Any specific ordinance changes would require separate review by the planning commission and approval by the council. That process is likely to take several months, at least. [.pdf of staff report and R4C/R2A recommendations]

The R4C/R2A recommendations were made by the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC), informed by an advisory committee that had made a separate report last year. Planning commissioners had been briefed on the recommendations at their April 9, 2013 working session. [See Chronicle coverage: "R4C Draft Readied for Planning Commission."]

Eight people spoke during a public hearing on the recommendations, including several who’d been involved in the R4C/R2A advisory committee. They raised a variety of concerns primarily related to lot combinations, parking requirements, and a proposed “group housing” district.

Related to lot combinations, several speakers urged commissioners to institute a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet, equal to an allowable density of three units. This had been a recommendation of the advisory committee, in an effort to prevent projects like the large City Place apartment buildings on South Fifth Avenue.

In contrast, the planning commission’s recommendations call for more flexibility in combining lots, but don’t yet provide a lot of detail about how that approach would work. In general, lot combinations would require planning commission approval as part of a project’s site plan review. Review standards will still need to be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood.

The proposed group housing district was another point of concern for speakers during the public hearing. ORC recommended designating a new zoning district, located south and west of the University of Michigan’s central campus – an area outlined in the city’s Central Area Plan. [.pdf of Central Area Plan] The idea is to address issues that are somewhat unique to neighborhoods with a large amount of student housing.

In general, the approach is intended to allow for flexibility by putting limits on floor-area ratio (FAR) – with premiums provided in exchange for community benefits such as pedestrian-friendly and architectural design standards. For example, parking would be based on FAR, independent of the number of units in a structure. The recommendations call for details of this new district to be fleshed out in a second phase, after other ordinance changes are made that are seen as more straightforward.

Commissioners discussed the terminology for this proposed district, with some preferring the term “flexible housing” rather than “group housing,” which was the phrase used in the Central Area Plan. Commissioners appeared to reach consensus in directing Matt Kowalski – the city planner who’s taken the lead on this project – to clarify the group housing term as one that’s based on the Central Area Plan. Kowalski intends to make some other minor revisions to the draft report, based on feedback from commissioners, before forwarding it to the city council for consideration.

If the recommendations meet with approval from the council, the planning staff would then work with the city attorney’s office to develop specific ordinance revisions to implement the recommendations. Those ordinance changes would also be reviewed by the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee before being voted on again by the full planning commission and then the city council.

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

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, center, and Diane Giannola at the Dec. 27 meeting of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee. (Photos by the writer.)

The Dec. 27 meeting of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee was the latest in a long, politically fraught process of overhauling the city’s R4C/R2A zoning – with an eye toward encouraging density while preserving the character of the neighborhoods.

R4C allows for multiple-family residential dwellings, such as apartment buildings, while R2A zoning limits density to two-family residential structures. Although both types of zoning are being addressed, R4C zoning is receiving the most attention. That type of zoning classification – which allowed for the controversial City Place development on South Fifth Avenue – has been characterized by city planners as “broken,” and in 2009 the city council formed an advisory committee to study the issue. That group presented a final report in May of 2012 to the planning commission, with a set of recommendations and analysis.

Since then, planning commissioners who are members of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee have been reviewing the recommendations and talking through other possible changes as well.

On Dec. 27, ORC members met again, this time focusing on parking requirements. Generally, commissioners seemed to lean toward discouraging parking on site. But commissioner Bonnie Bona felt the advantage of keeping parking requirements is that the city can then offer incentives for property owners to satisfy the requirements without actually providing on-site parking – by including other alternatives on site, like covered bike parking, or by paying into a fund that would support the launch of programs like car-sharing, for example. Commissioner Diane Giannola expressed concern about the impact of parking on residential streets. She also noted that in general, some of these changes might not be appropriate for all neighborhoods that are zoned R4C.

Commissioners reached a consensus to explore linking the parking requirement to the square footage of a structure. The current approach links the parking requirement to the number of units in a structure. Also related to square footage, commissioners briefly recapped a previous discussion they’d had about a possible approach to accessory structures. The idea would be to encourage owners to fix up their accessory structures, by allowing them to renovate or replace the buildings – as long as the renovated or new structures conform to the same size as the existing structures, and are on the same location within the site. Commissioners expressed interest in allowing these structures to be used as accessory dwellings, acknowledging that the previous effort to do that – floated in the 1990s – was strongly opposed by some community members and never taken up by the city council.

These ideas for R4C/R2A zoning are still being developed and are not yet even in draft form. The ORC is working toward a goal of crafting a final set of recommendations for the full planning commission to consider, possibly in March. If the recommendations receive planning commission approval, the next step would be for city councilmembers to take action on specific ordinance changes.

R4C/R2A Zoning: Background

Appointed by the Ann Arbor city council, an R4C/R2A zoning district study advisory committee began working on the issue in December 2009. The committee’s appointment was in part a response to concerns related to the City Place project – which was planned to replaced several older houses with a large two-building apartment complex. The project has since been completed on South Fifth Avenue. Committee members were: Chuck Carver (rental property owner representative), Ilene Tyler and David Merchant (Ward 1 residents), Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2 residents), Ellen Rambo and Michele Derr (Ward 3 residents), Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4 residents), Ethel Potts (Ward 5 resident). Also on the committee were Jean Carlberg, who at that time served on the planning commission, and Tony Derezinski, who was a city councilmember at the time.

The advisory group completed a report that was presented to the planning commission earlier this year. Commissioners were briefed on the report at a May 2012 working session. [.pdf of advisory committee report. For a detailed background on the issues leading up to this current study – which dates back several decades – see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Group Weighs R4C/R2A Report."]

R4C and R2A zoning districts were established in the 1960s, and applied to existing neighborhoods – resulting in many parcels that did not conform to the zoning regulations. R4C allows for multiple-family residential dwellings, such as apartment buildings, while R2A zoning limits density to two-family residential structures. Most of the advisory committee recommendations relate to R4C districts.

The dark red areas are those locations that are zoned R4C in the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to Google Map)

The advisory committee’s report includes 10 recommendations, with accompanying analysis. [.pdf of recommendations] The major recommendations relate to: (1) rebuilding structures that don’t conform to existing zoning; (2) rezoning certain areas from R4C to R2A; (3) reducing minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths; (4) exploring the creation of zoning overlay districts; (5) revising density calculations; (6) revising parking standards; and (7) changing requirements for lot combinations. The report also recommended no changes to zoning for rooming houses or group housing (such as fraternities or sororities).

Aside from a general recommendation regarding non-conformance, the recommendations all relate to R4C districts.

In May 2012 – after the advisory committee report was presented at a planning commission working session – it was decided that the commission’s ordinance revisions committee would take a closer look at the report. The committee was to draft a set of recommendations to bring before the full planning commission. Members of the ordinance revisions committee are Bonnie Bona, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods. ORC meetings are open to any commissioner, however.

The planning commission’s fiscal 2013 work program, approved by commissioners in June of 2012, set a target of December 2012 as the completion date for R4C/R2A recommendations. That target date has shifted to March of 2013, when recommendations are to be brought to a full planning commission meeting. Commissioners would then vote on recommendations that would be forwarded to the city council for final action. Due to the controversial nature of the issue, it’s likely that further changes would also be made by the council.

The Dec. 27 meeting was attended by city planner Matt Kowalski, who’s the staff point person for the R4C/R2A project, and planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola and Kirk Westphal. Westphal participated via speakerphone.

Accessory Structures

The Dec. 27 ORC meeting began with a recap of ideas regarding an approach to accessory structures, which commissioners had discussed at a previous committee meeting on Dec. 10. City planner Matt Kowalski said that after the Dec. 10 meeting, he’d walked through some of the R4C neighborhoods west of State Street to assess the status of accessory structures in that area – including garages and other detached out-buildings.

Kowalski noted that there are quite a few of these buildings, and he estimated that 75% of them aren’t usable at this point – owners just haven’t torn them down.

Kirk Westphal, the planning commission’s chair, asked for clarification about the previous discussion. Kowalski explained that the idea that had been discussed was to encourage owners to fix up their accessory structures, by allowing them to renovate or replace the buildings – as long as the renovated or new structures conform to the same size as the existing structures, and are on the same location within the site.

Diane Giannola noted that this would provide a way for people to have accessory dwellings, where people could live, or to use as a place for parking their vehicles.

An accessory structure in the back of a house on the city’s Old West Side.

By way of background, the issue of accessory dwellings has been a controversial one in Ann Arbor. The planning commission has looked at the issue several times, including a major effort in the late 1990s. The planning commission at that time brought forward recommendations that received major pushback from some members of the community, and mayor John Hieftje ultimately did not bring the recommended changes to the council for consideration. The forcefulness of that opposition is typically noted by anyone who has raised the issue since then.

Currently, the only kind of accessory dwellings allowed in Ann Arbor must be attached to the principal dwelling and be less than 600 square feet. Other requirements include: (1) the principal dwelling must be owner-occupied; and (2) the occupant of the accessory apartment must be a relative of the owner. An available special exception use for accessory apartments has been sought only two times since it was added to the zoning regulations for residential properties in the 1980s.

At the Dec. 27 ORC meeting, planning commissioner Bonnie Bona said these secondary structures already have “spatial preference” within the neighborhood, so it would be a way to allow an existing accessory unit to be used. Kowalski added that now, the structures are just taking up space and most of them are used as storage, with “crap piled up in there.”

