Also that same evening, at a different public meeting away from the glitz and glamour of budget deliberations, an historic district study committee – appointed by the council in August 2009 – adopted its final report. The report recommends creation of an historic district along South Fifth and Fourth avenues, from William Street down to Packard Avenue, including the south side of Packard.

The colored overlays indicate existing Ann Arbor historic districts. The question mark indicates the general vicinity of the proposed new historic district. (Image links to .kmz file from the city's data catalog, which will open in GoogleEarth, displaying all the current historic districts in the city.)

The council would still need to approve the creation of the district. The issue is currently scheduled to come before the council for a first reading on June 21, followed by a second reading on July 5. A moratorium on all construction work in the area of the study will expire on Aug. 6.

If the historic district is approved, then the Heritage Row project – a planned unit development (PUD) proposed along the east side of Fifth Avenue south of William Street – would need to win approval not just from the city council, but also from the city’s historic district commission (HDC).

Heritage Row is due to come before the city council for its second reading on June 7. It received its first reading approval from the city council on May 3 – with no discussion, but with one dissenting vote from Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

This article takes a look at the recommendation of the historic district study committee, primarily through the lens of the public hearing held on May 5 in city council chambers. The conclusion of the hearing found Scott Munzel and Alex de Parry kidding back and forth with Beverly Strassmann – over their respective remarks at the public hearing. Munzel and de Parry are legal counsel and developer for the Heritage Row project, respectively, while Strassmann is president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association.

In his public hearing remarks, Munzel had – somewhat unexpectedly – presented a case that the area recommended as an historic district should, if anything, be larger than the study committee is recommending. The issue of the possible district’s size was already controversial at the point when the committee was appointed, and continues to be a bit of a chaffing point among residents.

To get to the point of the May 5 public hearing on the historic district study committee’s preliminary report, there’s a long chunk of recent history to wade through.

The city of Ann Arbor currently has 14 different historic districts. The first step in creating a new historic district is a city council appointment of a committee to undertake a study of an area. The study is supposed to determine if the built environment meets the criteria set forth in the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic districts.

We begin by looking at some background on how the size of the study area and pending development there factored into the council’s decision to appoint a study committee. Then we consider how the size of the recommended district is now factoring into support and opposition to the creation of the district.

City Council Says No to Study Committee

The proposal to appoint a study committee for the area south of William Street was first considered by the city council back in December 2008. It was a resolution sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and called for a study area roughly three blocks wide and two blocks long. From the Dec. 15, 2008 council resolution:

RESOLVED, That the area to be examined by this committee (“Study Area”) be generally the area between Fourth Avenue and Division Street, south of the East William Historic District, bounded by William Street and Madison Street;

Several people spoke at the public hearing that night and the council deliberated at some length on the question. Some wondered why the item had been added to the agenda only on Friday before their Monday meeting – but the counter to that complaint was that they’d received a draft resolution a week before. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had concerns about the “rush” to establish the committee.

Others had concerns that the establishment of the study committee would create a momentum and expectation that the district would actually be established. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) warned of a “self-full filling prophecy.” Objections also came from councilmembers, including the mayor, that many of the properties in the area lacked sufficient historical merit to contemplate their inclusion in an historic district. Christopher Taylor said he needed to see a larger pile of data for him to support a study committee.

In arguing for the appointment of the committee, Margie Teall (Ward 4) said that it was just a study committee, which did not mean that the council had to approve any recommendation of the committee.

In the end, the proposal won support only from Anglin, Briere, and Teall. For a more detailed account of public commentary and council deliberations from that meeting, see Chronicle coverage: “No Formal Study Committee for Germantown.”

City Council Says Yes to Study Committee

About eight months later, in August 2009, the city council had re-thought the issue of appointing an historic district study committee. The impetus behind the change in thinking was a development proposed for Fifth Avenue called City Place. The council had rejected a planned unit development (PUD) version of the project in January 2009. The council has fairly broad discretion to weigh the benefits of a project against the zoning changes inherent in a PUD proposal.

But by April 2009, the developer of the City Place project, Alex de Parry, had begun to move a “matter of right” (MOR) project through the site plan approval process. The city planning commission gave its approval to the MOR version on a 6-3 vote on April 21, 2009.

The city council has less discretion in approving a MOR project – one that is determined by city planning staff to meet all applicable codes. In the case of the City Place project, neighbors questioned the judgment of city staff in their determination that the project did meet applicable codes, specifically for height and setback requirements. Neighbors also raised questions about the version of project drawings that had been supplied in the lobby of city hall and to the planning commission – had the available drawings included the most recent revisions?

After review by the city attorney staff, opponents of the project won an intermediate victory: The City Place MOR project was remanded back to the planning commission in July 2009 due to problems in the version of drawings that had been made available to the planning commission. The commission’s 5-1 re-vote for the project on July 7 was a denial, lacking the six votes required for approval. But approval by the planning commission is not required in order for a site plan to be moved on for consideration by the city council, which has the final say.

On July 20, 2009 the City Place MOR project was back before the city council. And if a vote had been taken on the project, it would have almost certainly have passed. But an agreement had been struck with de Parry in order to avoid approving the MOR version, which consisted of two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot between them. It did not offer the energy efficiencies, below-grade parking, or affordable housing units that had been part of the case that de Parry had presented for the PUD version of the project.

The agreement was this: The city council would postpone the vote on the MOR, but de Parry could bring it back with a 35-day notice. In the interim, de Parry would work on revisions to the PUD, hoping to win support from the neighbors, or at least to damp down their opposition.

Orange-ish blocks are the proposed Heritage Row (top) and Moravian (bottom) developments. The whole magenta area was the area of study for the historic district study committee that was rejected by the city council in December 2008. The smaller, more opaque part of the magenta area has been recommended as an historic district by the committee that the council eventually did appoint in August 2009. That committee's area of study was the same as the opaque magenta area, except for the parcels on the south side of Packard. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

So on July 20, the council voted to postpone their vote on the City Place MOR until the following January.

At their next meeting, on Aug. 6, 2009, the city council considered a resolution to establish an historic district study committee with an associated moratorium on any construction work in the area of study. It was added to the agenda – on the same day as the council meeting – by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Objections to the resolution on the grounds that it had come at the last minute came from four councilmembers who supported a motion to postpone it: Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Leigh Greden (Ward 3), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

On the question of the resolution itself, only Smith and Derezinski were opposed.

The area proposed for study was smaller than the one that Anglin and Briere had suggested back in December 2008. It was confined to both sides of Fourth and Fifth avenues and bounded by Packard Street on the south.

The deliberations on the historic district and its associated moratorium on demolition and construction in the area of study reflected the fact that councilmembers wanted to block de Parry’s MOR project. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) characterized the use of a moratorium associated with an historic district as within the council’s arsenal of options.

At the same meeting, before it dealt with the historic district study committee, the council had entertained a moratorium on work in all R4C zoning districts, which would have also effectively blocked de Parry’s City Place project.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who brought the R4C moratorium forward, had talked about the idea at prior council meetings. During deliberations, Taylor was successful in amending the resolution to provide, among other things, an explicit exemption for The Moravian, a project located between Fourth and Fifth avenues along Madison Street. In the end, Anglin did not support his own amended resolution, but Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Leigh Greden (Ward 3) did.

The specific exemption for The Moravian was not necessary for the historic district study committee resolution – the area of study and its associated moratorium was smaller than the one proposed by Briere and Anglin back in December 2008. The study area did not include the area south of Packard, where the proposed Moravian was located:

RESOLVED, That the study area to be examined by this committee be the area encompassing properties that abut the east and west sides of South Fourth Avenue and South Fifth Avenue, bounded by the East William Historic District on the north, and Packard Street on the south, and also including 209, 215, and 219 Packard Street;

For a more detailed account of the council’s deliberations that evening, see Chronicle coverage: “Demolition Moratorium for Two-Block Area.”

Timeline Overview of City Place, Moravian, and Study Committee

The following timeline summarizes key points in the evolution of the study committee and the two developments proposed in the neighborhood.

• Jan. 15, 2008: City Place conditional rezoning – planning commission recommends denial.
• May 20, 2008: City Place PUD (planned unit development) – planning commission recommends denial.
• Sept. 4, 2008: City Place PUD – planning commission recommends denial.
• Dec. 15, 2008: Historic District Study Committee – city council rejects resolution to establish study committee for Germantown neighborhood.
• Jan. 5, 2009: City Place PUD – city council denies project on a unanimous 0-10 vote.
• April 21, 2009: City Place MOR (matter of right) – planning commission recommends approval on 6-3 vote.
• June 1, 2009: City Place MOR – city council postpones it due to inconsistencies in drawings provided on city’s website. [Errors attributed to city staff.]
• June 15, 2009: City Place MOR – city council sends it back to planning commission due to technical errors with drawings provided at the planning commission’s April meeting. [Errors attributed to city staff.]
• July 7, 2009: City Place MOR – planning commission recommends denial on 5-1 vote to approve (needed 6 votes for approval).
• July 20, 2009: City Place MOR – city council postpones until January 2010, to give the developer the opportunity to pursue a revised PUD. A condition was that the developer could bring back the matter of right project with 35-days notice.
• Aug. 6, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – city council establishes study committee plus a moratorium on demolition for a two-block area, including the proposed site of City Place, but not The Moravian.
• Aug. 11, 2009: City Place “Streetscape PUD” (a revised version of de Parry’s project) – receives planning staff initial review.
• Aug. 12, 2009: City Place “Streetscape PUD” – introduced to neighbors to comply with the neighbor participation ordinance.
• Aug. 17, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – city council revises language of moratorium to include all forms of work, including demolition.
• Aug. 30, 2009: City Place “Streetscape PUD” – application for project was not accepted by city planning staff.
• Sept. 8, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – members appointed.
• Sept. 21, 2009: City Place MOR – city council approves the project, but it cannot move forward because of the moratorium on demolition passed, together with the historic district study committee.
• Sept. 21, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – first meeting of the committee.
• Sept. 30, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets.
• Oct. 12, 2009: City Place “Streetscape PUD” –  de Parry gives update on “Streetscape PUD” at public meeting held at Conor O’Neill’s.
• Oct. 14, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets, expands area of research.
• Nov. 4, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets.
• Dec. 1, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets, contemplates recommendation to expand area of recommended district, 3-3 vote.
• Dec. 14, 2009: City Place “Streetscape PUD” – project now called “Heritage Row” and de Parry gives update at public meeting held at the Ann Arbor District Library.
• Jan. 5, 2010: The Moravian – the planning commission approves the project.
• Jan. 12, 2010: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets, consensus for smaller district.
• Feb. 16, 2010: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets.
• March 1, 2010: The Moravian – the city council approves at it at first reading.
• April 5, 2010: The Moravian – the city council rejects it at  second reading.
• May 3, 2010: Heritage Row –  the city council approves it at first reading.
• May 5, 2010: Historic District Public Hearing.
• May 17, 2010: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets, adopts final report.
• [scheduled] June 7, 2010: Heritage Row – second reading at city council.
• [scheduled] June 21, 2010: Fourth/Fifth Avenue Historic District – first reading at city council.
• [scheduled] July 5, 2010: Fourth/Fifth Avenue Historic District – second reading at city council.

