The planning commission had recommended the three rezonings at its May 6, 2014 meeting. Initial city council action came on June 2, 2014. And final action by the council came at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land. The city council approved the transfer of deeds to the AAHC at its June 2, 2013 meeting. The three sites given final rezoning approval on July 7 are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Final approval for rezoning was given for the following three sites, two of which are currently zoned as public land:

• Baker Commons: Rezone public land to D2 (downtown interface). The 0.94-acre lot is located at 106 Packard Street, at the intersection with South Main, in Ward 5. It includes a 64-unit apartment building.
• Green/Baxter Court Apartments: Rezone public land to R4A (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site is located at 1701-1747 Green Road and contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center. It’s in Ward 2.
• Maple Meadows: Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district), the recommendation is to rezone it as R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.

AAHC director Jennifer Hall has explained that PL zoning doesn’t allow housing to be built on a parcel. As AAHC seeks private funding to rehab its properties, it needs to ensure if a building burns down, for example, it could be rebuilt. In general that’s why the rezoning is being requested. It’s also being requested to align the zoning with the current uses of the property. The highest priority properties to be rezoned are Baker Commons, Green/Baxter and Maple Meadows, because investors have already been found to renovate those sites.

For these three sites, planning commissioners also voted to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petitions, because no new construction is proposed and surveys of the improvements have been provided.

For additional background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

In a related action on July 7, the council gave initial approval for rezoning an AAHC site on North Maple.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The rezoning is for a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road – from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 17, 2014 meeting after postponing it on June 3, 2014.

The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The site plan calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms. The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project will require the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property.

The site plan was not in front of the city council on July 7. Only the initial rezoning approval and a resolution of intent to vacate right-of-way for Seybold Drive appeared on the agenda. That resolution of intent set a public hearing for Aug. 18, 2014 – the same council meeting when a vote will be taken on the vacation’s approval. The rezoning will also need a second vote of approval from the council at a future meeting.

Planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after the planning commission’s June 3 meeting, the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is also part of the ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Also at its July 7 meeting, the council confirmed the appointment of Audrey Wojtkowiak to the board of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to fill the vacancy left by Christopher Geer. Wojtkowiak’s nomination was made at the council’s June 16 meeting. She’s controller for the Consolidation Center at Detroit Diesel.

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

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

Ann Arbor city council action came at its May 5, 2014 meeting.

City staff recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land reaches from Traverwood Drive to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. Adding the land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land). This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

This item was given initial approval at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting.

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

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners had debated the proposed revisions at a Feb. 4, 2014 working session. Some of the same issues were raised during the Feb. 20 discussion, which was relatively brief.

One revision clarifies the limitations on a city councilmember’s interaction with the commission. The revised section states: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.” The intent is to prevent undue influence on the commission, and to avoid the possibility of legal action against the city.

Other revisions affect speaking turns at public hearings. The intent is to clarify how many turns the same person can speak at a public hearing, and how public hearings are continued if an item is postponed.

In other action, commissioners recommended rezoning a parcel on the city’s north side to public land (PL). The 2.2-acre site at 3301 Traverwood Drive, donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. It was originally zoned R4D (multi-family dwelling) and had been part of a larger site that’s being developed with an apartment complex.

During communications, Kirk Westphal reported on a project that the environmental commission is working on: a neighborhood mini-grant program. Volunteers would coordinate a competitive grant program for community groups, who could apply to fund projects that address one of the city’s goals in its sustainability framework. That’s in the planning stages, he said.

Westphal also distributed a copy of a resolution recently passed by the city’s energy commission. It supports a recommendation to hire a full-time employee to focus on projects that help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. Westphal indicated that the planning commission’s executive committee would be discussing it. The energy commission would like a supporting resolution from the planning commission.

Commissioners also heard from two Skyline High School students, who spoke during public commentary as part of a class assignment. They talked about the importance of the Huron River and of the Huron River Watershed Council‘s River Up project. The planning commission’s work plan includes looking at how to implement recommendations from city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force.

Revisions to Bylaws

Revisions to the bylaws of the planning commission were on the Feb. 20 agenda. The changes related to two issues: how city councilmembers interact with the commission, and public hearings. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed revisions at start of Feb. 20 meeting]

In giving the staff report, planning manager Wendy Rampson recalled that the issue of public hearings had emerged last fall, when a public hearing for revisions to downtown zoning had continued over several meetings.  The issue about whether the same person could speak multiple times during the same public hearing – even if that hearing was held during different meetings – had been debated by commissioners on Oct. 15, 2013, during the middle of a public hearing on the downtown zoning changes.

Subsequently, a proposed revision related to this issue in the bylaws was brought forward by commissioner Jeremy Peters on Nov. 6, 2013, but no vote was taken.

On Feb. 20, Rampson reviewed the sections that were affected by the proposed revisions. She noted that the bylaws, if approved, would allow the commission to waive the limitation on speaking turns and allow the public hearing to carry over to the next meeting.

Here’s the draft proposed at the beginning of the Feb. 20 discussion [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

Article VIII Public Hearings

…

Section 3. An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total. The first person identifying him/herself as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner, or representing an organized neighborhood group registered with the City of Ann Arbor, may speak for five (5) minutes in total. Subsequent speakers identifying themselves as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner or representing an organized neighborhood group, may speak for three (3) minutes in total. The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within this section. The Chair may extend the speaking time further at his/her discretion.

…

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another date meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original.

Regarding the other bylaws change related to interactions with councilmembers, Rampson reminded commissioners that this proposed revision had been suggested following a discussion at the commission’s Feb. 4, 2014 working session.

The revised section states:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Councilmember’s term in office.

No one spoke during the Feb. 20 public hearing on these proposed revisions.

Revisions to Bylaws: Commission Discussion – Public Hearings

Bonnie Bona said she struggled with the proposed revisions to both sections, but particularly with the section related to public hearings, “mostly because I didn’t want to give any perception of tightening or restricting public input.” But based on the commission’s previous discussions, she agreed with the need to create consistency with the city council’s practice.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Sabra Briere.

