirements and also protect the landmark trees that are located outside of the building footprint. If the alternative is not feasible, provide a detailed explanation on why it is not.

Westphal asked about concerns related to a retaining wall next to the Glendale sidewalk, and whether the wall might damage nearby trees. Scott Bowers indicated that it wouldn’t be necessary to dig into the ground to build the wall, so the roots wouldn’t be affected.

Bona asked for clarification about the city’s requirements that protect trees on adjacent properties. Rampson explained that the city’s natural features requirements state that the site plan must show vegetation within 50 feet of the property line. In this case, the critical root zone of landmark trees would need to be shown. Mitigation is not required, she said, but the city requests developers to follow the same mitigation requirements for off-site trees as for trees that are on the site.

Susan Bowers told commissioners that no off-site landmark trees are affected by the current design, which leaves the site’s north side undisturbed.

Paras Parekh echoed comments in public commentary, hoping the project can preserve more of the orchard while meeting the needs of the development. He wanted an alternatives analysis to address those issues.

Scott Bowers replied that although this was the first presentation to the planning commission, he estimated that the design team had gone through at least 10 different site plans. The current version is the least harmful to the site, he said. They’ve been working on it for over a year, and the only way to preserve more land is to have bigger buildings – perhaps four-unit structures instead of the duplexes. “We love the trees,” he said, and the design team has worked to save as many as possible. Susan Bowers added that the trees in the middle are large, but not in great condition.

Briere noted that some people are concerned in general that development on open space is a problem for neighborhoods. If residents were given a choice, some would require the city to make that kind of space into parkland. This is another situation where there’s open space that the neighbors see as a community value, she said, but “it’s in private hands, and we don’t have a plan for park acquisition in this location.”

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Pedestrian Access, Sidewalks, Drives

Briere was concerned that there are no interior sidewalks, and that there’s only one walkway that gives pedestrians access to the site. Ease of walking or biking – both within a development and through it – are important, she said. The design is so oriented toward vehicles that it would be hostile to anyone trying to walk out to Glendale, unless they used the one pathway. Why aren’t there any interior sidewalks? she wondered.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Scott Bowers indicated that there are now two proposed pathways through the site, because this concern had been raised by neighbors. A sidewalk will go from the main entrance at Glendale through to the Hillside Terrace site on the south side of the site. Another sidewalk will be on the site’s north side.

Paras Parekh pressed Bowers about the lack of interior sidewalks. More sidewalks would help create a better sense of community, he said. Bowers explained that the developer didn’t think the sidewalks would be well used, and the design is intended to minimize the amount of impervious surface.

Bona said she appreciated not wanting to add to impervious surfaces, “but I think sometimes we forget that we should be eliminating roads instead of eliminating sidewalks.” She indicated she’d like to see the alternatives analysis for the site. Bona wondered if the architects had considered designing two driveways onto Glendale instead of one, and eliminating the long connector drive that runs throughout the site. The priority should be on pedestrians, she said. This development has probably 2-3 times more driveway pavement per house than anyone in the neighborhood, Bona said. “That’s not very pedestrian friendly.”

Scott Bowers replied that earlier designs did have two entrances, but the topography made it difficult to do. Another design had been for parking underneath an apartment building, which resulted in a bigger building but less driveway. Bowers also said the developer approached Hillside Terrace about making a driveway connection, but “we got a big no,” he said.

Bona noted that the current design is perfectly symmetrical in terms of the building layout, and she wasn’t convinced that it was necessary to take that approach. A less symmetrical design might eliminate some of the driveway so that sidewalks could be added. She thought the sidewalks should be “very intentional, and look very inviting – like the neighbors are supposed to use them.”

Bona also asked whether the developer would be willing to include a statement in the site plan or development agreement, indicating that if Hillside Terrace changed its mind and agreed to a connection, then Glendale Condominiums would be willing to make that connection too. Bowers indicated a willingness to do that.

Briere wondered why permeable pavement wasn’t considered for the drives. Scott Bowers cited maintenance and cost issues. They did not look into the possibility of permeable sidewalks, he said. Briere responded, saying that creating connections for this “mini-neighborhood” – both within the site and with the surrounding neighborhoods – should be one of the design team’s primary goals.

Bowers said he had a problem with putting sidewalks “all over the place” on both sides of the drive, but he didn’t have a problem with sidewalks crossing the site.

