It was another chapter in a years-long saga about the future of the area involving two proposed projects for the same site with the same owner – City Place and Heritage Row. [timeline] Now appearing imminent is construction of City Place, which would demolish seven existing houses and construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot. It was Mike Anglin (Ward 5) who pushed the historic district proposals forward.

An area in the same vicinity had previously been studied by a committee, which resulted in a recommendation to establish a historic district north of Packard on Fourth and Fifth avenues. However, on July 6, 2010, the city council rejected the historic district on a 4-6 vote. Voting for the district on that occasion were Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje. Anglin was absent that evening, but his yes vote would not have been enough to achieve the majority it needed.

The original recommendation to establish a historic district had been made by a committee established by the city council on Aug. 6, 2009, along with a moratorium on demolition in the area to be studied. [For additional background, see: "S. Fifth Ave: Historic District Development"]

The council had established that study committee and a moratorium in an attempt to block the City Place matter-of-right project that had been considered by the council, but postponed until January 2010 under an arrangement with the developer, Alex de Parry.

When the historic district committee was established, the City Place project was then brought forward and ultimately approved on Sept. 21, 2009, about a month after the historic district study committee and moratorium had been established. At their Oct. 24, 2011 meeting, councilmembers cited a key difference between then and now: Two years ago, the historic district study committee was appointed before there was an approved project on the site.

The same night that councilmembers rejected the Fourth/Fifth Avenue historic district, now nearly 15 months ago, they reconsidered a vote on the Heritage Row planned unit development. In the version before the council at that time, Heritage Row would have constructed three new apartment buildings behind seven existing houses and preserved the houses to historic district standards. The July 6, 2010 vote on Heritage Row was 7-3 in favor, leaving it one vote short of the 8-vote majority the project needed for approval. The council had initially considered the Heritage Row project on June 21, 2010 and rejected it on a 7-4 vote.

With Heritage Row and a historic district both rejected, and the City Place project approved, a number of efforts have been made since the summer of 2010 to avoid the construction of City Place. Those efforts culminated most recently in a council decision reached on Oct. 3, 2011 to reconsider Heritage Row another time. That came shortly after the ownership of the City Place and Heritage Row projects changed. The Oct. 3 decision to reconsider Heritage Row was hoped by many to culminate in a final vote at an extra council meeting scheduled for Oct. 24. However, on Oct. 21 news emerged that the developer had pulled the item from the Oct. 24 agenda.

Voting for the establishment of a historic district study committee on Oct. 24 were Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Members of the committee would have been Ellen Ramsburgh, Tom Luczak, Eppie Potts and Susan Wineberg.

The proposed moratorium on demolition was withdrawn on failure of the establishment of the historic district committee.

Terry Cwik, president of the Salem Area Historical Society, had attended the board’s Oct. 5 meeting and spoke during public commentary, urging commissioners to approve the study committee. The one-room schoolhouse is owned by the historical society. It was built in 1857 and in continuous use until 1967. The historical society now uses the school as its headquarters. It would be the second historic district in Salem Township – the current one is Conant Farm on Napier Road.

Cwik is one of the members of the study committee appointed on Wednesday. Other members are: Jean Bemish, Sue DiMilia, Helen Gierman, Jane Griffith, Marie Turppa, and Marcia Van Fossen and Nancy Snyder. The appointments were recommended by the county Historic District Commission.

This brief was filed from the boardroom at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) confer during a brief break at the city council meeting. After the break, Hohnke withdrew his motion that would have asked the council to consider the Heritage Row project for a third time in total, and for the second time at their July 6 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Rejection of the district then set off a series of parliamentary procedures by the council. The actions were prompted by concern that without the protection afforded by the historic district, seven houses would be demolished through construction of an already-approved matter-of-right project (MOR), City Place.

So the council brought back for reconsideration a different project on the same site – Heritage Row, which the council had rejected at its previous meeting. A key feature of the Heritage Row project, which includes three new apartment buildings, is that it would also retain the seven houses.

The vote on the reconsideration of Heritage Row failed. That resulted in an attempt by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) to have the council reconsider the historic district, which the council had just rejected. Hohnke’s council colleagues weren’t interested in revisiting the issue.

So Hohnke then began the parliamentary procedure to reconsider the Heritage Row project – for the second time that evening and for the third time total. The move required another rule suspension – this one concerning the number of times a question could be considered.

After a brief recess, however – during which Hohnke was apparently persuaded that developer Alex de Parry would not actually follow through and build the City Place MOR project – Hohnke withdrew his motion. A comment from Ann Arbor resident Ethel Potts, who attended the council meeting and who has witnessed more than four decades of city politics, summarized the sentiments of many in the audience: “As weird goes, this was pretty weird.”

A moratorium on demolition, which covers the area considered by the historic district study committee, will remain in place through Aug. 6. The council meets on Aug. 5, after the primary elections on Aug. 3.

In other business, the city council approved a resolution opposing legislation recently enacted by the state of Arizona that requires local law enforcement officials to investigate a person’s immigration status, when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully.

The council transacted a range of other business and communications as well. Those issues are covered in Part 2 of the July 6 meeting report. Part 1 focuses on the Arizona immigration law and the historic district.

Immigration Status: Against Arizona Senate Bill 1070

Before the council was a resolution sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) that expressed opposition to a recent law enacted in the state of Arizona that requires local law enforcement to investigate a person’s immigration status when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. [draft of resolution] Briere had announced at the council’s previous meeting that she would bring a resolution like this forward.

When the council approved the evening’s agenda, Margie Teall (Ward 4) proposed moving the item up so that it could be considered immediately following the public commentary at the start of the meeting, to accommodate those who were attending the meeting just for that item. That agenda change was approved with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Higgins left the table during public commentary, and did not return until well after the vote on the immigration law had been taken.

One of the themes that emerged during the public comment period was that racial profiling already exists in the Ann Arbor community – which led the council to ask chief of police Barnett Jones to address the issue from the podium.

Councilmembers also stressed that the resolution had not used city staff resources, a theme that echoed sentiments expressed at a recent candidate forum held in Ward 1, when incumbent Sandi Smith and challenger Sumi Kailasapathy were asked if they felt it was appropriate for the city council to address national-level issues.

Immigration Status: Public Comment

Introducing herself as a recent graduate of Huron High School and a community organizer for a Washtenaw County worker center was Jasmine Franco. She described her own background, beginning with her parents’ arrival in the U.S. from Guatemala in the 1990s. Two years after that, she was born in Chicago. She lived in Ann Arbor for 10 years with her family until her mother was sent back to Guatemala. In 2008, she said, her Michigan ID expired. Despite her U.S. citizenship and her possession of a valid birth certificate, a Social Security number and a U.S. passport, she was denied the right to a Michigan ID. The reason, she had been told, was that several undocumented immigrants had used her home address for Michigan IDs.

Franco was then given a case number and an agent, who told her that to get any form of ID, he had to visit her home and see her documents in person, to validate her citizenship and residency. For over two years, Franco said, she tried to arrange a home visit, but the agent refused to return her calls. When she complained, she said, she was told that her agent had been laid off. She was assigned a new agent, who continued to ignore her requests. It was only after the intervention of Pastor Melanie Carey, a woman with whom Franco was living, that Franco said she was able to get her Michigan driver’s license.

The agent never met with her in her home to verify her citizenship or residency  – all it took was for Carey to tell the agent over the phone that Franco was a citizen living in her home. Two weeks later the agent delivered the ID into Carey’s hands, without Franco needing to be present. Franco contended that her experience was not unique. If Arizona-style legislation passes in Michigan, she warned, countless citizens will be denied their rights. The resolution before the city council, Franco said, sends a clear message to the rest of the country: We will not tolerate Arizona-style legislation. She urged support of the resolution.

Blaine Coleman began by addressing the council in Spanish, and then provided a translation: Remember that Arizona has been occupied since 1848 – like Palestine is occupied today. He said he was glad that city councils were condemning the government of Arizona for passing such a blatantly racist law that can only result in racial profiling against anyone who the government decides looks like they’re not a citizen. He asked the city council: How could they be so brave in condemning Arizona for that law it had enacted, and “enforce such silence” when it comes to racial profiling against Palestinians? How is it, Coleman asked, that it’s only for one night that the Ann Arbor city council stands against racism and only against Arizona, but never against Israel, or against the U.S. government for the murder of Iraqis and Afghans? Coleman then concluded his remarks by repeating the question five times: How much is an Arab’s life worth to you?

Mozhgan Savabiesfahani told the council it was hard for her to believe that they were against racism – she’s been coming to the council for five to six years to speak about racism in Israel, but the council had never acknowledged her existence. That, she concluded, is racist. She showed the council a flier she’d brought that presented research concluding that the U.S. bombing in Fallujah had a negative effect on infant mortality and increased cancer rates. Councilmembers had refused to accept the flier from her, she reported. “You want to tell me you’re not racist?” She concluded her remarks by saying, “Boycott Israel!”

Speaking on behalf of Michigan Peaceworks and its immigrant rights task force was Max Heirich. He began by framing the question as one of opportunity: What is the opportunity represented by the resolution? It’s relevant to Ann Arbor, he said, because 160 area families had been disrupted by Homeland Security actions – parents have been separated from children, children have been put in foster care, he said. Law enforcement actions are proceeding without search warrants, he said, similar to what would happen if Michigan were to enact laws being introduced in the legislature now, which are similar to laws already enacted in Arizona. Taking a stand in Ann Arbor could be a model for other cities, he said. He reminded the council that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. Various immigrants have faced oppression at different points in the country’s history, he said. The resolution is an opportunity to do something positive, instead of simply saying, “Isn’t it too bad.”

Mary Anne Perrone began by addressing the council in Spanish, then translating her remarks: She came to speak to the mayor and the city council with a deep conviction, asking them to vote in favor of the resolution. She’s lived in Ann Arbor for over 20 years, she said, and is a member of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, and also the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights. She said that although she is a U.S. citizen – the granddaughter of immigrants – if she were in Arizona and she had spoken in her adopted language of Spanish, that could form the basis of a suspicion that she is not here in the U.S. lawfully.

Law enforcement officers could then ask her to produce documents and to detain her. It’s important, Perrone said, that cities like Ann Arbor raise their voices as a conscience for the nation and to make clear that using intolerance and discrimination is not the way that we want our government to operate. In Ann Arbor, Perrone said, we care about art, we care about parks, we care about rivers, and we care about people’s human rights.

Deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Mary Bejian, appeared in order to give the ACLU’s official endorsement of the resolution. She emphasized that it’s not just that Arizona’s legislation – as well as the pending legislation in Michigan – gives the police the right to ask people to prove their lawful residence, but rather it actually requires them to do that. Law enforcement officers face penalties if they’re found to be negligent. The U.S. Department of Justice, Bejian reported, had filed suit this week against the state of Arizona regarding the legislation – the ACLU and a number of other organizations had already filed suit back in May.

Mary Bejian, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.

Bejian said they were confident that the law will be shown to be unconstitutional – the law invites and compels racial profiling. The notion of “reasonable suspicion,” she said, is a vague legal concept. What other possible criteria would law enforcement officers use, other than the color of one’s skin, whether someone speaks English with an accent or a foreign language? Supporters of the law are not able to offer any other criteria that would constitute reasonable suspicion, other than looking or sounding foreign, she said.

Bejian pointed out that the law enforcement community was not happy with the legislation, either. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police has gone on record against it. Locally, she said, law enforcement officials have said that local law enforcement should not be doing the job of federal immigration agents. For one thing, she said, they are not trained to do that job. There are also no local resources to do this kind of work, she said.

Vivianne Schnitzer told the council she’d lived for 10 years in Ann Arbor among the diverse population of residents. She said she considers Ann Arbor to be an enlightened city. The city’s humanity and solidarity are now being tested, she said. Tonight, she suggested, we could choose one path or the other, and it would have profound implications for our children and grandchildren. One day they will ask us: “What did you do that day?” We have to reject the politics of fear and chose the politics of reason, she said.

Laura Sanders introduced herself as an Ann Arbor resident, local therapist, and instructor at the University of Michigan School of Social Work. She told the council she was representing the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights. They’d documented over 160 cases of raids, detainments and deportations of immigrants, many of which included participation of local law enforcement in addition to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Those cases showed that racial profiling is already playing a major role in traffic stops that are resulting in deportations of innocent and hard-working immigrants, she said.

There’s not any admission by officers, Sanders said, that the reason they’ve stopped people is they’re brown-skinned, or they speak with a thick accent, or that they’re wearing their hats to the side, or because they’re driving a car with a decal of a foreign flag. They’re then interrogated about their immigration status and arrested for offenses for which white people would simply be ticketed.

Laura Sanders spoke on behalf of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Sanders then ticked through a list of actual of traffic stop offenses for which immigrants have been arrested in the community: cracked windshield, rosary hanging off rear-view mirror, low air in tires, crooked license plate, malfunctioning tail light, failure to use blinker turning from private driveway onto street, expired license plate, driving on expired license, possessing expired license sitting in passenger seat, broken headlight, making a wrong turn, failing to change lanes when passing a car pulled over by the police, failing to wear a seat belt, making a fast stop. There’s already a racial-profiling problem, she contended. It’s important to take a proactive step against it, she said. She asked everyone attending in support of the resolution to stand, and an estimated 50 people rose from their seats.

Samantha Narawski introduced herself as a University of Michigan student working with a group called One Michigan, a statewide organization made up of undocumented and documented youth who were fighting for immigrant rights and the Dream Act. She explained how the Arizona legislation had affected a member of the Ann Arbor community – a co-founder of One Michigan, Mohammad Abdollahi. He’d lived in Arizona for a month, organized there, and participated in a sit-in.

Abdollahi came to Ann Arbor as a three-year-old from Iran, when his father was working on his doctorate at the University of Michigan. An attorney had failed to inform the family about a $20 fee change and that had resulted in the family being undocumented, Narawski explained. Abdollahi grew up volunteering at the Ozone House and cheering on the Huron High School River Rats. He didn’t know what it meant, she explained, until his friends started applying to colleges and he couldn’t because he didn’t have a Social Security number.

Abdollahi attended Washtenaw Community College and earned enough credits to transfer to Eastern Michigan University. At the admissions office at EMU, they told him he was the kind of student they wanted there. But a few minutes later, she continued, the admissions officer’s supervisor retracted the offer of admission, saying that they had missed the fact that he’d checked the box indicating he was not a citizen.

He searched out resources online, Narawski said, and headed to Arizona with three undocumented students to participate in a sit-in. They asked that the Dream Act be enacted, which would allow undocumented students to receive citizenship. She asked the council to stand with Abdollahi and oppose the Arizona legislation, as he had done. “Do it for Mohammad and the immigrant community here.”

Immigration Status: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who drafted the resolution that was also sponsored by Sandi Smith (Ward 1), began by thanking Margie Teall (Ward 4) for moving the item forward on the agenda.

Briere ticked off various groups who had come to this county to escape religious persecution, to seek economic opportunity, or political freedom. Her own ancestors arrived before immigration was an issue – to leave the Old World behind and to find new opportunity. The men had fought in every war, including the American Revolution. The women had done what women always did – ran the farms, businesses, the home, sacrificing for freedom or just keeping their heads down. Each generation defines freedom for itself, she continued, but also fights to defend that freedom. In that spirit, seven years ago the council had passed a resolution protesting the erosion of civil liberties under the U.S. Patriot Act, Briere said. [Excerpted minutes from the July 7, 2003 Ann Arbor city council meeting.]

Stereotyping of the sort that is encouraged by the Arizona legislation, Briere said, is at its very heart against American principles. The U.S. attorney general had filed suit that day against the state of Arizona, Briere said, and a broad variety of academic organizations spoke against the Arizona bill immediately after it was passed. City councils and city governments “from Arizona to Minneapolis” have voted their opposition to the legislation. She asked her colleagues to support the attorney general’s position that immigration enforcement is properly the purview of the federal government, not the state. She asked the council to support the Obama administration to address the problems with the immigration law.

During public commentary on the subject, the speakers’ comments were met with audience applause, and the pattern continued after Briere’s remarks. Mayor John Hieftje admonished the audience that “we don’t have applause for a councilmember statement.”

“Now you say that!” quipped Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who was next to speak. She thanked Briere for doing “the heavy lifting” on the resolution. It had been simply reviewed briefly by the city attorney’s office, and she stressed that very few city resources had been used to accomplish the resolution. Why would Ann Arbor take on something like this? Smith’s answer: “This is what Ann Arbor does.” And the council would finish their entire agenda, Smith said, no matter how late they needed to stay.

Michigan as a state had become known as an unfriendly place, Smith cautioned. Passing Arizona-style legislation in Michigan would contribute further to that. The language of Arizona’s legislation – “without a warrant,” for example – was frightening to her, she said. She encouraged the council to support the resolution.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed the sentiments of Smith and Briere, and stressed that although it might not appear that it had to do with Ann Arbor or its operation, it’s sometimes important to make a symbolic statement and to share that statement with other cities. In the past, she said, Ann Arbor had sometimes raised its voice as a beacon to other communities and the city can be proud of that.