She also liked the fact that the revisions put in writing that the commission can waive the restriction and allow people to speak more than once during the same public hearing. That’s been the practice of the commission, she noted, but it hasn’t been written down. She thought the changes were clarifying and would offer guidance for future commissions.

Jeremy Peters told commissioners that the whole idea behind these revisions was to provide clarity and to match what happens at city council meetings, though he thought that the planning commission bylaws would now be clearer than the council rules. He said he wasn’t trying to force through these changes, and he didn’t have a strong opinion about them. He was just hoping to add clarity.

Sabra Briere read aloud from a portion of the staff memo accompanying the proposed revisions: ”The proposed changes clarify that public hearing speaking time is limited to a total of 3 minutes (or 5 minutes for registered organizations) for an item, with the opportunity for the commission to waive the limitation via a majority vote. This would allow for the commission to maximize discussion time on certain postponed items, but still allow for public commentary in situations where a petition or proposal has changed from the time of the original public hearing.”

Briere said she took that as a goal statement, to allow people to speak again if a petition has significantly changed. But she noted that when she read the proposed revisions for Section 5, she was having a hard time reconciling that with the goal statement – because Section 5 states that a person can’t speak again at the same public hearing.

Peters thought the last sentence in Section 3, which allows the commission to waive its rules, would address Briere’s concerns. He had proposed Section 5 to clarify when a public hearing begins and when it ends – because that hadn’t been clear in either the planning commission’s bylaws or the city council rules.

Kirk Westphal said the fact that Section 5 comes after Section 3 seems to undo the waiving of rules.

So Peters then proposed an amendment, to remove the last sentence of Section 3 and move it into a new, separate Section 6. He originally proposed that the new Section 6 would apply to the entire Article VIII of the bylaws, but accepted a friendly amendment offered by Briere to limit its application to Sections 3 and 5.

Section 6: The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within Sections 3 and 5.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved the amendment creating a new Section 6.

Westphal noted that during public hearings, the commission will need to be mindful that if an agenda item is postponed and the public hearing is carried over, the commission will need to provide the public with notice that they’ll have the option of speaking again at a future meeting.

Commissioners then voted on these revised bylaws, as amended:

Section 3. An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total. The first person identifying him/herself as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner, or representing an organized neighborhood group registered with the City of Ann Arbor, may speak for five (5) minutes in total. Subsequent speakers identifying themselves as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner or representing an organized neighborhood group, may speak for three (3) minutes in total.

…

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original.

Section 6. The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within Sections 3 and 5.

Outcome on public hearing revisions: Commissioners unanimously approved these revisions.

Revisions to Bylaws: Commission Discussion – Councilmember Interactions

Commissioners had debated at some length the proposed bylaws revisions at a Feb. 4, 2014 working session, discussing the issue of council interactions. The Feb. 20 discussion was relatively brief.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Jeremy Peters thought it was best for city councilmembers to manage their own conflicts of interest, and to avoid the legal issues that might arise from jumping in front of the city’s due process. The change prevents the city from the possibility of being sued, he said, so he supported the proposed revisions.

Sabra Briere said she had tried to come up with a situation in which the proposed Section 9 would be a problem, but she couldn’t come up with one. She could imagine that a situation might occur at the city’s historic district commission, where someone might want to come and present their case. But HDC operates much more independently of council than some other boards or commissions, she said, even though HDC members are also appointed by the council.

She couldn’t recall a time when a single-family homeowner came to the planning commission with a petition. It had occurred at the zoning board of appeals, but not the planning commission. Typically, items that come before the planning commission are brought forward by developers of large parcels, she said.

“I’m looking for the unintended consequences of this [bylaws] change,” she said. Briere asked whether any other commissioners or staff could recall the kind of situation that she had described. No one offered any examples.

Kirk Westphal cited a hypothetical situation in which a councilmember might request a rezoning, and would have to be recused from voting on the issue at council. So should they be given the opportunity to speak to the planning commission? He could imagine such a scenario, and wondered if the bylaws should include some kind of “release valve” to allow commissioners to waive the rule.

Diane Giannola recalled the HDC bylaws, saying that if you serve on the HDC, you can’t be a petitioner in front of that body. She drew a comparison to city councilmembers, saying they wouldn’t be able to bring a petition to the planning commission as long as they serve on the council.

Giannola was referring to Section 8 of the HDC bylaws [.pdf of HDC bylaws] :

Section 8. A Commissioner shall not be heard before the Commission as an applicant, representative of an applicant, or as a party interested in an application during the Commissioner’s term of office.

Regarding petitions to the planning commission, Briere responded that there were other options – for example, your spouse or lawyer could bring forward a petition. “It’s just that you the councilmember may not appear in front of the planning commission representing yourself on an issue that’s to be determined by the planning commission.” She could imagine a situation in which someone who is a developer is elected to the council. In that case, any petitions from the person would require representation by an architect, attorney, or someone else on the development team.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson recalled that many years ago, the mayor of Ann Arbor at that time was a developer – it was so long ago that “I think there were Republicans on the council at that time,” she quipped. [She was referring to Lou Belcher, a Republican who served as mayor from 1978 to 1985.] His projects came before the planning commission, but Rampson couldn’t recall whether he addressed the commission in those instances.

Peters agreed that the option exists for a councilmember to be represented by someone else, if an item that involves them comes before the planning commission. He hoped that councilmembers would choose not to come before the commission anyway, even if the bylaws didn’t explicitly ban it. But this change would make the rules straightforward and clear, he said.

The vote was then taken on this revised section:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.

Outcome: The revisions to planning commission bylaws on council interactions were unanimously approved. Any changes to the bylaws are also subject to review by the city attorney’s office and approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

Rezoning Donated Land

The Feb. 20 agenda included a resolution recommending that the city council rezone land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. The recommendation is to rezone it as public land.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline, south of Stapp Nature Area.