Bona said she suspected that very few of the structures could be saved. But she noted that the important piece of any ordinance change would be to require any new buildings to be the same size that’s currently on the site, in the same location. The structures have a smaller footprint and lower height than the main buildings that are in R4C districts, and are typically in the back yard.

Kowalski pointed out that moving this issue forward would require revisiting the accessory dwelling unit debate of the 1990s.

Parking Requirements

The main focus of the Dec. 27 meeting was on parking requirements in the R4C/R2A zoning districts. Matt Kowalski began by reviewing the recommendations of the advisory committee.

From The Chronicle’s report on the advisory committee recommendations:

Currently, the same number of parking spaces – 1.5 spaces per unit – are required, regardless of how many bedrooms are in each unit. It was felt that this approach encourages developers to put more bedrooms per unit, [Matt Kowalski] said. Committee members and public participation indicated a strong desire to encourage a mix of different number of bedrooms per unit, so a graduated scale of parking requirements is recommended.

Recommendation: Adopt a graduated scale of calculating required parking based on unit type (above), increasing parking requirements as number of bedrooms in units increase. The Advisory Committee also recommends investigating an off-site parking storage concept and other alternative parking methods.

The recommendation calls for keeping the same parking requirement – 1.5 spaces per unit – for units with 0-4 bedrooms, but increasing the requirement to 2 spaces per unit for units with 5-6 bedrooms.

The 2011 draft report had recommended a more fine-grained parking requirement, corresponding to the three recommended unit types: 0.5 spaces for each 0-2 bedroom unit; 1 space for each 3-4 bedroom unit; and 2 spaces for each 5-6 bedroom unit.

According to the final report, a majority of committee members felt that the parking requirement shouldn’t control a building’s site design, and that open space shouldn’t be converted to parking in order to meet the requirement. But some committee members expressed concern about ensuring adequate on-site parking. The report states that the committee also recommends that parking requirements be studied further, in conjunction with all the other R4C recommendations.

In recapping the recommendations on Dec. 27, Kowalski characterized the advisory committee as being unable to come to a consensus about parking. “Some wanted more parking, some wanted less,” he said. But he added that no one wanted to completely eliminate parking requirements.

Bonnie Bona wanted to explore the argument in favor of not having a parking requirement, even if the committee ultimately doesn’t make that recommendation. She said she intuitively knew why, but needed to work through how to articulate the reasoning.

Diane Giannola noted that if there are no parking requirements, then that’s incentive for housing targeted at undergraduates. Even if you are a graduate student or young professional who walks to school or work, you still own a car, she said. So by eliminating the parking requirement, Giannola reasoned, those neighborhoods would become more focused on undergraduate housing.

Bona disagreed, saying that even if the city doesn’t require parking, the landlords could still provide it if they wanted to market their properties to graduate students or young professionals.

Giannola clarified she wasn’t necessarily opposed to eliminating parking requirements, but she had concerns about the impact on neighborhoods. Almost all residents have cars, she said, even if they don’t drive it every day.

Parking Requirements: Other Options

Bona identified one advantage of having parking requirements: That the city can then give developers some options to provide instead of parking. If there are no parking requirements, that’s not possible. “If we take it away, we don’t get anything for it,” she observed. Westphal agreed, saying it was something to use as a carrot for providing other things that the city might want.

Bona pointed to the city’s payment-in-lieu-of-parking for the downtown development districts as an example of that. Developers can buy out of the city’s on-site parking requirement by paying for parking permits within the city’s parking system. Most recently, the proposed residential development at 624 Church St. in downtown Ann Arbor – a 13- or 14-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds – was granted the payment-in-lieu option by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The developer will be able to provide 40 spaces of required parking by contracting for the spaces in the public parking system, instead of building the spaces on site as part of the project.

Ann Arbor city planner Matt Kowalski.

Bona also supported a more holistic approach. If the city eliminates parking, then other transportation sources need to be provided at the same time. The city has buses and bike racks, she said, and services like Zipcar. But the big element that’s missing is a car-sharing program, she said. It’s only being done experimentally in other places – that is, the concept of a private individual being able to rent out their car. That kind of approach needs to be integral to whatever zoning changes are made, she said, because we live in a community where grocery stores aren’t very close to residential areas. “Parking in lieu might help pay for getting something like [car-sharing] going.”

Commissioners discussed the difference between Zipcar, a private company that offers a membership-based car rental service, and car-sharing programs, in which individuals rent out their own vehicles. It’s like a ride board, Bona explained – except that instead of giving someone a ride, “you let them use your car.” She said there are only a couple of cities that had such programs on an experimental basis, including Portland, Oregon.

Kowalski thought it was an idea worth exploring. But he noted that if the parking requirement is reduced based on someone’s participation in Zipcar or another car-sharing program, then the city has to monitor that participation. “And what happens if they drop out?”

Tandem parking and car elevators were other ideas mentioned during the meeting, as was the possibility of remote parking lots where owners could rent spaces for long-term parking. Kowalski noted that if remote parking involved privately-owned lots, it would be difficult to include that incentive in zoning regulations.

Westphal pointed to the city’s goals of reducing carbon emissions and encouraging alternative transportation. He said those goals would be more likely achieved if there are fewer cars in the neighborhoods. Eliminating parking requirements would be one way that the city could work toward that.

Bona urged her colleagues to watch a recent TED talk regarding the effects of “nudging” – encouraging slight changes in behavior that have dramatic impacts. [TED stands for technology, entertainment and design, and the 18-minute lectures at its conferences – known as TED Talks – are focused on what organizers call “ideas worth spreading.” Bona was referring to a September 2012 talk by Jonas Eliasson that focused on changing driver habits to alleviate traffic congestion. The concept of nudging was also addressed in a 2009 TED talk by Sendhil Mullainathan, titled "Solving social problems with a nudge."]

Bona felt that Ann Arbor could provide a nudge by keeping a parking requirement in R4C districts – either the current requirement or a new one that the advisory committee recommended. But in addition, the city could make premiums available so that property owners could avoid the parking requirement.

In addition to Zipcar and car-sharing, there are also ride-sharing programs offered by companies like Zimride and GreenRide, Bona said. Currently, Zimride and GreenRide are only offered to people affiliated with the University of Michigan. She said she’d support exploring how to expand those ride-sharing programs to the rest of the community, too.

Kowalski wondered why more people didn’t use taxis. There was some discussion about the cost, and Bona suggested inviting someone from the city’s taxicab board to talk to ORC members about those services. It was also worth learning more about other transportation alternatives, she said, like bus passes. ORC’s recommendations should include some analysis about what’s available and why it’s not being taken advantage of, she said.

Parking Requirements: Other Options – Bike Parking

Kowalski noted that Portland allows bicycle parking to substitute for up to 25% of required vehicle parking on a site. For every five non-required bike spaces, the motor vehicle parking requirement is reduced by one space. Portland allows existing parking to be converted to take advantage of that provision.

Bicycle lockers and hoops at the city’s Fourth and William parking structure. The city’s bike lockers are managed by the getDowntown program.

Bona felt that any credit given to a property owner for bike parking should be given only if the bike parking is covered – “and not those darn bike lockers.” She said she recently discovered a bike locker behind a large recycling bin at her workplace. The locker was “surrounded by lawn tools – you couldn’t get to it if you wanted to.” They also take up a lot of space and are ugly, she added.

Bona asked if the city’s planning intern could look into other options for covered bike parking. She suggested surveying University of Michigan students about what they wanted, and then incorporating that into the new R4C requirements. She said she could imagine that students might want indoor bike storage in an accessory structure – similar to the bike rooms that are part of some of the new apartment buildings in the city.

Kowalski noted that students probably would like bike storage that’s easy to access, with just a cover over the top. He reported that the bike room at the Landmark apartment building is nearly empty, while the bike hoops are entirely filled. Students in that building are so close to campus that they might not use the bikes as much, he said. Bona noted that the bike room at Liberty Lofts – a condo building on the Old West Side – is packed, but people there use their bikes primarily for recreation.

Westphal felt that a certain number of covered bike spaces should be required. Beyond that minimum, additional covered spaces could be part of a premium.

Parking Requirements: Floor Area Ratio

The conversation about parking requirements also touched on previous discussions that commissioners have had about premiums based on floor area ratio (FAR) in the R4C districts, as a way of encouraging density.

FAR – a measure of density – is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.

In D1 areas – city’s densest zoning district – there are no parking requirements, as long as the total floor area does not exceed 400% FAR. But if a developer wants to increase a project’s FAR, the city has a requirement of 1 parking space for each 1,000 square feet of additional floor area.

Bona said it might make sense to think of floor area ratios in R4C districts as “something to dip our toe in the water a little bit, and not get too crazy” – so that any changes wouldn’t result in a flurry of additions to existing structures. The idea is that renovations could be encouraged for existing small structures or those that are really dilapidated, “but not necessarily motivating every single property to make additions,” Bona said. She said she didn’t want to make structures bigger, but she did want to stop owners from building six-bedroom units.

Giannola said that if the city does try to incentivize add-ons or accessory structures, there needs to be some requirement for the front of structures to be renovated too. Westphal noted that that’s where premiums would come in – for example, an owner could get incentives for rehabbing a building or bringing it up to Secretary of the Interior standards.

Bona asked Westphal to clarify: Did he mean that there would be one standard FAR, then an owner could increase the FAR if renovation work was done to the front of a building? Yes, he replied – either use that as a premium tied to additional FAR, or tied to waiving a parking requirement on the site.