Study Committee’s Dilemma: How Big a District?

The work of the study committee, which was appointed by the city council on Sept. 8, 2009, began at their first meeting on Sept. 21 with a division of labor to inventory the properties in the study area. Members of the committee are: Ina Hanel-Gerdenich, Susan Wineberg, Sarah (Shotwell) Wallace, Patrick McCauley, Rebecca Lopez Kriss, Tom Whitaker and Kristi Gilbert. McCauley and Wallace also serve on the city’s historic district commission. The committee was supported in their work by city planner Jill Thacher and consultant Kristine Kidorff.

The final product of the inventory is a series of “cards” – one per property – with detailed descriptions and photographs. Here’s an example of the text from one such card:

ADDRESS: 438 S Fifth Avenue, Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Michigan HISTORIC NAME: Erwin Schmid House #2    COMMON NAME: Schmid House
CONTRIBUTING: Yes DATE CONSTRUCTED: 1925 STYLE: Arts and Crafts MATERIALS FOUNDATION: Brick    WALLS: Brick    ROOF: Asphalt OTHER: Wood/Weatherboard
ARCHITECT: Herman Pipp SOURCE: Window shop drawings / Sanborn maps HISTORIC USE: DO/Single Dwelling    CURRENT USE: DO/Single Dwelling
DESCRIPTIVE NOTES: Two-story side gable with brick at first floor and wood clapboards at second floor. Tile shingles on dormer walls. Retains essential physical characteristics such as massing, materials, architectural details and retains historic integrity.
OTHER BUILDINGS/FEATURES: Wrought iron fence at front, shared with 444 S. Fifth Ave. Monumental tulip tree at south west corner of house and maple tree in rear yard contributes. Four bay garage with hip roof, brick facade, wood drop-lap siding sides and rear (built 1926-1931 – appears on 1931 Sanborn Map).
HISTORY: Built for Erwin E. Schmid in 1925 to replace the original italianate house built by his father Frederick Schmid, Jr., ca. 1874 (depicted in 1874 atlas of Washtenaw County). Erwin Schmid, who had been living next door at 444 S. Fifth Ave., moved into the older house in 1917, following the death of his father. The 1925 Sanborn map shows the rear wing of the old house remaining behind the new one (perhaps where the family lived while the new house was constructed). His widow and two children, Frederick K. and Emma M. lived in the house after Erwin’s death. Emma, who never married, remained there until she passed away in the 2000s and the house was sold to the current owners.
REFERENCES: 1874 Atlas, Sanborn maps, City Directories, Ann Arbor Daily News PHOTO FILE NAME: Fifth_438.jpg    DATE: September 30, 2009

How Big a District: Expanding the Scope of Study

With committee members well into their work cataloging the properties in the area of study specified in the city council resolution, at its Oct. 14, 2009 meeting the committee contemplated expanding the geographic scope of their research. Residents of the neighborhood south of Packard Street along Fourth and Fifth avenues were hopeful that the study committee would recommend as a district an area that extended south past Packard Street to Madison Street.

The appropriateness of inspecting a wider area than the area to be recommended as a district is implied by the applicable standards for defining boundaries:

Michigan’s Local Historic District Manual cites National Register Bulletin 15 [emphasis added]:

A district must be a definable geographic area that can be distinguished from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects or by documented differences in patterns of historic development or associations. It is seldom defined, however, by the limits of current parcels of ownership, management or planning boundaries. The boundaries must be based upon a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district.

To build a case for any particular boundaries, then, it seems incumbent upon a study committee to peer over any preliminary boundaries to test whether those properties outside the boundary should be properly included in the recommended district, or rather be analyzed as providing exactly the distinguishing features that provide a contrast to the properties inside the preliminary boundary.

The work by the study committee to inventory the additional properties south of Packard commenced. And by Dec. 1 enough of that work had been completed that the committee was ready to contemplate a recommendation for a district stretching south to Madison. With one member absent, there was a 3-3 split on the vote about that recommendation. From previous Chronicle coverage ["Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards"]:

… Patrick McCauley, who also serves on the city’s historic district commission, expressed concerns about recommending an historic district to the city council that stretched the boundaries of the area they’d been asked to study. McCauley indicated that Ward 5 representative to the council, Carsten Hohnke, had said the council had approved the study committee because it included a study area smaller than the one they’d rejected for study in late 2008. [Chronicle coverage: "No Formal Study Committee for Germantown"]

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

For her part, Ina Hanel-Gerdenich said that in conversation with Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, Briere had stressed that it was important to define boundaries “that make sense.” [Briere worked on the study committee that eventually recommended establishment of the Broadway historic district.]

Some of that “fighting it out” would involve a second development in the area. A district expanded down to Madison street would include the area of a development now named “The Moravian.” [Chronicle coverage: "The Madison Redux"].

Whitaker noted that there was support for homeowners on both sides of Packard for inclusion in an historic district. He was concerned, however, about the committee’s obligation to those who lived north of Packard. He worried that if they recommended an expanded district, that the city council, faced with a choice of voting it up or down, would vote it down. That, he said, put those to the north of Packard at risk.

The general understanding of the committee is that council would likely approve a recommendation that was limited to the orginal study area. That view is supported by councilmember comments that were made at the meeting when council established the study committee.

Said committee member Kristi Gilbert at one point, “If they [the city council] were inclined to vote for it [expanded area], they’d have made the study area bigger.” She encouraged the committee to recommend the smaller area as an historic district.

Susan Wineberg said that her assumption all along in doing the research on the area south of Packard was that they were going to recommend that area for inclusion in an historic district.

Patrick McCauley noted that the key was to meet the definition of the boundaries, and that to him, the original boundaries made as much sense as the boundaries of the expansion they were considering.

At the committee’s December meeting, when they voted on the question of recommending an expanded district, it was a 3-3 split, with Sarah Shotwell [Wallace] absent from the meeting. Voting for the larger district: Ina Hanel-Gerdenich, Susan Wineberg, Tom Whitaker.  Voting for the smaller district: Kristi Gilbert, Patrick McCauley, Rebecca Lopez Kriss.

How Big a District: Consensus for Smaller District

At the Jan. 12, 2010 meeting, there was not a formal vote taken, but the consensus for a smaller district prevailed. Committee members felt the area south of Packard was of historical significance, but had a different history from the area north of Packard.

They discussed the possibility of forwarding a recommendation to the city council – either as part of their preliminary report, or as a separate communication – to establish an additional study committee for that area, or to add the area to the existing committee’s charge.

The end result was a resolution from the committee, made at its May 17 meeting, asking the city council to consider expanding the district. [.pdf of committee resolution on an expanded district] The study committee’s minutes show that a motion made at the committee’s May 17 meeting by Tom Whitaker, to expand the boundaries of the recommended district south to Madison, received no support from the committee other than Whitaker’s.

So the preliminary, as well as the final, report by the committee recommended an area for the historic district that is virtually the same as the study area. The only difference is that the committee is recommending that the historic district also include the houses on the south side of Packard Street itself. The recommended area does not include the houses on Fourth and Fifth avenues as far south as Madison.

How Big a District: Boundary Justification

Even though the boundary recommendation for the proposed historic district did not change between the preliminary and the final committee report, the discussion in the report of the boundary justification was amended. The bulk of the amendments to the boundary justification section addressed the eastern boundary. The preliminary report’s section on boundary justification read as follows:

BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION [preliminary report] …

The eastern boundary echoes the eastern boundary of the original plat of Ann Arbor. This area and that along the southern boundary of the district are marked by residential areas illustrating contextual themes separate from those of the proposed district. To the east lies Hamilton Place, a cluster of houses associated with a development by land owner Francis Hamilton in the early 20th century.

That contrasts with the longer passage in the final report:

BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION [final report] …

The eastern boundary is defined on the north end by the rear lot lines of the properties along the east side of South Fifth Avenue. Behind these properties is an early twentieth-century development that bisected Block 4 South, Range 6 East, of the original plat of Ann Arbor. This development, created by Francis Hamilton, included a new street called Hamilton Place, and featured densely-packed vernacular houses on smaller-than-average-sized lots. While the houses on Hamilton Place were constructed during the period of significance, they represent only one small phase of the period and generally share a common vernacular architectural style. This is distinct from the district itself which includes intact resources that span almost the entire period of significance, and which represent a variety of architectural styles. This area was not studied by the committee. The eastern boundary line is extended to Packard Street by continuing to follow the rear lot lines of the houses along the east side of South Fifth Avenue, and includes 305 Packard Street. Next to 305 Packard to the east, there is a modern apartment building. The area to the east and the one beyond the southern boundary of the district are marked by residential areas illustrating contextual themes separate from those of the proposed district. Both of these areas contain some residential buildings that were constructed at the same time as in the proposed district; however neither area was so densely developed as early as the proposed district.

The amplification of the eastern boundary discussion came after comments from the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office, which had provided comments to the study committee indicating the possible historical significance of properties in the vicinity of Hamilton Place.

Council’s Historic District Consideration

When the city council considers the committee’s recommendation to create the Fourth/Fifth Avenue Historic District – at a first reading on June 21, likely followed by a second  reading on July 5 – it will have already considered the Heritage Row project and either approved it or rejected it.

The Heritage Row project includes 79 units – 12 efficiencies, 9 1-bedroom, 43 2-bedroom, 14 3-bedroom, and 1 5-bedroom apartment. Those units will be distributed over seven renovated existing houses and three buildings to be constructed behind the existing houses.

Council’s HD Consideration: Implications for Heritage Row

If the council approves the Heritage Row PUD and then subsequently approves the creation of the historic district, Heritage Row would then need to be reviewed by the city’s historic district commission. That’s because the city council’s approval of the site plan and zoning would not include construction permitting. Approval from the historic district commission would still be required – in the form of a certificate of appropriateness or a notice to proceed – to undertake the construction of the project.

If the city council were to approve creation of the historic district, it’s conceivable that the Heritage Row project would pass muster with the historic district commission. In fact, de Parry has stated that he intends the project to be consistant with historic district guidelines and is not afraid of the possibility that the area would be declared an historic district.

On the other hand, it’s fair to say that if an historic district were established, the historic district commission would not approve the City Place matter of right project – that would entail the demolition of seven existing houses deemed to contribute to an historic district.

Given that de Parry has already won approval for the City Place matter of right project, it’s worth considering whether there’s any chance that the matter of right project could still be built. For example, if the city council approves the Heritage Row PUD, but does not establish an historic district, could de Parry go back to the City Place MOR?

No. Here’s why not. Approval of the Heritage Row PUD would entail a change in the city’s zoning to fit the project – that’s inherently what a PUD is. So the matter of right project would no longer be “matter of right,” because it would no longer meet the city’s code, which would now be defined by the PUD zoning.

Council’s HD Consideration: Arguments from the Public Hearing

The public commentary that the city council will likely hear on June 21, when it contemplates the creation of the historic district, is likely to be similar in flavor to the sentiments expressed at the May 5 public hearing held by the study committee on the preliminary report. The hearing took place at city council chambers.