Katy Ryan, an intern with the planning unit, gave the staff report. She noted that city staff have recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land spans from Traverwood Drive and to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. The land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement, Ryan said. Staff is working to determine the exact route.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land), Ryan noted. This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, she said, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Rezoning Donated Land: Commission Discussion

Jeremy Peters applauded Bill Martin for donating the land, saying that he hoped others would be receptive to doing this kind of thing in the future.

Bonnie Bona asked when the PROS plan will be updated. Planning manager Wendy Rampson replied that Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, is close to starting the next review and update. The state requires that the plan be updated every five years, in order for the city to be eligible for state funds.

Bona noted that people are sensitive to the fact that PL does not mean that it’s definitely parkland. Rampson replied that it’s very clear the land is being donated as parkland.

Outcome: Planning commissioners recommended rezoning the parcel to public land. The item will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Two students from Skyline High School, who are part of the school’s communication, media and public policy magnet, spoke during the first opportunity for public commentary, as part of a class assignment.

Sahr Yazdani, a student from Skyline High School, spoke during public commentary at the planning commission’s Feb. 20, 2014 meeting.

Sahr Yazdani said she wanted to give a speech about the Huron River Watershed Council. She recalled kayaking on the Huron River as a child, and noted that many others have similar experiences. Ann Arbor is fortunate to have an organization like the HRWC, which works hard to protect the river, she said. The organization has established programs to combat the devastating effects of harmful elements in the river, like phosphorus and e coli.

Yazdani highlighted the River Up program, which includes clean-up as well as recreational activities, and encourages communities along the river to make it a destination. It’s important to support River Up, she said.

Daniel Schorin continued speaking on this topic, calling the Huron River a tremendous resource. But we need to ask if we’re using the river to its full potential, he said. That’s where the “build up” component of the River Up program comes into play. In order to transform the river corridor into the center of the Ann Arbor community, the city needs to build development facing the river, not away from it. This means constructing trails, playgrounds, offices, hotels and other infrastructure facing the banks of the river, he said.

Other communities like Milford, Dexter and Flat Rock have already stated their commitment to making the Huron River a highlight of their downtown plans, with parks, buildings and festivals along the river, he said. And projects like the Huron River Art Trail will help attract tourists and stimulate the local economy.

As the city plans for new infrastructure, Schorin asked that they consider facing it toward the river, “so we can make the Huron River the forefront of the community once again.”

Communications & Commentary: North Main/Huron River Corridor

Sabra Briere reported that she’s recently had several conversations with people concerned about North Main Street and the Huron River. She noted that the high school students during public commentary had talked about River Up, including the view that new construction should be turned toward the river.

The concerns that she’s heard are about the report by the North Main Huron River corridor task force, and questions about when the planning commission is going to look at whether the parcels in that area are properly zoned. She’s heard from three different people who are interested in new developments along that corridor, and they’re interested in what kind of zoning might be put in place.

Briere said she knew the commission had a lot on its plate, but she wanted to bring up the topic as a reminder.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the project is on the commission’s work plan. She said commissioners have given higher priority to zoning revisions for the downtown and R4C districts, as well as a review of the citizens participation ordinance. [Planning commissioners had most recently discussed their work plan at a Jan. 7, 2014 working session.]

Rampson said the commission’s master planning committee could start taking a look at the North Main Huron River task force recommendations. The first step would be to take a detailed inventory of the parcels along that corridor, including the size and characteristics of each parcel. That information would be helpful in determining appropriate zoning, she said.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Planning manager Wendy Rampson told commissioners that the Burton Commons project will hold a citizen participation meeting for the proposed apartment project on Wednesday, March 5 from 6-8 p.m. in the Pittsfield Elementary School library, 2543 Pittsfield Blvd. The proposal – 80 apartments in five buildings, plus a clubhouse – would be located at 2559-2825 Burton Road, on the east side of Burton north of Packard. A previously approved site plan is in effect, but the developer now is proposing an addition to the plan – a sound wall that runs the entire length of the east property line, between US-23 and the apartment buildings. Because the sound wall will impact natural features, it will come forward to the planning commission for review.

Rampson also reminded commissioners that they’d met with a property owner at a September 2013 working session, regarding a proposal to build an indoor/outdoor tennis facility. That project is now moving forward, and the owner will hold a citizen participation meeting in the next few weeks.

Communications & Commentary: Environmental & Energy Commissions

As the planning commission’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, Kirk Westphal reported on a project from that group: a neighborhood mini-grant program. Volunteers would coordinate a competitive grant program for community groups, who could apply to fund projects that address one of the city’s goals in its sustainability framework. That’s in the planning stages, he said.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Matt Naud – the city’s environmental coordinator – said that environmental commissioner Susan Hutton is taking the lead on this project. She is trying to raise $10,000 in order to give out grants of $2,000 – one grant in each of the city’s five wards. The likely fiduciary is the nonprofit Ann Arbor Awesome. Naud said the effort is modeled on some small neighborhood grant programs in Seattle.

On Feb. 20, Westphal also gave commissioners copies of a resolution that the energy commission recently passed, and which the environmental commission will be taking a look at too. He said the planning commission’s executive committee will be discussing it. He did not mention the topic.

A copy of the handout was obtained by The Chronicle after the meeting. It supports a recommendation to hire a full-time employee to focus on projects that help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. [.pdf of resolution]

The one resolved clause states:

Resolved, City of Ann Arbor Energy Commission recommends that the Ann Arbor City Council direct the City Administrator to restore the second position as an FTE (full time equivalent) to create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets, reduce our community GHG emissions, provide economic benefit to our community and help to preserve our quality of life.

Communications & Commentary: Minutes

The Feb. 20 agenda included approval of planning commission minutes from last year – for the Nov. 19 and Dec. 3 meetings – as well as for the special meeting on Jan. 14, 2014.

Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and city council, reported that she’s heard concerns during public commentary time at city council that minutes of many city boards and commissions are very late getting to the council. [Minutes from the city's various boards, commissions and committees are attached to city council agendas.]