In response to a question from Bona about the location of the driveway entrance, planning manager Wendy Rampson said that generally the city tries to align driveways so that they’ll be located across from each other. But in the case of aligning with a public street, she wasn’t sure what’s preferable from a traffic engineering perspective. Scott Bowers said the design team had looked at aligning the driveway with Charlton, but it hadn’t worked out. The entrance is toward the south end of the site, but not directly across from Charlton.

The owner of the house directly across the street from the proposed entrance had attended one of the citizen participation meetings, and had expressed concern about lights shining into her home, as well as concerns about cars coming out of the driveway quickly while her children are playing in the area. Bona hoped that landscaping or some other option could be explored to help address this issue.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Misc. Site Design

Woods asked about how the duplexes are situated within the site. Scott Bowers described them as being “stepped” throughout the side, following the topography. That’s one reason why the plan is for duplexes, rather than one apartment building, he said. A larger, single building would require a bigger “tabletop,” which would mean significant regrading. Woods was interested in seeing an image of how the buildings would look within the overall site.

Briere observed that the drawings in the commission’s meeting packet show single buildings. She recommended providing a view from the street looking toward the development, and including the surrounding buildings. Often, commissioners see site plans with no context, Briere said. It would be helpful to have a good rendering of what the architects think the development will look like.

Westphal noted that the project is proposing about half the number of units and half the height that’s allowable under city zoning. Susan Bowers explained that one of the project’s alternatives analysis plans had been for a building with two stories above ground and parking underneath – more of an apartment-style project, with 32 units rather than the 16 that are now being proposed.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Glendale Condominiums proposal.

Glendale Condos: Final Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting, two residents gave additional public commentary. Robert Beane thanked the city staff for being responsive. The whole experience working with the city has been wonderful, he said. Citing the comment by architect Scott Bowers that stormwater runoff from the site would be less than it is now, Beane called that statement “pure speculation.” Sidewalks are another major concern. Beane’s family regularly walks to Westgate Shopping Center and the Kroger on South Maple. There’s no sidewalk connecting South Maple to the Kroger building, he noted, so they have to walk through the large Kroger parking lot. That’s the exact same feel that the Glendale Condo site will have, he said. It’s not something he should have to feel in his own neighborhood.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Beane also criticized the location of the proposed driveway into the condos, noting that because of the difference in grade, car headlights would be shining directly into the windows of the house across the street, which he called irresponsible. And citing comments that the trees on the property are unhealthy, “that’s mainly due to negligence of the current owner,” he said. When branches fall off, it’s the neighbors who go in and haul off the brush. “That’s how we are connected to this orchard.”

Gretchen Hahn spoke again, reiterating her concerns about traffic. It seemed that commissioners were responding to concerns about stormwater issues, but she wasn’t hearing the same resonance about traffic.

It’s a quiet neighborhood with lots of kids and dogs, Hahn said. Because she’s a teacher, she has the summers off, so she sits on her porch in the morning. She watches people drive through the neighborhood and “barely tap their brakes” at the stop sign at Virginia and Charlton. There was no MDOT neighborhood traffic impact study for the Jackson Avenue project, and approaching Jackson from Glendale will become more of an issue when the lanes on Jackson are narrowed. Traffic will come down Charlton or Abbott to Virginia, then up to Jackson, she said. Several children play near the corner where she lives. She didn’t want the traffic issue to have a tragic end, so she urged the city to require a traffic study.

Hahn also asked for clarification about the stormwater flow, which she said would leach back into the system “at the point at which we’re already overwhelmed with water.” She’d like to know how long it takes to empty the catch basin after it’s filled. She wondered if the sump pump in her home would end up pumping continuously.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson also reported that the staff had received a phone call late in the day from Jan Curry on Fair Street, who expressed concern about traffic on the gravel portion of that street. Fair Street runs between Glendale and Virginia, south of Charlton.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

A revised PUD (planned unit development) zoning and site plan for the Shell station and Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway were on the July 16 agenda.

The Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower. Owners of the property, which includes a Shell station, hope to add a drive-thru.

Proposed changes to the supplemental regulations for this 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing Shell convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. The property is located in Ward 4.

A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant.