The boundary issues were a common theme at the May 5 hearing, as was all-around praise for the hard work done by the study committee members – members of such committees are volunteers, who serve without compensation. Tom Luczak, for example, said he was impressed with the diligence and dedication of the committee members.

Luczak, who lives within the recommended historic district, allowed that one of his reasons for supporting the district could be seen as selfish – it might enhance property values. On the boundary issue, he said it would be nice for the neighborhood’s integrity if the neighborhood were extended farther south, but noted that it was a sensitive issue. He also pointed out that it might be extended farther east. But given a choice of having a smaller historic district or having none at all, he said, he’d prefer the smaller district.

Also addressing the study committee at the public hearing was Alice Ralph, who’s a candidate for the District 11 county commission seat that’s coming free due to commissioner Jeff Irwin’s candidacy for the District 53 state house seat. Ralph serves on the county’s historic district commission. She pointed out that part of the mission of the county’s historic district commission is to promote coordination and cooperation with other historic district commissions. She said she was always pleased to see community members working together on a common goal. She indicated a preference for making the boundaries of historic districts as generous as possible.

Addressing the committee as the owner of a house that was previously included in a now-defunct district [ruled in 2001 to be out of compliance with the regulations on establishment of historic districts] was Piotr Michalowski. He characterized his current ownership of the property as “just passing through” and said that it would be left to other generations as well. There were other places people could develop property in Ann Arbor, he said.

Another candidate for office addressed the committee in the form of John Floyd – he’s contesting the Ward 5 city council seat currently held by Carsten Hohnke. He described himself as a current property owner and past resident of an historic district – the Old West Side. What makes the Old West Side an historic district is not the buildings themselves, but rather the collection of buildings that gives the area its character, he said.

The city council had made a political decision to establish the boundaries of the study area in a particular way, Floyd said. But the decision about the boundaries for the recommended district, he told the committee, was a technical one, not a political one. It was important for the district to cross Packard Street and to go up East Jefferson Street, if it could. The area could become an asset to the city that is not available to other communities, he concluded.

Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, began her remarks by noting that she’d not been sent an email notification and had only two days notice of the hearing. She’d been told in February, she said, that she’d have adequate opportunity to state the case for an expanded district. She criticized the committee’s performance with respect to communication as being too much like the function of the city’s planning commission.

Strassmann gave examples of two houses from the 1860s located south of Packard Street and asked the committee to respect the wishes of the residents south of Packard who wished to be included in the historic district.

Also addressing the smaller-than-wished-for recommended district was Claudius Vincenz. Because it’s not the individual houses that are being designated, he said, it was important to include a larger area to capture the character of the entire neighborhood. He granted that the houses south of Packard were perhaps not as stately as those north of Packard, but contended that they were equally old. The perfectly natural physical boundary based on the floodplain, he said, would be at Madison Street, not Packard.

Graham Niles Miles introduced himself as the owner of 526 and 528 S. Fifth Ave. He reported that in the 1970s he had lived at the house at 539 S. Fifth Ave. In addition to that, Niles said he also owned four houses on South Fourth Avenue. Based on the floor joists – which are logs with the bark still visible – he estimates that they date from the 1860s. One of the houses he’d renovated a few years ago. And when the lathe and plaster were removed from the walls, he found old German newspapers and bricks lining the walls. The thermal mass of the bricks, he said, was intended to moderate the temperature of the house. Niles concluded that he’d like to see the houses south of Packard included in the historic district.

Former planning commissioner Ethel Potts declared that she’d never seen any task force or committee get off to as fast a start and work so hard as the study committee had. She said it was important to share Ann Arbor’s shared built heritage and that this was truly an historic neighborhood – and it’s larger than two blocks, she said. She said she was distressed about the number of historic houses that the city had lost, partly due to the disturbing record of the University of Michigan in destroying parts of neighborhoods.

Rita Mitchell advocated for workmanlike houses that were not necessarily by themselves noteworthy, but together as a collection they were valuable, she said. She told the committee she’d lived in such a house for 15 years, and she was happy with its quality – real plaster, real wood, real doors. She said she was in favor of preserving what the city has. The residents of the Old West Side historic district understand its value and they’ve chosen to live there and to stay there, she said. She concluded that it has not been a burden to live in an historic district.

Shirley Zempel said she’d moved to her house on South Fourth Avenue in 1977 and had never thought about it as an historic district. But she said that when she attended conferences in other university towns, she would walk around and noticed that all reasonably-sized college towns have neighborhoods such as these. It would behoove us to keep what we have and not destroy it, she concluded.

Ellen Ramsburgh, a member of the city’s historic district commission, lamented the fact that the city council, through a political process, had put the boundary where it had. As a member of the study committee that had recommended the Washtenaw-Hill Street historic district, she recalled that there had been similar distress over where to draw the boundary. She suggested that there be a recommendation to the council made that another study committee be appointed to consider expanding the district, noting that one of the strengths of other districts like the Old West Side was their size.

Scott Munzel addressed the committee as a representative of the Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership, which is the legal entity owning the Heritage Row project. He recognized that a lot of work went into the committee’s efforts, but as it currently stood, he said that the recommendation violated both state and federal law.

On the state level, he cited the 2001 case of Draprop Corp. versus Ann Arbor, in which the court had found that the individual properties across the city – which had been lumped together into one historic district – did not constitute an historic district. The reasoning was based on the fact that the properties were not “related by history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture.” Munzel was citing the definition of an historic district from Michigan’s Public Act 169, passed in 1970.

Although the boundary justification in the report offered three different theories as to why the area was an historic district, Munzel said, none of them related the properties in terms of the state legislation. The justifications for this district, he said, were remarkably similar to the justifications offered for the district that had been ruled in violation of the state’s statute 10 years ago. He concluded that the recommended district would not pass legal muster.

On the federal level, Munzel argued that the recommended district would violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause that required people in similar circumstances to be treated similarly. The property owners south of Packard, he said, were not being treated similarly to those north of Packard. There was zero rationale for the exclusion of the houses south of Packard from the district, he said. Why not extend along Jefferson? Why not extend all the way to Division? It did not take a rocket scientist, or even a clever lawyer, he said, to see that the equal protection clause was violated.

Munzel concluded with a third argument, “just to stir the pot a little bit,” he said. It involved the Bethlehem United Church of Christ in the recommended district. The historic district regulations would not apply to the church in any case, he said, because restricting the land use of a religious institution would impinge on the free exercise of religion. That was ironic, he said, because part of the rationale for recommending the district was based on the church building.

Bob Giles introduced himself as a homeowner on Fourth Avenue. He characterized the neighborhood as closely attached to the section that is south of Packard. He cautioned that the impact of excluding it would be significant. He had the abstract of his property, which dates from 1856. Reading through it was like reading the history of Ann Arbor, he said.

Alex de Parry told the committee that he’d been in Ann Arbor on Fifth Avenue since 1971. He told the committee he knew the neighborhood. De Parry said it was ironic because he actually agreed with the other comments that had been made during the hearing. The boundaries of the proposed district, however, were flawed, he said. He noted that there were six people opposed to the district within the current boundaries, but one of those had passed away the previous night.

Peter Webster told the committee he had submitted his comments in writing. In his verbal comments to the committee, he noted it was a requirement that prior study committee reports had to be included as part of the report. But there was only one sentence in the report that says anything about prior reports, he said.

Webster said there were other studies that had all concluded against a recommendation for establishing an historic district here. The themes identified in the study committee’s report are not identified in any of the prior study reports, he contended. Webster also pointed out that the report is supposed to establish a percentage of what is historic. The report, he said, just identifies every building as historic.

Anne Eisen told the committee that when she bought her house on South Fourth Ave in 1995, the house had a plaque, so she thought it had historic protection. And when she found out it was not protected, she had advocated for its protection. She’d been told that it was stupid to buy a house in that neighborhood, because it would be redeveloped. She felt like the benefit to the city was that it was getting an “historic park” at the homeowners’ expense within walking distance of downtown.

Ray Detter introduced himself as a resident and property owner in the Division Street historic district. He said he’d worked to establish that historic district. He allowed that every historic district has arbitrary boundaries. But he said that part of the value of the neighborhood was in the area south of Packard, and it deserved to be preserved. Detter warned that it was a policy of the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce to oppose additional historic districts near downtown, and instead to encourage development. He warned against that approach and said the city should encourage the preservation, not redevelopment, of these properties.

Frank Jacobson introduced himself as the owner of a Fifth Avenue house since 1992. Based on an aerial photo of the neighborhood he showed the committee, he concluded that the area north of Packard is not as coherent as the neighborhood south of Packard. He called for the historic district to extend farther south on Fifth Avenue. He characterized the proposed boundary as inconsistent with state law and suggested that one of the committee members owned property in the proposed district and therefore had a conflict of interest.

Kristine Kidorf and Patrick McCauley answer questions at the April 6, 2010 planning commission meeting. McCauley is chair of the Fourth and Fifth Avenues historic district study committee. Kidorf is a consultant assisting with the committee's work.

A study committee, appointed by city council last year, was charged with evaluating whether or not the residential area along Fourth and Fifth, south of William and north of Packard, meets criteria for historic district designation. The committee finished a preliminary report in February, and is getting feedback before making a final report to the city council in May.

Planning commissioners first discussed the historic district report – and their possible response to it – at a March 9, 2010 working session. At that meeting, commissioner Diane Giannola, who also serves on the city’s historic district commission, raised concerns over the completeness of the report.

At Tuesday’s meeting, several commissioners pressed for clarification about the report. On hand to answer questions were Patrick McCauley, the committee’s chair and a member of the historic district commission, and Kristine Kidorf, a consultant hired by the city to assist the process.

Historic District Study Committee: Some Background

A proposal for an historic district study committee was first made in 2008, in response to a residential development called City Place, on Fifth Avenue south of William. But at its Dec. 21, 2008 meeting, council rejected setting up such a study committee. [Chronicle coverage: "No Formal Study Committee for Germantown"]

The developer of City Place, Alex de Parry, had originally sought rezoning as a planned unit development, or PUD. When city council rejected the City Place PUD, de Parry bought it back as a “matter of right” project, with no rezoning required. And at its Sept. 21, 2009 meeting, council approved the project. [Chronicle coverage: "Near North, City Place Approved"]

A month earlier, however, in August 2009, the city council had passed a resolution establishing an historic district study committee for the residential area near the south side of Ann Arbor’s downtown district – an area that included the City Place site. Council appointed the following study committee in September 2009: Kristi Gilbert, Ina Hanel-Gerdenich, Rebecca Lopez Kriss, Patrick McCauley, Sarah Shotwell, Tom Whitaker and Susan Wineberg.

At the same meeting, council also approved a moratorium on demolition in the area where City Place was being proposed. [Chronicle coverage: "Demolition Moratorium for Two-Block Area"] That move effectively halted the ability for de Parry to proceed, beyond seeking approvals, and he subsequently retooled the development into a project called Heritage Row. The demolition moratorium is still in effect, but expires on Aug. 6, 2010.