Briere encouraged that minutes of the planning commission be done in a timely fashion.

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

Absent: Ken Clein, Paras Parekh, Wendy Woods.

Next meeting: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline, south of Stapp Nature Area.

Based on advice from the city staff, the planning commission recommended rezoning the donated parcel from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land spans from Traverwood Drive and to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. The additional land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals by the city council on Jan. 6, 2014. The council will  also need to approve the rezoning of the donated land.

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

The red circles indicate the general locations of the parcels that the Ann Arbor planning commission was asked to consider for rezoning at its Aug. 7, 2013 meeting. Other colors designate various zoning categories. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor mapped in Google Earth.)

The planning commission heard a request to rezone 3325 Packard from R1C (single-family dwelling) to R2A (two-family dwelling) – and voted unanimously to deny that request. A house had burned on the lot, which sits at the corner of Fernwood and Packard. The economics of rebuilding a single-family house and trying to sell or rent it out weren’t realistic, owner Steve Weaver told the commission.

A duplex, Weaver argued, could help stem the commercial creep coming from the west at Packard and Platt, and provide a “thumb in the dike” to preserve the residential character of that stretch.

But planning commissioner Bonnie Bona reflected the view of commissioners and planning staff that the decision was a “no-brainer” in the context of the city’s master plan, which clearly designates the area for single-family houses. They were reluctant to engage in “spot zoning.”

In voting unanimously to deny the rezoning request, commissioners encouraged Weaver to work with neighboring property owners with the idea of bringing forward a request to rezone an entire blockface.

Weaver has said he will exercise his option to make his rezoning request directly to the city council, even without the planning commission’s support.

The other rezoning request on the commission’s Aug. 7 agenda was to designate some city-owned property on 3875 E. Huron River Drive as PL (public land). The move was characterized as a housekeeping step for the planning commission. During the public hearing on the question, one person addressed the commission indicating support, but with some concern about the range of activities that would be promoted there.

One idea mentioned at the meeting was the possibility that the parcel – sold to the city in 2010 by former U.S. Congressman Wes Vivian – could become the headquarters for the city’s natural area preservation program (NAP). Commissioners encouraged nearby residents to work with the park advisory commission (PAC) as that group helps decide the parcel’s eventual use within the park system.

The commission also heard remarks from the representative of a neighbor opposed to a requested land division on Traver Street. But the decision on that item will be made by planning staff, not the planning commission or the city council.

Single-Family to Duplex? (3325 Packard)

Commissioners considered a request to rezone 3325 Packard from R1C (single-family dwelling) to R2A (two-family dwelling).

Packard Road zoning map with the parcel proposed to be rezoned as a duplex in brighter yellow.

The owner, Steve Weaver, had requested the rezoning in order to build a duplex on the property, which is currently vacant.

The site is located at the northwest corner of Packard and Fernwood, in the Darlington subdivision.

A fire destroyed the single-family house there in April of 2012.

Planning staff had recommended that the zoning request be denied, because the city’s master plan calls for single-family detached housing in that area.

Single-Family to Duplex? (3325 Packard): Staff Report

The staff report was given by city planner Jill Thacher. She began by noting that the property is located on the north side of Packard Road on the northwest corner of Fernwood and Packard. She showed commissioners the current zoning map, noting that it is in the South Area in the Swift Run watershed. She described the lot as 11,958 square feet in size with a request to rezone it from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R2A (two-family dwelling district) so that a duplex could be built. The lot measures 68 feet × 175 feet and is currently vacant, she said. A single-family house previously stood on the lot, but was destroyed by fire in April of 2012, Thacher explained, so the lot is now vacant.

Thacher noted that the proposed rezoning would not result in any change in setbacks to the side, rear or front – because the setback requirements would be the same for both kinds of zoning district.

Aerial view of 3325 Packard, at the intersection of Fernwood.

She pointed out to commissioners that the neighborhood is predominantly an R1C-zoned area but as you move west down Packard Road, there is some office and commercial zoning. Directly across Packard is an R4 district, which is an apartment building, she said.

Thacher showed commissioners an aerial photo that still included the house that previously stood on the parcel, which had been destroyed by fire. Thacher described the majority of homes in the neighborhood as small, single-family houses. She allowed that there might be some duplexes among those houses but stated that they didn’t “stand out.”

Thacher noted that Packard Road is five lanes wide at this point: “It’s a big road.” She described Fernwood as very residential in character. Thacher showed the commissioners a possible building layout for such a duplex. She pointed out that there are several lovely shade trees that exist on the site. There’s also a driveway curb cut that exists, which served the house that burned down. A sidewalk is located along Packard, Thacher noted. She added that in whatever manner the parcel is developed, a sidewalk would need to be installed along Fernwood as well. A current photo of the parcel taken from the corner of Fernwood and Packard showed it to be a big grassy lot.

Thacher then quoted from Chapter 55 of the city’s zoning ordinance, saying that the zoning ordinance and zoning map shall not be amended except:

… because of a change in municipal policy, or because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the municipality generally, to rezone an area, extend the boundary of an existing Zoning District or to change the regulations and restrictions thereof.

Thacher pointed out that in response to a set of staff questions asked of the property owner, asking for explication of any change or changing conditions, Steve Weaver had indicated that there were not any. Thacher observed that public services city staff had indicated that connection fees would be charged with any new building permits for the site.

Thacher summarized planning staff commentary by saying that the city’s master plan recommends a single-family residential use for this parcel and everything surrounding it on the north side of Packard Road. The area consists of small and moderately sized single-family homes, including those fronting on Packard Road.

Packard Road was characterized by Thacher as a neighborhood boundary, and she did not consider the land uses on the south side of the road to be very influential on the north side of the road. Packard Road, Thacher said, is five lanes wide – so it’s a real boundary. Land uses on the south side, she said, are not hugely influential on the existing block of single-family homes on the other side. The master plan supports only single-family use, she continued, and neither the staff nor the petitioner had observed any change or changing conditions in the neighborhood. And for those reasons, she concluded, the staff did not support the proposed rezoning from R1C to R2A.