In response to a constituent question she’d received that day, Teall explained that any councilmember can place a resolution on the agenda. She also stressed that no other business was being delayed or postponed or otherwise neglected, due to the vote on the immigration resolution.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed the comments of Teall, noting that the council had a long agenda that night. But the council had spoken out on other issues like this, giving as an example a resolution that he’d sponsored recognizing a veterans group and a peace group who were working together on a water project in Iraq. Things like that deserve recognition and the council’s impetus behind it. If you look around at the make-up of the council, he said, you heard some curious names like “Derezinski,” “Rapundalo,” “Hohnke” and “Hieftje.” Those are names from other countries, Derezinski said. It’s an immigrant nation, and we’re all immigrants, he said. It’s a positive thing that new people are constantly coming into the country, he said: “They will save us, when our blood gets old and tired.”

Hieftje expressed his agreement with the resolution and thanked Smith and Briere for their work on it.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated that he was greatly troubled by elements of the Arizona legislation – “they are vile at best,” he said. He said he abhorred the thought of immigrants being pulled aside because of the color of their skin or for other reasons. He noted that he was a landed immigrant himself and except for the color of his skin, he could be pulled over – he noted he had a foreign flag on the back of his car. [Rapundalo has dual Candadian-U.S. citizenship.] He said he wholeheartedly supports the idea that immigration is a federal matter – just as Briere had asked the council to support the U.S. attorney general’s position on that. However, for that reason, he said that he regrettably could not support the resolution.

Rapundalo said he would be consistent with his position on similar issues in the past – it’s not an issue for the Ann Arbor city council at the moment. When there is a piece of legislation that has a direct impact on local citizens, he said, he’d be more than happy to consider it then. He’d received many emails from supporters of the resolution, but also many messages asking why the city council was not focusing more on local issues. He allowed that his colleagues were correct in saying that they would finish the agenda that night, despite their consideration of the resolution. But he said that there were more pressing issues – roads and budgets, for example.

Responding to Rapundalo’s remarks, Hieftje noted that the council had passed resolutions previously concerning the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. He contended that it was rare that the Ann Arbor city council took up such resolutions, and said he felt it did not take time away from other important business that came before the council. He disagreed with the idea that it was an action that was inappropriate for the Ann Arbor city council.

Responding to the remarks of Laura Sanders during public commentary that racial profiling was already happening in the Ann Arbor community, Hieftje said that Ann Arbor chief of police Barnett Jones and Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton would like to know about those issues.

Outcome: The resolution opposing the Arizona law on how local law enforcement officers are to handle possible immigration violations was approved, with dissent from Rapundalo. Marcia Higgins was not at the table when the vote was taken.

Immigration Status: Response from Police Chief

After the vote was taken, chief of police Barnett Jones was asked to the podium by Sabra Briere to respond to the issue concerning the number of people who had been arrested during ICE raids.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) talk with Ann Arbor chief of police Barnett Jones, right.

Jones indicated that he didn’t know where Laura Sanders had gotten her numbers from: “Her figures are her figures,” he said. He asked that he be forwarded any statistics that are relevant to the city of Ann Arbor. He said he thought that the bulk of Sanders’ figures came from outside the city. He indicated that he’d met with Sanders and her group and had worked with her. He described the relationship of the Ann Arbor police with the undocumented community as “wonderful.” There’s a council resolution that addresses how local law enforcement is supposed to handle situations like these.

From the council’s 2003 resolution cited earlier by Briere:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council, as a matter of public policy, directs the Ann Arbor Chief of Police, to the extent permitted by law, to:

1. Continue to limit local enforcement actions with respect to immigration matters to penal violations of federal immigration law (as opposed to administrative violations) except in cases where the Chief of Police determines there is a legitimate public safety concern and in such public safety instances, to report the situation to the City Council no later than 60 days after the incident.
2. Continue to refrain from covert surveillance of and/or collection and maintenance of information on individuals or groups based on their participation in activities protected by the First Amendment, such as political advocacy or the practice of a religion, without a particularized suspicion of unlawful activity.
3. Affirm the existing practice, as required by Michigan state law, of providing simultaneous notice of the execution of a state court search warrant to any resident of the City of Ann Arbor whose property is the subject of such a warrant, except in cases of anticipatory search warrants.
4. Report to the City Council any request made by federal authorities for the Ann Arbor Police Department to participate in any activity under the USA Patriot Act, to the extent the Chief of Police has knowledge of such request.
5. Refrain from participating in informational interviews conducted by federal authorities similar to those conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in early 2002 in Ann Arbor of individuals not suspected of criminal activity, unless the interviewee has specifically requested the presence of an AAPD official;
   RESOLVED, That the City Administrator be directed to seek semi-annually, by form letter, from federal authorities the following information on behalf of the residents of the City of Ann Arbor:
6. The names of all residents of the City of Ann Arbor who have been arrested or otherwise detained by federal authorities as a result of terrorism investigations since September 11, 2001; the location of each detainee; the circumstances that led to each detention; the charges, if any, lodges against each detainee; the name of counsel, if any, representing each detainee;
7. The number of search warrants that have been executed in the City of Ann Arbor without notice to the subject of the warrant pursuant to Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act;
8. The extent of electronic surveillance carried out in the City of Ann Arbor under powers granted in the USA PATRIOT Act;
9. The extent to which federal authorities are monitoring political meetings, religious gatherings or other activities protected by the First Amendment within the City of Ann Arbor;
10. The number of times education records have been obtained from public schools and institutions of higher learning in the City of Ann Arbor under Section 507 of the USA PATRIOT Act;
11. The number of times library records have been obtained from libraries in the City of Ann Arbor under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act;
12. The number of times that records of the books purchased by store patrons have been obtained from bookstores in the City of Ann Arbor under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act;

Jones said that he was appalled that Sanders’ presentation made it sound like the Ann Arbor police department is out looking for undocumented immigrants and that they’re using racial profiling to effect those arrests. “This is a professional law enforcement agency, with professional men and women, [...] who know what the rules are [...],” Jones said. He said that he figured there were some of those men and women in uniform who may have been watching the city council proceedings on television, who might have been a little upset by Sanders’ statements. [City council meetings are broadcast live on Community Television Network.]

He concluded by stressing that he felt that most of the stats Sanders had cited related to incidents outside of Ann Arbor and that he’d asked her to provide any specific information about problems inside the city – as she’d done in the past.

He concluded by saying, “And I will calm down now!”

Fourth/Fifth Avenue Historic District

Before the council for its second and final reading was a proposal to accept the recommendation of a study committee that had been established on Aug. 6 last year, to create a local historic district along Fourth and Fifth avenues south of William Street and north of Packard. Detailed background can be found in previous Chronicle coverage: “The Constitution of Historic Districts” and “S. Fifth Avenue: Historic District, Development.”

The proposed district was controversial for some who oppose the creation of any district at all in the general area, as well as for some neighbors living south of Packard Street, who objected to the way the proposed boundaries were drawn. Many residents living in the 500 blocks of Fourth and Fifth avenues, south of Packard just north of Madison, wanted to be included in a historic district as well.

Historic District: Public Hearing

Identifying himself as the only resident member of the historic district study committee was Tom Whitaker. He asked for the council’s support of the study committee’s recommendation to create a historic district. He said that state officials who had reviewed a preliminary version of the report had called it “exemplary.” The committee had adopted the recommendation to create the district unanimously, he said, just as they had recommended that the council have an additional area studied, which includes the block south of Packard Street, where many residents support the establishment of a historic district.

Whitaker said he didn’t agree with the attempts by some of those residents to “sabotage” the creation of a smaller district. The boundaries recommended by the report, he said, would withstand any of the “baseless” challenges that had been made. Rejecting the district wouldn’t be fair to the owners of individual properties that had previously been part of a citywide district that had been ruled legally invalid by the 2001 Draprop decision – they’d been waiting to have their properties reinstated. It also wouldn’t be fair, he said, to the property owners in the neighborhood who had seen three development proposals for the neighborhood in the last few years, all of which were counter to the city’s master planning and zoning, he contended.

A historic district would not mean the end of improvements in the area, Whitaker said, as the experience of other historic districts showed – neighborhoods stabilize and property values rise under historic designation, he said. Liberty Lofts was built in a historic district, he pointed out, and the new CVS on State Street is being built in a historic district. The Zingerman’s Deli expansion is likely to be approved in a historic district, he said. In addition, he continued, large numbers of smaller homeowner projects are routinely completed in historic districts with a high percentage requiring only staff approval. Those requiring approval from the historic district commission have an approval percentage better than 90%, he said. The older neighborhoods, as well as the historic neighborhoods, are what define Ann Arbor to visitors and what attract people to live here and to stay here. If the council chose not to support the historic district, then Whitaker asked that they explain what they’d done to help resolve the conflict. “None of you can afford to sit back any longer and watch this neighborhood being torn apart,” he warned.

Kristi Gilbert introduced herself as a member of the study committee and urged the council to vote for the district. She said that she would defer to Whitaker and others like him who are more skilled in making the arguments for a historic district. She noted that they are not just passionate about historic preservation, but are equally concerned about sustainability, a dense urban environment and economic vitality. All of these things can happen together, she said, and that had happened in Ann Arbor over the last 30 years with its 14 historic districts, many of which are in the downtown core.

Gilbert referred to the Michigan Historic Preservation Network conference recently, when mayor John Hieftje had bragged about the 14 historic districts and why they make Ann Arbor so beautiful. There’s some good modern architecture in Ann Arbor, she said, but the majority of it doesn’t help define the identity or brand of Ann Arbor.

Tom Luczak introduced himself as a resident of the proposed historic district and urged the council to support the recommendation in the study committee’s report. He allowed that it is council’s judgment call as to whether they value having the houses of the neighborhood preserved, but he noted that they are under tremendous development pressure. He contended that a number of people who are supportive of a district were not there that evening, but that they would be around in early August. [The primary election will be held on Aug. 3 – several councilmembers are running for reelection.]

Luczak reminded councilmembers that many of them had placed importance on process with respect to the city planning commission’s recommendation. So if they wanted to respect process, he contended, then they should support the recommendation of the committee. If the historic district is not approved, he asked, what would be his motivation not to sell his house to a developer? He called the argument that the boundaries are wrong a “red herring.” He said he supported the idea of expanding the district later, but asked the council not to “throw the baby out with the bath water.”

Claudius Vincenz, who lives south of Packard Street, an area not included in the study committee’s recommended district, showed the council a poster of Gottfried Maedel who used to live in Vincenz’s house. The German past of the block, he said, was not included in the study committee’s report. He said he agreed with Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who had called the exercise a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

However, Vincenz said, it would not have been a self-fulfilling prophecy if the committee had used their expertise to write a report that was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior guidelines, which it was not, he contended. The area of greatest concentration of historical value, he said, was actually south of the proposed area. He contended that the committee had suppressed evidence of many German founders of Ann Arbor who had lived south of the proposed area.

The most blatant omission, Vincenz said, was the last remaining residence of Raoul Wallenberg, who had stepped forward during World War II and saved thousands of Jews from the gas chambers. He called the resolution suggesting the council study the area south of Packard evidence that the committee knew something was not quite right, characterizing it as a way of saying, “We wash our hands in innocence.”

Ellen Thackery, who is the Michigan Historic Preservation Network field representative, asked the council to pass the resolution establishing a historic district. She reminded them that the neighborhood is in the city’s central area, and the central area plan recognizes that the neighborhood is integral to the city. One of the most effective means of preserving the character of the area, she said, is a historic district. Historic districts have been upheld at the U.S. Supreme Court level, she said, citing the Penn Central case.

Likely responding to a letter conveyed a few weeks ago to the city council by attorney Peter Webster, which argues that a local historic district creates a preservation easement, Thackery said that historic districts do not create an easement. Historic preservation easements, she said, are donated by a property owner and can be donated by any owner of a historic property. They can be donated on National Register properties, properties with state markers, or properties in local historic districts or properties without such a designation. Such easements are perpetual and run with the land. That contrasts with local historic districts, she said, which have a legal process for establishment, for their amendment, and their dissolution.

Piotr Michalowski told the council that he’d written to them on many occasions and did not want to repeat himself. Instead, he said, he wanted to remind the council what the purpose of a historic district is: to manage change. It doesn’t stop any change, but rather manages it, and that’s all they were asking for. He contended that the reason there is pressure for development in that neighborhood is because land is cheaper than it is downtown. It was not simply the recent developments that had been proposed in the neighborhood, like City Place and Heritage Row, but also other proposed developments that could come very soon, if a historic district is not established.

Scott Munzel introduced himself as legal counsel for the Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership, the owner of the Heritage Row project. He criticized the proposed district as both bad law and bad public policy. First, he said, the recommended district as described in the report does not meet the requirements described in the statutes, which require that the buildings be related by archeology, architecture, history, engineering, or culture. The “broad net” that is cast in the study report does not meet those criteria, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), left, chats with local attorney Scott Munzel during a break. Behind them, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) talks with Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

By the study committee’s standard, Munzel said, every building that is near the downtown or the University of Michigan would qualify as historic and should be included in a historic district. Munzel cited the Draprop case, in which an Ann Arbor historic district had been invalidated, and said that based on that case, the proposed historic district could be invalidated on the same reasoning. Secondly, he said, the district may violate equal protection requirements in that it treats similarly situated landowners differently.

Along Jefferson Street to the east are examples of buildings that were excluded from the district, and Munzel noted that building south of Packard Street had been excluded. There is no rational basis he could see, on reading the report, for why those areas were excluded. He noted that the council had expressed concern through its earlier resolution on Arizona’s immigration law about violation of the U.S. Constitution, and he suggested that the historic district might violate the equal protection provisions of the Constitution.

Munzel also contended that establishing a historic district would amount to bad public policy. The role of the urban core is changing, he said. Environmental, social, and economic forces are pointing to the need for increased density. The area of the proposed district is surrounded on the north and west by the commercial core, on the east by the university and on the south by university and industrial uses, so it may be suitable for redevelopment proposals under the control of the city council. A historic district would put the decision on proposals, which could otherwise meet city goals, in the hands of the city’s historic district commission. It amounted to an abdication of council’s ability to control public policy. He reminded the council that everyone is free to preserve their own houses, without a historic district.

Much later in the public hearing, Thomas Partridge, like Munzel, also drew a connection to the discussion about the Arizona legislation on immigration. Partridge noted that the council had gone from talking about constitutional rights and human rights issues to talking about the selfish and restrictive attitudes of property owners. If the historic district were established, he asked, what will that mean for the immigrants coming to Ann Arbor seeking places to live? He concluded by saying there needs to be a compromise.

Jane Belanger introduced herself as the owner of two properties on South Fifth Avenue. She was one of the signers of a protest petition that was submitted to the city around 2 p.m. that day. She also told the council that she owned property in the Kerrytown area and lived in the Old West Side. She thus had some experience as an owner and investor in historic districts. She said she didn’t agree that her property values increased due to their historic designation – but rather due to the proximity to the university and to the downtown area. The properties are expensive to maintain, she said.

Belanger said the district had been proposed in order to block a specific development in the neighborhood. She said that people should take care of their houses, whether they are in a historic neighborhood or not, and that a historic neighborhood made it more difficult. She said she’d had positive encounters with the historic district commission for work she’d wanted to undertake, but that the process had taken longer than it would have otherwise.

Brad Mikus told the council that he thought the houses were old but not necessarily significant. He said it was bad public policy to use historic districts to stop development. But he also indicated that he thought the City Place matter-of-right development is a “turd.” No one likes it, he said, so whatever it takes to stop it is potentially a good idea.

Brad Mikus appealed to his smart phone to quote from the city's central area plan during the public hearing on the historic district.

Looking at the central area plan, Mikus said that the repeated goal and objective in the document is to “preserve” various aspects of the neighborhoods. From that he concluded that the zoning didn’t really match the master plan. He cited a passage from the Calthorpe report that seemed to indicate that removal of historic districts could facilitate new zoning. Running out of time, Mikus quickly concluded by saying he was in favor of establishing a historic district.

Betsy de Parry, who is Alex de Parry’s wife and part of the Heritage Row development team, reminded the council that the Heritage Row project had been rejected at the last council meeting. That project, she said, would have preserved seven houses on South Fifth Avenue. They were interested in preserving the houses, she said, but a historic district was not the way to do that. The study committee was formed hastily, she said, in order to stop the City Place matter-of-right project, which met existing zoning.

She contended that the council resolution establishing the committee contained an error when it claimed that the area included the most intact 19th century streetscape in the city – the 400 block of South Fifth Avenue. That block is actually interrupted by two parking lots and a large playground created by the demolition of early houses, she said. She pointed out that many of the owners of houses outside the recommended district want to be included in a district if one is established. But many of the owners of properties inside the proposed district are opposed to being included in the district, she said, which is demonstrated by the petitions that had been submitted that day. The creation of a district, she concluded, would be for the wrong reasons.

Ellen Ramsburgh, who is a historic district commissioner, told the council that she applauded the committee’s work and understood the conflicting views about the southern boundary. She suggested that the council appoint a study committee to study the expansion. She reminded the council that historic districts are a tool that can be used to manage development and to preserve neighborhoods. A good example of a historic district that works is the Old West Side historic district, she said. The city’s historic district commission, she said, performs its function well. The commission approves about 90% of the proposals that are presented to it. She said that projects are improved by going through the historic district commission review.