The Chronicle attended the two meetings of the historic district committee in October and December of 2009. A summary of the committee’s work to that point is included in a Chronicle report on de Parry’s initial presentation of Heritage Row: “Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards.” Heritage Row has been a contentious project, but was recommended for approval by the planning commission at its March 16, 2010 meeting. [Chronicle coverage: "Heritage Row Moves to City Council"]

Historic District: Public Commentary

Three people spoke during public commentary time at Tuesday’s meeting, and all addressed the potential historic district. They had all also attended Monday night’s city council meeting, all speaking out against The Moravian project, another residential development proposed for that same neighborhood. A planned unit development (PUD) zoning request for The Moravian, which had been recommended for approval by city staff and the planning commission, was achieved only the simple majority it needed on a 6-4 vote – it needed an 8-vote super-majority as a result of a formal protest petition that had been filed. That city council meeting stretched until 1:30 a.m.

Tom Luczak: Alluding to the late hour of the previous night’s city council meeting, Luczak began by thanking Tony Derezinski for being awake. [Derezinski, a planning commissioner, represents Ward 2 on city council.] Luczak said that the commissioners seem like nice people individually, but collectively, “it just really seems that you’re out to get that neighborhood.” He said he’s heard three commissioners talk about how they’d like to see that area as a transitional neighborhood, and he described their approach as “PUDing it to death.” Luczak urged commissioners to look into their hearts and support the historic district. He noted that it wouldn’t prevent them from approving future PUDs – it would only require new development to meet Secretary of the Interior standards for historic districts. This would actually make their jobs easier, he said, adding that he wouldn’t have objected to the Heritage Row project under those conditions.

Beverly Strassmann: Strassmann said she couldn’t believe that her street was already faced with another agenda item – until earlier that day, she hadn’t been aware that it was on the commission’s agenda. She supports the historic district, but would like to see it extend even farther south of Packard to include the 500 block of South Fifth. Her home, she noted, was built in 1915. She suggested that the district extend on South Fifth to Madison, and on South Fourth to the floodplain.

Claudius Vincenz: At Monday night’s council meeting, people negatively mis-characterized his neighborhood, Vincenz said, and it’s a mis-characterization that seems to have resonated well with the planning commission. Noting that he’s lived in the neighborhood nearly 20 years – and that he has walked his 16-year-old dog throughout the area every day – Vincenz said he recently took a survey of every household. He found out how much rent people paid, where they worked, and what the inside of their homes looked like. Some are very low income, others are well-to-do. It’s a very mixed neighborhood, and stable, he said. If anything, it’s moving toward more owner-occupied homes. He warned that anything the planning commission did to change the neighborhood will completely destroy the delicate balance that now exists.

Historic District: Commissioners’ Questions

Bonnie Bona, the commission’s chair, began discussion by clarifying the commission’s role. They were not asked to make a recommendation or give approval, she said. They have the opportunity to give input on the preliminary report, and could do that in several ways. They could try to reach a consensus and give their input as a commission, or they could each make individual comments, which would be entered into the record and forwarded to the study committee.

Contributing versus Non-Contributing Structures

Several commissioners had questions for Patrick McCauley, the study committee’s chair, and Kristine Kidorf, an historic district consultant who’s working with the committee. Jean Carlberg asked for an explanation of the difference between contributing and non-contributing structures. The committee’s report recommends that 100% of the structures – with one exception – be considered as resources that contribute to the district.

Kidorf explained that the distinction was sometimes known as “historic” versus “non-historic.” The proposed district spans a period of historical significance between 1838 to 1941. Contributing structures are those built within that period that have retained their architectural integrity. A rule of thumb, she said, is if someone from that era returned to the present day and was still able to recognize the structure, it should be considered as contributing.

McCauley added that the committee had walked the neighborhood and conducted research on the structures. Some were clearly historic, he said. For those that were questionable, the committee had discussed each one and come to a consensus. A continuum of changes have been made on the buildings – some have been altered very little, others more so. But there are many cases in which a structure built in the 1870s, for example, has an addition from the 1920s – if the alteration happened within the period of historical significance, he said, it counts as contributing.

Several commissioners questioned how it’s possible to have virtually 100% of all structures within the proposed district categorized as contributing. [One garage, at 445 S. Fourth Ave., is designated as non-contributing.] Kidorf noted that the proposed district is relatively small, with only 47 primary buildings and 14 secondary buildings.

Diane Giannola said that when she first walked through the neighborhood, there were many buildings that didn’t have visible signs of their historic fabric. She reported that she then talked with McCauley, who showed her a map of the proposed district. On it, about 40% of the structures were marked as questionable regarding their historical significance. But in the final report, she noted, zero percent are now questionable. It seemed to her quite a difference.

McCauley described the original map as a “stepping off point.” The structures that were questionable were those that Kidorf wanted the committee to examine more closely. “Believe me,” he said, “we’ve looked at these buildings an awful lot.”

Giannola said that details needed to be provided about how the committee reached its conclusions. No minutes were taken during committee meetings, she added, so it’s difficult to know what the group’s discussion was like. She later clarified that she actually liked the map – she just was concerned about the disparity between 40% and zero percent.

Carlberg expressed concern over the length of the period of historical significance – 100 years is a long span. A porch might have been added that in no way reflects the original structure, she said, yet both are considered historically significant, because they fall within the 100-year period.

McCauley responded that both eras are part of the neighborhood’s story. The committee chose a World War II cut-off date because that’s when the demographics of the area started to change, he said. Kidorf added that it’s common for historic districts to span 100 years. But Carlberg countered that it was hard to buy into that concept – all that’s indicated is the age of the buildings, and by that definition, the entire downtown would be historic.

When considering the district as a whole, Kidorf replied, the committee looked at broader criteria. There are four possible criteria for significance, as defined by the National Register of Historic Places: 1) association with events that are historically significant, 2) association with people of historical significance, 3) association with distinctive architectural styles or those that represent the work of a master, and 4) an area that might yield historical information – that is, having archeological value. The committee believes the proposed district meets the first three criteria.

Tony Derezinski raised concerns about the committee’s decision to designate 100% of the structures within the district as contributing, especially compared to the original map that showed 40% as questionable. McCauley said the committee members debated each one, and noted that it’s not always a clear-cut matter. For him personally, the deciding factor was whether a structure had more historic material left on it than had been taken away. He noted that there were some mistakes on that original map, so the 40% number was inaccurate – it was actually a lower percentage. Kidorf again stated that the map had been intended as a tool for further research.

Derezinski asked if there’d been a vote taken, or whether the discussions had been recorded. McCauley clarified that the meetings had been public, but that there were no minutes. Later in the meeting, Kidorf said she could provide notes taken during the meeting, though they were less detailed than minutes would be.

Setting Boundaries

Wendy Woods asked for elaboration on the choice of the district’s proposed boundaries. McCauley told her that extending the boundary to include both sides of Packard seemed to strengthen the story of the  neighborhood. He felt that going farther south on Packard was overstepping the bounds of the committee, as it had been directed by council. There was also diminished architectural significance south of Packard, he said. They had to set the boundaries somewhere, he noted.

Map of proposed Fourth and Fifth Avenue historic district. (Links to larger image)

Kidorf added that the National Register criteria suggests looking at the city’s original plat maps, as well as natural boundaries. In this case, South Fifth has a steep drop south of Packard. The south side also was more associated with families tied to industry in that area, including a furniture factory and lumber yard, she said. In contrast, the proposed historic district was home to families of elected officials. Also, the area south of Packard wasn’t densely developed as early as the area north of Packard, she said.

Woods said that back in the 1800s, Packard was likely a dirt road – it probably wasn’t the busy street that creates the barrier that it does today, she observed. She also noted that just because someone lived on the other side of the street and that no one associated their name with a particular house, that didn’t mean the area was any less historically significant. The city should tell everyone’s story, she said.

McCauley noted that other historic districts in the city, such as the Old West Side, had been more working class. He described the committee’s discussion about setting the boundaries as a contentious one. “It’s very tough, but things do have to start and stop somewhere.” Kidorf added that the committee wasn’t making a judgment about the historical significance of the area south of Packard. It’s possible that the area could be designated as its own historic district in the future, she said. But the focus for this committee had been on the area specified by city council.

The Bigger Picture: Why Is It Historic?

Erica Briggs asked McCauley and Kidorf to speak about the larger story they’re trying to tell by creating the historic district. McCauley said the area’s story reflects the more general history of the entire city. It was part of the city’s early settlement, and particularly developed as a residential neighborhood for German immigrants – the recently formed neighborhood association adopted the name Germantown. The neighborhood is also associated with the University of Michigan, and reflects the influence of the university. Finally, there’s a concentration of architectural styles in the area, he said, ranging from Greek Revival to Queen Anne, among others.

Kidorf referred commissioners to the committee’s preliminary report, which includes several pages describing the history of the district. [The report can be downloaded from the city's website.]

Historic District as a Burden to Homeowners: Making Changes

Jean Carlberg observed that one challenge in supporting an historic district was the fact that it affects current property owners. It makes a difference if your property is designated as contributing or non-contributing – it affects how easily you can make changes on your property. For example, some of the larger homes have been split into apartments, and in some cases they need a form of egress, such as stairs on the outside of the building. Would that be allowed?

McCauley drew on his experience on the historic district commission, recalling a recent request by the owners of the Jimmy John’s sandwich shop on Ann Street. Normally the HDC doesn’t allow new windows or doors to be added, he said, but in this case they made an exception because the building needed egress. He clarified that property owners wouldn’t be required to make changes. But if they wanted to make changes, they’d need to get approval from the HDC. That was true regardless of whether the buildings were designated as contributing or non-contributing, though non-contributing structures would have to meet different, less stringent standards.

Carlberg asked for a list of proposals that the HDC had approved or not approved, but McCauley said such a list would be “giant.” What if someone had a growing family, or needed additional rental income, and wanted to make an addition to the house, Carlberg asked. Kidorf said there would be design guidelines to follow – the addition would need to be “subservient” to the original structure, for example, no larger than 50% of the original size. The addition would need to be reversible – that is, it would need to be built so that it could be removed in the future without harming the original structure. And to ensure that there’s no confusion of the site’s historical record, it should not mimic the original building.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, asked about the inclusion of landmark trees and lilac bushes mentioned in the report. She was referring to this paragraph:

There are a number of landscape features in the district. The majority of properties have mature trees in the front and/or rear yards, including those planted in a pattern at 120 Packard and an old one at rear between 314 and 308 Packard. Seven properties have mature (possibly lilac) bushes in the front and/or side or rear yards. The historic fencing in the district consists of a wrought iron fence shared by two properties and one example of a wood frame fence with a middle section of metal chicken wire. The latter is unique in that it includes one section topped with old wrought iron cresting. Both fences have associated gates.

Kidorf said those would be considered architectural features, and subject to review by the HDC. McCauley characterized the fences and trees as contributing to the character of the neighborhood.

Woods asked what would happen if there were a fire in a building. What would the property owner be able to build on that site? McCauley noted that an example of this would be coming before the HDC soon – Zingerman’s Deli owned a building that had been severely damaged by fire. He said that in general, the building would have to be compatible with the historic district in size and scale. The HDC would also weigh in regarding certain architectural features, he said. Kidorf said that a replica wouldn’t be allowed, because that would confuse the historical record.