Single-Family to Duplex? (3325 Packard): Public Hearing

A neighbor who lives next to the property appeared before the commission to say there were trees on the parcel, with branches that were touching the roof of her house. She said she wanted the property owner to trim the branches. The owner, Steve Weaver, told her that he was happy to take care of the trees.

Steve Weaver distributes photographs of the 3325 Packard Road area to planning commissioner Paras Parekh.

Weaver distributed some photographs of the area to the planning commissioners – saying that he felt the staff’s photos were also quite good.

Scott Betzoldt, with Midwestern Consulting, led off the presentation on behalf of Weaver. He noted that there had been an existing house on the property – an older house that had burned down a couple of years ago. He characterized it as a modest house. It had been condemned after the fire, and was not able to be rebuilt.

Betzoldt noted that Packard Road is very busy and it’s not very attractive as a site for a single-family dwelling. It doesn’t really provide an attractive option for someone who wants to purchase a single-family home and raise a family there, he said. The reality of the finances is that building a new home in that area cannot command enough rent to justify the cost of rebuilding. They had looked at various options, including some that were more dense than a duplex, but ultimately had settled on requesting the rezoning as a duplex.

In the area there are already duplexes, Betzoldt observed. The lots are not zoned for duplexes, but they are grandfathered in as a duplex use. There is even a duplex that is just two doors down, which is an operating and legal duplex, he said. At the citizens participation meeting, he continued, neighbors had told them that there were several other operating duplexes in surrounding blocks. So Betzoldt said he did not think it was “a stretch” in this situation to rezone the parcel for a duplex. It might be more attractive for someone who is not looking to maintain a yard but who simply just wants to live in Ann Arbor in affordable, new construction.

A new structure would be an asset to the neighborhood, Betzoldt said. Adding a new structure would be a positive addition, he said – but if the lot sits vacant, it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. A duplex would be a very positive addition, he contended. He also noted that the area had changed, working east from the corner of Platt and Packard. Those single-family houses had been converted to commercial or office uses. So the single-family houses on Packard were dwindling – for obvious reasons, he said.

Directly across the street there was R4A zoning and adjacent to that there is property zoned C3, with an operating apartment building. There is a C1 parcel, where a convenience store is located. Down the street there is an R4A apartment building. So he contended it was not out of character to have a duplex on the corner. A duplex is still single-family living – but with two families under the same roof. A modern duplex, he continued, looks like a large house. It doesn’t look like a motel.

From left: Property owner Steve Weaver and Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting.

Betzoldt showed the commissioners a possible footprint that had been loaned to him from an architect friend of his, for a stacked duplex – with two entrances that both looked like front doors. The attached garage would be accessible to one of the residents, and the detached garage would be available to the other resident. He contended that a duplex on the corner would be a good anchor for the neighborhood.

The property owner, Steve Weaver, followed Betzoldt’s remarks. He told the planning commissioners that he had grown up in Ann Arbor and thought of himself as an Ann Arborite, but just didn’t happen to live in the city today. He believed that if you try to build a single-family house on this particular lot and then sell it, then no one would really want to buy it – especially not a young family, because of the five-lane road that would be right in the front yard. So they’d come up with the idea of putting in a duplex – which would appear to be a single-family house when you drove past it. It would look like a standard home, Weaver said, but would provide the living quarters for two families.

Weaver also characterized the proposed duplex as a “cornerstone” that would keep other developers from buying up properties long Packard, converting the corridor to increasing commercial use. The encroachment was already taking place from the west, he noted. In the last year and a half, a new oriental grocery store had opened down the street, he said. If a brand-new unit were constructed like the proposed duplex, he continued, that would be a cornerstone to keep the area residential.

Weaver ventured that otherwise the parcel would sit vacant – because he saw no way to market a single-family house once it were constructed. So he asked and encouraged the planning commission to provide a positive recommendation, saying he felt it supported the city and city’s residents.

Single-Family to Duplex? (3325 Packard): Commission Deliberations

Bonnie Bona led off planning commission deliberations by noting that according to the letter of the master plan – which guides the planning commission on making recommendations like this – the decision seems like a “no-brainer.” The master plan calls for single-family housing and it’s currently zoned single-family, and the petitioner had not shown any compelling reason to change it, she concluded.

Bona was also concerned about spot zoning: “Our districts are to be districts, not single sites.” She empathized with the challenges associated with the site, however. She was not sure that planning commissioners had any tools available to address those challenges. But she wanted to know what the process would be for changing the master plan for the properties along Packard Road.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff responded to Bona by describing how the planning commission would need to put together a committee to look at that area of the city. All the abutting municipalities would need to be noticed that the city was contemplating changing a section of the master plan. There would be public meetings, a recommendation made to the city council, public comments, and the planning commission would eventually act on it. Bona confirmed with Thacher that once the master plan was changed, it would open the door to change the zoning.

Bona ventured that single-family small-footprint homes are not a growing market along Packard Road. She asked that planning staff start considering the question: What is an appropriate use along Packard Road? For her, the neighborhood was not defined by Packard Road, but rather by the back of the lots that lined Packard. When she is in the neighborhood, she said, the sites on Packard feel like they are a part of Packard Road. The neighborhood is behind that, she contended. She didn’t feel a strong connection between the houses on Packard Road and the neighborhood.

But Bona was not sure what the appropriate use is for those parcels. It could be office or commercial or multi-family, she ventured. She felt that a major road is a perfect place to put a buffer to the neighborhood. But she did not know what the appropriate nature of such a buffer should be in this particular case. She also said she did not foresee that the planning commission would put a study of small residential sites on its work plan in the very near future. So she was not sure where to go with that, saying that there were bigger issues around the city’s major corridors. But she concluded by saying that based on the master plan, she could not vote to recommend approval of the requested rezoning.