Susan Wineberg introduced herself as a member of the historic district study committee. She said she’s lived in the Old Fourth Ward since 1983, when a historic district was established there, and that she’d only seen improvements. It had resulted in the creation of a neighborhood group and a sense of identity for the neighborhood. She said that 95% of the neighborhood is rental, but the renters benefit from having the neighborhood group advocate for everything from parking permits to street cleaning to tree planting.

Seated are three members of the historic district study committee (left to right): Susan Wineberg, Kristi Gilbert, Patrick McCauley.

Wineberg also sought to dispel a misconception that historic districts regulate paint colors or issues inside of houses. A historic district does not regulate paint colors and deals only with the exterior of the houses, she said. She gave the example of subdivisions that have various rules about what can be done to houses, which is something that people like – it provides a sense of predictability and stability, she said. She allowed that she did not know if the increase in property values in the Old Fourth Ward had been a function of the properties’ inclusion in a historic district or if it reflected a general rise in property values near the university. She also pointed out that one of the benefits to property owners in historic districts is the tax credits that are available – she’d taken advantage of them and had saved a lot of money, she said.

Ethel Potts told the council they’d heard a lot about the strong desire to honor the history of Ann Arbor and the excellence of architecture and workmanship by establishing a historic district. Less talked about, she said, are the financial and economic benefits of establishing a historic district. The Old West Side had started as “scruffy,” she said, and had now become “charming.”

Christine Crockett told the council that a historic district would give property owners an incentive to maintain their property, something they already had demonstrated even without a historic district. It would encourage property owners to maintain the beauty of Ann Arbor, she said. When pictures are shown of Ann Arbor, you never see pictures of the newer buildings. It’s the older buildings that are chosen for pictures depicting Ann Arbor, she said. Responding to Jane Belanger’s comments to the effect that houses in a historic district are expensive to maintain, Crockett said that maintaining any house is expensive. In a historic district, however, there are tax credits available to offset some of the expense.

John Floyd, a Republican candidate for Ward 5 city council in November, began by applauding what Alex de Parry had proposed to do with the Heritage Row project, which would preserve the seven historic houses. He’d toured the site twice, he said – once with a member of the study committee. What de Parry proposed to do with the site was, Floyd said, “fabulous” and should be acknowledged. He also said it should be acknowledged that de Parry had the right to develop something on the backside of the site.

Floyd said he also supports the establishment of a historic district. If there were not some concern about the houses being destroyed, he said, the topic of a historic district would not come up. He characterized the area where the district was proposed as part of the “charm zone” of Ann Arbor – the ring of pre-WWII houses around downtown. As part of the charm zone, Floyd said, the houses are part of the signature element of Ann Arbor’s built environment.

Leafy neighborhood blocks surrounding the downtown core, Floyd contended, give Ann Arbor a unique character that helps to partly offset the disadvantages of climate and geography in the competition to attract and retain talented people. He said he also advocates appointing a committee to explore expanding the district southward of Packard Street and over to Jefferson and perhaps even Hamilton Place.

Rita Mitchell asked the council to vote to support the district and immediately approve a study committee for an expanded district – south of Packard and eastward as well. The money spent on rehabbing houses, she said, would immediately create jobs, and the increased value of the properties would also increase the tax base.

Richard Jacobson criticized the study committee report for neglecting to include notable residents who had lived in the area south of Packard Street. Among the notables were Henry Otto, who’d led the Otto band, which had been the first band to play the UM fight song, “Hail to the Victors.” Bruno St. James had owned a dry goods shop and was a partner in Goodyear & St. James, on South Main. He’d served as an alderman from 1906-1910, Jacobson said. George Walker was the owner of Walker & Co., the most successful carriage shop in Ann Arbor, Jacobson told the council.

Anne Eisen, who lives in the proposed district, asked the council to approved the district – it would get the city about half way to the goal. How much she would continue to invest in her house, she said, depended in part on whether the city council voted to extend the protection of a historic district to the neighborhood.

Ray Detter stated that there should be no question that the houses in the proposed district were worthy of historic district designation. The committee had approached its work, he said, with honesty, hard work, and transparency. The city staff had provided assurance that there was a legal right to establish the district. As far as the boundaries were concerned, Detter said, in his experience boundaries of historic districts were always arbitrary. A historic district for the neighborhood would be consistent with the city’s master planning, he said. He rejected the policy position of the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce to expand the downtown area to the surrounding neighborhoods.

Alex de Parry, the developer who had proposed the Heritage Row and the City Place projects, said he wanted to go on the record as not supporting the establishment of a historic district – it was being proposed for all the wrong reasons, he said. It did not meet the Secretary of Interior guidelines, he said, and the committee’s report contained many mistakes. He called it “an abuse of the historic district process.” Potential tax credits are not a rationale for creating a district, he said. Responding to a remark by Ray Detter that boundaries of historic districts are arbitrary, de Parry said he found the idea “rather strange.”

Beverly Strassmann introduced herself as president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association. She said that the residents north and south of Packard Street wanted the historic district to extend all the way to Madison Street. The boundaries that had been proposed, she said, are “arbitrary and capricious” and denied many of the residents equal protection under the law. The houses left out of the district, she contended, would be subject to even greater development pressures. Those property owners, she said, have every right to the same tax credits for historic preservation and renovation as the residents north of Packard.

Strassmann contended that the consultant who had advised the study committee had not adequately advised the committee about their obligations under the law. Strassmann quoted from the Secretary of the Interior guidelines: “When selecting boundaries for a historic district, include the area that contains the highest concentration of intact resources.” The most intact block, Strassmann said, was the 500 block of South Fifth Street between Packard and Madison. She told the council that establishing a historic district would put the city in legal jeopardy. She urged the council to table the proposal and to convene an entirely new study committee.

Graham Miles introduced himself as the owner of several properties in the 500 blocks of Fourth and Fifth avenues south of Packard. He said he’d like to see those houses included in a historic district.

Susan Whitaker thanked Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) for sponsoring the resolution that established the historic district study committee. She noted that it had been the city council that had set the boundaries for the study area. She said that the neighborhood supported development when it was done right, citing Zaragon Place 2 as an example of high-density development done in an area suitable for that [at the southeast corner of William and Thompson]. She alluded to the support that Margie Teall (Ward 4) had shown for her own ward’s Lower Burns Park neighborhood by leading an effort to downzone part of the area to protect single-family houses.

Susan Whitaker spoke in favor of establishing a historic district.

[Teall is campaigning partly on that rezoning. From The Chronicle's coverage of a recent Ward 4 candidate forum: "Two years ago, she said, she had worked with her colleague from Ward 4, Marcia Higgins, to rezone part of Lower Burns Park to prevent more single-family residences from being broken up into multiple rental units."]

The area proposed for a historic district, Whitaker said, provides diverse housing options for people ranging from older couples, to young singles, to college students. She called it a model neighborhood for new urbanism and livability. She said the study report shows that the area is a “precious commodity.”

Patrick McCauley, who chaired the historic district study committee, said he’d prepared a long list of reasons for establishing the district and how they’d followed all the rules. Despite what some people were saying, he said, the study committee “did not kill anybody, we are not an Al-Qaeda plot.” He said he wanted to talk about why he still lived in Ann Arbor, given that he’d been “trying to get out of here for a long time.” He described himself as a housepainter, whose wife is a managing editor who works in Plymouth. They’d decided to stay in town after graduating from college, he said. Why? Because Ann Arbor is different. He said he kept checking out other places to live, but he kept coming back because it’s different – it’s not Royal Oak. Ann Arbor doesn’t believe in development at all costs, he said.

Marianne Zorza introduced herself as resident and owner of a house south of Packard Street that would be excluded from the proposed historic district. She said she wanted to tell the story of a family of historic preservationists who had saved six houses on the block. The matriarch of the family had been able to buy a house on the block. Her children and grandchildren had then been able to buy houses around that house, when there’d been a trend to tear down houses and replace them with modern apartment buildings. She said that she hoped the city council would honor the family’s early preservation efforts by taking steps to preserve the block south of Packard.

Zorza said that the report improperly draws the boundary line. She said she was not a politician and didn’t know how to make it work so that the cohesive neighborhood becomes one historic district – that’s what they’re trying to achieve, she said. She urged the council to work towards that end.

At the subsequent public hearing – on the establishment of an industrial development district for a portion of Green Road – Brad Mikus stepped again to the microphone to point out that there was not a lot of notetaking by councilmembers during the historic district public hearing. What had been the point of the public hearing? When mayor John Hieftje admonished him to address the topic of the current public hearing, Mikus said he’d made the point he wanted to make.

Historic District: City Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off council discussion by saying that when he and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had brought forth the resolution to form a study committee, it was because there was a recognition that the area should be considered for historic preservation. The committee’s report, he said, confirmed that they were right about the formation of the study committee, which he said the majority of the council had supported.

Hohnke contended that the final report demonstrated that the resources in the precisely defined area of study unambiguously exceeded the criteria for listing in the national register – in terms of their age, integrity and significance of the resources. He said that 90% of the resources are contributing and 75% have a high level of integrity. It’s pretty clear, he said, that on the historic merits it’s reasonable to consider the area for preservation.

Hohnke said that Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) had appropriately brought forth at the previous meeting of the council – when the district had received its first reading – comments from a study committee member [Rebecca Lopez Kriss] to the effect that the study committee had considered only the historic merits of a district. It’s up to the city council to take a broader view, Hohnke said.

Hohnke allowed that there were many stories about people who might have had difficulty undertaking some modification to a structure in a historic district. However, he said that was different from the question of the establishment of a district. He noted that 90% of proposed projects in historic districts are approved by Ann Arbor’s historic district commission.

He pointed to the economic vitality that historic districts can provide to a community and to the uniqueness that they contribute to Ann Arbor.

Hohnke thanked the members of the study committee for their hard work, which they had done rigorously, fairly and openly. They’d produced a report of high quality, he said. Based on the association with the history of Ann Arbor, the association with important civic leaders, and benefit to the economic vitality of the city, he said he supported the establishment of the district. The balance between development and preservation would be well-served by the district, he concluded.

Derezinski said that the debate could be had by people of good intentions on both sides. He suggested that a simple way of looking at it is this: Do we look to the past, or do we look to the future? Are we looking forward or backwards? He called it a real moment of truth for the city involving two significant issues – the historic district and the Heritage Row development, which the council had rejected at its last meeting.

Derezinski said that while the legalities of establishing the historic district had been raised by some, he wanted to ask whether it was wise to establish a district. As he had done at the council’s first reading, Derezinski again quoted from a letter that Rebecca Lopez Kriss had written to council as a member of the historic district study committee. The committee had not been asked to analyze the economic effects, the feasibility, how it would fit into long-term planning on land use, or the impact on revenue compared to alternate uses.

Derezinski then quoted a passage from a blog posting by Lou Glazer, cofounder of Michigan Future Inc., which was written in the wake of the city council’s decision to reject the Heritage Row project [From "Why Ann Arbor Won't Be an Economic Engine"]:

But the notion that Ann Arbor is best positioned to drive Michigan’s transition to a knowledge-based economy is widely held across the state. Unfortunately Ann Arbor’s politics make it unlikely to happen. Yes, Ann Arbor is home to the University of Michigan – a world class research university – which is a terrific asset. But to leverage the asset there has to be a large pool of talent that both will attract knowledge-based enterprises and commercialize the ideas coming out of the university. That talent pool won’t concentrate in Ann Arbor as long as it’s politics are anti-growth, particularly anti-density.

The City Council just turned down another development designed primarily for young professionals. It’s a regular occurrence. Is it easier in Ann Arbor to do higher density development today than five years ago? Yes, but it still is real hard.

The result: Ann Arbor has about one third the young professional households as Madison. A chief reason, Madison offers the kind of high density, mixed use, walkable neighborhoods that Millennials are looking for, Ann Arbor doesn’t. [...] So Madison is an engine for the Wisconsin economy, Ann Arbor isn’t for Michigan.  Unless Ann Arbor becomes much more development friendly and much more responsive to the changing demands for housing and density don’t count on Ann Arbor being an engine for the Michigan economy.

Derezinski then unfurled a large city map showing those parcels that were either university-owned land or in one of the 14 already-existing historic districts in the city.

City councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) unfurls a map of Ann Arbor that shows land that's either owned by the University of Michigan or in an existing historic district.

He then read a long passage from a letter that Jan Barney Newman had written to AnnArbor.com on the city council’s rejection of Heritage Row. “I don’t understand the logic of these decisions,” Newman wrote.

Derezinski began the wrap-up of his comments by quoting Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s “Locksley Hall”:  “Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change.” He called on his colleagues not to “calcify” their vision of the city in the past. He concluded with a pun on the “Cross of Gold” speech given by William Jennings Bryan at the 1896 Democratic National Convention in Chicago on July 8, 1896: “Do not crucify us on a cross of old.”

In his remarks, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) rejected the idea that the decision on the historic district was a referendum on preservation versus progress. For him, he said the questions were: (i) Does the proposed district meet the National Register Bulletin 15 standards? (ii) If it meets the standards, is the district in the long-term interest of the city?

In 50 years, Taylor said, they would be “the dead hand of the past” and so the decision had better be right.

By way of background, the criteria for consideration from the National Register Bulletin 15 subsequently cited by Taylor are these:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;

Taylor said that according to the study committee’s report, collectively the resources in the district are historically significant according to criterion (A) and several meet the criteria (B) and (C) at the local level.

In his view, Taylor said, collectively meeting the criterion (A) would be a sufficient condition for establishing a historic district, while those criteria of only limited satisfaction – (B) and (C) – would not be a sufficient condition to establish a district. He then set about to evaluate criterion (A).

The study committee’s report concludes that the district meets criterion (A) because it encompasses a residential neighborhood that was established and has survived since Ann Arbor’s earliest days, Taylor said. It provides an excellent example of a neighborhood established in the latter half of the 19th century and evolved through the first half of the 20th century.

However, on reading Bulletin 15, in the section that explains criterion (A), Taylor did not feel the criterion was met. From the bulletin:

The event or trends, however, must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case of the town, or development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city. Moreover, the property must have an important association with the event or historic trends, and it must retain historic integrity. [...] Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A: the property’s specific association must be considered important as well.

Based on the study committee’s report, the proposed associative event is general, not specific. Survival, said Taylor, is not an important event or trend. He contrasted it with the report of the Old Fourth Ward study committee, which clearly and consistently related the Old Fourth Ward area to Ann Arbor’s founding. For the Fourth/Fifth Avenue proposed district, that kind of specific founding is absent, Taylor contended. The report itself acknowledges that the primary area of German settlement was in an area west of Main Street in what is now the Old West Side (OWS) and clearly referenced in the OWS study report.

Taylor then looked at criterion (B), which the committee report contends is met because the proposed district contains several homes of several Ann Arbor citizens who were locally important to the development of the city. Quoting from Bulletin 15 again, Taylor expressed doubt that this was sufficient to meet the criterion:

The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person’s important achievements. [...] The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic context. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social or ethnic group. It must be shown that the person gained importance within his or her profession or group.

As he read the report, Taylor said, the people who lived in the houses were of standing in the community, but with the possible exception of mayors Hiram Beakes, Samuel Beakes and William Walz, they do not appear to have been important within their profession.

For criterion (C), Taylor again quoted from Bulletin 15:

A structure is eligible as a specimen of its type or period of construction if it is an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history.

As he read the report, Taylor said, there are several resources that exemplify to varying degrees a type or method of construction, but he did not believe that any of them are “important” examples.

Based on his understanding of the Bulletin 15 criteria and his reading of the report, Taylor said, he did not think the criteria were met. Even if they were met, he said, it would be necessary to establish it was in the long-term economic interest of the city. His vote against the district, Taylor said, should not be seen as a lack of concern for neighborhood cohesion or a sense of place.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) thanked the members of the committee for their work – the detailed house-by-house cataloging of the district. She said she enjoyed reading the report. It struck her that at the time, 60-year-old houses had been torn down and moved to build the houses that now existed there. For Smith, the protest petition signed by 22 owners of the 53 properties in the district – 41% of them – was significant. She noted that a protest petition for a planned unit development (PUD) required only a 20% threshold. [That threshold had been met for the Heritage Row project, which had the effect of requiring an 8-vote super-majority for approval. Protest petitions have no formal role in the process for establishing historic districts.]

Smith indicated she was still wrestling with the issue, and was looking forward to hearing the rest of her colleagues’ comments.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) echoed the sentiments of Taylor and Derezinski. He said his interpretation was that the standards were not met collectively. Rapundalo also said he agreed with Smith’s observation that opposition to the district within the proposed area, based on the protest petition, was significant.

Addressing the contentions that some speakers had made about the state agency considering the report to be a model,  Rapundalo said he had not seen anything that addressed the substance as opposed to the form of the report. He also noted that the central area plan calls for integrative architecture and design guidelines to ensure consistency of scale and character of neighborhoods. Nowhere does it point to historic districts as the sole tool for achieving that. He concluded that he would be opposing the district.

Hohnke acknowledged that Taylor had argued forcefully in terms of the district persisting functionally in perpetuity. But he said he didn’t think that was accurate. In exactly the same way that they were now going through a process to form a district, said Hohnke, at some future point the community could elect to undergo the prescribed process to dissolve the district, if it no longer served the interests of the community.