If approved by the council, the drive-thru lane would be screened by a 30-inch high hedgerow, berm and landscaping, according to a staff memo. The plan also calls for installing a brick-paved pedestrian path from the Ann Arbor-Saline Road public sidewalk to the north entrance of the building. A paved patio area would be located in the center of the drive-thru loop for outside dining.

As a “public amenity,” the owner proposes putting in a 140-square-foot brick-paved area at the site’s southwest corner – near the intersection of Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road – with two park benches and shrubbery. Up to 15 jobs might be added as a result of the drive-thru, which was also cited as a public benefit. PUD projects require some kind of public benefit, in exchange for this type of customized zoning.

The plan also entails building a new sidewalk “stub” from the south of the building, which could possibly be used in the future to connect to the Cranbrook Village Shopping Center located to the east of the site. However, planning staff noted that a sidewalk between those two parcels might not be viable, given the steep slope between the two properties. Nor have the owners of the shopping center given permission for such a connection.

No one spoke at a public hearing on this project.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru: Commission Discussion

Paras Parekh said he liked the concept of the paved brick space and benches as a public benefit, but it’s quite a busy corner with a high volume of traffic. Having a pleasant conversation there might be challenging. He wondered if other locations had been considered. Chris Cheng explained that there’s really no other viable option. There’s a stormwater detention area in the southeast corner, and the drive-thru would be located on the north side of the site.

Brad Cousino of Terratek Design Inc., with an image of the proposed Tim Hortons drive-thru.

Sabra Briere described the location as “not particularly a place one would normally walk.” It’s adjacent to a giant parking lot, she observed, so she was struggling to imagine this as a true public amenity. Putting something in place that nobody uses isn’t a public amenity. Are there alternative amenities that might actually benefit the public? she asked.

Brad Cousino of Terratek Design Inc., the project engineer, responded. At a citizens participation meeting for the project, he said, people indicated that there was a lot of foot and bike traffic up and down both Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower, especially on game days in the fall – a reference to University of Michigan football games. The seating area would create a “welcoming atmosphere as a gateway site,” he said.

Jeremy Peters wondered if the owner had considered putting the park bench area in the northern corner of the site, saying that he knew the berm would make that difficult. He indicated it might be a better location, closer to the Whole Foods that’s located in the Cranbrook Shopping Center. It might be a space where people could eat food from both Tim Hortons or the Whole Foods hot bar. Cousino pointed out that picnic tables and chairs are located in the area adjacent to the drive-thru. There’s a significant grade on the north side, which actually offers a great buffer between the drive-thru and Ann Arbor-Saline Road. And a pedestrian connection between the property and Cranbrook “would be beyond our capabilities,” he said, because of the steep slope.

Wendy Woods reported that she goes to that area often, because her granddaughters live nearby. There actually is bike and pedestrian traffic at that corner, so she thought the paved area and benches would, in fact, provide a public amenity. She appreciated the fact that this is a gateway into the city that’s more pleasant than some other areas.

Bonnie Bona said it’s nice to hear that there’s bike and pedestrian traffic in this “heavily vehicular-trafficked area.” She suggested putting in a landscaping buffer between the seating area and the street, “so you didn’t feel you were sitting on the edge of the road.”

Planning manager Wendy Rampson expressed some concern about doing design during the meeting. Also, “if you are inviting people to stay in a space, you do not want to make it so that it’s obscured in any way.” Bona clarified that she was just looking for something to soften the space from the road. Cousino noted that the proposed seating area is about 10 feet away from any pavement.

Kirk Westphal asked that the city’s parks staff review the proposal for this seating area.

In response to another query from Bona, Cousino described where the pedestrian walkway would be located, coming from the public sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road and into the picnic table area by Tim Hortons. The path would cross the drive-thru lane, but he indicated that they don’t expect much foot traffic coming into the site. He also identified the location of two existing bike parking spaces. Bona suggested adding more spaces for bikes, even if it wasn’t required.

The entrance off Eisenhower to a Shell station/Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower. This view is looking northwest toward an area where public benches are proposed.

Peters expressed concern about the possibility of drive-thru traffic backing up onto Ann Arbor-Saline Road. He noted that according to the staff report, there are possibly 15 jobs being added because of the drive-thru, and an anticipated 60 customer trips during the peak morning hours – including 30 for the drive-thru. He was worried that there might be back-up, especially since the location is near I-94, with people coming into Ann Arbor for work. Is there a way to mitigate that?