Later in the meeting, Giannola recalled that Zingerman’s Deli had previously requested that the HDC allow it to tear down the burned building – this request came to the commission before McCauley was appointed, she said. It was a close vote, but the HDC denied the request, telling Zingerman’s to renovate the building instead. [Zingerman's is now making a new proposal – see Chronicle coverage: "Zingerman's: Making It Right for the HDC"]

Kirk Westphal clarified that the committee’s original charge had been to evaluate the potential for creating an historic district in that area. They had not been asked more generally to determine how the area’s historic homes might be preserved. That was correct, McCauley said – they were an historic district study committee.

Westphal then noted that some houses in the proposed district aren’t considered very attractive, and that owners might want to make improvements. He asked how difficult it would be to replace the vinyl siding on a house in the district. McCauley said the HDC would have to weigh those kinds of things on a case-by-case basis. HardiPlank, for example, can sometimes be an acceptable replacement material.

Westphal asked whether the Heritage Row project, which the planning commission recently recommended for approval, would meet Secretary of the Interior standards. McCauley and Kidorf said they weren’t sure.

Erica Briggs asked whether it would be possible to revise the committee’s report to include more details about why the buildings are designated as contributing, to give people greater understanding about those decisions. McCauley said he’d be open to that.

Historic District: Commissioners’ Comments

When commissioners had concluded with questions for McCauley and Kidorf, Bonnie Bona observed that the robust questioning was “indicative of the complexity of this issue.” Rather than try to reach a consensus, she suggested that commissioners make individual statements, which would be part of the minutes and could be taken as feedback by the study committee.

Planning commissioners Diane Giannola, left, and Jean Carlberg at a March 9, 2010 working session when the commission discussed the Fourth and Fifth Avenues historic district study committee's preliminary report.

Evan Pratt asked Kirk Westphal to give a summary of issues raised at the commission’s March 9 working session – Westphal had been the official notetaker at that meeting.

Westphal outlined four issues:

• Questions and concerns about contributing versus non-contributing structures. Many of these were outlined in a memo that Diane Giannola distributed prior to the working session, and they were raised again at Tuesday’s meeting. [.pdf file of Giannola's memo]
• The impact on the city’s master planning goals. That’s the meat of what the planning commission does, Westphal noted. To what degree would an historic district deter or further the community’s stated master plan goals? It would be helpful to have information about what the impact has been in other historic districts, he said, so the commission could know what should or should not be repeated.
• The timing of the R4C/R2A zoning district study. There might be some conflicts between the historic district and results of the zoning district study, which will likely propose ordinance changes to those two types of residential zoning. Tony Derezinski and Jean Carlberg are both members of that study committee.
• There are other tools that could be used to protect the preservation of homes, but that would be less restrictive than an historic district. It would be useful to see what other communities have done in that regard.

Pratt said he liked the housing in the Fourth and Fifth Avenue area – he noted that the planning commission had rejected the City Place project when it had entailed tearing down some of the historic homes there. That was also the reason there were some objections to the current R4C zoning, because it encouraged the removal of housing stock. Pratt said he was interested in anything they could do to ensure the preservation of the housing stock, while furthering the goals of the central area plan.

Carlberg said she’d like more information on conservation easements as an alternative to an historic district. Bona explained that the city could make such an easement as strict or as lenient as they want. Wendy Rampson said the city’s planning staff would do some research on that.

Eric Mahler was concerned about the issue of non-conforming lots, which Carlberg had raised earlier in the meeting. He said he’d asked Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff to identify how many properties in the proposed district are non-conforming – there are 37 residential lots that are less than the minimum 8,500 square feet now required in areas zoned R4C. Because they are non-conforming, property owners already face additional burdens when they want to make changes, he noted. (Bona later pointed out that owners of non-conforming lots must seek variances through the zoning board of appeals.) Mahler said he didn’t want to preserve these non-conforming lots in perpetuity.

Tony Derezinski reported that the R4C/R2A study committee was working aggressively, and that he saw a potential conflict with that work and the historic district. Which is the better method for addressing the problems that the city faces in that area? He also said he had a lot of questions about process, in part prompted by Giannola’s analysis of the committee’s preliminary report. The proposed district’s boundaries were double what had been suggested by council, he said. [Although the study committee researched a larger area, and weighed whether to include the larger area as the recommended district, their preliminary report recommends an area almost the same as the area specified in the city council's directive – the exception is the south side of Packard Street.]

Derezinski continued: What was the background on arriving at that decision? “It raises a lot of questions in my mind, in terms of how that decision was made, and by whom,” Derezinski said. For council, he added, the question is whether an historic district is the best way to achieve smart growth.

Saying that she’d heard other commissioners cite the burden that an historic district would be on current homeowners, Erica Briggs pointed out that homeowners in the area were advocating for it. The homeowners have an understanding about what an historic district entails, she said, yet they’re embracing it. That’s an important consideration. She was also interested in looking at alternative tools, and in addressing the issue of non-conforming lots.

Bona, in concluding the discussion, expressed her support for these older neighborhoods, saying that’s why she’s been an advocate for the R4C/R2A study. But creating an historic district is a serious step, she added. Addressing the challenges that planning commissioners have raised will help the study committee justify its decision, she said.

She responded to a comment that McCauley had made earlier, about how an historic district allows the area to tell its story. A conservation district, rather than an historic district, would let the neighborhood continue to have a story while preserving what’s there, she said – that’s compelling, and would allow the city to meet its master plan goal of adding more units to the housing stock, while preserving older homes. “It’s a complex issue,” she said.

What’s Next?

In addition to comments from the planning commission, the historic district study committee is seeking feedback from the historic district commission and the state historic preservation office. On May 5, the committee will hold a public hearing in city hall council chambers, 100 N. Fifth Ave., beginning at 7 p.m.

After that, they’ll meet on May 17 to make revisions to their report and vote on a final version to send to city council. The goal is to have the proposal considered for first reading at council’s June 21 meeting.

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

Next meeting: On Tuesday, April 13 at 7 p.m., the planning commission will hold a joint meeting with the city’s environmental commission and energy commission on the topic of sustainability. The meeting will be held in the lower level conference room of the county administration building, 200 N. Main St.

Alex de Parry describes how the rear of the existing seven homes would in some cases be modified consistent with their period of historical significance. (Photo by the writer.)

The housing development would be located on the east side of Fifth Avenue, just south of William Street.

Previously known as “City Place,” the proposal has been newly baptized as “Heritage Row.” The new nomenclature reflects in part the expressed intent of de Parry’s development team to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for historic preservation for a row of seven old houses. Behind the row of houses, three new buildings would be constructed. Underground parking would be constructed under the three new buildings.

Previous versions of the project would have either demolished the seven houses or preserved them only in part. Now, the plan is to rehabilitate those houses to historic district standards.

To achieve the tax credits necessary to help fund the project, the area would need to be declared an historic district. In August, the Ann Arbor city council established a study committee to explore the question of whether an historic district would be appropriate for an area along Fourth and Fifth avenues. The area of study includes the proposed Heritage Row.

Given the tax credits that would be available to help fund Heritage Row, it would now work to de Parry’s advantage if the study committee recommended to city council that the area be established as an historic district.

Resident Tom Luczak (left) and architect Bradley Moore (right) were not arguing about whose hat was more historic. (Photo by the writer.)

Based on two meetings of the historic district study committee attended by The Chronicle – most recently on Dec. 1 – that committee’s challenge is not so much whether to recommend their assigned area of study as an historic district. Rather, the conundrum they face is whether to recommend as an historic district a region that’s larger than the study area.

The next step to bring the Heritage Row project forward appears to be for de Parry and his team to formally notice a meeting in order to meet the requirements of Ann Arbor’s citizen participation ordinance. The question arose during Monday’s meeting as to whether the meeting was a continuation of the August public participation meeting.

Tom Whitaker, formerly president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, pointed out the proposal had been altered from the previous public participation meeting. [The recently elected president of the neighborhood association is Beverly Strassmann, who also attended Monday's meeting.] And saying that he’d come to the meeting “armed with ordinance,” Whitaker read aloud the relevant section of the citizen participation ordinance [emphasis added]:

Before the Planning and Development Services Unit may accept a petition for a new or amended planned project, a new or amended planned unit development zoning district, or amendments to the zoning map, the following requirements shall be completed by the petitioner: …

Background on Heritage Row (formerly City Place)

Some of the dozen residents who attended the Monday presentation did not embrace the new name of the project, Heritage Row, saying it was too ironic. “Is it /ro/ or /rau/?”asked one resident pointedly.

Alex de Parry’s wife, Betsy, chimed in, saying the “blame” for the name change belonged to her – the name “City Place” just had to go, she said. Residents allowed that the name “City Place” had a lot of “baggage” attached to it.  The two years of baggage includes the following:

• Jan. 15, 2008: Conditional rezoning – Ann Arbor Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: None. NO: Bonnie Bona, Craig Borum, Jean Carlberg, Ron Emaus, Joan Lowenstein, Eric Mahler, Ethel Potts, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal.
• May 20, 2008: PUD (planned unit development) – Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: Emaus. NO: Bona, Borum, Carlberg, Lowenstein, Mahler, Potts, Westphal. ABSENT: Pratt.
• Sept. 4, 2008: PUD – Ann Arbor Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: Borum, Lowenstein. NO: Bona, Carlberg, Potts, Pratt, Westphal, Woods.
• Dec. 15, 2008: City Council rejects resolution to establish a Historic District Study Committee for Germantown.
• Jan. 5, 2009: PUD – City Council denied on a unanimous 0-10 vote.
  NO: John Hieftje, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Rapundalo, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin. ABSENT: Sandi Smith.
• April 21, 2009: MOR (matter of right) – Planning Commission recommends approval on 6-3 vote.
  YES: Bona, Carlberg, Derezinski, Mahler, Westphal, Woods. NO: Potts, Borum, Pratt.
• June 1, 2009: MOR – City Council postponed it due to inconsistencies in drawings provided on city’s website. [Errors attributed to city staff.]
• June 15, 2009: MOR – City Council sent it back to Planning Commission due to technical errors with drawings provided at the Planning Commission April meeting. [Errors attributed to city staff.]
• July 7, 2009: MOR – Planning Commission recommended denial on 5-1 vote to approve (needed 6).
• July 20, 2009: MOR – City Council postpones until January 2010, to give the developer the opportunity to pursue a revised PUD. A condition was that the developer could bring back the matter of right project with 35-days notice.
• Aug. 6, 2009: City Council establishes an Historic District Study Committee and moratorium on demolition for a two-block area, including the proposed site of City Place.
• Aug. 11, 2009: “Streetscape PUD,” a revised version of de Parry’s project, receives planning staff initial review.
• Aug. 12, 2009: “Streetscape PUD” introduced to neighbors to comply with the neighbor participation ordinance.
• Aug. 17, 2009: City Council revises language of moratorium to include all forms of work, including demolition.
• Aug. 30, 2009: Application for “Streetscape PUD” was not accepted by city planning staff.
• Sept 21, 2009: City council approves MOR project, but it cannot move forward because of the moratorium on demolition passed together with the historic district study committee.
• Oct. 12, 2009: Update given by de Parry on “Streetscape PUD” at Conor O’Neill’s.
• Dec. 14, 2009: Update given on “Streetscape PUD” – now called “Heritage Row” – at Ann Arbor District Library.