Alluding to Derezinski’s remarks, Hohnke said “I dare not refute Tennyson, so I will refute Mr. Glazer!” He said that the idea that politics in Ann Arbor are anti-growth is simply not accurate. He noted that dozens of projects over the last 10 years have been approved – Hohnke said he would not bore his colleagues with the list, which he has ticked through on a couple of recent occasions.

Hohnke then stated that the idea that Ann Arbor is not an economic engine in the way that Madison is – as Glazer had contended – “is just bunk.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that back in 2005, before she had been elected to the city council, she’d stood at the podium asking the council for their support for a historic district. She’d spent a lot of hours working on the study committee and then waiting for the council to act. She therefore knew that a lot of work went into the process.

Briere said it’s difficult to imagine what it would take to answer the question about the economic effect of a district on future economic growth. However, she said she believes that Ann Arbor’s historic districts create an opportunity for the stabilization of neighborhoods. The establishment of the Old Fourth Ward and the Old West Side historic districts had both resulted in redevelopment, she said.

We want to keep the charm of our neighborhoods, she said, and we don’t think about how to convince people that our houses are interesting. They’re the fabric of what makes Ann Arbor Ann Arbor.

Derezinski responded to Hohnke’s contention that a historic district could be dissolved by a prescribed process by asking if any of the already-established districts in Ann Arbor had been abolished. What is the momentum in a situation like this? He pointed out that many people were already calling for the district’s expansion.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said it was a difficult decision and that she was troubled by the large number of people who had signed the protest petition. She said she appreciated Smith’s speculation about how many houses the current mayor has lived in might be seen as historic. She noted that the Heritage Row development that had been rejected would have preserved the houses. She concluded that she would not be supporting the district.

Mayor John Hieftje said he could see how the vote was going to go and he didn’t want to make a long statement. He said that the city might want to look at the issue that Smith had raised about the contrast between a PUD protest petition that could raise the threshold to an 8-vote super-majority and the historic district protest petition, which had no particular legal standing.

Hieftje also said that he’d been talking to a lot of people lately and had concluded that there is a very clear generational divide in the city on the issue of preservation. He said he’d been taking a lot of flak for some votes he’d made in the past. A lot of people under 40 have said that they were very upset that he hadn’t voted for certain projects, he reported. To hear that they felt they weren’t being given a chance was interesting for him to hear, he said. There would be a change eventually, he said, because there would be a new generation that takes over.

Hieftje concluded by saying he agreed with Hohnke’s statements and he’d come to the meeting prepared to support the district and that’s what he intended to do.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he would support the district not based on a heavy analysis, but rather on the fact that it was the right thing to do. All 14 historic districts lend character to the community, Kunselman said. We can listen to what other people say about our community and talk about economics, but he said that if you look outside of the inner ring of the city, there are a lot of empty apartments and houses. In his neighborhood, Kunselman said, three houses had been torn down and a fourth would soon meet the same fate.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Kunselman said that one of the issues the community continued to deal with is the policy set by the first president of the University of Michigan, Henry Tappan: Students would live in the community and the university would not build housing for them. That’s what we’re living with today, he said.

[Note: For a detailed analysis of University of Michigan student housing and its impact on the community, a good place to start is Dale Winling's 2007 master's thesis, which he discussed on his blog, Urban Oasis.]

North Quad, set to open this fall, is a step in the right direction, Kunselman said, but for the last few decades we haven’t seen construction of many new dormitories. That contributed to the conversion of near downtown neighborhoods to rental housing. He said that as a townie who’d grown up in Ann Arbor, he was dismayed by the change that has taken place in the neighborhoods closer to downtown. Without a historic district, we’d see the houses torn down, lots accumulated and “cash boxes” constructed, with the loss of the city’s neighborhood character. He said he supported a historic district and asked his colleagues to consider changing their votes.

Smith asked Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office if there was any mechanism for residents of a historic district to opt out. His one-word answer: No. So it’s all or nothing? she asked. McDonald’s answer: Yes!

Smith asked if historic districts precluded construction behind houses or additions. Jill Thacher, who is a city planner specializing in historic preservation, told Smith that additions were possible in a historic district, and that the historic district commission routinely approved them.

Briere then asked about the ease of adding another story. That’s not usually encouraged, said Thacher.

Outcome: The vote on the historic district was 4-6. Voting against it were: Stephen Rapundalo, Margie Teall, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Marcia Higgins, and Christopher Taylor. Voting for it were: Sabra Briere, Carsten Hohnke, John Hieftje, and Stephen Kunselman.

Reconsideration: Heritage Row

After the historic district vote, Stephen Rapundalo called his colleagues’ attention to the fact that there was an approved site plan for the City Place matter-of-right project that could still be built if there were no historic district. So he floated the idea of reconsidering the Heritage Row vote from the council’s last meeting.

Two parts of the council’s Rule 12 eventually came into play in the ensuing parliamentary maneuvers. The first part concerns who may bring a motion for reconsideration. The second part concerns how many times a question can be considered.

From the council rules [emphasis added]:

Rule 12 – Consideration of Questions When a question has been taken, it shall be in order for any member voting with the prevailing side to move a reconsideration thereof at the same or the next regular meeting; but, no question shall a second time be reconsidered.

Rapundalo had voted for the Heritage Row project, which had been defeated – he was thus not on the prevailing side, and was prohibited by Rule 12 from bringing a motion to reconsider Heritage Row. Rule 19 provides a mechanism for overriding other rules.

RULE 19 – How Rules May Be Altered Council-adopted rules may be altered or amended by a vote of the members-elect, if notice of the changes proposed to be made shall have been given the Council at a preceding regular meeting, and a written copy of the proposed changes distributed to all members of the Council.

Council-adopted rules may be suspended for the time being by a vote of two-thirds of the members present.

Rapundalo said he’d prefer not to go through the suspension of the rules, if someone from the prevailing side wanted to bring the motion. But neither Briere, nor Kunselman, nor Hohnke were so inclined.

So Rapundalo’s first step was to bring a motion to suspend Rule 12 so that he could bring a motion for reconsideration. With Mike Anglin’s absence, the 2/3 requirement translated to 7 votes required for the suspension of rules. The vote on that motion was 7-3, with Briere, Kunselman and Hohnke voting against it.

Rapundalo then brought the motion to reconsider the Heritage Row vote. That vote was 7-3 with Briere, Kunselman and Hohnke voting against it.

On the Heritage Row project itself deliberations were brief. Smith said that preserving the seven houses was a real benefit. That had been a reason for her to consider the historic district. Hohnke indicated that he was still processing the rule change. The historic district would have done a very good job of preserving the houses, so if the Heritage Row project were now approved, he would move to reconsider the historic district.

Teall said she appreciated Rapundalo’s “winging it” and understood Hohnke’s point that a historic district would provide the benefit of preserving the seven houses. But she returned to the fact that many of the property owners in the neighborhood didn’t want to be included in the historic district.

Rapundalo addressed Hohnke’s contention that a historic district was a better preservation tool by saying that in absolute terms that might be correct, but the situation was that there was a matter-of-right project with a green light for construction if the Heritage Row project were not reconsidered.

Hieftje said that based on conversation with one of the neighborhood leaders, that person didn’t think the matter-of-right City Place project would ever be built. But Hieftje said he didn’t agree with that. And for that reason the best course of action – given that the historic district had been turned down – would be to approve Heritage Row. He didn’t want to take a chance and wanted to support Heritage Row because it did preserve the houses.

Briere said that she appreciated the mayor’s comments, but noted that the council had a choice about whether  to support a historic district. She also contended that Alex de Parry and his wife had said boldly and strongly at the podium that they had no intention of building the matter-of-right development. She said that nothing had changed with respect to the Heritage Row project in the last two weeks. The only thing that had changed, she said, was that the council had chosen not to support a historic district.

Smith said that she’d seen some heads shaking over among the developer’s team in response to Briere’s remarks. She asked the de Parrys to address the council to clarify. Alex de Parry said that the language regarding the public easement for Heritage Row had been prepared – the lack of an easement for the public plaza in the actual supplemental regulations had been noted as a deficiency by Kunselman at the council’s previous meeting.

De Parry also said that they would be replacing all the street trees in need of replacement along Fifth Avenue between William and Packard on both sides of the street. He also corrected the number of bedrooms that people had talked about at the council’s previous meeting – it’s 154 bedrooms, not 163, he said.

Betsy de Parry also clarified that they had never indicated that they were not going to build the matter-of-right project, as Briere had contended. What they’d wanted to do was to rehabilitate the houses – that was their “wish and deepest desire,” she said.

Hieftje said it wasn’t just the matter-of-right project that concerned him. He said he figured, if the matter-of-right project were not built, there would be other proposals that would not result in the preservation of the houses.

Kunselman, however – who was perceived as the possible swing vote – said that if there was to be no historic district, he didn’t understand the need to preserve the homes. Moving them closer to the road as proposed would put them out of character and out of context, he said. He suggested that perhaps townhomes would be in order – 3-4 stories with garages.

Outcome: The vote on the reconsideration of Heritage Row was 7-3, with Briere, Kunselman and Hohnke voting against it. It thus failed because it did not achieve the required 8-vote super-majority.

Hohnke then attempted to bring back the historic district for reconsideration, but could not, because he had not been on the prevailing side. He’d incorrectly understood the previous suspension of Rule 12 to apply for the rest of the meeting. He thus needed to first bring a motion to suspend Rule 12. That motion failed 6-4 – it needed 2/3 of 10 present members, or 7 votes, to succeed. Teall, Higgins, Derezinski and Rapundalo voted against it.

Then Hohnke moved to suspend the part of Rule 12 that concerns how many times a question can be considered, so that the Heritage Row project could be considered for a third time total and for the second time that night. That motion succeeded, with only Kunselman and Briere voting against it.

Hieftje then called for a brief recess, and during the break, Hohnke and Briere conferred. In a telephone interview with The Chronicle the day after the meeting, Briere said she shared with Hohnke her belief that de Parry would not build the matter-of-right City Place project.

Returning from the break, Hohnke apologized to his colleagues, citing confusion about the suspension of the rules and what he contended had been conflicting advice from the city attorney. He then withdrew his motion to reconsider Heritage Row.

Pressed during a break to assess whether she considered the proceedings weird, Ethel Potts, who has witnessed several decades of Ann Arbor politics allowed, “As weird goes, this was pretty weird.”

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

Absent: Mike Anglin.

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

Developer Alex de Parry addresses the Ann Arbor city council in support of the Heritage Row project at council's June 21 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The number of houses to be renovated – called the “Seven Sisters” by some in the community who support their preservation – matched the number of votes the project received Monday night from the 11-member city council.

While that is a majority, the seven votes in favor of Heritage Row did not meet the eight-vote minimum that was required. The super-majority requirement came as a result of a protest petition that was successfully filed on the same day as the council’s last meeting, June 7. On that occasion, the council first considered this newest iteration of the project, but postponed it until their June 21 meeting.

The project rejected by the council on Monday in its 7-4 vote was a planned unit development (PUD), which would have required the city to amend its zoning. That leaves in play an already-approved earlier project at the same location, called City Place. City Place was authorized by the council last year as a “matter of right” (MOR) project – because it was judged to meet all applicable codes and zoning regulations.

The City Place (MOR) would demolish the seven houses and replace them with two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot. It’s a project that would be almost certainly denied by the city’s historic district commission – if a historic district were established in the area, as a study committee has recently recommended. The council is expected to make its final vote on the historic district at its July 6 meeting.

But the council gave its initial consideration to establishment of that historic district on Monday night. It’s more customary for councilmembers to vote for proposals on their first reading – to advance a proposal to a public hearing – even if they ultimately plan to vote against it. But Monday’s meeting saw three councilmembers already voting against establishing the district.

The council’s meeting also started off with the theme of historic preservation, as the city’s historic district commission presented its annual preservation awards.

In other business, the council gave a short extension to developer Village Green, which has an option-to-purchase agreement with the city for the city-owned parcel at First and Washington streets. The time for the extension is to be used to work with the city planning staff to put together milestones that need to be met.

Heritage Row

Heritage Row is a residential project proposed for South Fifth Avenue that would renovate seven houses and construct three new 3.5-story apartment buildings behind those houses, with an underground parking garage. In total, there would be a maximum 82 apartments with no more than 163 bedrooms. The public hearings on both the site plan and the rezoning were continued from the council’s previous meeting on June 7. [Chronicle coverage of that meeting: "Heritage Row Likely to Need Super-Majority"]

Heritage Row: Public Hearings

Speaking during public commentary general time, Shirley Zempel began with a simple, “Hello, Mayor, hello council!” She told them she was back before them because once again the council was being asked to approve a construction project that was too big for the neighborhood. Alluding to the long timeline the project has traced in various iterations, Zempel said she wished the issue could be finally settled. She said she’d visited with developer Alex de Parry and he’d showed them some things he was going to change. But the problem, to her, is the increased density – traffic is going to be “messed up,” she said. She is skeptical, she said, that the tenants of the project would really ride the bus or use Zipcars – the tenants of the new project would have cars, she said.

Thomas Partridge noted that he’d stated his position on similar resolutions many times in the past – all rezoning requests need to require a significant amount of the housing to be affordable. The proposal before the council that night, Partridge said, failed to meet that standard and should be taken back to the drawing board.

Tom Luczak referred to Partridge’s speaking turn during general public commentary reserved time, when Partridge had measured time based on the start of the Obama administration. Luczak said it was possible to measure time based on the start of the Heritage Row project. “Let’s throw the dirt on this thing,” Luczak said. He told the council he wanted to make a few points in defense of zoning. He took a walk from the south of downtown through the downtown to the area north of downtown, he said, and it was striking that there was a clear difference as he walked through these areas.

Zoning, Luczak said, reflected the collective value judgment of how we want to live. The city council is the final adjudicator of a PUD proposal like Heritage Row, which entails a rezoning. It’s only justified, he said, if the value outweighs the detriment to the surrounding neighbors. Density could be achieved on any number of other parcels around town, he said – 40 paces away in the actual downtown, not just near the downtown. For example, he said, Zaragon Place 2 is a project he supports, be cause it’s located in the downtown, where it belongs. [Zaragon Place 2 is a 14-story apartment building proposed for the southeast corner of Thompson and William streets, and was recently approved by the city planning commission.]

Patricia Lesko introduced herself as a candidate for mayor. She said she wanted to talk to the council about zoning. She said she had been riding her bike home and that a neighbor had flagged her down who lived in the area of the location where the Near North development is being proposed. The neighbors had not so much agreed to support that development, she contended, as given up on believing local government would enforce its own zoning. They had given up on the people they looked to to enforce what should be clear-cut zoning rules. Projects like Near North, The Moravian, and Heritage Row, she said, were similar in that they reflected zoning by exception – we were intruding into those neighborhoods and it was upsetting, she said.

The neighbor Lesko said she’d spoken with asked, Why buy a house in a neighborhood that abuts downtown, if we can’t rely on local government to enforce zoning? If we want to have greater density, Lesko continued, we need to have an open and frank discussion about dense development in “fringe neighborhoods.” She said that the discussion should not be about NIMBYs, which would make it personal, but rather about zoning. Planned unit developments are zoning by exception and by favor, she concluded, and we need to think very carefully about that.

Kyle Mazurek, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Ypsilanti Area Regional Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of Heritage Row. Among the reasons he cited were that it supported goals of the chamber: higher density development, support for development of multiple modes of transit, increasing the supply of workforce housing, increasing the supply of parking with 60 underground spaces. He cited the plaza that would be available for public art. He also cited the provision of critical tax revenue to the city. The project, he concluded, was consistent with the goals of the general community.

Gwen Nystuen announced that she was there for the neighborhoods. She said that everyone who lived close to the center of the city had pressure on them for development of that land. The Heritage Row area was already zoned R4C, which was already dense – why was a PUD necessary? she asked. It was a way to get around zoning, she said. In the interest of maintaining the neighborhoods, she urged the council to reject the project.

Bob Dascola told the council that his family had been in business for 70 years in Ann Arbor. He watched urban sprawl take over. He used to live on Fifth Avenue, he said, and had friends who lived there. They always spoke of living downtown, he said. He described Heritage Row as a creative project that would support more people living downtown.

Rita Mitchell said that she was pleased to see the historic district commission awards. She noted that the recent A2D2 rezoning of downtown did not include designation for higher zoning for the site of Heritage Row. She felt that it was important to have the information about the proposed historic district in the area before having the discussion about the Heritage Row PUD. She asked the council to defer action on it, or else deny it. Once a historic building is gone, she cautioned, it is lost forever.

Ellen Ramsburgh, who had presented the historic district commission awards at the start of the council’s meeting, said that the standards for approving a PUD were high and that the project had not met them. She also contended that the intended preservation of the seven houses as part of the project would not comply with the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation – due to the moving of foundations and the removal of additions. The planned buildings in back of the seven houses, she said, would be a detriment.

Ellen Ramsburgh, who serves on the city's historic district commission, spoke against the Heritage Row project.

Joe Ferrario urged the council to support the project. He noted that over the next 30 years, the population of Ann Arbor was projected to grow by only around 500 people, but was projected to add 18,000 jobs. Mindful of all the traffic that US-23 fed into Ann Arbor, he cautioned that sometime in the future we’d be talking about a proposed Heritage Row parking structure. Students already live in the neighborhood, he pointed out. Nothing deteriorates the character of a neighborhood more, he cautioned, than crumbling infrastructure – potholes that aren’t filled, trash that’s not collected, and snow that’s not plowed. He said he hoped the council would support the project and others like it, because it is the only way that Ann Arbor can become a real city.