Cousino noted that the drive-thru lane provides for stacking of up to 10 cars, which he described as generous. If people see that the drive-thru lane is full, they’re more likely to park and come into the shop, he said. Mark Kellenberger, a representative of Tim Hortons, told commissioners that traffic studies have been done in past years at other sites, and the largest stacking capacity was 10 vehicles. Most of the drive-thrus accommodated seven vehicles. Their experience and research doesn’t indicate it will be a problem, Kellenberger said. The last thing they want to do is inconvenience customers by having cars stick out into the road, he said.

Westphal recalled that in the past, there had been some compliance issues on this site regarding signs and displays, and he wondered if those issues had been resolved. Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff said he’d had discussions with the owner, Abe Ajrouch, about possibly screening the ice and vending machines that are outside the building. The planning staff has also held “numerous” discussions with the owner about banners and pennants on the site that aren’t in compliance with city code. Westphal suggested that the site should be brought into compliance before the project is reviewed by the city council.

Woods wondered whether the site might be a possible location for public art, given that it’s a gateway location. Cheng said there hadn’t been any discussions about it. Briere added that it isn’t a city capital improvement project, so the city wouldn’t consider funding public art there. However, it would be possible for someone to donate art or pay for artwork through crowdsourcing, she said. If the owner chooses to put public art there, “we would be happy to applaud,” she said.

Outcome: The project received a unanimous recommendation of approval from planning commissioners. It will next be considered by the city council.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills

A site plan to add 31 parking spaces at the Glacier Hills retirement community was on the July 16 agenda.

The spots would be added on the west side of an existing driveway in the north part of the property, which is located at 1200 Earhart Road. There are currently 486 parking spaces throughout the 31.5-acre site. The property is zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling) and includes 227 apartments and two-family residences, 155 nursing rooms, and 197 nursing care beds. The site, near US-23, is adjacent to Greenhills School and a residential neighborhood.

Aerial view of Glacier Hills. Earhart Village residents are located on the southwest border of the site, with the Greenhills School property on the southeast border.

A skilled nursing care facility, approved by the city in 2010, is under construction near the proposed parking addition. A temporary gravel parking lot in that area will be removed, with landscaping added.

In giving the staff report, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the most recent site plan was a “planned project” designation in 2000 to add The Meadows senior housing. That planned project included the requirement that the overall site maintain a minimum of 67.5% open space. According to calculations by Glacier Hills, the site currently has 68% open space. DiLeo told commissioners that the planning staff had asked Glacier Hills to verify that percentage, and that the staff’s concerns had been satisfied. Because the development is very close to the 67.5% threshold, she said, the staff emphasized that future building additions or parking expansions will be severely limited, and might only be possible on top of existing structures or parking areas.

The staff also has encouraged Glacier Hills to explore alternative transportation like van pools, park-and-ride and public transit options. The 31 additional parking spaces appear to be needed, DiLeo said, adding: “They have a voracious appetite for parking.”

DiLeo noted that an administrative amendment is under review by planning staff for an addition to the rear of Villa F, located in the southeast part of the site.

The addition of the 31 parking spaces is not an item that requires city council approval.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills: Public Commentary

One speaker – Rod Sorge, president of the Earhart Village homeowners association – addressed the commission three times on this topic, at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as during the public hearing. He alerted commissioners to the practice of administrative amendments handled by the city’s planning staff, including amendments that relate to Glacier Hills and that affect the adjacent Earhart Village neighborhood. One of those is a planned 2,300-square-foot, two-story addition to an existing building that’s within three feet of an existing conservation easement, he said.

Sabra Briere, a city councilmember who serves on the Ann Arbor planning commission, talks with Rod Sorge, president of the Earhart Village homeowners association.

He expressed frustration that previous agreements between the city, Glacier Hills and Earhart Village were being ignored. Glacier Hills can say anything in order to get its plans approved by the planning commission and city council, then come back later and make changes through administrative amendments, he contended. These amendments can be made without informing neighbors, without citizen participation, and without planning commission review, he said. Sorge hoped this “sleight of hand” does not escape the commission’s attention, and that commissioners will review in general how administrative amendments are used. If these amendments prevent the city from keeping faith with its agreements made with citizens, “something is seriously wrong with the rules,” he said.