Both votes at the Aug. 7, 2013 planning commission were unanimous among the six commissioners present.

Paras Parekh asked for clarification about the contention that the parcel would not be attractive for the potential buyer of a single-family home. He wondered why it would be attractive to residents of a duplex. He didn’t understand the rationale for one versus the other.

Weaver explained that the difference related to the difference between owning a property and renting it. If you build a single-family home, the idea would be to sell it and have a family live there long term and raise their family there. A duplex would be more likely to be a rental – with people coming and going over time.

Given the cost of construction on the lot, and what would need to be done to meet code, it would be difficult to make a single-family home a profitable rental, Weaver explained. Originally they considered the idea that the best possible situation for the lot would be multi-family, but after talking to some of the staff, it appeared that would be really tough to get approval. But Weaver noted that there was a multi-family unit right across the street – so the duplex zoning would provide a nice buffer. They had opted to request something that was reasonable and in keeping with the city’s desire to keep it residential. The duplex option seemed like “somewhere in the middle,” Weaver said.

Parekh ventured that the issue was less about the experience of living there and more about the economics of building in that particular part of the city. Weaver allowed that was the case – pointing out again that the parcel was on a five-lane road – and it was tough to imagine building and selling a single-family house there. He would have preferred a six-plex, he said, but they had proposed a duplex as a compromise. Parekh came back to the idea that the actual argument that was being made was based on the economics of the situation.

Sabra Briere indicated she had the same problem that Bona had brought up – with spot zoning. She allowed that Weaver might be correct in that it would ease the pressure to convert the other single-family houses along the block to commercial or office uses – but Briere pointed out it would increase the pressure to convert them to duplexes. And that is also something that does not – today, in any case – fit the master plan, she noted. The master plan reflects community values, Briere said, very strongly. That can change, she allowed, as the plan is updated about every five years.

Briere told Weaver that he had gotten himself into a problem, because it’s difficult to justify spot zoning. Weaver indicated he understood the concern about spot zoning. But he ventured that duplex zoning for this parcel would amount to being the “thumb in the dike.” It would help and support the residence as well as the city. Once a duplex is built and becomes a rental property, he said, that’s additional tax revenue to the city. If you multiply that over many years, that’s a lot of revenue to the city as well as support to the local residents.

Wendy Woods also indicated she was concerned about spot zoning. She understood the Weaver’s dilemma, but she took issue with the idea that Bona had expressed – that the houses along Packard Road were not part of the neighborhood to their rear. For those families who live along Packard Road, it is their neighborhood, she contended. She understood the economic challenges, but said that’s not the planning commission’s purview. The planning commission is guided by the master plan, she continued, and she’d not heard anything to convince her that the zoning should be changed at this time. She ventured that Weaver was “between a rock and a hard place.” But she would not support approving the rezoning.

Diane Giannola asked about a question raised at the citizens participation meeting. She asked what would happen if the lot were split. Thacher explained that the lot could not be split right now because it doesn’t meet the minimum lot size in that zoning district for both lots. It would have to be rezoned to R1D. That type of zoning has a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size, which could fit two lots on that site.

Kirk Westphal indicated that he would echo the sentiments expressed by other commissioners. When proposals like this are brought to the planning commission, it helped alert the commission that there could be areas of concern that needed to be addressed. However, the planning commission had an obligation to uphold the master plan, he said. So he would find it difficult to support rezoning a single parcel. Westphal inquired about a relatively recent neighborhood-initiated rezoning, which had been to downzone an area. He wondered if a neighborhood-initiated effort could also undertake an upzoning in a particular area.

Thacher ventured that Westphal might have been thinking of a council-initiated rezoning effort on Golden Avenue. Planning manager Wendy Rampson confirmed that residents in the Golden Avenue neighborhood had requested downzoning, and it had been initiated by the city council – from R4C to R2A. Rampson said that if Weaver was able to coordinate with other property owners in the area, and if there were a sense among the property owners that a whole blockface should be rezoned, that would be one approach to address the spot zoning question.

Briere asked for clarification: If the adjacent property owners along Packard Road were to request rezoning to duplex and if it were granted, would those property owners still be able to keep their current use? That is, would they have to set up duplexes? Thacher confirmed for Briere that they could maintain single-family use.

In response to a question from Westphal, Rampson noted that the planning commission had in the past made changes to the zoning map without making changes to the master plan. So the zoning map and master plan are not required to be altered in sync. But the city’s planning staff advised that any changes in the zoning map and master plan should be coordinated, she said.

Bona asked for confirmation that the existing duplexes in the neighborhood had not been created since the time that the land had been zoned. Bona also countered the thumb-in-the-dike argument by saying that as far as “creeping commercial” uses go, she felt that this would not happen – for the same reason that the planning commission was not comfortable rezoning this parcel for a duplex. The planning commission would have the same problem with rezoning properties to commercial.

Bona encouraged Weaver to talk to his neighbors. Weaver asked what his next logical step should be, saying that one of the neighbors he’d talk to had offered to be of assistance in any way he could. Westphal ventured it was a great question to pursue with the city planning staff.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the rezoning.

After the vote, Briere reminded Weaver to trim the tree touching the neighbor’s roof, as he said he would. And Weaver told The Chronicle after the meeting that he’d go ahead and ask the city council to rezone the property, even though the planning commission had recommended not to – which is the right of a petitioner.

Parkland Rezoning (E. Huron River Drive)

Planning commissioners considered a recommendation to rezone city-owned property at 3875 E. Huron River Drive from R1A (single-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The site, which is adjacent to the city’s South Pond nature area, will be used as parkland.

Map of land on East Huron River Drive to be rezoned as PL (public land), indicated with the arrow on the left. That parcel is on the north side of Huron River Drive. Farther to the east on the same side of the road is the loop of Thornoaks Drive.

The property was acquired by the city in 2010, but a “life estate” was in place until earlier this year, according to a staff memo. The two-acre site – located on the north side of E. Huron River Drive and west of Thornoaks Drive – includes a single-family home. The land overlooks South Pond.