Alex de Parry began by thanking the full range of people involved in the project – planning staff, city councilmembers and neighbors – for their input on it. He noted that he’d lived in Ann Arbor since the early 1970s and he’d seen the area improve since that time when he’d begun buying property there. During many meetings with neighbors, other citizens, planning staff and the city planning commission, he said, six main goals had emerged:

• Keep existing houses – the Heritage Row project does that, he said.
• Keep density close to the same density allowed under code, the density allowed for the matter-of-right project, which had 144 bedrooms in 24 6-bedroom units. Heritage Row, de Parry  said, is a mix of efficiencies, 1-bedroom units, 2-bedroom units, 3-bedroom units, plus one 5-bedroom unit that’s already present in an existing house. The unit count is 79, he said, but the bedroom count is 154, or 10 more than what the matter-of-right project had. Fourteen of those units, he said, were designated for affordable housing.
• Have adequate parking and keep it underground – the project has 60 underground parking spaces, which represents a 40% increase over the requirement of R4C requirement of 36 spaces. By putting the parking underground, he said, 53% open space would be achieved, including a public plaza.
• The new buildings should be background buildings behind the houses.

When it was her turn to take the podium, Betsy de Parry, wife of Alex de Parry, picked up on the list of goals where her husband had left off:

• Keep the height of the new buildings in scale with existing buildings – across the street, the church stands 60 feet tall, and Tom Whitaker’s house stands 44 feet 3 inches tall, she noted. At 39.625 feet, Heritage Row was shorter than both of those buildings and therefore consistent with the existing scale.
• Keep total massing consistent with what would be allowable under existing zoning – R4C would allow a total of 96,000 square feet, she said, whereas the PUD proposal would occupy only 75,882 square feet in both the new buildings and the existing houses.

Betsy de Parry finished off a list of points that Alex de Parry had started during his own public commentary segment, then made some more of her own.

She summarized the city’s central area plan by saying that Heritage Row is consistent with its stated goals – it’s consistent with the scale, height, and character of the neighborhood; it protects and enhances the existing houses and streetscape; and expands the supply of housing near downtown. The future land use map, she said, specifically designates the area for higher density. The reason Heritage Row exceeds the density allowable by code is because it includes affordable housing units, she said. The planning staff had verified that the project is consistent with the city’s planning documents, she said.

What Heritage Row does, essentially, is change what’s behind the houses, which are parking lots – and “there’s nothing sacred about parking lots,” she concluded.

Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting, civil engineer for the project, described it as a challenging project from a civil engineering point of view – challenges associated with providing modern utilities to seven existing houses. But he characterized the project as now conceived as something that was typical of the Ann Arbor feel that people have come to know and enjoy. Among the benefits were the preservation of the seven houses and provision of underground parking. Currently, he said, there were seven driveways and curbcuts along with seven different parking arrangements on gravel lots and the like. The existing spaces would be moved underground along with 30 additional spaces, he said, for a total of 62 spaces. Associated with the underground parking, he said, was an increase in the amount of usable open space – 53% of the area. Environmental benefits to the project include taking in stormwater from offsite as well as management of stormwater onsite – there currently is no stormwater management.

David Birchler, a city planning consultant with Birchler Arroyo Associates, addressed the project in the context of various city plans and policies – the central area plan, the downtown residential task force report and various provisions of the PUD ordinance. Many of the goals of the central area plan designed to affect density and affordability, he said, are furthered by Heritage Row: the development of new architecture that complements the scale and character of the existing neighborhood, to protect and maintain the diversity of housing options, to expand the supply of housing to meet a variety of lifestyles and incomes, to increase the availability of low-income rentals, to facilitate private initiatives to increase rental opportunities, and to improve the appearance of buildings and grounds to enhance the appearance of the neighborhood.

The downtown residential task force, Birchler said, had studied an area that includes the Heritage Row site – the area located within a 1/4 mile of the Downtown Development Authority boundary. The goal spelled out in the report, he said, was 1,000 new units of housing near the downtown. Heritage Row contributes to the goal in a way that is consistent with the task force recommendations, he concluded. With respect to the PUD regulations, the Heritage Row project encourages innovation in land use and design, achieves economy and efficiency in the use of land, encourages usable open space, provides adequate housing options suitable to the demands of Ann Arbor and expands the supply of affordable housing. Heritage Row provides opportunities suitable for those people who would choose a less automobile-oriented lifestyle, he said. The project would help cultivate a new model for in-town residential projects that’s sensitive to the quality that Ann Arbor deserves, the affordability it needs and the commitment to historic preservation that it demands.

Bradley Moore is the architect for the project. He described Heritage Row as an infill project that preserves the existing streetscape, while permitting construction of three new apartment buildings behind the existing houses. The new buildings are designed to be background buildings, and to be consistent with the scale of the other buildings in the area. The new buildings were not taller, from the ground to the top of the roof, of existing houses on the site, not taller than other houses on Fifth Avenue, not as tall as the Washtenaw Building less than a block away, not as tall as the public library also less than a block away, and not as tall as some of the houses found on Hamilton Place.

Architect for the Heritage Row project, Bradley Moore, shows councilmembers how the public plaza is configured.

The footprint of the proposed new north building is only 5,200 square feet, compared with 22,000 of the existing house at 415 S. Fifth, Bradley stated. The other two new buildings have footprints of 3,200 and 3,000 respectively, a total of 11,400 for new construction, plus a combined footprint of 13,100 for existing buildings. The new buildings don’t loom over the neighborhood, he said. The materials had been chosen in a way to respect the aesthetic of the existing neighborhood. The architecture of the new buildings has been designed so as not to compete with the existing surrounding architecture, he said, and to blend into the background. They would be constructed to comply with EPA Energy Star standards, which means that they’ll be 20-30% more efficient than a standard building.

The shading studies that had been done, Moore explained, showed that no significant shadows would be cast on buildings to the south, west, or east of the site, and that the existing building to the north of the site would be only modestly shadowed and only for part of the year. Moore said that the project would not shade its neighbors more than Tom Whitaker’s home shaded Tom Luzcak’s house next door.

John Dziurman introduced himself as a historic preservation architect by trade, certified as a historic architect by the state and the federal government. He said he’d served on the historic district commission of Rochester Hills, Mich. since 1987. His role in the Heritage Row project, he explained, was in connection with the preservation of the seven houses and the streetscape, and he’d evaluated the entire proposal with respect to the Secretary of the Interior standards. He stated that the project was consistent with the historic preservation theme in the city’s central area plan.

The seven houses would be restored in accordance with the historic standards for the period of historical significance as determined by the historic district study committee, which was 1838-1941. That would include the removal of some rear additions, Dziurman said. Five of the seven houses would be moved forward, he explained, in order to facilitate construction of the underground parking garage and to comply with the 19-foot setback. He allowed that moving a historic resource is discouraged, but noted that the standards allow it if the structure is primarily of historical significance due to its architectural value, or its association with a historic person or event. Buildings are allowed to be moved, he said, if doing so will preserve the building. After restoration, he said, the seven homes would be repainted with historically correct colors. The elimination of onsite surface parking, through construction of the underground parking garage, he said, was also consistent with historic restoration standards.

Dziurman also spoke at the site plan public hearing on Heritage Row. He noted that he’d served for 20 years on the historic district commission of Rochester Hills and told the council that he’d seen many cases where they’d actually lost their resources. In Rochester Hills, the council would turn down historic preservation in favor of development. One strategy he used, he said, was to allow development but to require preservation of historic buildings. He then said he was not sure if he should say it, but added that building underground parking is very, very expensive, as is preserving seven historic houses.

It’s not a big money-maker for anyone, Dziurman said. So there has to be a little give-and-take by the community. Any one of the houses would cost at least $100,000 to restore, or probably more. If you multiply that by seven houses, and look at the cost per space of building underground parking spaces, he said, you could see how the restoration of the seven houses was a good deal for everybody. Otherwise, he feared that the historic resources would be lost. In Rochester Hills, he’d seen that happen, he said.

Bob Snyder, introduced himself as representing the South University Neighborhood Association. He characterized the situation as a “stalemate” that was not a win-win for anyone. He described the seven houses as having lost all vestige of their architectural integrity. With or without Heritage Row, he said, the seven houses have, for the last two-thirds of their lives, been “savaged and pillaged” all in the name of student housing. Both de Parry and the Germantown neighbors, he said, were being ill-served by the lack of coherence in the administration of the city’s zoning laws. Whichever side wins, he said, it will be a hollow victory.

What needs to happen, Snyder said, is for people to lay down arms and make something good happen that might not be perfect. Snyder appealed to the notion of the Pareto optimality, which is an economic state when no one can be made better off by making someone else worse off. It would take eight votes to approve it, or five [sic] to shoot it down, he said. He suggested that the councilmembers should make sure they’d taken a walking tour of the “crime scene” before making their decision. He concluded that he was neither for or against Heritage Row, but encouraged the council to act as a well-prepared jury before “sticking it to either side.”

Scott Munzel introduced himself as legal counsel for the Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership, the owner of the Heritage Row project. He noted that a PUD is a rezoning, and therefore a “legislative act.” There is, therefore, no higher standard for PUD approval. Also under state law, a PUD is separate from all the others and any decision on a PUD would not set a precedent for any future proposals. Munzel pointed out how the planning staff report details how the project meets the eight criteria outlined in the PUD ordinance. The first criteria is the beneficial effect. Among the effects listed are innovation in land use and variety in design, efficient land use, and expansion of affordable housing inventory. Heritage Row met the standard by innovatively unlocking the hidden area of these unusually large lots, he said, in a way that conformed with the central area plan and the downtown residential task force recommendations. Increased urban density, he said, was an environmental imperative.

Heritage Row is “doubly green” because it increases the energy efficiency of the existing houses, and provides new construction that was in virtue of its location environmentally sound – cutting vehicle miles traveled and allowing residents to walk to work, Munzel said. It also provides affordable and moderately-priced units which would ultimately help downtown succeed. A second PUD standard is whether the project could be achieved under a different zoning class. Other zoning classes, he said, are too rigid to allow this project’s design. A third PUD standard is conformance with the city’s master plan, which has been confirmed by the city’s planning staff, Munzel said. A fourth PUD standard is to eliminate disturbance of historical features. Munzel stated that the project advances the historical preservation goals of the city – it’s “historic preservation plus,” he said. Heritage Row, Munzel concluded, does meet the standard. The concerns of the neighbors, he said, boil down to the neighbors not liking change. It takes courage to face our future challenges, he said, but he thought that city residents had the courage to face them.

David Peters introduced himself as an architect and planner who has worked and lived in the community for 50 years. He said he supported Heritage Row. The renovation of the seven houses would enhance and improve the value of the current neighborhood, he said. He said he’d walked the site and driven by the site. The existing rooflines and structures of the seven houses would minimize the view of the proposed new buildings behind the existing houses. He urged the council to agree with the planning commission and to approve the project.

Peter Webster, an attorney with Dickinson Wright, described the Heritage Row proposal as an alternative to the matter-of-right site plan that has already been approved by the city council, and would remain if the PUD is not approved. The main characteristic of the PUD proposal is the preservation of the seven existing houses, he said. He commented on the compliance of the proposal with the city’s planning documents and the downtown residential task force report. The goal, he said, is to increase the amount and the density of housing – that is achieved by Heritage Row, he said, but in a balanced way.

Peter Webster, an attorney with Dickinson Wright and legal counsel for Heritage Row, spoke in support of the project.

It increases the amount of allowed density only slightly above that which is allowed by the matter-of-right project, Webster noted. The project also overcomes the challenges inherent in the location of the site, he said, noting the underground parking, plus the lack of any increased burden to the infrastructure. The tie-ins for water and sewer plus the stormwater management were significant upgrades to the infrastructure, he said. Two items in the downtown residential task force report highlighted by Webster as challenges were (i) zoning as a barrier to innovative site plans; and (ii) the lack of open space. Heritage Row, he said, attempted to meet the first challenge by asking for a rezoning, and met the second by providing for additional open space.

Anne Eisen spoke about zoning and in support of long-term planning. The question is whether to rezone half a block on Fifth Street, she said. The area is separated from downtown by an existing historic district along William Street, she said, and the current zoning of R4C had been in place for 50 years.

The city’s long-term planning documents have recommended maintaining preservation of the scale and character of the neighborhood, Eisen said. The R4C zoning had not been modified to accommodate that recommendation, she said. When the historic designation of houses in the area was lost [in the Draprop court case, which disallowed the creation of a catchall historic district of various individual, unrelated properties], Eisen said, residents tried but failed to restore the houses’ historic designation. The new A2D2 rezoning, she said, recognized the appeal of the historic neighborhoods in making Ann Arbor special and attractive. The neighborhood had spent three years under siege from those want to “mow down the neighborhood” to build inappropriate structures.

Eisen also spoke during the public hearing on the site plan for Heritage Row. She said she’d been involved in the negotiations with Alex de Parry, and said that it had come a really long way since the original City Place proposal. She appreciated very much that he’d respected the request that the houses be preserved and agreed herself that there were additions that had been put on the houses that should be removed. She said she was not sure that some of the additions were structurally sound. She felt that the possibility should be respected that the historic district could be established. As for the proposed new buildings, she said that an honest height comparison needed to be made between the height of those buildings with long flat roofs versus houses with peaked roofs.

Al McWilliams told the council he’d lived within a few blocks of the neighborhood for 10 years and supported the project. He said it was not an age issue – he employs 10 professionals downtown from 19-45 years old, all of whom need places to live, he said. He had lived in the neighborhood for 10 years and was tired of paying $1,000 a month for a “wall-to-wall barf pit” – he told the council he’d let them figure out what that meant.

Alluding to previous speakers who’d noted the exact height of his house, Tom Whitaker began by quipping that there must have been a lot of people over at his house with ladders. One thing about his house, he said, however tall it is, it’s not 100 feet long, and that’s the difference. In January 2009, as the City Place iteration of the PUD had moved its way through the city’s planning process, a member of the city planning commission had sent a letter to the city council, Whitaker said. He wanted to highlight some of its points.

Noting that the site in question is zoned R4C and therefore creates specific limits on density, the letter goes on to say that the central area plan could not be clearer on the point of the need to protect, preserve, and enhance the character of the neighborhoods. It was not a question of preserving historic homes, but rather one of making sure that infill development is consistent with maintaining scale and existing density.

The goal of PUD zoning, the letter said, was not to allow for a dramatic percentage increase in density in exchange for other benefits. The letter refers to a “bargain” made with residents over the course of the years-long planning process connected to rezoning – there would be increased density in the core that would help protect the integrity of near-downtown residential neighborhoods. If that end of the bargain was not maintained, the letter warned, the fallout could jeopardize future consideration of increased density anywhere near established neighborhoods.

Whitaker reminded the council that the council had rejected the City Place PUD on a 10-0 vote and contended that Heritage Row is no improvement. City Place had 90 units, 164 bedrooms and 97 parking spaces. It had 14 affordable units plus 38 more affordable units at a higher rental rate, plus geothermal HVAC. Heritage Row, on the other hand, has 82 units with 163 bedrooms, 60 parking spaces, and 14 affordable units, but no geothermal system. There’s been no compromise, he concluded, and that’s why he is still opposed to the project.

Ray Detter asked the council to reject the project. Although he is the president of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, he said he was speaking only for himself, because the project was a situation outside the downtown area. Detter said that his position is that if a PUD is opposed by a clear majority of residents in the neighborhood, then it should not be forced upon people. He also noted that he is not opposed to projects inside the downtown that increase density, like Zaragon Place 2. Referring to the citations of the downtown residential task force report, which many who had already spoken in support of Heritage Row had cited, Detter noted that the report had not advocated “ripping out” sections of the area near downtown. He’d attended every one of the meetings of the task force, he said. Detter also asked that the council establish a historic district for the area.

During a recess called so that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) could review the site plan for the matter-of-right City Place project, Kunselman got a visit from Ray Detter, right.

Detter also spoke during the public hearing on the site plan for Heritage Row. He noted that he lives in a house zoned R4C abutting a D1-zoned area. Even D1, he said, does not allow development without a 30-foot setback next to R4C. And then at the 30-foot height, D1 buildings need to step back further, he said.

The Heritage Row project, he noted, allows for only 13-15 feet of a setback and then goes straight up to 39 feet. Detter noted that he’d attended all the meetings of the R4C task force that is currently studying the R4C zoning code – he contended that those who’ve attended the meetings are in favor of keeping things the way they are, to the point of opposing the combination of parcels, as the Heritage Row project does. He allowed that Heritage Row is better than the previous proposals.

Following Detter at the mic during the site plan hearing was Alex de Parry, who told Detter, who was seated behind the podium, that he’d also attended the R4C task force meetings. He told Detter he saw the density question somewhat differently. As de Parry was not facing the podium, Detter admonished him that he needed to speak into the microphone. Continuing, this time speaking into the mic, de Parry observed that allowable density in R4C zoning is greater than what people think. On Hamilton Place there were small lots with large houses – it is extremely dense. The density on the Heritage Row site, he said, was allowed to be 144 bedrooms under R4C zoning. The Heritage Row PUD asked for 154 bedrooms. Of the 79 units, 14 were affordable units. If the affordable unit were subtracted out, the proposed density is would be less than what’s allowed by the existing R4C zoning.