At the project’s public hearing, Sorge told commissioners that Glacier Hills has a history of noncompliance and numerous administrative amendments. When the large project on the site’s north side was proposed, neighbors were told that no additional construction was possible, he said. But now there’s an administrative amendment being considered for a villa addition, which the Earhart Village homeowners association opposes, Sorge said – saying that it violates conditions of the site plan approved in 2000. He disputed the calculations related to the percentage of required open space.

Sorge also contended that the parking expansion primarily serves the commercial enterprises at Glacier Hills, including outpatient services and an open-to-the-public cafe. He wondered what impact this development would have on the nearby residential community, and on the already difficult intersection of Earhart and Glacier Way, especially when Greenhills School is in session. Given the demographics of the residents at Glacier Hills, the new parking likely isn’t needed for them, he said. It might be for employees who don’t want to take the six-minute AATA bus from the park-and-ride to Glacier Hills, or it might be for increased customer traffic, he said. Sorge urged commissioners to reject this proposal until they had a complete view of the entire enterprise. The parcel is overdeveloped, he said, with inappropriate commercial uses in a residential zone, and it negatively impacts the surrounding neighborhood, Sorge said.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills: Commission Discussion

Diane Giannola began by asking if Glacier Hills is zoned for commercial uses. Alexis DiLeo replied that the site is zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling), which allows for nursing homes, assisted living facilities and hospital-type uses. Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that the term used in the zoning code is “convalescent care,” which can include anything from physical therapy facilities to nursing care. This is the first time the staff has heard that Glacier Hills is anything more than a convalescent or nursing home, she said. DiLeo noted that it could include in-patient or out-patient services.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting was the only representative at the meeting for Glacier Hills. When called to the podium, he said he didn’t know anything about the operation in terms of commercial or non-commercial activities. There’s a large restaurant for residents that the public can use when visiting, he said, but he wasn’t aware that it was advertised for the public.

Sabra Briere read a list of amenities and services that are posted the Glacier Hills website, including a cafe, gift shop, beauty salon, library, chapel, wellness center. She noted that those are listed as amenities for the residents. She assumed that if she visited someone at Glacier Hills, they could take her to eat at the cafe, or she could buy a gift for that person at the gift shop. One of her friends is planning to move there, Briere said, so she’s more aware about what’s offered. The amenities are advertised to lure potential residents, she added. “That doesn’t mean the public can’t use them.”

Kirk Westphal asked for more details on the pending administrative amendment. DiLeo explained that it’s an addition to an existing duplex on the southeast part of the site. It’s a two-story addition, but only one story is above grade, she said. The other story is a walk-out basement. The threshold for an administrative amendment is 10% or 10,000 square feet of a building, whichever is less – so this addition qualifies, she said.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting attended the July 16 planning commission meeting on behalf of Glacier Hills.

Briere asked Ophoff to explain the need for the parking spaces, as well as to talk about the villa addition. Ophoff noted that 31 parking spaces had been previously approved as part of the most recent major site plan, but they hadn’t been put in.

The conservation easement along the south side of the site is 100 feet wide, widening on the end toward Earhart Road. Ophoff explained that the villa where the addition is being proposed, near that easement, is actually adjacent to the Greenhills property, not Earhart Village.

Wendy Woods asked if a public meeting was required with residents of Earhart Village, or whether any communications were received from Greenhills School. Ophoff replied that postcards were mailed to residents or property owners within 500 feet of the parking project. No communications were received in response to that, he said, but he had talked with Rod Sorge of Earhart Village. There were no concerns raised by officials at Greenhills.

Westphal wondered if Glacier Hills was aware of alternative transportation options for its workers. DiLeo assumed they were, because the issue had been brought up during the previous site plan approval process. She said she couldn’t speak to the “depth of their knowledge,” however.

Briere noted that Glacier Hills is located in an important creekshed, describing it as “short but intense.” There are problems keeping it healthy. [The site is in the Fleming Creek watershed.] She was curious what’s being done for stormwater management. Would permeable pavement be used, or are there other infiltration plans?