City assessor records show that the property was previously owned by the Elizabeth Kaufman and Wes Vivian trust.

At its Sept. 8, 2009 meeting, the city council approved the purchase of the property, allocating $636,000 from open space and parkland preservation millage, which is used for greenbelt and parkland purchases. Of that total, $600,000 was designated for the purchase price, with the remainder used for closing costs, a property survey and Phase I environmental site assessment. The deal closed in 2010.

A staff memo prepared for the council in 2009 described the site’s future use as “passive recreation”: “The property would be suitable for a picnic area and possibly a picnic shelter. As water and sewer are already on the site, a restroom structure could be constructed as well. The site would provide boaters with access to South Pond.”

Parkland Rezoning (E. Huron River Drive): Staff Report

Planning manager Wendy Rampson gave commissioners an orientation to the physical location of the parcel, noting that there is city parkland to the south of the site – the South Pond nature area. Beyond the pond to the west lies the Huron Hills golf course, she noted. She reported that Wes Vivian and his wife had worked with the city in 2009 to sell the property to the city, and the city had closed the deal in 2010.

Aerial view of 3875 E. Huron River Drive.

Right now the property is vacant, and the city is considering the use of the former home on the site, Rampson indicated. There’s been some discussion that it might become the headquarters for the natural area preservation (NAP) program or a recreational facility, she said, adding that no decisions had been made. But the rezoning would make clear that the parcel is now part of the park system through the public land designation.

Rampson told planning commissioners that it was similar to other rezonings to PL (public land) that had come before the commission, as the city cleaned up the zoning map.

Parkland Rezoning (E. Huron River Drive): Public Hearing

Ariel Nicolaci – a nearby resident on Thornoaks – told commissioners he had nothing against the designation of the parcel as public land. He thought it was a good thing. But he had a question: What kind of activity could happen on the land? He wanted to know, for example, if people would be able to rent canoes, or if it would be a camping site, which might draw a lot of people into a fairly confined area. That could generate more traffic, which would require more parking, he ventured. He valued living in the area because of its quiet, peaceful nature. He suggested that it would be helpful to improve the bike lane and pedestrian amenities along the parcel.

Sabra Briere indicated that she fully supported the rezoning. She knew Wes Vivian, and knew how much he and his wife had wanted the land to become part of the city’s parks system. She agreed with Nicolaci, however, saying that the use of the parkland was completely unknown. It’s unknown because it’s not planned yet, she said. When the city acquires land for a park, people always want to know how it’s going to be used, but the city doesn’t always have a specific plan for that, she explained.

The best thing that residents can do, Briere said, is to work with the parks staff to talk about the current uses in that area and what needs to be improved. Discussing issues like paths along Huron River Drive is one of those things that should be talked about, she said. Huron River Drive is not a wide or a fast road but it has no shoulders in some places – and riding a bike along there is a little scary, she ventured.

Kirk Westphal got clarification that for the planning commission, this was essentially a housekeeping item. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that the park advisory commission (PAC) would be the group that will be thinking with staff about the use of the property. So she encouraged the residents to work with the Thornoaks neighborhood association. Whenever a park is planned, even if it is just a playground, public engagement is part of that process, Rampson said. Neighbors are consulted about potential uses and design. She offered some assurance that when things get to that point, there would be communication between the park advisory commission and the neighbors. She again encouraged people to work with their neighborhood associations so that they could, as a group, work with the city.

Rampson thought the discussion would happen in the next year, because the city now has access to the home. Paras Parekh got clarification about the procedure. Rampson indicated that what had precipitated the requested rezoning action was the fact that the house is now accessible and available to the city. If you have a structure, she said, it’s not good for it to sit vacant without a plan for how to make sure that it’s maintained. [Wes Vivian has moved out of the residence, according to Rampson.]

Westphal asked for clarification about what a “life estate” is. Was it a common tool for acquiring property? Rampson indicated that it was not especially common for the city to acquire property in this manner. But she noted that the state and federal government have acquired various properties over time in the northern part of the state, and there are people who own homes or cottages that they are allowed to use as long as they are alive. But when they pass away or if there is some exchange within the family, then it gets turned over to the purchasing entity – the state or federal government.

She noted that in the northern part of the state, a lot of homes fit that category. Typically the city of Ann Arbor acquired vacant land, not occupied land, for the park system. But the owners of the land had been longtime supporters of the city park system, Rampson said, and in this case they had felt strongly that the land should go to the park system.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning of the parcel to PL (public land).

Land Division: Traver Street

A notice had been published about a property owner request to divide the 0.36 acre parcel at 1643 Traver Street to create a buildable, single-family lot to the north of the existing single-family dwelling located in Ward 1. The land division does not require a planning commission or a city council vote. But it does require public noticing.

During general public commentary time, Mark Merlanti introduced himself as the attorney for Igor Kriz and Po Hu, who live at 1639 Traver – adjacent to the land that’s proposed to be divided. They had received a notice of a proposed property division. They are out of the country right now, which is why he was there, Merlanti explained. They had retained him as legal counsel because their neighbor had approached them through a letter about the boundary of the property. The letter had not mentioned the issue of the petition for a land division. He wondered why the neighbor would ask that a survey be done two years after they bought the property. In the context of the proposed land division, he now understood the land survey.

Attorney Mark Merlanti talked with city of Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson before the Aug. 7 meeting started.

Merlanti contended that the character of the property could not afford the division. He had looked at the ordinances for Ann Arbor and the state statutes, saying that the state land act has the size width and depth requirements that local ordinances could change. There is also a section that indicates the local standards can take into account topographical and physical conditions. He’d spoken with city planner Chris Cheng, Merlanti continued, who had referred him to specific parts of the city code. He did not know if the resulting size of the two parcels would allow the land to be divided and still fit within the ordinance. If it doesn’t, then he believed that the matter stops there.