Kowalski said that any improvements should include the entire building, not just the front. Westphal noted the difficulty in defining what “improvement” means. Does that then lead into the issue of design? he wondered. One possibility would be to just have a checklist of items, he said, rather than a subjective evaluation.

Kowalski noted that in reviewing similar types of zoning for other cities, quite a few of them have general massing requirements – covering a building’s scale and shape – which Ann Arbor doesn’t have, he said. That would address many of the issues that arise in the R4C districts, he noted.

Massing requirements could cover areas like porches too, he added. For example, some massing requirements in other cities call for porches to cover at least 50% of the facade, and that porches had to be offset from the house, not inset into the building. “I think we could come up with something that could be done without becoming onerous to the staff, property owners or the general public who are trying to figure out what’s going on,” Kowalski said.

Westphal suggested that the city could reduce or eliminate parking on site in exchange for some design elements, renovations, and/or increased density – within certain constraints to height and other aspects of the building. Kowalski clarified that none of the committee discussions so far have touched the height limit in R4C districts. So height limits would remain unchanged, he said.

Related to height, Bona thought the issue of dormers should be addressed. [The City Place project, which included dormers on the two buildings, added to the building's height. It was argued that the large structures identified as "dormers" weren't actually dormers at all, but rather were a way to artificially lower the “eave” of the building. And that, it was contended, resulted in a calculation of the building's height that was lower than its actual height – which would have exceeded the city's height limit in that zoning district.]

Parking Requirement: Tied to Square Footage, Not Units

The current parking requirement is linked to the number of dwelling units are in a building – 1.5 spaces per unit. Westphal suggested that instead, the parking requirement could be linked to a building’s square footage. For example, the requirement could be expressed as one space per X square feet, similar to the way that parking requirements for commercial properties are calculated.

Kowalski said the square footage idea is interesting – saying it goes along with the idea of letting the market drive at least some of the parking availability. Then, as a premium to lower the amount of parking required on a site, a property owner could do certain things – like offer covered bike storage.

Bona noted that they were discussing two things: (1) providing a premium if the owner wanted a higher floor area ratio (FAR); and (2) providing a premium so that the owner could avoid the on-site parking requirement. The FAR premium could be tied to building renovations, she said, while the parking premium could be tied to bike parking or payment into an alternative transportation fund – to help pay for projects like a car-sharing program.

Commissioners agreed that they should run some scenarios to see how parking requirements would be calculated if linked to square footage, by looking at older buildings as well as some of the newer projects.

Parking Requirement: Residential Permits

Westphal asked about the advisory committee’s resistance to completely eliminating the parking requirement in R4C districts: Was that because they were concerned that there wouldn’t be enough on-street parking for residents and their visitors? He thought the city’s residential parking permit program might factor into the discussion.

A sign indicating permission for residential permit parking on West Washington Street.

Giannola wondered whether the city could require that if a property owner uses premiums to eliminate on-site parking, then they also couldn’t use a residential permit.

Kowalski related the advisory committee’s concern – that every student living in a building would bring a car, and if there’s no place on site to park, then students will take up parking on neighborhood streets. Westphal argued that the premise is false – contending that not every student has a car. He also noted that students can’t store cars on the street, because the law prohibits parking on a residential street for more than 48 hours. “That’s a matter of enforcement,” Westphal said.

Bona felt that street parking should be addressed in the R4C recommendations, and suggested that Kowalski gather information about how the residential parking permits are issued, and how compliance is enforced. She said it’s an open question as to whether street parking is migrating into adjacent neighborhoods that don’t have residential permits. If so, what can be done to address that?

By way of additional background, some of that information is available on the city’s website for residential parking permits. The residential parking permits are obtained by individuals who live in the area – regardless of whether they own or rent. The permits allow residents to park on neighborhood streets without being ticketed. That differs from the permits associated with large residential developments in the city’s downtown zoning districts (D1 and D2). For those projects, the developer must provide a certain number of parking spaces on site, or buy permits in the city’s public parking system.

Next Steps

It’s likely that the ORC will meet again in mid-January, though no meeting has been scheduled yet. Matt Kowalski intends to write up a summary of the group’s work so far, indicating areas of consensus on possible changes.

The committee will prepare recommendations to be brought to the full planning commission, possibly in March. At that point the commission would review the recommendations, hold a public hearing about the proposed changes, make additional revisions, and vote on recommending the changes to city council. Councilmembers would have the final say on any ordinance changes to the R4C/R2A zoning, with additional public hearings.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal (via speakerphone). Also: city planner Matt Kowalski.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to plan on doing the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Matt Kowalski, right, gives a report on recommendations from the R4C/R2A advisory committee at a May 8, 2012 work session of the Ann Arbor planning commission. Next to him is Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner and city council member who served on the advisory committee. To the left is Wendy Carman, an advisory committee member who took issue with some aspects of the final report. Two other committee members – Eppie Potts and Julie Weatherbee – attended the working session.

Both kinds of zoning districts were established in the 1960s, and applied to existing neighborhoods. R4C allows for multiple-family residential dwellings, such as apartment buildings, while R2A zoning limits density to two-family residential structures. Planning manager Wendy Rampson described the R4C zoning as “broken” –and most of the committee recommendations relate to R4C districts.

Concerns about R4C/R2A districts have been raised since at least the mid-1980s, and are tied to the question of how dense these areas can be. Although there were smaller projects that caused concern,  two more recent large housing proposals – The Moravian, and City Place – brought the issue to the forefront for people on both sides of the density debate.

In particular, the controversial City Place project on South Fifth Avenue, which combined multiple lots and demolished seven residential houses to build two apartment buildings, has been cited as an example of the need to address R4C zoning. City Place changes the streetscape of that neighborhood, but is analyzed as conforming to current zoning code.

The final committee report includes 10 recommendations, with accompanying analysis. [.pdf of recommendations] The major recommendations relate to: (1) rebuilding structures that don’t conform to existing zoning; (2) rezoning certain areas from R4C to R2A; (3) reducing minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths; (4) exploring the creation of zoning overlay districts; (5) revising density calculations; (6) revising parking standards; and (7) changing requirements for lot combinations.

Commissioners praised the work of the committee, but much of the discussion related to future process: What are the next steps to take, now that the report has been completed? It’s likely that the group’s ordinance revisions committee will tackle the job of making recommendations for specific ordinance language to implement the changes. Those ordinance revisions would then be reviewed by the planning commission, which would forward its recommendations to city council.

In terms of content, commissioners mostly focused on the idea of overlay districts, which would be a way of preserving the character of different, distinct R4C neighborhoods. Commissioner Bonnie Bona floated the concept of form-based code as an option. Described in a very general way, a form-based approach tends to be more proscriptive regarding the types of buildings that the community wants to see in a particular district, including their design. In contrast, traditional zoning typically sets an allowable range of uses, sizes, placements, and other aspects for a development, but generally leaves the details of those decisions to the developer.

It was generally acknowledged that either approach – form-based or one with overlay districts – would be a complex issue to tackle.

Three advisory committee members – Wendy Carman, Ethel “Eppie” Potts, and Julie Weatherbee – attended the May 8 session. Carman and Potts spoke during public commentary to amplify written comments they had provided as supplements to the report, expressing concerns that some aspects of the report don’t accurately reflect the committee’s views.

During the May 8 session, commissioners also were updated on the city’s sustainability goals, which they’ll be asked to vote on at their May 15 meeting. This report focuses only on the R4C/R2A portion of the working session.

R4C/R2A Zoning: Background

The city of Ann Arbor has undertaken several major initiatives to overhaul regulations related to development. Two of those  are completed: A2D2 (downtown zoning) and AHP (revisions to area, height and placement requirements). A third one, ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization), which is a comprehensive zoning code review, is wrapping up. The city council was briefed on a consultant’s report on ZORO at its May 14, 2012 working session.

Another major initiative has been the review of R4C (multiple-family residential dwelling) and R2A (two-family residential dwelling) districts, which were set up in the 1960s, The issue has been around since at least the mid-1980s. At that time, city planning staff conducted a review of the North Burns Park area, which ultimately led to a downzoning of that neighborhood to R2A from R2B – a zoning category that allows for group housing like fraternities and sororities. The sense at that time was that R4C districts were appropriate places for greater density and student housing.

That sentiment is reflected in the city’s central area plan, which was developed in the early 1990s and later incorporated into the city’s master plan. [.pdf of central area map] The central area plan included several recommendations related to zoning, but the planning commission at that time didn’t act on those proposed changes.

The issue emerged again a few years ago, when there seemed to be a change in attitude about whether R4C was still appropriate for certain areas in the city. In particular, residents in Lower Burns Park lobbied for rezoning of R4C districts to R2A or R1A (single-family houses). And in October of 2007, the council passed a resolution directing planning staff to explore rezoning in that neighborhood. According to reports in the Ann Arbor News, in late 2007 the planning commission recommended that only Golden Avenue be downzoned to R1D (single family) – a recommendation that the council approved on Feb. 19, 2008. Other parts of Lower Burns Park were not rezoned.

At that same Feb. 19, 2008 meeting, the council unanimously passed a resolution directing the planning commission and planning staff to do a more comprehensive review of residential zoning in the central area. However, no action resulted from that resolution. A nearly identical resolution was introduced a year later by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – which the council passed at its March 2, 2009 meeting.