Heritage Row

At the time of the Monday meeting, only bird’s-eye view schematics were provided, but the development team said that street level elevation drawings would be available soon.

The presentation of Heritage Row was made by John Dziurman, an architect specializing in historic preservation.  He introduced himself as a member of the Rochester Hills historic district commission, having also served on the historic district study committee to establish a district in Rochester Hills. He cautioned that he was not out to turn Ann Arbor into Rochester Hills.

Architect John Dziurman shows residents the kinds of buildings he'll be drawing inspiration from in designing three new buildings for Heritage Row. (Photo by the writer.)

The three buildings to be constructed behind the row of houses, said Dziurman, would not be designed to mimic historic buildings – Secretary of the Interior standards require that new buildings and additions be “differentiated” from the old buildings so that the historical record is not confused.

Instead of trying to create buildings that could pass for old, Dziurman said that he would design contemporary buildings to be suitable “background buildings” that were complementary to the houses. “The Washtenaw” is a brick apartment building in the area that he’d draw inspiration from.

Each of the old houses would have a new foundation built, and some would be brought forward to form an even 19-foot front setback.

The space between the three new buildings to the rear and the row of seven houses would become a paved plaza area. Residents of the seven houses would have access from the rear of their houses to that common plaza area. Some people attending Monday’s meeting complained that a similar plaza-type arrangement at Ashley Mews had not resulted in people actually using it – it was a dead zone, they said. One resident couple, however, said they enjoyed walking their dog through Ashley Mews.

The paving material for the plaza, Dziurman said, would be permeable. One resident questioned how that might work, given that underneath the plaza there’d be an underground parking structure. Architect Bradley Moore, who’s also working on this project, gave assurance that it could work.

The underground parking, said Dziurman, with its 60 spaces, would relieve some of the parking burden in the area. But whether it would relieve the burden, said one resident, would depend on how many units were being built. De Parry broke down the units in the new buildings like this: 34 2-bedroom units and 10 3-bedroom units, for a total of 98 beds in new construction. Including the seven houses, that would put the total number of beds at 163.

Residents wanted to know how large the bedrooms would be – were they large enough to accommodate two people? Moore said that they were mostly 10 feet by 11 feet. De Parry concluded that they were not intended to be doubled up.

Dziurman expressed some puzzlement at the calculations based on beds instead of units. [In recent Ann Arbor development history, a number of projects have been proposed that targeted student renters, so projects tend to be evaluated by neighbors according to the number of potential beds.]

For attendees, Ashley Mews was also a standard of comparison for the height of the three new proposed buildings. Moore reported that the current height proposed would be no taller than the tallest point of any of the seven houses – 38.875 feet.

One resident said she’d be a lot happier if one story could be lopped off those buildings. Sabra Briere, who represents Ward 1 on Ann Arbor’s city council, asked, “What about four feet?” She pointed out that sometimes a difference of as little as four feet could make a difference in how a building was perceived. Moore replied, somewhat wistfully, that making the building four feet shorter would require him to specify 6-foot ceilings.

The rear access to the plaza from the houses, said Dziurman, would be made possible by modifying the rear of the houses. Some of those houses had had additions put on over the years. De Parry described a variety of modifications that would be made to the rear of each house.

Moving Through Approval Process

The restoration of the rear of the houses, Tom Whitaker pointed out to Dziurman, would need to be made according to the period of historical significance for each house. Dziurman agreed, and said that to some extent they’d need to wait until the historic district study committee returned its report and recommendations.  Whitaker serves on that committee, which has met at least four times this fall and is on course to submit a report sometime in February.

That study committee was established by the city council on Aug. 6, 2009, and includes a moratorium on all work, including demolition, in the area of study, which includes the site of Heritage Row.

At their October meeting, Tom Whitaker shows his colleagues on the historic district study committee some specifications for casement windows at the E.E. Schmid residence dating back to 1924. From left clockwise are Sarah Shotwell, Kristi Gilbert, Rebecca Lopez Kriss, Ina Hanel-Gerdenich, and Kristine Kidorf. (Photo by the writer.)

The question was raised about next steps, and how the project would move through the city’s planning process. The only certainties, based on Tom Whitaker’s citation of the public participation ordinance, seemed to be that an official public participation meeting would be held and that the project would be brought forward as a planned unit development (PUD). [Update: "Heritage Row Redux: Process Clarified"]

Sabra Briere, Ward 1 councilmember, said that she could not say for certain what would happen, but could say what ought to happen.  The project should move through the process up to the point where the planning commission and the city council gave their verdict on it. The danger, she said, in having the planning commission and the city council give approval before the historic district commission weighed in was that the historic district commission might still deny the project.

Briere alluded to a fairly recent project where that had happened – Glen Ann Place. The project won approval from the planning commission and city council but was denied by the historic district commission.  [The situation ended in a lawsuit, settled in summer of 2007 in way that allowed the project to move ahead. The lot just north of Ann Street on the west side of Glen Avenue is now denuded of the two houses that previously stood there, but nothing has yet been built.]

De Parry’s development team is proceeding on the assumption that there will be an historic district established that includes the area where Heritage Row would be built. In any case, said Dziurman, “I’m not afraid of it.”

Whether there is an historic district established will depend in part on what recommendation is made by the historic district study committee. And based on the two meetings of that committee that The Chronicle has attended, it’s not clearcut what recommendation will be made.

Historic District Study Committee

In the city council’s Aug. 6 resolution, the area specified to be studied for potential establishment of an historic district is as follows:

… the area encompassing properties that abut the east and west sides of South Fourth Avenue and South Fifth Avenue, bounded by the East William Historic District on the north, and Packard Street on the south, and also including 209, 215, and 219 Packard Street;

The committee, which was appointed by the council at its Sept. 8, 2009 meeting, consists of Ina Hanel-Gerdenich, Susan Wineberg, Sarah Shotwell, Patrick McCauley, Rebecca Lopez Kriss, Tom Whitaker and Kristi Gilbert.

By their mid-October meeting, the committee had already made significant headway in researching the properties in the study area. They’re using a combination of digital and analog tools to complete the work. On the digital side, some of the old city directories are available on Google Books. [List of Ann Arbor city directories available on Google Books] The committee is also using a shared Google spreadsheet to compile all the information they’re gathering.

Ina Hanel-Gerdenich points out relevant features on a house as the historic district study committee slogged through the study area parcel by parcel during their December meeting. (Photo by the writer.)

On the analog side, they’re using hard-copy city directories and Sanborn maps. They’re also walking the area and taking new photographs of each property from multiple angles.

At the October committee meeting, there was discussion of researching properties outside the mandated area of study. They eventually decided to look at properties south of Packard Street – outside their mandated area of study – acknowledging that this would represent a fair amount of work. That decision was based in part on the idea that it was impossible to make a recommendation of a boundary without knowing what was on the other side.

Regarding boundaries and how they’re to be determined, Michigan’s Local Historic District Manual cites National Register Bulletin 15 [emphasis added]:

A district must be a definable geographic area that can be distinguished from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects or by documented differences in patterns of historic development or associations. It is seldom defined, however, by the limits of current parcels of ownership, management or planning boundaries. The boundaries must be based upon a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district. (p. 6)

By their Dec. 1 meeting, the committee’s research on Fourth and Fifth avenues extending down south of Packard to Madison Street was in large part complete.

However, at that meeting, the historic district consultant for the city, Kristine Kidorf, asked the group to go through the properties in the expanded area parcel-by-parcel to confirm that those they’d designated as potentially contributing to an historic district really fit that description.

So that they did, house by house.

As their discussion of individual properties wound down, Patrick McCauley, who also serves on the city’s historic district commission, expressed concerns about recommending an historic  district to the city council that stretched the boundaries of the area they’d been asked to study.

McCauley indicated that Ward 5 representative to the council, Carsten Hohnke, had said the council had approved the study committee because it included a study area smaller than the one they’d rejected for study in late 2008. [Chronicle coverage: "No Formal Study Committee for Germantown"]

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

For her part, Ina Hanel-Gerdenich said that in conversation with Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, Briere had stressed that it was important to define boundaries “that make sense.” [Briere worked on the study committee that eventually recommended establishment of the Broadway historic district.]

Some of that “fighting it out” would involve a second development in the area. A district expanded down to Madison street would include the area of a development now named “The Moravian.” [Chronicle coverage: "The Madison Redux"].

Whitaker noted that there was support for homeowners on both sides of Packard for inclusion in an historic district. He was concerned, however, about the committee’s obligation to those who lived north of Packard. He worried that if they recommended an expanded district, that the city council, faced with a choice of voting it up or down, would vote it down. That, he said, put those to the north of Packard at risk.

The general understanding of the committee is that council would likely approve a recommendation that was limited to the orginal study area.  That view is supported by councilmember comments that were made at the meeting when council established the study committee.

Said committee member Kristi Gilbert at one point, “If they [the city council] were inclined to vote for it [expanded area], they’d have made the study area bigger.” She encouraged the committee to recommend the smaller area as an historic district.

Susan Wineberg said that her assumption all along in doing the research on the area south of Packard was that they were going to recommend that area for inclusion in an historic district.

Patrick McCauley noted that the key was to meet the definition of the boundaries, and that to him, the original boundaries made as much sense as the boundaries of the expansion they were considering.

At the committee’s December meeting, when they voted on the question of recommending an expanded district, it was a 3-3 split, with Sarah Shotwell absent from the meeting. Voting for the larger district: Ina Hanel-Gerdenich, Susan Wineberg, Tom Whitaker.  Voting for the smaller district: Kristi Gilbert, Patrick McCauley, Rebecca Lopez Kriss.

The committee will meet again in January and try to resolve the issue of recommending a district larger than the study area, plus report out on additional reasearch that needs to be completed. The consultant, Kristine Kidorf, will then complile the report for comment by the state office of historic presevation.

Jim Kosteva, UM director of community relations, and Sue McCormick, director of public services for the city of Ann Arbor. Council agendas like the one Kosteva is holding are always printed that color – i.e., there was no pandering to the university reflected in the use of maize-colored paper. (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor City Council meeting (Aug. 17, 2009): When Jim Kosteva appears at an Ann Arbor city council meeting, it usually means that there’s a city-university issue before the body – Kosteva is the university’s director of community relations.

Was it the report from city staff on the status of the East Stadium Boulevard Bridge replacement that had brought Kosteva to council’s chambers? There’ll be easements required from the university to complete that $22 million project.

But no, Kosteva was not there to hand over a giant fake check symbolizing a university contribution to reconstruction of the bridges.

However, he was there to affirm the university’s support for a different project – called FITS. University support will come to the tune of $327,733 out of a total project budget of $541,717 – for the site investigation, project definition and development of conceptual plans for the Fuller Intermodal Transportation Station (FITS). The station will be nestled between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive, just east of Fuller & Maiden Lane, near the university’s massive medical campus.

In other business, the city council put a charter amendment on the November ballot that would relax current charter requirements regarding publication of ordinances passed by the council. The Chronicle’s coverage of that charter amendment takes the form of a column published earlier this week.

The council also revisited a resolution it had passed at its previous meeting to establish a historic district study committee, along with a moratorium on demolition within the district. That moratorium was expanded Monday night to include all “work.”