Bradley Moore also addressed the council during the site plan hearing in order to respond to some of Detter’s comments. Moore noted that he had served on the citizens advisory committee on the A2D2 rezoning project for the zoning overlay committee. He said that Detter was correct about the need for setback in D1 areas, but that it was motivated by the fact that in D1 it is possible to do a whole host of other things – it’s for the core of downtown. In D1 zoning, you’re looking at buildings in excess of 150 feet, so it is an entirely different situation that motivates the need for setbacks. The reduced distance in setback to 15 feet, he said, was appropriate to a residential-residential interface and to a three-story building as opposed to a 150-foot-tall building. He also adduced the real-world example of the Washtenaw Building on William Street, which was much longer than the three proposed new buildings, yet did not destroy the character of Hamilton Place.

Beverly Strassmann, who is president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, said that the bottom line is that Heritage Row will “wreck” the 400 block of South Fifth Avenue in the same way that the omission of the 500 block of South Fifth Avenue from the proposed historic district will wreck that block. Instead of wrecking both those blocks, she asked the council to reject Heritage Row and to add the intact historic 500 block of South Fifth Avenue to the recommended historic district. Strassmann indicated that she felt like the project would be acceptable if the new buildings had one story knocked off of them – as they were currently designed, they could not hide behind the houses.

Lou Glorie, who is contesting Carsten Hohnke’s Ward 5 city council seat in the Democratic primary, told the council she hoped that they would reject the project. She said the benefits don’t outweigh the detriments, and it would set a precedent that is damaging. She also said that the decision should not be made in advance of the decision on the establishment of a historic district.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) led off deliberations on Heritage Row with a suggestion of an amendment to the development agreement to make clear that if the PUD request were granted, the matter-of-right project that had been previously approved could not be built. The amendment, as read aloud by assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, stated that the supplemental regulations would apply to the property, “including any previously approved development for the property.”

Outcome: The amendment ruling out the matter-of-right project on approval of the PUD was unanimously passed.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) then led off a discussion of the public plaza area. She wanted to know how visible the area would be and how accessible to the public it would be. Bradley Moore, the architect for the project, used the poster of the site plan to indicate how it was situated – there would be no gate, he said, but it would likely be differentiated through use of different colored pavers. Moore indicated that he thought it would be accessible to the public and no one would be asked to leave unless they presented themselves as a nuisance.

Kevin McDonald, assistant city attorney, was asked to weigh in to clarify legal aspects at various points during deliberations on the Heritage Row project.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) followed up on the public plaza issue by comparing the project with Ashley Mews – that project actually has a public easement, he said. Would Heritage Row have a public easement for the plaza? Developer Alex de Parry indicated that it would be accessible to the public and that if it were not already in the supplemental regulations, it could be added.

Kevin McDonald, assistant city attorney, indicated that he was not aware of anything in the supplemental regulations that addressed a public easement. Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, indicated that the planning commission was presented with an accessible amenity, but not a public amenity.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) confirmed with Rampson that the public plaza was a non-trivial, important part of the open space, that was included in the claimed benefits of the project. He noted that it was a benefit to the residents, but not the public. De Parry responded by saying that it was his intent to have a public plaza with public art. If the supplemental regulations needed to be fine-tuned, he said, that’s fine: “Whatever I gotta do, we’ll do it.”

Hohnke said it felt like déjà vu all over again. He said he appreciated the effort on the part of the developer. A place of agreement Hohnke identified was that the city should tread lightly when rezoning a central part of a neighborhood. One-off exceptions, he said, should provide significant benefits, noting that the historic district study committee had indicated that the houses were historic resources. He noted that for the previous PUD, City Place, the staff report had warned that it would set a precedent that is attractive to targeting R4C zoned neighborhoods for development. The same things that were true of the previous report are also true of the current proposal, Hohnke said. The number of bedrooms had dropped from 164 to 163, he said, and the setbacks for the current project were smaller. For the previous project, Hohnke said, the staff recommendation against it and the council’s 10-0 vote against it showed that the benefits offered were not sufficient.

Hohnke contended that they were still left with a “benefit gap.” The number of parking spaces had dropped from 97 to 60; the affordable housing units offered in the previous project had been 52, as compared to 14 in the current project; the geothermal heating and cooling system had dropped to Energy Star buildings. The project offered reduced benefits with the same density, said Hohnke. The big difference, he allowed, was that the project no longer sought to demolish seven houses – that covered some but not all of the benefit gap.

Hohnke said he was surprised at how often density is quoted as a benefit. Most people are supportive of downtown density, he allowed, but by community consensus and by the city’s planning documents, Heritage Row is not a part of the downtown, Hohnke said. As you walk through the downtown into the residential neighborhoods, he said, it was clear that there’s a boundary, Hohnke said, and it’s fair to have a discussion about whether it’s a living boundary. But Hohnke contended that we haven’t had that discussion.

Hohnke expressed concern that the vote would be seen as a litmus test for supporting downtown residential density. [Hohnke Whoever wins the Ward 5 Democratic primary will likely face an independent challenge from real estate broker and DDA board member Newcombe Clark in November, based in part on a campaign that is more supportive of development than Hohnke has been during his first two years on the city council.] Hohnke’s defense of the council’s record on development included essentially the same list, with some additions, that he’d read aloud at a recent meeting between members of the DDA board and city councilmembers [Chronicle coverage: "Parking Deal Talks Open Between City, DDA"]

• 14 stories at S. Forest & S. University [601 S. Forest]
• 9 stories at Washington & Division [Metro 202]
• 5 stories at Liberty & First
• 10 stories S. University & E. University [Zaragon Place]
• 9 stories at First & Washington [Village Green's City Apartments]
• 4 stories at Liberty near Division
• 5 stories on N. Main near Summit [Near North]
• 9 stories at Kingsley & Ashley [Kingsley Lane]
• 8 stories at Maynard & William [The Collegian]
• 8 stories at State & Washington [411 Lofts]
• 8 stories at Washington & Ashley [Tierra on Ashley]
• 11 stories at Ashley & Huron [Ashley Terrace]
• 11 stories on North Main near Catherine [The Gallery]
• 12 stories at Main & William [William Street Station]
• and probably 14 stories at William & Thompson [Zaragon Place 2]

Because of all those approved projects, Hohnke said, the community’s commitment to downtown residential density and change was not hanging in the balance.

He came to the conclusion that the Heritage Row PUD did not meet the threshold for benefits, especially at that location.

Derezinski said he’d come to the opposite conclusion from Hohnke’s. He noted that he’d gotten a double-dose of the project – it had been around since he’d been on council and he was appointed as the council’s representative to the planning commission. He said he felt that the project had been modified to accommodate criticisms. He then ticked through some of the history of how the matter-of-right project had been introduced and the historic district study committee had been appointed with an associated moratorium to prevent the demolition of the seven houses.

Derezinski echoed the sentiments of Bob Dascola during public commentary, and called it one of the most creative projects he’d seen. It had been fine-tuned in response to input from the neighborhood, like the Near North project, he said. He compared the situation to the Peanuts comic strip where Lucy is holding the football for Charlie Brown – at some point you have to let him kick the ball, he said. The distinction of downtown versus non-downtown was not one that Derezinski felt was valid with respect to density.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he wanted to join Hohnke in congratulating the people who had contributed to the dialogue during the long process. He noted that de Parry has maintained a strong sense of humor, and he applauded de Parry for that. Anglin put his comments in the context of “social capital” – a person’s home in the context of their social neighborhood are a part of that. It applies in particular to neighborhoods, Anglin said.

Anglin said he did not feel that the council would be protecting the public welfare with this project. He did not find a compelling justification, he said, for the project. He did not feel “dragged to” that decision. A hypothetical example of a compelling justification, he said, might be if there were an abandoned factory at the location and the owners did not want to take it down. If the owner came back and said that he wanted to demolish the factory and create a park, that would be a compelling reason for a change. Heritage Row, however, did not provide for a change that he was “absolutely thrilled with.”

Anglin speculated that the places where zoning would be challenged were the older parts of the city first – in 50 years he figured there might be debate over what should happen to Briarwood Mall. Maybe the affordable housing for the city would be built outside of downtown. He stated that people were obsessed with the idea that the downtown had to become a “major place.” Maybe that’s a place where affordable housing can be built, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) alluding to the lengthy speaking turns of those who’d already spoken, asked mayor John Hieftje to enforce the time limits on councilmember speaking turns – five minutes for their first turn on an item and three minutes for their second turn.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) began by describing PUDs as a tool – it allows something to happen that doesn’t quite fit into existing zoning. With R4C, she said, it was somewhat problematic, because what actually fit is not always pleasing. They tend to be big blocky buildings with six-bedroom units. She stated that she did not want it to be the case that the city’s development strategy tended towards having only a wealthy downtown. She said she was for a diversity of housing stock and different levels of affordability.

Smith said she did not want it to be the case that only the wealthy could live downtown. She echoed Derezinski’s points. She also pointed out that Heritage Row offered an opportunity to preserve the houses, and she did not see any other way for that to happen. Restoration of the houses could proceed only by someone purchasing each of them and deciding to renovate them – that would set up an elite neighborhood, she said. She concluded that she was willing to support the project – neither side was particularly happy, she said.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) characterized her thinking on the project as a “back-and-forth struggle.” Addressing Hohnke’s benefit gap, she said she felt that the gap had been crossed. She indicated that there was a high emotional attachment to the houses across the city – she found the restoration of the houses to be a benefit. She called the underground parking “terrific.” Alluding to the parking lots currently behind the houses where the new buildings would be constructed, she observed that living in an area where backyards are graveled is not a benefit. She allowed that Zaragon Place 2 was in the right place, but that it would not be cheap to live there, which is something that Heritage Row might offer. She concluded that she would support Heritage Row.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he would be supporting the project and that he adopted the planning staff’s review of benefits. He cited specifically the use of the backyard space as innovative, the use of the existing buildings, and the introduction of additional open space. He said he took very seriously the objections of those who had addressed the council.

In his view, Taylor indicated that some of the things he’d heard that night suggested that the project was not so far from the character of the existing neighborhood. Specifically, he alluded to a comment from someone [from Beverly Strassmann] who had suggested that the project would be acceptable if it had one story lopped off the rear buildings. That indicated to Taylor, he said, that “we’re pretty close with this thing.”

The current matter-of-right R4C project allows 144 beds, and the 163 beds offered by Heritage Row was very close to “where R4C lands us,” he said. He also noted the presence of the Washtenaw Building on William Street. All of these factors, Taylor said, suggested to him that the project was “not out of the heartland of the neighborhood” and that the neighborhood could “bear it.” The neighborhood was a “contradictory” neighborhood on the edge and takes elements of downtown and residential and marries them together in a useful and innovative way, concluded Taylor. He said he’d be supporting the project.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) began by saying he would not be supporting the project. He referenced Hohnke’s argument about the failure to meet the standard of benefit. Kunselman observed that the project offered housing – but housing is built all across the city. Just because the buildings are in the backyards of some historic houses doesn’t make it a public benefit. He expressed dismay that the project had made its way all the way through the planning commission and to the council table without the public easement being included in the supplemental regulations.

During a recess that was called so that he could review the site plan for the matter-of-right City Place project, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got a visit from Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Kunselman expressed concern at hearing de Parry talk about buying the parcels since the 1970s, as if it was part of a plan to tear the houses down and build an apartment building. He suggested that the houses could be rehabilitated by having their old additions torn off and have new additions added – as opposed to constructing new buildings in the backyard.

One of the awards handed out by the historic district commission that evening, said Kunselman, was for a duplex that had been converted back to a single-family home. That was still possible, he said. The houses would not be torn down because of the temporary moratorium and if a historic district is established they will also not be torn down.

Kunselman said that a city that destroys its character by putting houses behind houses doesn’t always realize its density goals.

Note: During his election campaign, Kunselman had stated that he was against “backyard development.” From The Chronicle’s report of the July 11, 2009 city Democratic Party candidate forum:

The big thing for me about density of our community is that our downtown can obtain some greater density, but our neighborhoods need to be protected. And I think my record is pretty clear on that. I have fought hard for the changes to prevent backyard development – or make it much more difficult, I should say – to do backyard development in our neighborhoods. Particularly, in the neighborhood where I grew up, where we had three-quarter acre lots and developers could then come in and buy it and start building houses behind houses. Those are subdivisions, those areas need to be protected, and I understand the great concern that neighborhoods have, especially in our urban ring, are feeling about this idea of what density means.

Kunselman noted that many of the projects that Hohnke had listed off he was proud to say he’d voted for – so he was not concerned about achieving downtown density. He also questioned how affordable the units would be in Heritage Row, noting that they’d just heard someone from the developer’s team [John Dziurman] say that it was very expensive to renovate houses and to build underground parking. Maybe 14 of the units might be cheap, Kunselman said, but what about the rest?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) began by saying she would not support the project. She said that the PUD was something that allowed the city and developers some flexibility to accomplish projects that were not otherwise possible. She noted that the report from the downtown residential task force – which several supporters of the project had cited – was one of several planning documents used by the city. The study area included a 1/4 mile band around the DDA area. She read aloud a passage from page 10:

The Task Force spent a great deal of time discussing the importance of adjacent neighborhoods to the downtown. The task force felt that adjacent neighborhoods should be preserved and supported. Although these neighborhoods are outside of the DDA district, many residents of these neighborhoods consider themselves to be “living downtown.”

As one strategy for increasing density, the task force report goes on to suggest that the city council consider a revision to the city’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance. That was the way the task force’s report suggested increasing density in the near downtown neighborhoods, Briere said, not through PUD rezoning like Heritage Row.

On page 16 of the report, she said, the task force identifies zoning as a possible barrier to density:

[...] zoning changes and development must be undertaken carefully to reaffirm the Downtown Plan goals of protecting the near-downtown neighborhoods and recognizing the transition in intensity, building scale and height on neighborhood edges, the Task Force recommends some change to almost every existing zoning district within the near downtown area.

But Briere pointed out that the task force pointedly recommended leaving R4C alone. And the areas near downtown where the task force had identified as possibly supporting greater density – the North Main corridor and commercial nodes like Packard & State – did not include the Heritage Row site, she said.

Examining the PUD ordinance language, Briere observed that the land itself was not difficult to build on. She noted that the public plaza was not actually available to the public.

Hewing to Higgins’ earlier request that time limits be enforced, Hieftje informed Briere that her five minutes were up – but suggested she might continue, using her second speaking turn of three minutes. To that, Briere declared cheerily, “Oh, no, that would be so wrong, and I would hate to disappoint councilmember Higgins.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he found himself in agreement with the planning staff report. It strikes a balance between the look and charm that people want to maintain in the area, while providing a diversity of housing stock. He supported the addition of workforce-type housing, which is needed near downtown. The underground parking is also a plus, he said. He was struck by the fact that R4C would allow for more square footage to be built on those parcels, which he said nobody wants to see.

For his part, Hieftje first confirmed with the Kevin McDonald, assistant city attorney, that if the Heritage Row project were approved, it would no longer be possible to build the matter-of-right City Place project.

Hieftje characterized Heritage Row as “more palatable” than the matter-of-right project. If a historic district were not enacted, he said, de Parry could build that project. Hieftje said he was largely in agreement with Hohnke’s list of approved developments. He said he was torn, but would support the project based on the idea that the matter-of-right project would be built if no historic district is established.

Taking his second speaking turn, Hohnke said he feared it would set a precedent for other developers – building something would be okay as long as the houses are not demolished. He also noted that the amount of affordable housing that’s offered is only 14 units and that it’s located in an area that has not been identified as in need of additional affordable housing.

Kunselman then raised some doubt as to how he’d vote – a switch to yes from no by Kunselman would have given Heritage Row the eight votes it needed for approval.

He noted that he was the only councilmember who was not serving when the matter-of-right project was approved, so he wanted some description of it. Hieftje told him that it was “blockish” in nature and that it would replace the seven houses instead of restoring them.

While Kunselman mulled the matter-of-right, Briere noted that the developer for The Moravian had studied previous PUDs in the city – and that meant that future developers would look at the council’s words and actions on this decision. Is the accumulation of lots and building buildings behind buildings appropriate for infill development to increase density? Is that our intent? she asked. There were seven individual lots that were likely not appropriately zoned R4C, but were accumulated – not through a legal prescription, but merely for the purposes of this development. The lots have to be combined for the development to work, but they’re not legally one lot today. It was a question of whether we want to do that, she said.

In response to Briere’s hinting that a decision about a PUD represented a precedent of some kind, Hieftje elicited from McDonald the explanation that a decision on a PUD was a legislative decision, and did not have “precedential value.”

Responding to earlier points that only 14 units would be affordable, Smith pointed out that there was a difference between workforce housing and elite housing. She said she wanted to see a diversity in housing options. She noted that she was able to count and realized that it would have to be sent back to the drawing board. She encouraged the developer to come back with fewer units and it would fit the R4C zoning and would not require rezoning approval.