The resolution identifies the rationale for undertaking this zoning review effort:

Whereas, the Central Area Plan, dated December 21, 1992, recommends four Implementation Program “Priority Action Strategies” as follows:

• HN1 – Analyze zoning nonconformities related to area, height and placement regulations for the Central Area neighborhoods and determine if amendments are needed to make the regulations more consistent with established development patterns;
• HN12 – Amend the zoning ordinance and map to clearly identify areas to be maintained or encouraged as housing;
• HN14 – Reinforce student neighborhoods in the area south and west of Central Campus by developing new zoning definitions and standards that support organized group housing opportunities;
• HP17 – Develop site design standards that encourage creative design while maintaining sensitivity for existing neighborhood character;

Whereas, The Non-Motorized Plan, dated December 6, 2006, provides guidance for land use and zoning to support walking, bicycling and transit;

Whereas, The Downtown Plan, amended December 1992, recommends in Section III to protect the livability of residentially-zoned areas adjacent to downtown;

Whereas, A majority of the lots in the residential districts in the Central Area are non-conforming due to lot size and lot width, and a significant number require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals to make modifications or additions to the existing non-conforming structures;

Whereas, The resolution of October 15, 2007 directing the City Planning Commission to review rezoning in the Lower Burns Park neighborhood revealed (through the staff report, public hearing, written public comments and Planning Commission discussion) the need to review the R2A and R4C zoning districts more comprehensively within the Central Area rather than one isolated neighborhood at a time;

Whereas, The City Planning Commission believes that modifications to the zoning and ordinance requirements for residential districts in the Central Area could enhance the livability of these neighborhoods for owner-occupants and renters through a comprehensive review and appropriate changes to the minimum lot size, minimum lot width, setback, density, building height, open space, parking, landscaping and possibly other site related issues; and

Whereas, The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission and City staff find ways to reduce the need for developers to utilize Planned Project development applications as a way to accomplish the City’s goal to ensure that development proposals are more sustainable and that all efforts involving changes to City Zoning regulations involve extensive public involvement …

That resolution led to the formation, in the summer of 2009, of an advisory committee that was charged with studying the R4C/R2A issue, getting input from the public and community stakeholders, and presenting recommendations to the planning commission and city council for possible changes in these zoning districts. The committee convened for the first time in December of 2009.

One of two apartment buildings in the City Place development on South Fifth Avenue, south of William. Walking in front on his way to the library is local attorney Kurt Berggren.

Underpinning discussions of changes to R4C/R2A is the question of how much dense these areas should be. Though there were smaller projects that caused concern, two large housing proposals in particular – The Moravian, and City Place – brought the debate to the forefront for people on both sides of the issue.

The Moravian, a five-story, 62-unit building proposed for the section of East Madison Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor, was ultimately rejected by the city council in April of 2010. It was proposed as a planned unit development (PUD), located in an area zoned R4C.

City Place is a “by right” housing project that was proposed in an R4C district on the east side of South Fifth Avenue just south of William. Approved by the council in September 2009, it called for tearing down several older houses and constructing two new apartment buildings. However, its developer, Alex de Parry, subsequently proposed a different project on that same site (Heritage Row) – which would have renovated the houses and built new apartment buildings behind them. That project, a planned unit development (PUD), was rejected by the council.

Earlier,  in in July 2009, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had proposed a moratorium in R4C/R2A districts, with the intent of halting the Moravian and City Place projects until the advisory committee work was completed. The moratorium was voted down at the council’s Aug. 6, 2009 meeting, though a different moratorium was approved at that same meeting. It applied to demolition only in a limited geographic area. It was the assigned area of study for a committee appointed by the council to weigh the possibility of establishing a historic district there – a two-block area just south of William Street on Fourth and Fifth avenues. The study committee recommended establishing a historic district in the area, but that recommendation was rejected by the council, and the moratorium expired.

Subsequently, de Parry sold his interest in the City Place development and the new owners moved ahead with that project – it is now well underway and is expected to be finished later this year. [Chronicle timeline of events related to the City Place project.]

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report

The planning commission had first been briefed on a draft report of the R4C/R2A committee at a June 2011 working session. At that time, planning staff had indicated that the committee had been unable to reach consensus on the recommendations, and  frustration about the outcome was expressed by two planning commissioners who had been appointed to the committee – Jean Carlberg and Tony Derezinski. [Carlberg's term on the planning commission ended on June 30, 2011 and she did not seek reappointment.]

Yet advisory committee members disputed the characterization that they couldn’t reach consensus, and continued to work on the report.

Since meeting for the first time in December of 2009, the committee has met a total of 11 times, and provided feedback and input via email and individual communications with planning staff. Opportunities for public commentary were provided during the committee meetings, and members of the group met with various stakeholders, including representatives of neighborhood associations, landlords, city boards and commissions, city rental housing inspectors, and students. An online survey was also emailed to all University of Michigan students, receiving more than 240 responses.

Some of the members of the R4C/R2A advisory committee at a November 2011 meeting.

Committee members are: Chuck Carver (rental property owner representative), Ilene Tyler and David Merchant (Ward 1 residents), Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2 residents), Ellen Rambo and Michele Derr (Ward 3 residents), Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4 residents), Ethel Potts (Ward 5 resident), Tony Derezinski (city council representative), Jean Carlberg (former planning commission representative). Anya Dale, who had previously served on the committee as a Ward 5 resident, was not listed in the final report.

The final report includes 10 recommendations, with accompanying analysis. [.pdf of recommendations] The major recommendations relate to: (1) rebuilding structures that don’t conform to existing zoning; (2) rezoning certain areas from R4C to R2A; (3) reducing minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths; (4) exploring the creation of zoning overlay districts; (5) revising density calculations; (6) revising parking standards; and (7) changing requirements for lot combinations.

The report also recommends no changes to zoning for rooming houses or group housing (such as fraternities or sororities).

Aside from a general recommendation regarding non-conformance, the recommendations all relate to R4C districts. The report did address R2A zoning, but noted that the issues for that zoning district were minimal. No changes to lot area, lot width, density or parking were proposed for R2A, though the committee suggested downzoning some current R4C districts to R2A.

City planner Matt Kowalski was the city staff point person for the R4C/R2A committee, and he briefed commissioners on the report at their May 8 working session. Three committee members – Wendy Carman, Ethel “Eppie” Potts, and Julie Weatherbee – attended the session. Carman and Potts spoke during public commentary to amplify written comments they’d provided as supplements to the report, expressing concerns that some aspects of the report don’t accurately reflect the committee’s views. Their remarks are reported below.

The report’s introduction ends with this caveat:

Due to the complexity and extent of the issues identified, the goal of the study was not to reach consensus on all issues, but rather to identify possible solutions based on majority opinion of the Advisory Committee. The draft recommendations below are the best effort at addressing the concerns of the Advisory Committee and the general public, and represent the majority opinion of the Advisory Committee.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Non-Conformance

The report’s first recommendation relates to zoning non-conformance. The fact that many structures don’t currently conform to R4C/R2A zoning was a big issue, Kowalsk told commissioners. As an example, existing zoning requires an 8,500-square-foot lot area, but 83% of parcels don’t meet that requirement, he said. Many of the current buildings were constructed before existing zoning standards, and are non-conforming – especially related to lot size and setbacks. If a building is destroyed, current ordinances would require that whatever is rebuilt would need to conform to existing zoning.

Most of the committee and the overwhelming public feedback were in favor of keeping the existing streetscape in R4C/R2A neighborhoods, Kowalski said. So the committee supported allowing buildings to be reconstructed, under certain conditions, with a similar size and dimensions as the original structure, even though the new building would not conform to zoning.

Recommendation: Chapter 55, Section 5:87 (Structure Non-Conformance) should be revised to allow reconstruction of non-conforming structures in R2A and R4C districts when construction meets all of  the following standards:

• Allow the ability to re-construct a structure if damaged due to fire, flood, or other calamity. Reconstruction should not be allowed in the case of voluntary destruction or demolition by neglect.
• Establish time limit (18 months) on how long after destruction the reconstruction of a non-conforming structure is permitted.
• Establish time limit (18 months) on building completion, once construction has started.
• Require that replacement structures must be of similar style, placement, massing dimensions of the original structure and character as the building before destruction.
• This section would apply to non-conforming structures only, and does not include non-conforming uses.

Two recommendations related to non-conformance that were in the original draft report presented at the June 2011 working session were subsequently removed, and are not in the final report:

• Allow non-conforming multiple-family structures to add units and floor area without ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals] approval, if the additional units or floor area is located within the existing building footprint. Additional units must meet density requirements; however structure can be non-conforming for lot area and setbacks.
• Allow for additions to existing multiple-family structures without ZBA approval if the addition complies with all setback and required open space standards for that district. This is currently permitted for single-family houses ONLY.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: R2A District

No significant changes were proposed for the R2A zoning districts. Many of the issues that arise in R4C districts aren’t a problem in R2A neighborhoods, Kowalski said. Aside from the non-conformance changes, the report does not recommend any changes to R2A lot area, lot width, density, setbacks or parking.

However, the committee does recommend that some areas now zoned R4C would be more appropriately zoned as R2A. [See R4C Rezoning section below.]

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: R4C Rezoning

Kowalski said the committee looked at recommendations from the city’s central area plan, which was adopted in 1992. Many things have changed over the past 20 years, he said, so those recommendations aren’t all applicable.