And finally, as had been suggested at the council’s Aug. 16 Sunday caucus, councilmembers indicated that they’d be considering rules changes at their Sept. 8 meeting. In connection with that discussion, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated he’d be calling for the city to make available all city council emails dating back to the year 2000.

East Stadium Bridges

-

Bridge Background

Homayoon Pirooz, project management manager with the city of Ann Arbor, gave city councilmembers an update on the status of the bridges over East Stadium Boulevard. [Additional background in previous coverage by The Chronicle on the East Stadium bridges.]

Pirooz began with some background. The 13 bridges in Ann Arbor get biannual inspections and are given a Federal Sufficiency Rating (FSR), which is a 1-100 scale. There are two bridges at State & Stadium – one that spans State Street and one that spans the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks just to the west of State Street. The bridge over the railroad tracks was built in 1928 and is considered functionally obsolete. Its FSR is 61.5.

The bridge over State Street was built in 1917. In addition to being functionally obsolete, it currently has an FSR of 2 out of 100 after holding steady at 21-22 for a number of years. The deterioration, Pirooz said, had been rapid and had dropped to 2 six or seven months ago.

Funding for such bridge reconstruction projects, Pirooz explained, is typically accomplished through a combination of state, federal and local funds. To illustrate how a funding mix can work, Pirooz broke down the Broadway bridges project this way: Out of a total project budget of $31 million, $18 million had come from a combination of state and federal grants, while $13 million had come from Ann Arbor funds.

For the Stadium bridges, the cost of the basic bridge construction project is around $22 million, Pirooz said. The current plan is focused on bridge reconstruction, as contrasted with what had been a more ambitious road construction project explored two years ago, which would have included non-motorized amenities along the Main Street corridor to the west of the Stadium bridges.

In 2006, the city had applied for and been awarded $766,000 from the Michigan Local Bridge Program, but the city allowed the award to expire a year later, because the amount did not go far enough towards funding the project – the alternative to expiration would have been to spend the MLBP money towards bridge reconstruction.

In 2006 the city also paid $1,249,467 to Northwest Consultants Inc. (NCI) for preliminary design engineering for the bigger bridge project that included bridge replacement, a transmission water main, storm sewer, and a South Main non-motorized path.

In September and October of 2007, two public meetings were held on the topic of the larger-scope project, and there was considerable resistance from members of the Ann Arbor Golf and Outing Club to the installation of the non-motorized path along the club’s property – it was not clear that there was room to install the paths without jeopardizing a row of trees, among other concerns. Asked to comment later in the meeting by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services, explained that no consensus had been reached as a result of those public engagement meetings.

Then in early 2009, increased degradation was observed in the fifth beam (counting from the south) of the 15 box beams that support the East Stadium bridge over State Street. Up to that point, the degraded state of the bridge had been addressed by a series of weight limit reductions. However, in early 2009, traffic was reduced to two lanes, in order to lead vehicles over the north lanes of the bridge, away from the fifth beam. The city also prepared an emergency traffic control plan as a contingency if the bridge needed to be closed. [At an early February Sunday night city council caucus meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had expressed frustration that no plan for traffic rerouting had been developed at that point.]

In March 2009, the scope of the project was reduced to just the bridge reconstruction, with a directive to NCI to expedite the design. That design process is nearly complete.

Key dates on the project schedule shown by Pirooz include:

• August 2009 – complete design
• September-November 2009 – public involvement on design
• September 2009-October 2010 – complete construction plans, acquire easements, put out bids, relocate DTE energy lines, preconstruction
• November 2010 – start construction
• July 2012 – finish construction

The $22 million cost has nearly $3 million of contingencies built in, as well as a total as $2.2 million for design.

Pirooz highlighted the fact that the construction costs for the bridges themselves – at $1.9 million for the State Street bridge and $2.7 million for the railroad bridge – were only slightly more than the $4 million that would need to be spent on retaining walls alone.

Funding Prospects Now

At the state level, the Michigan Local Bridge Program – which had in 2006 granted $766,000 for the project, and which the city allowed to expire – has $8 million to distribute across the state. There are eight different projects that already have their applications in.

On the federal level, there are two possibilities. One is the 2009 Federal Highway Re-authorization bill. Out of that money, it’s possible to gain earmarked funds, and according to Pirooz, there is support among Michigan’s U.S. House and Senate delegations – specifically from Congressman John Dingell – for earmarking funds for Ann Arbor’s bridge project. A second federal opportunity comes from the 2009 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants. TIGER is funded with $1.5 billion for projects across the country. There’s a Sept. 15, 2009 deadline for application on the TIGER grant.

Assessing probabilities of getting funding from each of these three sources, Pirooz said that the TIGER grant offered only a small chance, because of the intense nationwide competition. The upside on TIGER, however, is that if that grant came through, it would pay for the whole project.

Pirooz said that he thought chances were good that Ann Arbor could receive something along the lines of the same $766,000 it had previously been awarded by the Michigan Local Bridge Program, but pointed out that “our bridge is not the only bad bridge in the state.” He also thought chances were good that Ann Arbor could receive some earmarked money through the Federal Highway Re-authorization bill – the question was when that money might be available.

The best case scenario, according to Pirooz, is that there’ll be $22 million in state and federal grants with $2 million in design work paid for out of the street reconstruction millage funds – Ann Arbor has a dedicated street repair millage. That would have no negative impact of the street reconstruction program, Pirooz said.

The worst case scenario would see no state or federal money at all. In that case, $22 million would be taken from the street millage. The negative impact would be felt in two ways, said Pirooz. From 2010 through 2012, 29 street resurfacing or reconstruction projects would be eliminated. It would also mean an additional $3.5 million loss in revenue due to the inability to provide local matches for various surface transportation grants. As for when the city would have enough money to get back to repairing its streets after paying for the bridge on the worst case scenario, Pirooz said that those projects could resume in 2013 – if the street millage is renewed in 2011.

Pirooz guessed the funding picture would fall “somewhere in the middle” between the best- and worst-case scenarios.

Comments on Bridges from Councilmembers

Both Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) had praise for staff’s work on the issue – the bridge is located in their ward.

Assuring the public that the bridge was currently safe for travel, Teall said, “I will continue to use the Stadium bridges a lot.”

Teall got confirmation that there’d been communication with the University of Michigan and that they’re on the same page with respect to the bridge design. An easement will be required from UM.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked Pirooz to speak to the at-grade or “no-bridge” option that has some advocates in the community. The idea would be to eliminate the bridges and create a State & Stadium intersection, along with an at-grade rail crossing. Pirooz said there were three main reasons why that option was not feasible. First, Ann Arbor Railroad must give permission for an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks – but Ann Arbor Railroad is against such a crossing. Second, in the city’s opinion the impact on the overall traffic and signaling system within a half-mile of the crossing would be negative – around 20,000 vehicles cross the bridge every day. Finally, he said, safety was an issue – there’s not a high number of train-car crashes, but when they happen, they’re usually deadly.

Adding to Pirooz’s remarks, Michael Nearing – an engineer with the city – said that a no-bridge option is also complex and not cheap. “It’s more than just tearing down a bridge,” Nearing cautioned. He guessed it would be around a $10 million project, but had not run the numbers.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked why communication was not better with the railroad. Mayor John Hieftje said that when there’d been communication with them – in connection with the north-south commuter rail and the greenway – they seemed “cautious and wary.” McCormick said that the city did communicate with the railroad, but that they had categorically rejected the idea of an at-grade crossing.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described a possible plan by the state legislature to change the way the gas tax was calculated to come up with additional money. [Currently, Michigan's gas tax is a per gallon rate, so revenues from it do not increase as gas prices increase. In fact, revenue tends to decrease as gas prices increase, if motorists drive less to save fuel costs. The proposal would tie the tax to the wholesale cost of gasoline.] Pirooz said that any additional funding would be helpful.

Higgins suggested constituents contact Congressman Dingell to encourage his support. Hieftje said that based on conversations he’d had with the congressman, Dingell was doing everything he could.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for a clarification on what “somewhere in the middle” meant as far as funding scenarios. Based on the 42% of the Broadway bridges project that came from local funds, here’s how that math would work for the Stadium bridges project: .42 x $22 million = $9.2 million from local funds.

Anglin probably expressed the thoughts of many in the community on the funding prospects for the project when he said, “I hope the stars align.”

FITS (Fuller Intermodal Transit Station)

Before council began deliberations, Leigh Greden (Ward 3) acknowledged that the item considering an initial design and study phase for an intermodal transit station just south of Fuller Road and just north of East Medical Center Drive had been a last-minute addition to the agenda. He asked Sue McCormick, director of public services for the city, to give the council an overview. [A preliminary sketch of the station's concept was presented at a neighborhood meeting held in January 2009 at the Northside Grill.]

Eli Cooper, transportation manager with the city of Ann Arbor, pitches FITS (Fuller Intermodal Transit Station) to the city council. (Photo by the writer.)

McCormick described the collaboration between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan over the last several months to partner on a multimodal transportation facility on Fuller Road. She put the transportation station in the context of an expected demonstration service for east-west rail to start in October of 2010. The parcel, at the foot of the university hospital, is currently used for parking, she said. The location was within the corridor of analysis for the north-south connector study, McCormick explained.

[The north-south connector study for the Plymouth Road and State Street corridors got approval from the AATA as the final partner at the AATA's July board meeting. The other three partners are the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the University of Michigan. Both the north-south connector and FITS were discussed at the July 16, 2009 UM Board of Regents meeting, in the context of the university's overall transportation plan.]

The reason for the late notice of the agenda addition, said McCormick, was that only that afternoon had the city received a written commitment from the university to shoulder 75% of the cost of the project’s preliminary phase. The city’s 25% share would go towards the environmental impact assessment, which would position the project to eventually apply for federal funding.

Invited to comment, Jim Kosteva, UM’s director of community relations, affirmed that “We’re pleased to be engaged.”

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, described how the intermodal station would have various platforms on different levels to accommodate buses and rail-based transportation of different types, including high-speed trains – those capable of traveling faster than 100 mph.

The location, said Cooper, was within walking distance of 10,000 to 15,000 workers. Employees of the hospital could walk off their train right into the University of Michigan medical campus. Cooper cautioned that he was not suggesting that all of those workers would necessarily use the station.

Cooper also pointed out that the station is located where the Border-to-Border Trail emerges from the west.

Council Deliberations on FITS

Mayor John Hieftje, in expressing his support for the project, said that he had been involved since day one in making it happen.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked how the public would be engaged. Sue McCormick advised that during the initial phase, for which the council was approving funding that night, work would focus on site assessment, inventory and surveying, as well as program definition and concept planning. They’d been looking for a footprint that would fit onto the site, she said.

The conceptual plans would be ready sometime in an October time frame, added Eli Cooper. The environmental analysis would require about a year, and that process stipulates that public input is required, Cooper said. With respect to the environmental assessment, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked what level of assessment would be performed. Cooper said it would be a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) category 4(F) determination. The findings could be either that there would be no significant impact or that there would be a significant impact. In the latter case, mitigation could be required. Higgins asked if the city’s environmental coordinator, Matt Naud, would be involved, and McCormick confirmed that he would be briefed.