Ophoff described it as an extremely small project in the overall context of the site, and he reviewed the existing stormwater management strategies. Permeable pavement won’t be used.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the parking expansion at Glacier Hills. No city council approval is required.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills: Final Public Commentary

Rod Sorge also addressed the commission during the final public commentary slot at the end of the meeting. He said he appreciated that the commission listened to all the public commentary about the Glendale Condo project. “As you know, in administrative amendments, that’s prohibited.” He urged commissioners to review how administrative amendments threaten the Earhart Village residents, as well as the process of administrative amendments overall. He doesn’t understand how it can be allowed, and he trusted that planning commissioners feel a responsibility to the public about how the city’s planning process is conducted.

Planning Commission Bylaws

At the commission’s July 2, 2013 meeting, planning staff had presented proposed revisions to the planning commission’s bylaws, which are reviewed annually. The revisions were on the July 16 agenda for approval. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws, with revisions highlighted in red]

Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson.

One minor change related to the order of business in the commission’s agenda. It’s being recommended to reflect the agenda template in a software program used by the city.

Another change would amend Article VII: Meetings, Section 16 – an item regarding the provision of special accommodations for the public, such as a sign language interpreter. The proposed amendment would change the advance notice required for special accommodations from 24 hours to 48 hours. This change is consistent with recent changes adopted by the city clerk’s office, according to planning manager Wendy Rampson.

On July 2, Bonnie Bona had questioned the change regarding special accommodations. The additional time seemed to add a burden on the public, she said, and she had asked for more information about why this change was necessary.

On July 16, Rampson said she’d checked with the clerk’s office and had been told that there are very few sign language interpreters who are readily available on short notice. The clerk’s office has experienced some difficulty in securing interpreters for city council meetings within 24 hours. That’s why the clerk’s office had changed its standards, and why the planning staff was recommending the same change.

Jeremy Peters wondered what would happen if the bylaws keep the current 24-hour standard: Are there legal ramifications if an interpreter can’t be secured during that time? Potentially, Rampson replied. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city is required to make reasonable accommodations. If the city indicates that it can meet those accommodations within 24 hours but it isn’t actually able to do that, someone could file a complaint, she said. That complaint would go through an internal review, but ultimately could go to the U.S. Dept. of Justice if it can’t be resolved at the city level. “I think that’s pretty unlikely, but that would be the process that someone would go through,” she said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the revisions to its bylaws.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two general public commentary times. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: A2D2, D1 Review

Kirk Westphal reported that the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) met earlier that evening with Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates, the Ann Arbor consultant that’s been hired to handle the city council-mandated review of downtown zoning. He said public input would be solicited for the review, though outreach was still being planned.

Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates at a July 16 meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee.

The planning commission had been intending to review the city’s A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) zoning sometime this year. But in response to a controversial 413 E. Huron apartment project, on a site zoned D1, on April 1, 2013 the city council directed the planning commission to address three specific questions: (1) whether D1 zoning is appropriately located on the north side of Huron Street between Division and South State and the south side of William Street between South Main and Fourth Avenue; (2) whether the D1 residential FAR [floor area ratio] premiums effectively encourage a diverse downtown population; and (3) whether a parcel on the south side of Ann Street adjacent to city hall should be rezoned “to the appropriate zoning for this neighborhood.” That parcel, currently a surface parking lot, is now zoned D1.

The council set a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to the council.

The July 16 ORC meeting was attended by commissioners Westphal, Wendy Woods, Diane Giannola and Sabra Briere, as well as planning manager Wendy Rampson. Perdu got feedback on concerns or issues that commissioners wanted to address in the review, as well as suggestions for key stakeholders that should be included in outreach efforts. Those stakeholders include property owners in the D1 districts, neighbors, developers, merchant and neighborhood associations, the downtown citizens advisory council, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Other categories of people mentioned by commissioners were empty-nesters, downtown business owners like Menlo Innovations and Barracuda Networks, and students who live in new downtown apartment buildings.

According to a draft work program distributed at the ORC meeting, Perdu and her associate Megan Masson-Minock plan to hold one-on-one interviews with stakeholders as well as small focus group meetings with constituent groups during the weeks of July 15-29. They will also hold coffee hours and post information for feedback on A2 Open City Hall.