According to Chapter 55, Section 5:10.8 of the city’s zoning code (for multiple-family dwelling districts),  the R4C zoning is intended for the central area of the city, near to the central business district and the University of Michigan. However, there are some parcels outside of the central area that are also zoned R4C, Kowalski noted – along South State Street, for example. It wouldn’t be appropriate to apply some of the recommended R4C zoning changes to those parcels, so the report suggests downzoning those areas:

Recommendation: Select areas should be rezoned from R4C to R2A and additional study be given to other areas that could warrant rezoning based on current conditions. Large R4C parcels outside of the Central Area should be rezoned to a more appropriate zoning district.

The 1992 central area plan recommended that another specific area be rezoned from R4C to R2A – the  Hoover/Davis neighborhood. That recommendation was supported by the current advisory committee. [The previous draft report had also specifically recommended rezoning the Dewey/Packard/Brookwood area to R2A, but that reference is omitted from the final report.]

The final report notes that there might be other areas where rezoning should be considered, stating that “but more research is needed in order to determine where additional rezonings are appropriate based on a more detailed analysis of existing land uses.”

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report:  Minimum Lot Size/Lot Width/Setbacks

“This was a big one,” Kowalski told commissioners. The existing minimum lot size in R4C districts is 8,500 square feet, but 83% of parcels – 1,970 lots – are non-conforming for this requirement. The majority of these parcels are also non-conforming for lot width. The committee felt it was important to bring zoning closer to the established development in these areas.

Recommendations: Reduce the minimum lot size to 4,350 square feet for all parcels in R4C zoning districts. Require the minimum lot width requirement for existing original platted lots and reduce the minimum lot width to 40 feet if not an original platted lot. No changes to existing setbacks are proposed.

Kowalski noted that the current average R4C lot size is 6,052 square feet – but he said he did not include large church lots or UM property in his calculations of that average. The proposed recommendation would bring 875 lots into conformance. If the proposed revisions are implemented, 62% of R4C lots would conform to the minimum lot area requirement. [The draft report from 2011 had recommended a reduction of minimum lot sizes to 4,000 square feet for all parcels in R4C zoning district and elimination of the minimum lot width requirement.]

The final report’s recommendation not to change existing setbacks, which are 12 feet on each side, will help reduce the scale of new construction and prevent larger additions from being built closer to the property lines, according to the report. Existing setbacks could help preserve the scale and massing of existing streetscapes, the report states.

The report notes that when combined with a revised density standard (see below), the changes could allow for more flexibility in configuring new buildings or remodeling existing buildings. The revisions could also result in increased density for some parcels, according to the report.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Overlay District

Kowalski noted that R4C neighborhoods differ widely. Some R4C areas have tiny lots with almost no setbacks, while in other parts of the city – like the Oakland neighborhood – lots have 60-70 foot setbacks. You can also find everything in between those two extremes, he said.

To create one set of regulations for all neighborhoods would be really difficult, he said. One of the goals is to preserve what already exists, so overlay districts could be used to “customize” regulations and keep future development compatible with the current streetscape.

Recommendation: Zoning overlay districts should be explored as a tool for protecting massing, setbacks and streetscape of unique neighborhoods experiencing redevelopment pressure within the R4C zone. Overlay districts should be implemented on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson likened the R4C overlay districts to those created for D1 and D2 zoning, as part of the A2D2 zoning process.

According to the report, the advisory committee identified several issues that an overlay district might address:

• Out-of scale development: A maximum building footprint could be instituted based on the historic development patterns of the neighborhood.
• Design not compatible with neighborhoods: Guidelines can be developed on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis to control general massing and front setbacks.
• Increased/decreased flexibility of site design: For example, an overlay district could be created that modifies the area, height and placement (AHP) standard based on existing development pattern for a selected neighborhood.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Density Calculation

Committee members felt that the current way of calculating density acts as an incentive for a developer to add more bedrooms, Kowalski said. Specifically, current zoning encourages the construction of six-bedroom units, because the same minimum lot area is required (2,175 square feet per unit) no matter what size the units are – one-bedroom or six-bedroom. The report notes that the majority of units recently built in R4C districts have had six bedrooms – and those typically appeal more to students, compared to other potential renters.

Recommendation: Adopt a graduated scale of calculating density based on the total number of bedrooms provided in each unit. As detailed below, the majority of the committee recommends requiring 2,175 square feet of lot area per unit for 0-4 bedroom units and 3,000 square feet of lot area for 5-6 bedroom units.

The committee received strong input that a mix of bedroom unit sizes – from one to six bedrooms – was desired, Kowalski said. According to the report, a majority of committee members support code revisions that would encourage construction of units with four bedrooms or fewer, and discourage five- or six-bedroom units. Existing zoning code regulates only the number of occupants in a unit, not the number of bedrooms.

The new density calculation relies on the interplay of (1) lot size, (2) required lot area per unit, and (3) caps on the number of bedrooms/occupants. The report states that when combined with proposed reductions in lot area/width, the proposed graduated scale will create incentives to build smaller units with fewer bedrooms per unit.

As an example for comparison, the existing minimum lot size in R4C districts is 8,500 square feet. A lot that size currently allows for up to three units with as many as six occupants each, or as many as 18 occupants/bedrooms total. Under proposed density standards, up to three units would also be allowed on that same size lot if the units have 0-4 bedrooms each, based on the requirement of 2,175-square-feet per unit. So under the proposed standards, only up to 12 bedrooms, not 18, would be allowed.

What happens with the proposed minimum lot size of 4,350 square feet? For a lot that size, the proposed density standard (with the requirement of 2,175-square-feet per unit), only two units with 0-4 bedrooms would be allowed – or a maximum of eight bedrooms. Six occupants would still be allowed for each of those two units however, for a maximum of 12 occupants. (A limit of 20 units per acre would remain in place in these examples. One acre is 43,560 square feet.)

Or consider again a 8,500-square-foot lot, but built with 5-6 bedroom units. Under the proposed density standard, which requires 3,000 feet for each 5-6 bedroom unit, only two units would be allowed – which is a maximum of 12 occupants/bedrooms. Currently, as many as 18 occupants/bedrooms are allowed on a lot that size.

Another feature of the proposed density standard, which applies to 5-6 bedroom units, would drop the maximum number of such units per acre from 20 to 14.

For a 4,350-square-foot lot, only one unit with 5-6 bedrooms would be allowed under the proposed density requirements – or a maximum of six occupants.

The report lays out proposed regulations for the two different unit types – 0-4 bedroom units, and 5-6 bedroom units:

Type A: 0-4 bedrooms: 2,175-square-foot lot area required per unit

• EXISTING: An 8,500-square-foot lot will permit 3 units, 20 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 18 occupants at 6 per unit and up to 18 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• PROPOSED new density standard: An 8,500-square-foot lot would permit 3 units, 20 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 18 occupants at 6 per unit and up to 12 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• NEW MINIMUM LOT SIZE: A 4,350-square-foot lot would permit a maximum of 2 units (with a maximum 4 bedrooms each and up to a maximum of 12 occupants, or a total maximum of 8 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.

Type B: 5-6 bedrooms: 3,000-square-foot lot area required per unit

• EXISTING: An 8,500-square-foot lot will permit 3 units, 20 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 18 occupants at 6 per unit and up to 18 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• PROPOSED new density standard: An 8,500-square-foot lot would permit 2 units, 14 units per acre maximum (up to a maximum of 12 occupants and up to 12 bedrooms). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size (in square feet) under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.
• NEW MINIMUM LOT SIZE: A 4,350-square-foot lot would permit a maximum of 1 unit (with a maximum of 6 bedrooms and a maximum of 6 occupants). Maximum occupancy is based on bedroom size (in square feet) under the housing code, but capped at 6 unrelated occupants per unit.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Rooming Houses/Group Housing

No changes were proposed for zoning related to rooming houses or group housing, such as fraternities, sororities and co-operatives. The existing 8,500-square-foot lot requirement and parking requirement are recommended to remain in place. For group housing, a requirement to obtain a special exception use from the planning commission would also remain unchanged.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Parking Standard

Kowalski described parking standards as another big issue. Currently, the same number of parking spaces – 1.5 spaces per unit – are required, regardless of how many bedrooms are in each unit. It was felt that this approach encourages developers to put more bedrooms per unit, he said. Committee members and public participation indicated a strong desire to encourage a mix of different number of bedrooms per unit, so a graduated scale of parking requirements is recommended.

Recommendation: Adopt a graduated scale of calculating required parking based on unit type (above), increasing parking requirements as number of bedrooms in units increase. The Advisory Committee also recommends investigating an off-site parking storage concept and other alternative parking methods.

The recommendation calls for keeping the same parking requirement – 1.5 spaces per unit – for units with 0-4 bedrooms, but increasing the requirement to 2 spaces per unit for units with 5-6 bedrooms.

The 2011 draft report had recommended a more fine-grained parking requirement, corresponding to the three recommended unit types: 0.5 spaces for each 0-2 bedroom unit; 1 space for each 3-4 bedroom unit; and 2 spaces for each 5-6 bedroom unit.

According to the final report, a majority of committee members felt that the parking requirement shouldn’t control a building’s site design, and that open space shouldn’t be converted to parking in order to meet the requirement. But some committee members expressed concern about ensuring adequate on-site parking. The report states that the committee also recommends that parking requirements be studied further, in conjunction with all the other R4C recommendations.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Lot Combinations

Lot combinations was another hot button issue, Kowalski told planning commissioners. The report states that no consensus was reached about how to address the issue, but that the committee recommends limiting or prohibiting lot combinations in order to help prevent construction of large buildings that would disrupt the existing streetscape.