Smith asked that the staff think broadly about the station’s design, given that it might be the first vision of Ann Arbor people see as they arrive in the city. Comparing the current Amtrak station and the old train station that currently houses the Gandy Dancer restaurant, Smith suggested that the new station should be “a significant building.”

From UM’s Jim Kosteva, Smith wanted to know how the FITS project affected the university’s plans to construct parking structures on Wall Street. Kosteva said that the university was “pausing” those plans, which had been explained by Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, at a regents meeting earlier this summer. Kosteva cautioned that the Motts Children’s Hospital expansion would require more parking, and that the Wall Street site was being prepared for surface parking. It was the plans to build structures, Kosteva said, that had been paused.

Smith offered the suggestion that the word “road” be included in the acronym (Fuller Road Intermodal Transit Station) to make it somewhat more appealing: FRITS.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he was excited to see the project moving forward and applauded UM for their participation. He noted that the city’s contribution was to come partly from the street fund operating budget and he wanted to know what the impact on that would be. McCormick reported that the major streets fund balance was around $5 million and the roughly $50,000 to be appropriated from that fund would come from what was considered to be winter contingencies.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) sought clarification on when construction would start. Citing an in-service date of June 2012, Cooper said construction would begin in 2011.

Cooper allowed that Briere’s description of the time frame as “a short window” was a fair assessment. She concluded that “we’ll need a lot of publicity” and commended Cooper and the staff for “being brave enough to take this on.”

Outcome: The funds to begin the initial study phase and site assessment for FITS passed unanimously.

Historic District Study Committee

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) brought back a resolution for reconsideration – which the council had passed at its Aug. 6 meeting – that established a historic district study committee for a two-block area along Fifth Avenue south of William Street. Along with the study committee, the resolution had established a moratorium on demolition in the area. The resolution had been brought forward by Higgins and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) as a late addition to the agenda on the day of the meeting. This resolution to reconsider was also placed on the Aug. 17 agenda on the same day as the council meeting.

The resolution was brought back to be amended to expand the range of activities to which the moratorium applies. In relevant part, with additions in blue, the resolution reads:

RESOLVED, That the City Council declares an emergency moratorium on all construction, addition, alteration, repair, moving, excavation or demolition in the proposed South Fourth and Fifth Avenue Historic District, consistent with Chapter 103 Section 8:411 of Ann Arbor City Code for six months from August 6, 2009.

The reason for the revision was to make the language expressing the moratorium mirror exactly what is allowed by the Michigan Local Historic Districts Act, which gives the city council the authority to establish a moratorium on all “work.” And “work” is defined as “construction, addition, alteration, repair, moving, excavation or demolition.”

In deliberations, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that the need to bring back the resolution to correct the language underscored what he’d said at the last council meeting about the importance of process. He’d asked for a postponement of 12 days – the time between the last council meeting and this one – and he hadn’t been granted it. “Nonetheless,” he said, “we decided to ram it through.” In the future, Derezinski said that consideration of resolutions on such short notice should be a rare occurrence.

Higgins, for her part, emphasized that the resolution had been prepared by planning staff and the attorney’s office and that accounted for its late addition to the agenda.

Outcome: The resolution passed with dissent from Smith and Derezinski, who had both voted against the resolution at the previous council meeting as well.

Council Communications

-

A2D2 and AHP

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) gave an update on the A2D2 rezoning project – the design guidelines had been given a new format, which would be shared sometime the first week of September. The issue could be coming before the city council at its second meeting in September or perhaps in October.

Higgins also updated other councilmembers on the Area Height and Placement project. She said that altogether over 100 people had attended the five meetings held in the different wards of the city. She reported that the AHP committee had decided there would be two additional community-wide meetings scheduled – one in small-group format and another in large-group format.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1). Power supply issues for Ward 1 representatives forced Smith and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) to relocate to chairs that were vacant – due to absences by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). It's unlikely that Greden welcomed Smith as his neighbor for the evening by telling her the story of The Ward Three Bears. (Photo by the writer.)

Council Rules and Open Meetings

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) introduced the topic of transparency, although he said that he had withdrawn a resolution that he’d intended to bring forward that evening. Instead, he said he’ll be bringing it forward at the council’s Sept. 8 meeting. As a preview, he read aloud some of its text. It calls for all emails sent at city council meetings from the year 2000 to the present to be made available to the city. It also calls for emails sent during council meetings to be attached to the minutes of meetings going forward. Anglin acknowledged that what he was suggesting would cost some money. But he asked, “What is the cost of a good democracy?”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he appreciated the intent of Anglin’s resolution and wanted to get the city attorney’s input on it. He was interested in knowing what the cost of the proposal would be, in particular with respect to the retroactive proposal. “I’d hate to see the city put at fiscal risk,” he said. He also raised the question of scope: Would the proposal include emails sent from any private email accounts? Rapundalo said he’d have no objection to that, as he had nothing to hide.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) informed her colleagues that the rules committee had been working on various changes and that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was putting the finishing touches on them. They would be available for perusal within the next couple of days, she said, and would come before council at its Sept. 8 meeting. Some of the issues that Anglin had raised, she said, would be addressed in the rules changes. Two readings at council would be required, she advised, because the changes could be substantive in nature.

Closed Session

At the conclusion of the meeting, the city council voted to go into closed session as required by the Open Meetings Act. They conducted the closed session in the usual location – the workroom adjoining council chambers. The workroom has two doors, one leading to council chambers and the other leading the outer hallway. At the conclusion of the closed session, the council is required to go back into open session to adjourn the council’s meeting.

What The Chronicle observed was that Mayor John Hieftje opened the door to the workroom, and – while standing in the doorframe with any councilmembers still in the workroom not visible to the public in council chambers – chaired the portion of the meeting that was meant to take the councilmembers out of closed session, through the motion to adjourn and the vote on adjournment.

When city attorney Stephen Postema emerged from the workroom and was asked by The Chronicle to account for how the council’s adjournment conformed with the Open Meetings Act, Postema seemed content that it was satisfied because the door to the workroom had been open.

Temporary Liquor Licenses

The council considered two temporary liquor licenses, one for the Kerrytown District for the Nash Bash Country Music Festival (Aug. 20, 2009), and a second one for the HomeGrown Festival (Sept. 12, 2009). Sandi Smith (Ward 1) offered the clarification that the HomeGrown Festival’s license was connected to a mayoral proclamation at the start of the meeting that recognized September as local food month.

Outcome: The liquor licenses were passed unanimously.

Rezoning to Parkland

The city has undertaken a systematic review of all parcels citywide that are used as parks and is formally designating their zoning as parkland. As city staff make their way through the process, periodically a raft of different parcels are brought before the city council to be rezoned all in one go.

Audience Member: Identifying himself as a longtime Ann Arbor resident, he said that he objected to tearing down nature areas for the sake of development and thus opposed the measure.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge suggested that a requirement of access to public transportation be a requirement in order to cement the status of the parcels as parkland. He also suggested a requirement that affordable housing be built adjacent to the land if not on the land.

Mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Leigh Greden (Ward 3) all commented at various points to clarify that the parcels were being rezoned to parkland. “To be very clear,” said Greden, “they’re being rezoned to parkland.” This was the exact opposite of development, Greden said.

Outcome: The parcels were unanimously rezoned to parkland.

Public Comment

-

City Finances

Karen Sidney: Sidney criticized the city’s plan to rectify its budget situation by raising taxes and cutting fire and police staff. The focus, she said, needed to be on employee benefits like retirement and health care. She suggested bringing city benefits more in line with those of the University of Michigan. The cost of city benefits, she said, were currently around $25 million and would grow to $41.5 million in five years. She suggested a charter amendment needed to be placed before voters to change the membership of the retirement plan boards so that they would no longer be controlled by employees – a recommendation made by a 2005 blue ribbon committee that studied the issue. [Chapter 17 of the city's charter deals with the retirement system.]

Sightlines and Vegetation

Kathy Griswold: Griswold asked councilmembers for some specific revisions to Chapter 40 of the city code: “Trees and Other Vegetation.” She cited recommendations in “Roadway Safety and Tort Liability” from the Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company that stressed the need for adequate sightlines. She also warned councilmembers that once the city has been notified of a sightline issue, liability is attached. She said that she’d looked at the three cities that had achieved a Platinum designation from the League of American Bicyclists – Davis, Boulder, and Portland – and all had ordinances with well-defined regulations on sightlines. Among her specific recommendations for Ann Arbor: consolidate all ordinances related to sightlines, streamline the user-interface on the web for notifying the city of a complaint, launch an educational campaign and allow property owners to do trimming of lower branches of trees in the public right of way.

Musical Interlude on Bridges and Parking Garage

Libby Hunter: Hunter led off public commentary with a lyric sung to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Selected verses included: “Glory, glory, Hallelujah, Mayor Highrise wants to sock it to ya … He’s pouring $50 million down a big hole in the ground, while our bridge is falling down.” Her speaking turn is documented – in its full glory – here: link to YouTube.

Discrimination

Thomas Partridge: Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County Democrat, who’d run for office in the last three years – to represent District 3 of Washtenaw County as a county commissioner, and to represent District 18 in the state Senate. He was there as a “uniter,” he said. He asked councilmembers to turn their backs on divisive voices that called on them to build walls between people. Instead, he said, they should back efforts to end discrimination in the area of housing, transportation, health care, and education. This, he said, goes to the core of who we are as Americans.

Palestine

Mozhgan Savabiesfahani: Savabiesfahani segued into her remarks by saying that Partridge had asked a great question: “Who are we?” We are a country, she said, that currently occupies two other countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. We also occupy Palestine, she continued. What the U.S. is good at, she said, was developing new weapons and selling them to other people so that that they can kill each other. The U.S. is not well-liked in other places, but not on account of our democracy – that, she said was a blessing. “I can speak my mind without fear of being shot,” she said. She told the city council that she was there again to talk about boycotting Israel – which she said had destroyed Lebanon and continued to “choke Gaza.” She asked for a city-wide discussion of the issue of a boycott against Israel.

Blaine Coleman: Coleman began by describing the sign he was holding, which depicted an Israeli soldier pointing a gun at children. He continued by criticizing the $300 billion of U.S. aid to Israel as supporting the killing of Palestinians and Lebanese. He told the city council that they had the ability to consider a resolution, hold a public hearing, and vote on a measure that would enact a boycott of Israeli goods. He characterized both the U.S. and Israel as built on robbing people of color, saying that black America has been robbed for centuries. The $300 billion of aid that has been spent historically on aid to Israel, he said, should be spent to rebuild Detroit and other inner cities.

Henry Herskovitz: Herskovitz laid out what he described as the meticulous planning that went into Plan Dalet, documented in “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe. Herskovitz presented the analysis in Pappe’s book, which he said counters the received notion that it was a way to shore up a fledgling Jewish state from attack in 1947-48. He described how detailed files were prepared on each of around 1,200 villages in Palestine, which included topographical information, sources of revenue, and a list of men aged 16-50. These lists, he said, were used for search-and-arrest operations and resulted in the systematic expulsion of non-Jews from Palestine

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje.

Absent: Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]