If it does result in adequately-sized parcels, then his clients’ position is that the character of the Traver Street neighborhood does not promote this kind of split. He’d visited the neighborhood and characterized it as an eclectic area. He characterized the land as “severely sloped” on the part of the parcel that does not contain the house right now. Those are the reasons that his clients are opposed to the land division.

At the end of the meeting, Bonnie Bona asked for some additional clarification from the planning staff on the land division item that was included in the packet. She asked if a land division is possible, if the resulting parcel was not buildable. She felt that’s what Merlanti had been suggesting by citing the steep slope.

Rampson told Bona that the state statute indicates very clearly that simply dividing the parcel does not guarantee that it is buildable. When the state law was amended a number of years ago, she continued, it removed most of the discretion for local governments on land divisions. The city could look at depth-width ratios and zoning minimums and make sure that the parcel had access to the street and utilities.

Even if it looks like it would not be a buildable site, if it meets the city standards then the city is obligated to approve the request, Rampson said. Bona asked if the city planning staff had reviewed the issue yet. Rampson indicated that this was in process and was being circulated among staff for comments right now. Jill Thacher is the planning staff member who is working on it, Rampson explained. Based on the zoning review, the proposed land division meets the zoning requirements, Rampson indicated.

Outcome: This was not a voting item for the planning commission.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods, Paras Parekh.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein, Jeremy Peters.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Aerial view of 3875 E. Huron River Drive.

The property was acquired by the city in 2010, but a “life estate” was in place until earlier this year, according to a staff memo. The two-acre site – located on the north side of E. Huron River Drive and west of west of Thorn Oaks Drive – includes a single-family home. The land overlooks South Pond.

City assessor records show that the property was previously owned by the Elizabeth Kaufman and Wes Vivian trust.

At its Sept. 8, 2009 meeting, the city council approved the purchase of the property, allocating $636,000 from open space and parkland preservation millage, which is used for greenbelt and parkland purchases. Of that total, $600,000 was designated for the purchase price, with the remainder used for closing costs, a property survey and Phase I environmental site assessment. The deal closed in 2010.

A staff memo prepared for the council in 2009 described the site’s future use as “passive recreation”: “The property would be suitable for a picnic area and possibly a picnic shelter. As water and sewer are already on the site, a restroom structure could be constructed as well. The site would provide boaters with access to South Pond.”

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

The portion of the parcel that’s subject to the rezoning has an easement requiring public access; that easement will remain. The project is located at 1300 N. Maple on a 1.39-acre site. The portion of the parcel that’s subject to the rezoning request is a path that circles the property along the east and north sides. [.jpg of drawing showing the property and the portion to be rezoned]

Approval of the site plan and the initial approval of the rezoning for the gas station had come at the council’s Sept. 4, 2012 meeting. The recommendations for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission came at that body’s July 17, 2012 meeting.

At the council’s Sept. 4 meeting, city planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that by looking through the city’s files, planning staff had not been able to determine why the portion of the parcel had been zoned PL in the first place. Every era has its own set of practices, she said. She felt it’s possible that planning staff at the time thought that the PL zoning would send a message that the property was to be used by the public, which is consistent with the easement requiring public access. Rampson said the city does things a bit differently now. She said if the council chose not to approve the rezoning, it wouldn’t change anything on a practical level. But she felt that it’s “cleaner” to make it clear that the land is owned by the private property owner and that maintenance is the responsibility of the owner.

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

The resolution would have directed city administrator Steve Powers to evaluate the parcel at 350 S. Fifth for possible public or corporate use; and if none was found, to report back to the city council with a timeline for the disposition of the property – based on state and city laws and policies. That parcel is more commonly known as the Fifth and William parking lot (because it’s currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system) or the Old Y Lot (because it’s the location of the former YMCA building).

The resolution’s sponsor, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), has frequently raised the issue of the ongoing interest payments associated with the loan used by the city to purchase the property from the YMCA for $3.5 million back in 2003. The council voted in 2008 to extend the five-year loan with the Bank of Ann Arbor for another five years, through the end of 2013. The interest rate is 3.89%. The interest-only payments work out to roughly $140,000 a year. By 2013, the total interest paid will be around $1.4 million. When it was condemned, the cost of demolishing the old YMCA building and abating asbestos was around $1.5 million. The DDA covered the demolition costs and has covered half the interest payments. So the total amount of Ann Arbor governmental investment in the property is at least $6.4 million.

Part of the reason the resolution did not generate enough traction on the city council to pass is that it stipulated that the city administrator’s efforts were to be independent of the DDA’s Connecting William Street planning effort, which includes the 350 S. Fifth parcel. It received support only from Kunselman, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

The Connecting William Street project was undertaken by the DDA based on a directive from the city council, on a unanimous vote, given at its April 4, 2011 meeting. Kunselman voted for that planning effort to take place – but was also vocal at the time, as well as before, about his view that the Old Y lot should simply be put up for sale one way or another.

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

And at its Aug. 20, 2012 meeting, the council took another step toward conversion of the land to city property – by giving initial approval to zone the property as PL (public land). Because a rezoning is a change to the city’s ordinances, the change will require a second council vote after a public hearing at a future meeting.

The 2011 taxes on the property were estimated at $1,400, which will be eliminated from the city’s tax base. The parcel is expected to be used to expand the community center’s programming services. It could also be used in other ways in support of the city’s parks and recreation system.

During her staff report given to the city planning commission on June 5, 2012, city planner Alexis DiLeo said the property contains a single-family home that will be used by the community center to expand its operations. Eventually, the center would like to renovate the interior and build an addition to connect the two buildings, she said. The center is managed under contract with the nonprofit Community Action Network.

The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the rezoning at its June 5 meeting.

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

This land was recently purchased for $82,500 using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage – a purchase approved by the Ann Arbor city council at its Sept. 6, 2011 meeting. It’s located next to the city’s Bryant Community Center.

The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for its consideration.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers of city hall at 301 E. Huron, where planning commission meetings are held. A more detailed report will follow: [link]