Recommendation: The Advisory Committee recommends a limit on lot combinations within the R4C District.

Kowalski said most committee members who supported a limitation wanted to limit the maximum lot size to 6,525 square feet – the area needed to allow three units at the current density, or three units of 0-4 bedrooms each at the proposed density. It is a square footage that’s based on the current average R4C lot size, according to the report.

Kowalski noted that there are a lot of other limiting factors in place that would limit construction of large buildings.

The 2011 draft report had also indicated that the committee couldn’t reach consensus on this issue, but that the majority supported a recommendation that no more than two parcels be allowed to be combined, with the resulting parcel not to exceed 10,000 square feet.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Conclusion

Wrapping up his staff report, Kowalski observed that it was a longer process than they’d originally anticipated, with a lot of complex issues. R4C zoning districts are one of the most complicated, diverse districts in the city, he said, and changing the zoning is not a simple fix.

He also noted that committee members are interested in pursuing other issues in depth – issues that weren’t part of the committee’s original council directive. Those issues include dealing with trash, noise from student parties, and code enforcement, among other things. The issues are relevant to the R4C district, he said, but are not part of the committee’s report.

R4C/R2A Zoning Committee Report: Public Commentary

Unlike the working sessions for city council, the planning commission’s working sessions include an opportunity for public commentary. On May 8, three members of the R4C/R2A advisory committee attended: Wendy Carman, Ethel “Eppie” Potts, and Julie Weatherbee.

Planning commissioner Erica Briggs suggested that since the committee members were there and it wasn’t a formal setting, perhaps the discussion could be more informal than just the standard three minutes for each speaker, which Briggs said seemed weird in this case.

Kirk Westphal was chairing the meeting at this point – commission chair Eric Mahler was stuck in an elevator for the first hour of the meeting. Westphal said he’d be open to sticking with the initial three-minute commentary, then playing it by ear during the discussion. He also felt the commissioners should limit the scope of their discussion for this meeting, perhaps by just focusing on the process they’d like to set for handling the report.

Tony Derezinski suggested sticking with a “semi-formal” process regarding commentary. The expectation for the outcome of the R4C/R2A work is high, he noted. Several actions by city council have been deferred, he said, waiting for the outcome of this process. [As an example, proposed revisions to the city's landscape and screening ordinance were rejected by council at its March 19, 2012 meeting, in part because some councilmembers wanted to wait until recommendations for R4C zoning had been completed.]

All of this effort and public input should yield something substantial, and there will be even more public forums in the future, Derezinski said. This working session obviously won’t be the only discussion that planning commissioners have on these recommendations, he said, but the product will ultimately be changes in zoning. He concluded by saying that no one wants this to be just another report on a shelf. [Derezinski is the city council representative to the city planning commission.]

Both Potts and Carman had submitted written comments to the commission that took issue with some aspects of the report, and they both spoke during public commentary to highlight their concerns.

Eppie Potts began by saying “I’ve given it a lot of thought, obviously.” She began by pointing to the areas that are zoned R4C but located outside of the city’s central area, and challenged commissioners to look at those areas and see if they could be rezoned to something more suitable.

Regarding parking, Potts said the committee had agreed that there should be a graduated scale for parking requirements, but that the recommendations included in the report “aren’t very graduated.”

Potts also took issue with the report’s conclusion, saying that it seemed too tentative. At some point, the report “is what it is,” she said. Who’s going to finalize the recommendations, and when? she asked.

In her written comments, Potts had suggested substituting the following paragraph, or something similar to it, instead of the conclusion provided in the staff report:

The recommendations above are the product of two years of comprehensive research, discussion and analysis. The issues identified throughout the course of this study are very complex. Those who gave input to the Advisory Committee expressed problems caused by such issues as unsustainable density, lack of parking, inadequate open space, and the number of small non-conforming lots. Our recommendations deal with these issues. The Advisory Committee recommends that the proposed changes be adopted, tried for a time, then be reviewed for effectiveness and possible amendment.

Wendy Carman said it’s important for everyone to recognize the hard work of the committee. The committee members had wanted to keep the density no greater than it is now, but to decrease the number of non-conforming parcels.  The R4C zoning had been imposed on existing neighborhoods, she noted. The committee had been unanimous in its desire to preserve the existing streetscapes, she said. They also had wanted to reduce the incentives for building six-bedroom apartments, which she noted are really targeted just for students.

Regarding the parking recommendations, Carman stated that the committee did not vote for the recommendations that are included in the report. They did vote to recommend a graduated scale for calculating required parking, to make it dependent not only on unit type and number of bedrooms, but also on a maximum potential occupancy and lot size, she said. The committee had asked Kowalski to develop a proposal, but they did not vote on the one that’s in this report, she said. That’s a staff recommendation, she noted, not one from the committee.

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion

Evan Pratt asked whether the report was just an FYI to planning commissioners and would go directly to city council, or whether planning commissioners would discuss it first. Matt Kowalski replied that the council’s directive had been to the planning commission and staff. He noted that advisory committee recommendations don’t include language that could be inserted into city code at this point, so that would need to be done before the council could act.

The dark red areas are those areas zoned R4C in the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to Google Map)

When Pratt said he was fishing to see what kind of action is expected of the planning commission, Kowalski said that would be up to commissioners to decide.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said there’s no set format for proceeding. One option would be to simply send the report to the city council as an item of information. Or the commission’s ordinance revisions committee could take a look first, she said, and bring back recommendations with specific ordinance language.

Tony Derezinski stressed that there needs to be some concrete outcome to this work. It’s too central and too controversial not to result in ordinance changes, eventually. It might take another step or two, he added, but his sense is that the council wants an action item.

Pratt responded by saying it would be good to get some direction from city council, to make sure planning commissioners are going in the same direction in developing ordinance language.

Derezinski said the question is whether the planning commission simply forwards the report to city council, or whether they do something more with it first. Bonnie Bona felt it would be helpful to provide some suggestions to the council about approaching the recommendations. For example, while in some cases there’s a lot of detail, there are other issues – like the overlay districts – that didn’t really get addressed in depth. She said she could imagine sending something to councilmembers that suggested making base zoning changes, plus recommendations for handling R4C lots outside of the central area, and for overlay districts.

Erica Briggs said she thought this was a great report, with a lot of consensus in terms of direction. The report provides solid recommendations, she said. However, Briggs felt that more attention needed to be paid to parking, adding ”but you know how I feel about parking, so I won’t go into that.” [Briggs has consistently been an advocate for requiring less on-site parking in developments, and encouraging alternative transportation or using other means to deal with the parking issue.]

Diane Giannola said her hope from this work is to make R4C zoning simpler, but that some of the recommendations seem to make it more complex. The overall message of the report is that something is being fixed, she said. Are the proposed changes actually fixing a problem, or just switching the problem to a different place? she asked. Giannola noted that the parking recommendations conflict with the views of some people on the planning commission – it’s important to be mindful of that.

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion – Overlay and Form-Based Code

Much of the commission’s discussion centered on the concept of overlay districts. Bonnie Bona noted that A2D2 overlay districts really helped with the downtown zoning, by acknowledging the different character and sizes of buildings. But she also said she’d prefer some kind of form-based code, instead of “shoehorning” zoning into neighborhoods that are distinct. [Described in a general way, a form-based approach is more proscriptive regarding the types of buildings the community wants to see in a particular district, including their design. In contrast, traditional zoning is structured to provide an allowable range of uses, sizes, placements, and other aspects of a development, but generally leaves the details of those decisions to the developer.]

Erica Briggs said her concern about overlay districts is that there’s no teeth to enforce them. She said she didn’t know much about form-based code, but she like the concept.

Wendy Rampson noted that true form-based code doesn’t look at land use, so it probably wouldn’t be an ideal candidate for R4C. But some aspects of it might be helpful, she said.

Briggs observed that a form-based approach might address some of the things that planning commissioners have discussed in the past, like having small neighborhood stores. Currently, residential zoning doesn’t allow for that. Briggs said she’d really like to see something substantial emerge from the recommendations.

Kirk Westphal said he’d like to think that the commission could expedite this process and produce draft ordinance language based on the committee’s recommendations. However, he noted that when he hears the word “overlay,” he thinks of lines on a map – and that becomes a much longer process. For R4C, it might be even more complicated than when the city created overlay districts for D1 and D2 zoning. He asked Kowalski whether there was general agreement on the committee regarding overlay districts or boundaries between neighborhoods.

Kowalski said there were only a couple of neighborhoods mentioned – like the Oakland area with large setbacks, or a street near Golden with really small lots. But the committee didn’t delve into details about possible overlay districts, he said. It could be a useful tool, he added, but not simple to do.

Pratt noted that historic districts are already one kind of overlay. If you look at a map, he said, most R4C districts are pretty distinct, and relatively small.

Rampson noted that compared to overlay districts, form-based code would be similarly complex. Kowalski added that a form-based approach would need to be citywide, and would not just apply to R4C zoning districts. That’s another complicating factor, he said.

Westphal noted that if the city opts for overlays, the other issue is to define the character of those overlay districts. You’d be drafting a whole new set of rules, he said, but if you don’t have them in place, some of the other zoning revisions might encourage development or renovations that wouldn’t fit the character of the existing neighborhood.