Taylor said he differed from Briere and Hohnke in that the city currently has a site plan on the books that’s ready to go that has aggregated parcels. Whether that’s something that should be changed going forward is an “open and good question,” he allowed, but at this point, the parcels are capable of aggregation.

Kunselman asked McDonald what would prevent the council from postponing the vote. McDonald indicated that it would be appropriate to postpone if the council felt there needed to be additional work done on the project, or if there are additional questions that need to be answered, or for some other reasonable reason. Kunselman said he appreciated the mayor’s concern about the matter-of-right project and asked his colleagues to postpone the vote until the next council meeting. He said that because he didn’t have intimate knowledge of the matter-of-right project, he’d like two weeks to look at it and perhaps change his vote.

Briere noted that a two-week postponement would put Heritage Row on the same agenda as the final historic district vote. Hieftje suggested that Kunselman request that the postponement be placed on the agenda after the historic district decision.

Hohnke, though he seconded the motion to postpone, said he would not support the postponement, saying that it would not be fair to everyone to delay. As far as the concern about the matter-of-right project, Hohnke noted that there was still a moratorium in place and that if a historic district were established, the matter-of-right would have to be reviewed by the historic district commission.

Smith suggested that the meeting be recessed so that Kunselman could be informed enough to be comfortable.

Outcome: After the recess, the roll call vote on the postponement had in favor: Kunselman, Taylor, Hieftje, Smith and Briere. The postponement thus failed with just five out of 11 votes.

Outcome: Heritage Row was rejected on a 7-4 vote in favor. It needed eight votes for approval. On the PUD itself, the four councilmembers voting against it were Kunselman, Anglin, Briere and Hohnke.

Fourth/Fifth Avenue Historic District (First Reading)

Before the council was a recommendation to establish a historic district along Fourth and Fifth avenues that can be described roughly as between William Street on the north and Packard Street on the south. The council had rejected the idea of establishing a study committee in late 2008, but changed its mind in mid-2009, when the matter-of-right City Place development project was moving through the city’s approval process. The council gave the study committee appointed in 2009 a smaller area to study than had been suggested in 2008. Chronicle coverage includes:

• “The Constitution of Historic Districts“
• “S. Fifth Avenue: Historic District Development“
• “No Formal Study Committee for Germantown“
• “Demolition Moratorium for Two-Block Area“

Historic District: Public Commentary

Beverly Strassmann introduced herself as a resident on South Fifth Avenue. She lives south of Packard Street and spoke on behalf of other residents who live south of Packard on South Fifth, which is an area not included in the area recommended as a historic district by the study committee. She said they opposed the historic district as currently configured, with a southern border at Packard Street. She characterized it as created “on the fly” – set up to prevent developer Alex de Parry from demolishing houses for a new development. She said the way the committee and the proposed district had been set up was not lawful. She said they supported a historic district, and that it was important to include the one intact block of South Fifth – south of Packard – in the whole neighborhood. The 500 block of South Fifth, she said, is the center of the district, the area with the greatest density of historic resources.

There were also historically important people who lived south of Packard, among them the Manns and the Allmendingers, she said.

Claudius Vincenz told the council he’d try to pick up where his wife, Beverly Strassmann, had left off. He pointed to the relationship between the Mann family – who still own a house in the neighborhood south of Packard, who had married with the Schmids, who lived north of Packard. Packard Street, he concluded, was not any real boundary in the neighborhood.

Vincenz said he was against the historic district as proposed. There is a lot of value in protecting historical houses, he said, but this historic district had been “conceived in a hurry,” because of the fear that the seven houses on Fifth Avenue would be destroyed. The study committee, he continued, faced an impossible task of completing the study. It was a case, he said, of the city council wanting to use the study committee’s expertise as “cover,” but defining the boundary of the historic district itself as the council. He characterized the way the council had proceeded as “circular” – the kind of reasoning that would crash a computer, but is common to the council, he said.

Historic District: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) led off the deliberations on the establishment of a historic district by noting that the council had just witnessed a lot of history and he wanted to go back to the time when the study committee had first been proposed. The boundaries had been substantially larger, he said, and the council had voted it down. He’d voted against it then, he said, because he felt that such study committees were self-fulfilling prophecies. From The Chronicle’s Dec. 15, 2008 meeting report:

[Higgins] also noted that the supporters of the study committee came from a two-block square, much smaller than the area of proposed study. She said she would like to see a bigger dialogue.

Councilmember Tony Derezinski reiterated Higgins’ points. He also said that in his work as the council’s representative to the planning commission that there was a lot of comprehensive planning work going on citywide, and that this neighborhood needed to be considered in that context. He expressed concern about the short time frame from Friday to Monday that council had for consideration of the resolution. He also expressed concern about the possibility that the appointment of a study committee would result in a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

He’d also objected when the historic district, with an accompanying moratorium on demolition, was introduced in August 2009, he said. From The Chronicle’s report of the Aug. 6, 2009 city council meeting deliberations for a smaller study area:

Derezinski said that while he was glad that some councilmembers had had a chance to consider the proposal, he had not, because it had been sprung the same night. He contrasted the process for the moratorium on development in R4C areas, which had stretched over four meetings. Here, the council was being asked to make a decision in 10 minutes. He said he wanted to hear staff input. “I’m asking for 12 days [until the next meeting],” he said. Derezinski noted that while it was a similar proposal to the one council had considered in December 2008, it was not the same one.

That had passed, Derezinski reminded the council. And now, one of the recommendations of the study committee on the size of the district was, “Guess what? To expand it again!” One of the speakers during the public commentary [Beverly Strassmann], Derezinski said, was right when she characterized it as proposed at the last minute to block a project. That was a very candid assessment, Derezinski said, while allowing that the speaker was making the point to argue that the district should include another block of buildings. He then read a chunk of a letter sent to the council from one of the members of the study committee, Rebecca Lopez Kriss:

The committee was not tasked with analyzing economic effects that may result from this designation, nor the feasibility of its historic rejuvenation. We were not asked to analyze how a historic area would fit into long-term planning and land use for the City of Ann Arbor, nor how historic designation would fit into the current review of the R4C/R2A areas. We did not study how the area would affect long-term revenues for the city based on alternative uses. The reality is that our committee members are not experts in economics, urban planning, or urban finance. Our committee was made up of dedicated historians answering a single question.

Derezinski said that the letter provided a cogent argument against establishing the district and urged his colleagues to vote against it.

Mayor Johnn Hieftje reminded councilmembers that the proposal was receiving only its first reading. [It's somewhat unusual for councilmembers to vote against a proposal on first reading.]

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated that he would support the proposal at the first reading “as is the custom.” He noted that the fact that the committee didn’t take into account the economic impact was not an argument against a district. Those factors needed to be taken into account – as well as the challenges that homeowners would face. He also noted that there could be significant benefits to the community. He thanked Derezinski for the reminder that there are other things to think about.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he’d read the letter. He noted that there were enough local historic districts that it would be worth it for staff to prepare an analysis of property values and taxes collected in the city’s historic districts to determine if the districts played a vital role in economic development.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he guessed he hadn’t received the letter, but noted that the writer had spoken at the public hearing on The Moravian project. His recollection was that her comments were quite disturbing with respect to the characteristics of the neighborhood. He felt the letter should be viewed in the context of those remarks. The commentary that Kriss gave on The Moravian is summarized this way in The Chronicle’s report of the April 5, 2010 council meeting:

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

Outcome: The council voted at first reading to approve the historic district with dissent from Derezinski, Higgins, and Rapundalo.

Development Approval Process: Display of Plans

Before the council for its first reading was an ordinance revision affecting the availability of site plans for public inspection.

Currently, the city’s code on the approval process requires that up-to-date drawings for site plans be available in the lobby of the city hall 24/7 for a week before public hearings. The proposal recommended by the planning commission would relax the code by deleting the 24/7 requirement and by making clear that there’s not an obligation to continually update the material with any changes that might be made. Material recommended to be deleted is struck through, with proposed added language in italics.

5:135. Public information and hearings.

(2) Area plans, site plans, site plans for Planning Commission approval, PUD site plans, and preliminary plats and land divisions under review shall be displayed in a publicly accessible location in City Hall open to the public 24 hours per day, 7 days each week, for at least 1 week prior to the City Council and Planning Commission public hearings. Plans shall be current at the time of placement and subsequent revisions, if any, shall be available in the planning offices.

Back in the summer of 2009, City Place came before the city council, but was remanded back to the planning commission, due in part to errors the city had acknowledged involving the public information requirements of the city code.

The city’s planning commission has recommended approval of the ordinance change along with other technical revisions. [Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission: A Matter of Timing"]

During the deliberations on the ordinance revision, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the issue was of interest to many people in the community – she wished for a more creative solution than simply not requiring plans to be available 24 hours a day. The solution was more restrictive, not more open, and she lamented the fact that the city planning commission had not discussed it at their meeting.

Briere asked Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, to clarify the thought behind the ordinance change. He deferred to planning staff. Head of planning, Wendy Rampson, took the podium and said she could answer specific questions. Briere noted there are so many technological opportunities available besides making paper copies of blueprints available – for example, making them available on touch screens. The ordinance change means that you have to go to the sixth floor of city hall during business hours. It makes the information less accessible.

Briere wondered why more time had not been invested in coming up with something more cutting edge, instead of just adding a restriction. Rampson said she believed that the lobby display of plans had become somewhat outdated – up until a few years ago, it was the only way to see the plans. But now, she said, all the plans are included as .pdf files as a part of the Legistar system available on the web. So for those who have computers, they can access the information that way. For those who don’t have computers, the public library has public computers available, she said.

Part of the challenge, Rampson said, is that they cannot necessarily guarantee access to the lobby due to security concerns. As far as touch screens, she said, due to budget constraints, the staff had not explored that as an option.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he shared Briere’s concerns. He asked city administrator Roger Fraser about access to the lobby of the new municipal center, but Fraser said that the details had not yet been worked out.

Outcome: At first reading, the ordinance revision for display of plans passed. To be enacted, the council will need to approve it at a second reading.

Development: Village Green Option Extension

Before the council on June 21 was a resolution to give a brief extension on Village Green’s option to purchase on the First & Washington property. The company has site plan approval to develop the City Apartments project on that city-owned site. City Apartments is a planned unit development (PUD) featuring 156 dwelling units and 244 public parking spaces. The extension goes through Aug. 5, 2010, which is the date of the council’s first meeting in August.

Village Green: DDA Connection

The extension of the purchase option has been part of the discussions between the Downtown Development Authority and the city about the parking agreement under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system. DDA board member Newcombe Clark has pushed for a sunset on the DDA’s commitment to support the City Apartments project as part of the consideration that the city would offer to the DDA in exchange for a $2 million payment that the DDA has already made. The DDA has made a $9 million commitment for the City Apartments project in connection with a public parking deck that is a part of the building.

The council’s meeting featured an update from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) on the meetings between the city council and the DDA board. Taylor gave a report on the activity of the council’s mutually beneficial committee, which met with the corresponding committee of the DDA to discuss a renegotiation of the parking agreement. He reported that the DDA had revealed a distaste for the idea of taking responsibility for code enforcement beyond the rules that apply to the parking system.

There would be further conversations, reported Taylor, about the DDA taking responsibility for enforcement of parking regulations. The DDA had expressed enthusiasm for serving as the development engine for downtown city-owned lots, and would be developing a more complete proposal for how that would be implemented. Later in the meeting during an additional communications slot on the agenda, Taylor indicated to his council colleagues that there would be a working session on the topic of the city-DDA discussions just before the council’s next regular meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, July 6.

Village Green: More Background

The cover memo to the resolution on Village Green that was considered by the council on Monday cited the overall economic climate and the difficulty in obtaining financing as the reason for Village Green’s inability to move forward. The fact that Village Green has named financial partners on the deal is cited as part of the reason for granting the extension.

From Village Green’s letter, included in the council information packet:

We have selected a joint venture equity partner, LaSalle Investment Management, a national institutional investor based in downtown Chicago with an extensive portfolio of real estate and a strong financial standing in the industry. Like many institutional investors, they were reluctant to invest in real estate over the past 18 months due to the turmoil in the economy. Now that they are ready to get back into investing in apartments, they are excited about the opportunity to complete a transaction in the City of Ann Arbor with Village Green. LaSalle has full discretion of a fund that has over $400MM of equity to invest, so they have the ability to execute in an expeditious and streamlined manner. [...]

As it relates to construction financing, we now have a term sheet from U.S. Bank with whom Village Green has completed 4 other new construction projects in the past eight years. We work with their downtown Chicago office where they understand the Midwest and Ann Arbor markets. Also, we now have a source to provide gap financing in the event that the primary construction lender cannot provide sufficient proceeds. That source is the general contractor, Skanska.

Village Green: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked for more of an update than what’s in the packet. What exactly was the short extension for? Tom Crawford, chief financial officer for the city, indicated that the short extension was to be used to establish a timeline of events – a reasonable timeframe for the next steps to occur. There would be a more comprehensive document, Crawford said, by the time the item reappeared on the council’s agenda. Smith wanted to know if there was an anticipated start date for the project. Crawford said that a start date was a little too soon to talk about at this point. In response to Smith’s desire to know some ballpark idea, Crawford asked Jonathan Holtzman of Village Green to come to the podium to answer questions.

Jonathon Holtzman of Village Green appeared before the council to answer questions about the extension for the purchase option Village Green has on the city-owned property at First & Washington.

Holtzman indicated that Village Green’s delay on the project was a function of the financial markets and not any lack of commitment to doing the project. Their financial partners seemed now open to receive letters of inquiry to talk about transactions. At the end of last year, he said, Village Green had done a project in Minneapolis – the only new apartment construction in the entire Midwest.

A project Village Green expects to start in Chicago, he said, could be the only new apartment construction for this year. Ann Arbor, he said, would be in excellent company. He noted that Village Green had been an owner-operator of apartments in Ann Arbor since the early 1970s. The request for an extension, he said, was to be able to work directly with the city staff to re-engage the fire department, the building department, the architects and engineers, to create a very specific timeline so that they can respond with a detailed list of milestones.

The problems from this point, Holtzman said, were not expected to be financial, but rather the normal problems between a developer and a city. Holtzman said the list of milestones would be the way of measuring whether Village Green deserved an extension.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that for him it was déjà vu – it reminded him of the project on the old YMCA site [William Street Station]. That developer had had milestones, too, said Kunselman. And at that time the economy was supposedly in good shape. [The city council eventually pulled the plug on William Street Station when the developer missed milestones. It is now the subject of a lawsuit that the developer brought against the city, although major elements of that suit have already been dismissed.]

Kunselman said he wouldn’t be supporting the short extension – it would require staff time. That planning staff time would wind up being charged as overhead under the municipal service charge. And that was important, he said, because the council was not amending the budget to accommodate the staff work. It was different from the residential parking permit program the council was considering that evening, which required amendment of the budget so that city staff could work on that project.

Kunselman stated that under an option agreement, typically a developer would put some money down as a down payment. “Would you be willing to pay … so that the taxpayers aren’t paying for this effort of ours to continue this charade of a partnership?” Kunselman asked Holtzman. Mayor John Hieftje interceded and suggested that Tom Crawford might be able to address the question. Kunselman stated that the council had been down this road before and it had not come to fruition – they need to go in a different direction. He suggested that new direction was to take the design specifications for the project and put them into a deed restriction on the city-owned property, then put it up for sale with those restrictions. Now is the time to try that, Kunselman said.

It was city administrator Roger Fraser who eventually addressed Kunselman’s question. Fraser said that the city would not be providing anything beyond what they’d provide any developer at this point, which would be a review of the pending approvals that would be necessary once the construction plans were submitted, and what timelines would be in connection with those plans. There would be no extraordinary efforts, said Fraser – it would simply be a normal plan review and estimation of what it would take to get this job done. The city would not expect an developer to pay extra for that, said Fraser, to take what is an already-approved project from a planning phase to a construction project.

Kunselman wanted to know what has happened during the last three years. Fraser said that Village Green had been waiting for the financial markets to open up so that they could go forward with the project. He reminded Kunselman that this was one of those rare projects that had received support from the neighborhood. The project meets the objectives of the community, said Fraser, and is a project the DDA is partnering on. Rather than asking for a longer extension, Fraser said, it was only a short-term extension in order to develop a more comprehensive plan with milestones. The idea is that the city would not have to do this again – this would be the last shot, said Fraser.

Kunselman asked if that meant that in August the council would be approving another extension. Kunselman also questioned whether the development of milestones was actually typical of staff efforts with regard to developers in general. Reviewing construction plans is one thing, Kunselman said, but review of construction plans for construction permits does not entail establishing a series of milestones. Fraser indicated that what Village Green was asking for was estimates for time required to perform the various stages of review.

Outcome: The council approved the extension of the option to purchase for Village Green, with dissent from Kunselman.

Public Commentary, Council Responses, Communications

A number of speakers addressed the council at the start of the meeting during public commentary reserved time, and councilmembers had several communications they conveyed.

Communications on Parking Permit Programs

During her communications time, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated that the agenda item that evening would be for a residential parking permit program for the Old Fourth Ward neighborhood. At the council’s next meeting, she hoped, on the council’s agenda would be a residential parking program for the South University neighborhood. [Note: The residential parking permit program was approved, but is not covered in detail in this meeting report.]