On July 22, the city issued a press release with more details about public input sessions on the A2D2 review:

• Two focus groups are scheduled: (1) Monday, July 29, 8-9:30 a.m. at Kerrytown Concert House, 415 N. Fourth Ave.; and (2) Tuesday, July 30, 7-8:30 p.m. at the lower level conference room in city hall, 301 E. Huron St.
• Coffee hours with consultants are set for three Thursday mornings – July 25, Aug. 1 and Aug. 8 from 8-10 a.m. – at the new building in the Zingerman’s Deli complex, 422 Detroit St.
• A public workshop will be held on Monday, Aug. 5 from 7-8:30 p.m. at the lower level conference room in the Washtenaw County administration building, 200 N. Main St. The purpose is to review and prioritize issues identified in the focus groups.

Updates will be posted at the A2D2 website. Citizens can sign up for email updates by clicking on the red envelope “subscribe” icon on the city’s home page and selecting the “A2D2 Updates” option.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager’s Report

Wendy Rampson reported that the city council reconstituted the R4C advisory committee at its July 1, 2013 meeting, with a “slightly different” membership. The committee will conduct a short-term review of the planning commission’s recommendations regarding R4C zoning changes. They will also have “the opportunity to complete any discussions that may have been incomplete when that group disbanded,” Rampson said. The committee will be chaired by Julie Weatherbee, and will hold about four meetings.

Members of the R4C advisory committee appointed on July 1 are: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), representing the planning commission; Chuck Carver representing rental property owners; Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo and Michelle Derr (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5).

The original committee included Tony Derezinski as the representative for city council, and Jean Carlberg as the planning commission representative. Derezinski is no longer on city council, nor is Carlberg now on the planning commission. The only other membership change is for a Ward 1 member – Ray Detter replaced David Merchant on the committee.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

It’s possible that there might be additional membership changes, but any changes to the committee would require city council approval.

The advisory committee had been briefly discussed at the planning commission’s July 9 working session, when Diane Giannola questioned why the exact same membership hadn’t been reappointed. She wondered if people with opinions that differed from the majority of the committee hadn’t been asked to return. Giannola also offered to serve on the committee as another representative from the planning commission, but there was no discussion of that at the commission’s regular meeting on July 16.

At the working session, Rampson also had reported that the planning staff will offer only as much staff involvement as the committee members want. She had indicated that when the committee had done its original work, some members felt that “staff cut the conversation off unduly, so we don’t want to reinforce that by being on the committee if we’re not needed,” she said. So planning staff will attend the meetings only if asked. However, they will handle the logistics of posting information about the meetings, which are open to the public.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters (arrived around 9:15 p.m.), Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2013 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 survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s 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.

Aerial view of proposedGlendale Condominiums site, south of Jackson Avenue.

The project is located south of Jackson Avenue and east of Hillside Terrace on the city’s west side. The proposal calls for tearing down two single-family homes on the 2.54-acre site and building eight two-bedroom duplexes. Each unit would include a one-car garage, with eight additional surface parking spaces on the site.

Eighteen of the 23 landmark trees in a former orchard on the site would be removed, but many are in poor health and the city requires that only six of those must be replaced. However, because of the city’s conflicting land use buffer requirements, 105 new trees will be planted on the property’s north, south and west sides. The developer also has agreed to make a $9,920 contribution to the city’s park system.

The development, which is targeting “empty nesters,” is estimated to cost $2.3 million. The owner is Jeffrey Starman of Ann Arbor.

Planning staff had recommended postponement to resolve several outstanding issues. Among those issues are the protection of landmark trees and unresolved utility and sidewalk easements. The developer also had submitted a revised site plan recently that the planning staff hasn’t had time to review.

Other concerns about the project – related to design, traffic, pedestrian access and other issues – had been raised during two citizen participation meetings earlier this year. Neighbors also have concerns about possible soil contamination from the former Barnard Plating Company building at 1943 Jackson Ave., about 300 feet west of the site. [.pdf of citizen participation reports]

About 50 people attended the commission’s July 16 meeting, and more than a dozen residents spoke during a public hearing on the project that lasted about an hour. Most of their remarks focused on serious problems of flooding, sewage backups and drainage in that area, which they fear will be exacerbated by this new development.

The planning staff had requested that the site’s drive connect to the driveway at Hillside Terrace to the west, and that a pedestrian connection be provided between the two properties. The developer plans to make a pedestrian connection to Hillside Terrace, but reported that Hillside Terrace will not agree to a driveway connection. A public sidewalk would be built along Glendale Drive, but there are no internal sidewalks proposed within the development.

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