R4C/R2A Zoning Report: Commission Discussion – Next Steps

Tony Derezinski pointed out that other zoning projects were underway – most significantly, the ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project, a comprehensive zoning code review. [A consultant hired by the city has submitted his recommendations, which were the topic of a May 14 city council working session. The ZORO recommendations have not yet been made available to the public.] He asked Rampson how the R4C/R2A effort fits into other zoning projects.

Rampson called R4C a broken district, and said she’d rather deal with a complexity of ordinances that make sense, rather than continuing to have a broken zoning district. The recommendations could be considered an evolution from the Calthorpe process, she said. [Calthorpe Associates was a California-based consultant whose work resulted in the city's A2D2 downtown zoning.]

Derezinski said it was good to start with the premise that R4C is broken, and he liked the description of the zoning revisions as an evolution. That helps justify doing things a little differently in R4C than in other zoning districts, he said.

Evan Pratt said there’s nothing to dislike in this report. The main problems are listed out, and the recommendations make sense. He asked staff if they had any advice on how to tackle the other issues in R4C that hadn’t been addressed – is it just a matter of prioritizing?

Rampon said the ZORO project will help, making it easier to find and understand the existing zoning.

As the discussion wound down, Eric Mahler asked for recommendations on next steps. Rampson said it sounded like commissioners were inclined to discuss the report in more detail, before starting to develop ordinance language. She suggested convening the ordinance revisions committee as a starting point. Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on the city council, offered to update councilmembers as an interim step.

Bonnie Bona said the ordinance revisions committee could perhaps develop a cover memo for the report, which could then be discussed by the planning commission as a whole. [Members of the ordinance revisions committee are planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.]

Rampson suggested that this might be a topic for another commission working session. But first, she would look at their schedules and set a time for an ordinance revisions committee meeting to discuss the report, and then take it from there. She thanked Matt Kowalski and the advisory committee for their work, noting that it hadn’t been easy, but that the result was an excellent report.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal.

Absent: Wendy Woods

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to plan on doing the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The dark red areas are those areas zoned R4C in the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to Google Map)

At a recent working session, planning commissioners were briefed on a draft report from the R4C/R2A advisory committee, which has been meeting since December 2009. Both kinds of zoning district were established in the 1960s: R4C allows for multiple-family residential dwellings, such as apartment buildings, while R2A zoning limits density to two-family residential structures. The committee was unable to reach consensus on its recommendations, nearly all of which relate to the R4C districts.

At the June 14 planning commission working session, two commissioners who serve on the committee – Jean Carlberg and Tony Derezinski – expressed frustration at the outcome. The draft recommendations don’t provide any guidance about where the city might encourage greater density, Carlberg said.

Derezinski, who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, added that many committee members worked hard, but were interested in protecting what they’re used to, especially concerning density and parking in their neighborhoods. As it stands, he said, the report won’t be helpful to the city council. Derezinski supported the idea of having the planning commission study the issue and make its own recommendations.

Commissioner Evan Pratt suggested that the first question to ask is whether there should be greater density, and where – the answer to that would guide the recommendations.

In a follow-up phone interview with The Chronicle, Wendy Rampson – the city’s planning manager, who also attended the working session – said there are several possibilities that planning commissioners might pursue. They could discuss the report at one of their regular meetings and make their own recommendations or comments about it. Those recommendations and comments could be made either informally – communicated to the council via Derezinski – or through a formal resolution or memorandum.

Another option would be for the commission’s ordinance revisions committee to tackle it first, developing specific ordinance language that the full commission could then review and possibly recommend to the city council. Or commissioners could ask to hold a joint session with the council, she said, to talk through these issues directly.

Regardless of how the planning commission proceeds, Carlberg will no longer be at the table. The June 14 working session was her last meeting as a commissioner. Her term ends on June 30, and she did not seek reappointment. The former city councilmember served 16 years on the planning commission, overlapping with her 12 years (1994-2006) as a Democrat representing Ward 3 on the council. Eleanore Adenekan was nominated during the council’s June 20 meeting as a replacement for Carlberg – her nomination is expected to be confirmed at the council’s July 5 meeting.

R4C/R2A Zoning: Background

In recent years, the city of Ann Arbor has undertaken several major initiatives to overhaul regulations related to development. Two of those – A2D2 (downtown zoning) and AHP (revisions to area, height and placement requirements) – are completed. Still in the works is ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization), a comprehensive zoning code review.

Another major initiative has been the review of R4C (multiple-family residential dwelling) and R2A (two-family residential dwelling) districts, which were set up in the 1960s. Though a formal review process started about two years ago, the issue has been around since at least the mid-1980s. At that time, city planning staff conducted a review of the North Burns Park area, which ultimately led to a downzoning of that neighborhood from R2B – a zoning category that allows for group housing like fraternities and sororities – to R2A. The sense at that time, according to Rampson, was that R4C districts were appropriate places for greater density and student housing.

Rampson said that sentiment is reflected in the city’s central area plan, which was developed in the early 1990s and later incorporated into the city’s master plan. [.pdf of central area map] The central area plan included several recommendations related to zoning, but the planning commission at that time didn’t act on those proposed changes.

The issue emerged again a few years ago – Rampson said there seemed to be a change in attitude about whether R4C was still appropriate for certain areas in the city. In particular, residents in Lower Burns Park lobbied for rezoning of R4C districts to R2A or R1A (single-family houses), and in October of 2007, the council passed a resolution directing planning staff to explore rezoning in that neighborhood. According to reports in the Ann Arbor News, in late 2007 the planning commission recommended that only Golden Avenue be downzoned to R2A R1D (single family) – a recommendation that the council approved on Feb. 19, 2008. Other parts of Lower Burns Park were not rezoned.

At that same Feb. 19, 2008 meeting, the council unanimously passed a resolution directing the planning commission and planning staff to do a more comprehensive review of residential zoning in the central area. However, no action resulted from that resolution. A nearly identical resolution was introduced a year later by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – which the council passed at its March 2, 2009 meeting.

The resolution identifies the rationale for undertaking this effort:

Whereas, the Central Area Plan, dated December 21, 1992, recommends four Implementation Program “Priority Action Strategies” as follows:

• HN1 – Analyze zoning nonconformities related to area, height and placement regulations for the Central Area neighborhoods and determine if amendments are needed to make the regulations more consistent with established development patterns;
• HN12 – Amend the zoning ordinance and map to clearly identify areas to be maintained or encouraged as housing;
• HN14 – Reinforce student neighborhoods in the area south and west of Central Campus by developing new zoning definitions and standards that support organized group housing opportunities;
• HP17 – Develop site design standards that encourage creative design while maintaining sensitivity for existing neighborhood character;

Whereas, The Non-Motorized Plan, dated December 6, 2006, provides guidance for land use and zoning to support walking, bicycling and transit;

Whereas, The Downtown Plan, amended December 1992, recommends in Section III to protect the livability of residentially-zoned areas adjacent to downtown;

Whereas, A majority of the lots in the residential districts in the Central Area are non-conforming due to lot size and lot width, and a significant number require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals to make modifications or additions to the existing non-conforming structures;

Whereas, The resolution of October 15, 2007 directing the City Planning Commission to review rezoning in the Lower Burns Park neighborhood revealed (through the staff report, public hearing, written public comments and Planning Commission discussion) the need to review the R2A and R4C zoning districts more comprehensively within the Central Area rather than one isolated neighborhood at a time;

Whereas, The City Planning Commission believes that modifications to the zoning and ordinance requirements for residential districts in the Central Area could enhance the livability of these neighborhoods for owner-occupants and renters through a comprehensive review and appropriate changes to the minimum lot size, minimum lot width, setback, density, building height, open space, parking, landscaping and possibly other site related issues; and

Whereas, The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission and City staff find ways to reduce the need for developers to utilize Planned Project development applications as a way to accomplish the City’s goal to ensure that development proposals are more sustainable and that all efforts involving changes to City Zoning regulations involve extensive public involvement …

That resolution led to the formation, in the summer of 2009, of an advisory committee that was charged with studying the R4C/R2A issue, getting input from the public and community stakeholders, and presenting recommendations to the planning commission and city council for possible changes in these zoning districts.

Underpinning discussions of changes to R4C/R2A is the question of how much density should be allowed in these areas. Though there were smaller projects that caused concern, two large housing proposals in particular – The Moravian, and City Place – brought the debate to the forefront for people on both sides of the issue.

The Moravian, a five-story, 62-unit building proposed for the section of East Madison Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor, was rejected by the city council in April of 2010. It was proposed as a planned unit development (PUD), located in an area zoned R4C. City Place is a “by right” housing project proposed in an R4C district on the east side of South Fifth Avenue just south of William. Approved by the council in September 2009, it called for tearing down several older houses and constructing two new apartment buildings. However, its developer, Alex de Parry, subsequently proposed a different project on that same site – Heritage Row – which would renovate the houses and build new apartment buildings behind them. That project, a planned unit development (PUD), has been rejected by council. City Place has not yet been built.

In July 2009, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) proposed a moratorium in R4C/R2A districts, with the intent of halting the Moravian and City Place projects until the advisory committee work was completed. The moratorium was voted down at the council’s Aug. 6, 2009 meeting, though a different moratorium was approved at that same meeting. It applied to demolition only in a limited geographic area. It was the assigned area of study for a committee appointed by the council to weigh the possibility of establishing a historic district there – a two-block area just south of William Street on Fourth and Fifth avenues. The study committee recommended establishing a historic district in the area, but that recommendation was rejected by the council, and the moratorium expired.

The R4C/R2A advisory committee was initially expected to complete its work by September 2010.