Communication on Civil Rights

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) told her colleagues that there was a bill that some legislators were contemplating for Michigan that would be similar to the law Arizona had passed, making it legal for police to ask for IDs. She informed her council colleagues that she would likely be bringing forward a resolution stating the council’s opposition such a law.

Communications from the City Administrator

Roger Fraser, during his communications time, told the council that as the elections were drawing nigh, the absentee ballots were being sent out. [See Chronicle coverage: "Column: A Pitch for Absentee Voting"]

Fraser also indicated that the summer tax bills were being sent out the following week, which are, he quipped, “another joy of summer.” He reminded councilmembers that tax bills could be paid online.

Fraser reported that on June 10 the Center for Independent Living had hosted a picnic in Gallup Park and that over 200 people had attended – they’d taken out canoes and kayaks, he said.

Fraser’s update on the ongoing construction of the municipal center was that work continues on electrical, plumbing, drywall, and bathroom tiling. A lot of work was being done in the basement of the Larcom Building as well, he reported. The streetscape contractor for the Fifth and Division project was working its way past the municipal center work site on Fifth, he said.

The structural steel work is complete for the elevator tower. A barrier had been removed from the third floor, where the administrator and mayor’s offices are located, he said – adding that it is possible now to jump, if the mayor ever felt the need to do so after a council meeting.

The mayor confirmed with Fraser that the construction was still on schedule to be completed and for the city to be out of the leased facility with the county by Jan. 1, 2011.

Comment on Local Ordinances: Vegetation

Tom Petiet introduced himself as the landlord at a property on Arch Street. He suggested to the council that they consider a revision to the city’s ordinance that prohibits vegetation on lawn extensions – the area between the sidewalk and the road – higher than 3 feet. Last year, he said, they’d received notice that a bush at their rental property was four feet tall. They had not been able to act in time, and the city had then cut the bush down to 3 feet tall. They’d gone to court about it, he said, but the court had no latitude in the matter due to the vagueness of the ordinance language, he said, that prohibited any vegetation from being taller than 3 feet. He distributed some photographs of different properties in the general area of the property.

Petiet noted that several cultivated plantings in the area were all in violation of the city’s ordinance, but that they contributed to the beauty of the city and were ecologically sound. He said they do no harm, so he wondered why the ordinance condemns the plantings. As it stands, the police have no alternative but to cite these plantings. Exceptions to the 3 foot height shall be granted in cases where decorative bushes and flowers are maintained which do not hinder automobile sightlines at corners and do not impinge on walkways and roadways. He also suggested that the warning and notification methods be changed – he said they’ve only been given 24 hours from the time they were notified to the time they needed to remediate the situation. In the case of rental properties, he said, the notification should go to the owner of the property, not the address of the property itself.

Later during the council meeting, during her communications time, Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that she felt the ordinance needed to be re-examined.

Comment on Local Ordinances: Pedestrian Safety

Kathy Griswold reminded the council that she’d spoken to them in the past about the need to move a crosswalk in front of the King Elementary School from a mid-block location to an intersection. A related issue, she said, was a press release issued by the city of Ann Arbor on June 10 about a program to promote pedestrian safety. However, she said, what sounded like good news actually revealed a superficial understanding of pedestrian safety issues and laws. Three conditions contributed the problem, she said. First is city officials who micromanaged things. Second is an autocratic city administrator, and third is traffic engineers who are required to make decisions based on what is politically popular, she said. Alluding to Petiet’s comments about his experience with the vegetation ordinance, she said the requirements make the professional police force and traffic engineers look stupid – the laws were not being applied consistently and nothing but political games were being played, she said.

At the point where a child is injured or killed due to the political game-playing, she predicted, city officials would then form a task force to make sure this issue is addressed. She therefore wanted to make sure it was a part of the public record that political gamesmanship had been going on for years and that it was wrong. There is a state law that prohibits parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk, she said, but the city itself had configured a crosswalk located next to parking spaces near city hall, then placed a flashing warning sign there to warn motorists.

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 300 of 1949

257.674 Prohibited parking; exceptions; bus loading zone; violation as civil infraction. Sec. 674.

(1) A vehicle shall not be parked, except if necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the law or the directions of a police officer or traffic-control device, in any of the following places:
(a) On a sidewalk.
(b) In front of a public or private driveway.
(c) Within an intersection.
(d) Within 15 feet of a fire hydrant.
(e) On a crosswalk.
(f) Within 20 feet of a crosswalk, or if there is not a crosswalk, then within 15 feet of the intersection of property lines at an intersection of highways.

Returning to the issue of the King Elementary crosswalk, Griswold indicated that Hieftje had recently suggested to her a holistic approach. She said that the city had had a holistic and comprehensive approach in place since the late 1960s in the form of a transportation safety committee and that the committee had recommended the crosswalk be moved, but on Oct. 30, 2010 the city administrator had vetoed a decision to move the crosswalk, instead opting for a “good old boys” approach of studying the problem for maybe another year or two, she said.

During his communications time, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) told his council colleagues there was a targeted enforcement campaign for crosswalks going on, with flashing signs at Seventh & Washington and at Fifth & Ann. The signs indicate that it’s local law to require motorists to yield to pedestrians. There would be additional steps taken soon, Hohnke said. [An agenda item proposing an ordinance revision had been stricken from the agenda.]

Comment on Allen Creek Study

Vince Caruso spoke on behalf of the Allen Creek Watershed Group, which he said had produced a watershed management plan for Allen Creek in 2001 that had been accepted by the Washtenaw County drain commissioner’s office, the city of Ann Arbor and the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. He called for a scientific study of the Allen Creek watershed and a remapping of the floodplain. All major watersheds in the Ann Arbor area had been scientifically studied, he said, except for Allen Creek. There was a great desire by some to develop in the floodway, he said, citing the arts community interest in developing the 415 W. Washington property, which has an entrance in the floodway. But he noted that a letter of map revisions from FEMA showed a 33% increase in the floodway, and said the MDEQ did not support building on stilts in the floodway. Southern Michigan had seen several 100-year rains in the last three years, he said, as well as a 500-year rain. After a recent rainfall, Caruso said, there had been 4.5 feet of standing water behind Virginia Park. Scientific groups, he said, had attributed this change in rain patterns to global warming. There are 1,500 homes at risk in the Old West Side, he said.

During his communications time, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) picked up on comments made by Caruso about the Allen Creek watershed. Anglin said it was the largest, yet least studied watershed in the area. He said it was important to understand how much water flows through it – at what points and in what intensities. He acknowledged that there had been a lot of money spent on two projects to address issues in the Allen Creek watershed – at Pioneer High School and in West Park – and the city had been moving forward. But he also stressed the importance of having a scientific study of Allen Creek like the city had for the other watersheds.

Communications on Fuller Road Station

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) gave an update from the park advisory commission (PAC), on which he serves as an ex officio member as a representative of the city council.

He described how PAC had passed a resolution on the Fuller Road Station after a long discussion, which would be forwarded to the council. He indicated that PAC had expressed a measure of concern that PAC’s role as an advisory body had not been recognized to its satisfaction and would like there to be appropriate consultation with it. The PAC resolution Taylor summarized urged that the complete plans for the station be made public, that there be hearings on the project and that PAC be held harmless with respect to revenue plans. [Chronicle coverage of that PAC discussion: "Park Commission Asks for Transparency"]

Following up on Taylor’s remarks, Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who also serves as an ex officio member of PAC representing the city council, reported that PAC had spent six hours discussing the resolution related to Fuller Road Station. He said that the way the city had proceeded had “upset the stewards of the park system.” Anglin indicated that the mayor had presented his view of the situation directly to PAC. [Chronicle coverage: "Hieftje Urges Unity on Fuller Road Station"]

If Fuller Road Station were not proposed on land designated as a park, Anglin said, they wouldn’t be hearing about it. PAC had indicated that it was not pleased with the terms of the memorandum of understanding signed between the city and the University of Michigan, but that the mayor had indicated it could be renegotiated. The concept had merit, Anglin said, but the vision for the station should have been conveyed to PAC earlier. If there are plans like these, he said, it is important to make them public way in advance.

Later during an additional communications slot, Anglin noted that the city had launched a survey on the PROS plan and had received around 600 responses so far – he said they were hoping for 1,000 responses.

Hieftje clarified that the proposed location for the Fuller Road Station was not on the same side of the street as the swimming pool at Fuller Park. He also said it had not been stressed enough that the university’s contribution to the project would be enough to satisfy the local match requirement for various federal grants. He allowed that the timetable was a “little fluid” depending on when the transportation bill moves through the Congress.

Comment from State Senate Candidate

Thomas Partridge noted that the country had entered the second year of President Obama’s administration, as he introduced himself as a Washtenaw County resident living in Scio Township. He told the council that he was running for the 18th state Senate seat to represent senior citizens, the disabled and veterans – all those without a voice. He called the various awards handed out for local preservation efforts at the start of the meeting “worthy” and said that there were other sites worthy of recognition as well. Those other sites were places where civil rights demonstrations and peace protests had been held. He noted the importance of providing affordable housing, affordable transportation, health care and education to everyone.

Comment on Homelessness

Lilly Au asked the council to consider issues from a balanced point of view. She contended that the historical designation for the houses in the Heritage Row project was not appropriate because there was nothing historically remarkable about them. She asked the city council to consider the supply and demand for affordable housing units – mentioning in particular the loss of 100 units of affordable housing in connection with the demolition of the old YMCA building several years ago. She then described basic conditions of life at Camp Take Notice, a tent city now located west of town near Wagner Road on a public right-of-way. She described in mildly graphic detail how residents made accommodations for going to the bathroom.

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

Next council meeting: Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

The meeting, which is scheduled for the Sunday evening before Monday council meetings, is described on the city’s website as an opportunity “to discuss and gather information on issues that are or will be coming before them for consideration.”

Developer Alex de Parry hams it up with councilmembers Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) before the Sunday caucus got started. (Photo by the writer.)

Yesterday evening, what was on the minds of residents Ethel Potts, Tom Whitaker, Scott Munzel and Alex de Parry was an issue coming to the council for consideration today, Monday, June 7 – the Heritage Row project proposed for South Fifth Avenue, south of William Street. De Parry is the developer for that project and Munzel is legal counsel.

Kathy Griswold gave a report out from a recent meeting on the city’s urban forestry plan, which she had attended from the perspective of sight lines for traffic at intersections – vegetation can interfere with visibility.

During the discussion about vegetation on lawn extensions, John Floyd, who’s running for the Ward 5 seat currently occupied by Carsten Hohnke, arrived at the meeting. And Floyd was able to settle a point of good-natured disagreement on the status of corn as a grass.

Heritage Row

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. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Heritage Row Moves to City Council"]

Heritage Row: Public Hearings

Because the public hearing for the site plan was not properly noticed a week in advance of the June 7 hearing, that public hearing is expected to be continued to the June 21 meeting of the council, when a decision on the site plan will be made. [Chronicle coverage: "Heritage Row Vote Likely Delayed"] Procedurally separate from the site plan approval is a council decision on the rezoning request for the Heritage Row project.

The public hearing on the rezoning associated with Heritage Row was properly noticed, but there is speculation that the council will postpone a decision on the rezoning until June 21 as well – arguments for or against the site plan potentially bear on the rezoning decision.

The intimate connection between site plans and PUD (planned unit development) rezoning requests was the focus of much of the conversation at the caucus. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out that there was one exception she could think of to the connectedness between rezoning and site plan – the council had approved a PUD request for Casa Dominick’s [Oct. 19, 2009] without approving a site plan at the same time.

Typically the site plan is approved after a rezoning – but still at the same meeting. Briere asked Potts to explain why she felt that a two-week time difference, as opposed to the time difference internal to a single meeting, would be significant. Potts indicated that if the council passed the rezoning, they’d essentially have “no choice” but to pass the site plan, and delaying the vote by two weeks would amount to “pretending” that there is no site plan.

Potts also noted that pushing a decision to June 21 would mean that the council would be faced with deliberations on a proposed historic district for the area on the same evening – the first reading on the South Fifth/Fourth Avenue historic district is scheduled for June 21. [See Chronicle coverage: "S. Fifth Avenue: Historic District, Development"] Potts characterized the overlap as “awkward” – Heritage Row is located within the area that would become a historic district if the council approves the study committee’s recommendation. Briere observed that “Some people would say it’s poetic!”

Heritage Row: Merits of Project

Potts called on the council to have a deeper discussion on Heritage Row than the staff report and the planning commission’s deliberations had reflected – “give your reasons for voting one way or the other.”

On the question of how to evaluate the merits of a particular PUD proposal, Anglin pointed to his interest in certainty – he wanted to know that the project as described would actually be built.

Speaking to the substance of the Heritage Row project, Whitaker noted that one requirement of Ann Arbor’s PUD ordinance was that a project is not supposed to be detrimental to surrounding properties. Based on the shading study, he said, adjoining properties on William Street would be subject to shading. Whitaker used that to illustrate the connectedness of this particular rezoning request to the site plan:  “You can’t tell [the shading] from the development agreement, but you can tell it from the site plan.”

Whitaker said he didn’t think the project met the high bar for public benefit described in the PUD ordinance – it offered less benefit than The Moravian, he said. [The Moravian was another residential development, proposed for a site on East Madison between South Fifth and Fourth avenues – the city council lacked sufficient votes to approve the project. See Chronicle coverage: "Six-Vote Majority Leaves The Moravian Short"]

Whitaker also reflected on the A2D2 rezoning process the city had recently completed and noted that the D2 zoning designation had been designed for interface areas between the core and the neighborhoods. De Parry’s Heritage Row project was more akin to a D2-like project than one in a residential neighborhood, he said. But no one had suggested that D2 should extend southward down Fifth Avenue, during the process of developing the A2D2 zoning for downtown.

If the idea was to stop suburban sprawl, said Whitaker, then there needed to be residential neighborhood options near to the core.

Munzel countered Whitaker’s remarks by saying that there was never any community consensus for density restricted just to the downtown. The Calthorpe process, which fed into the A2D2 rezoning effort, he said, had excluded the area outside the downtown for political reasons. However, the Downtown Residential Task Force, which was formed before the Calthorpe process began in 2005, had suggested that the focus of greater density include the area within a quarter mile of the downtown area. The reason the task force had reached that conclusion, he said, was because density is difficult to increase in the core.

Speaking to the issue of how the PUD ordinance is to be evaluated with respect to a project, Munzel characterized it essentially as “making legislation” which could be achieved by citing specific details or also by appeal to broad-based themes. A PUD, he said, was essentially a bargain struck between a municipality and a developer based on a good-faith argument that a project is better for the community.

Alex de Parry, the developer of Heritage Row, which has at least a two-year history, told Briere and Anglin that to him, the probable delay in the vote due to lack of proper noticing felt like a repeat of what had happened a year ago. On that occasion, the project – then called City Place – had come before the council for a vote, but it had been remanded back to the planning commission because of procedural mistakes on the part of city staff. [.txt of June 7 email sent by Alex de Parry to the city council concerning publication of notices]

Heritage Row: Window into Approval Process Procedure

Related to procedural issues, Munzel told Briere and Anglin that he was against the removal of specific time parameters from the approval process for site plans. The city planning commission has recently discussed timing as well as other issues in the approval process and made recommendations on them. [Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission: A Matter of Timing"]

One of the procedural mistakes alluded to by de Parry was a requirement that the most recent up-to-date site plan drawings be publicly accessible 24/7 for a week before public hearings. Whitaker allowed that the 24/7 requirement was probably too stringent, but that the planning commission’s recommended language went “too far in the other direction.” Whitaker suggested that there needed to be some accommodation for accessibility after regular business hours. What the planning commission had recommended, he said, amounted to shrinking access to public information instead of expanding it.

Grass, Trees, Foliage

Kathy Griswold reported that she’d attended the recent meeting on the urban forest management plan. She described the meeting as facilitated by a consultant and that it had involved receiving input only in a very controlled fashion – participants had to answer the presenter’s questions using the presenter’s process. There were around 30 people at the meeting, she said. There’d been some discussion of revision to Chapter 40 of the city code.

Griswold said she’d attended the meeting from the perspective of foliage and interference with sight lines at intersections. Before the caucus, Griswold showed The Chronicle a video montage she’d put together of vegetation obscuring sight lines for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Related to the sight-line issue were 30 citations Griswold said the city had issued for day lilies growing in people’s lawn extensions [the area between the sidewalk and the street] – while the lilies were in bloom. It would make more sense, she said, to approach the issue with education, informing people before the spring what the rules are and then ask people to play by the rules.

Griswold contrasted enforcement of the ordinance that prohibits plants as tall as day lilies on lawn extensions, with the city’s approach to dealing with foliage that obstructs sight lines at intersections. The city would not deal with foliage at intersections, she said, even when complaints were made about it. [Griswold has set up a website on this issue: SeeKids.org]

The conversation at caucus then veered “into the weeds,” as people then talked about ways that people liked to keep their lawns and how that fit with the city’s ordinances. The question arose as to whether corn was a grass – because some people like to grow corn in their front yards or in their lawn extensions. John Floyd used a handheld mobile computing device to consult the Internet on the question – and yes, corn is in the grass family, according to Wikipedia, he reported.