Committee members are: Tony Derezinski (city council representative), Jean Carlberg (planning commission representative), Chuck Carver (rental property owner representative), Ilene Tyler and David Merchant (Ward 1 residents), Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2 residents), Ellen Rambo and Michele Derr (Ward 3 residents), Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4 residents), and Ethel Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5 residents).

R4C/R2A Zoning: Draft Committee Report

The introduction to the nine-page draft report of advisory committee recommendations includes this caveat:

Due to the complexity and extent of the issues identified during the study, it was not possible to reach a consensus on all of the recommendations listed below. The draft recommendations are the best effort at addressing all Advisory Committee concerns and represent the majority opinion of the Advisory Committee.

The report includes seven primary recommendations, with accompanying analysis. [.pdf of draft recommendations] Recommendations relate to: (1) rebuilding structures that don’t conform to existing zoning; (2) rezoning certain areas from R4C to R2A; (3) reducing minimum lot sizes and eliminating minimum lot widths; (4) revising density calculations; (5) exploring the creation of zoning overlays; (6) revising parking standards; (7) changing requirements for lot combinations.

Aside from a general recommendation regarding non-conformance, the recommendations all relate to R4C districts. Although R2A zoning was also discussed, the report noted that the committee felt the issues for that zoning district were minimal. No changes to lot area, lot width, density or parking were proposed for R2A, though the committee suggested downzoning some current R4C districts to R2A.

Draft Committee Report: Non-Conformance

The report states that committee members, backed by public feedback, wanted to keep the existing streetscape in the residentially-zoned,  R4C/R2A areas, including the size and massing of current buildings there. This was of primary importance, more so than facilitating greater density. Many of the current buildings were constructed before existing zoning standards, and are non-conforming – especially related to lot size and setbacks. If a building is destroyed, current ordinances would require that whatever is rebuilt would need to conform to existing zoning.

The committee supported allowing buildings to be reconstructed, under certain conditions, with a similar size and dimensions as the original structure, even though it would not conform to zoning.

Recommendation: The Advisory Committee recommends that Chapter 55, Section 5:87 (Structure Non-Conformance) be revised to allow reconstruction of non-conforming structures in R2A and R4C districts according to the following standards:

• Allow the ability to re-construct structure if damaged due to fire, flood, or other calamity.
• Reconstruction should not be allowed in case of voluntary destruction or demolition by neglect.
• Establish time limit (18 months) on how long after destruction the reconstruction of nonconforming structure is permitted.
• Establish time limit on building completion, once construction has started.
• Require that replacement structures must be of similar style, massing and character.
• Allow non-conforming multiple-family structures to add units and floor area without ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals] approval, if the additional units or floor area is located within the existing building footprint. Additional units must meet density requirements; however structure can be non-conforming for lot area and setbacks.
• Allow for additions to existing multiple-family structures without ZBA approval if the addition complies with all setback and required open space standards for that district. This is currently permitted for single-family houses ONLY.

Draft Committee Report: Rezoning

Two areas – Hoover/Davis, and Dewey/Packard/Brookwood – were identified by the committee as priority areas for rezoning. The areas had been previously recommended for rezoning as part of the city’s central area plan, to help maintain the existing pattern of development in those neighborhoods. According to the report, the committee felt there might be other areas that should be rezoned as well, but that more research is needed.

Recommendation: The Advisory Committee recommends that select areas [Hoover/Davis and Dewey/Packard/Brookwood] be rezoned from R4C to R2A.

Draft Committee Report: Minimum Lot Size/Lot Width/Setbacks

The existing minimum lot size in R4C districts is 8,500 square feet, but 83% of parcels are non-conforming for this requirement. The majority of these parcels are also non-conforming for lot width, which is about 40 feet. The committee felt it was important to bring zoning closer to the established development in these areas, according to the report.

Recommendations: The Advisory Committee recommends the reduction of minimum lot sizes to 4,000 square feet for all parcels in R4C zoning district and elimination of the minimum lot width requirement. No changes to existing setbacks are proposed.

This change would bring 985 parcels into compliance, out of a total of 1,633 R4C parcels that currently don’t comply with existing zoning. The changes would allow for more flexibility in configuring new building and in remodeling existing structures, according to the report.

Draft Committee Report: Density Calculations

The report notes that the city’s current method of calculating density encourages the construction of six-bedroom units – the same minimum lot area is required, regardless of the number of bedrooms in a unit. This type of apartment appeals primarily to students, the report states, and the committee wanted to encourage a mix of bedroom types that would appeal to a broader range of renters.

Recommendations: The Advisory Committee recommends instituting a graduated scale of calculating density based on the total number of bedrooms provided in each unit. Existing density is calculated based solely on lot area per unit, regardless of the number of bedrooms within unit.

Regulations were proposed for three different unit types: 0-2 bedrooms, 3-4 bedrooms and 5-6 bedrooms. [.pdf of draft density calculations] No changes were proposed for rooming houses or group housing, such as fraternities, sororities and co-ops.

Draft Committee Report: Overlay District

The committee was interested in protecting the existing pattern of development and streetscape in R4C neighborhoods. The most feasible way to do that, according to the report, would be to form guidelines that would protect against: (1) out-of-scale buildings; (2) design that’s incompatible with the neighborhood; and (3) inappropriate lot combinations. An overlay could also allow for flexibility in the site design – for example, possibly modifying area, height and placement (AHP) standards in certain areas.

Recommendation: The committee recommends that zoning overlay districts be explored as a tool for protecting massing, setbacks and streetscape of neighborhoods experiencing redevelopment pressure within the R4C zone.

Draft Committee Report: Parking Standard

The committee felt the current method of calculating parking encourages the construction of six-bedroom units. The same number of parking spaces is required – 1.5 spaces per unit – regardless of the number of bedrooms. The goal is to encourage limited infill of smaller units, while giving property owners the option of providing more units with fewer bedrooms, according to the report.

Recommendation: Revise parking standards based on unit type (above), increasing parking requirements as number of bedrooms in units increase. Existing parking standards require 1.5 spaces per unit. Investigate off-site parking storage concept and alternative parking methods.

The proposed parking requirement is:

• 0.5 spaces for each 0-2 bedroom unit
• 1 space for each 3-4 bedroom unit
• 2 spaces for each 5-6 bedroom unit

Draft Committee Report: Lot Combination

No consensus was reached on this issue, but most committee members wanted to put a limit on lot combinations to prevent construction of large buildings that might undercut the historical scale of the streetscape, according to the report.

Recommendations: The committee recommends that no more than two parcels be allowed to be combined with the resulting parcel not to exceed 10,000 square feet.

R4C/R2A Zoning: Planning Commission Discussion

At the planning commission’s June 14 working session, Matt Kowalski, the city planner who’s taken the lead on this project, gave a brief review of the advisory committee’s work, and presented a draft report to commissioners that was discussed at the committee’s final meeting earlier this month.

He noted that the committee had been formed in mid-2009, and started meeting in December of that year. It held a total of 10 meetings, plus public forums with different groups: neighborhood associations, rental owners, housing inspectors and others. A survey of students was conducted as well, to gauge what kind of housing students currently live in, and what their preferred options would be. The survey yielded 223 responses. [.pdf of survey results]

After presenting draft recommendations at a public meeting in March of 2011, the group made some tweaks, Kowalski said. They met in early June to go over the final version of recommendations, he said, but “there’s not a consensus on the vast majority of the issues.” The report he presented to planning commissioners at the June 14 working session did not yet reflect the discussion at the committee’s final meeting. [.pdf of draft recommendations]

Tony Derezinski, the city councilmember from Ward 2 who served on the committee and who sponsored the council resolution creating it, described the final meeting as the most productive one they’ve had, but said the overall effort was contentious. A lot of people are protecting what they’re used to, he said, especially concerning density and parking. And because the committee members represented so many different perspectives, it was difficult to reach agreement. He noted that initially the committee did not include representatives from landlords, but Jean Carlberg had pushed for that, and it had been a good addition to the group, Derezinski said.

Derezinski acknowledged that he hadn’t attended all the meetings, but felt that the committee had done all it could do. He suggested that planning staff were in the best position to come up with consensus recommendations for the city council, adding that councilmembers would no doubt get direct feedback about it from the community, too.

R4C/R2A Zoning: PC Discussion – Density

Carlberg spoke next, saying she would choose her words very carefully. One challenge was that the committee members consisted of primarily single-family homeowners and agents for rental properties, she said. So when they were looking at where to have greater density, or where to remove multi-family zoning, the results weren’t surprising. Many times it seemed like the group would take one step forward, she said, then at the next meeting take two steps back.

The draft recommendations don’t provide any guidance about where the city might encourage greater density, Carlberg said. No committee members represented people living in apartments, or people interested in developing more dense housing – those voices weren’t at the table. It was a very unrepresentative group on the issue of where to locate denser housing, she said, and additional meetings wouldn’t help. “I found it very frustrating.”

Erica Briggs asked if there was any consensus on what areas should have less density. The draft report recommends that two areas be downzoned from R4C to R2A: (1) the Hoover/Davis area; and (2) the Dewey/Packard/Brookwood area.

Evan Pratt asked what the role of the planning commission should be. Should commissioners review the report and make comments, or make their own recommendations to city council?

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, recommended that given its outcome, the report should probably go directly to the council. Many issues are intricately related, she said, which adds to the challenge. In addition to density, another issue is the physical configuration of houses that have been converted into multi-family dwellings. The goal is to try to keep the same pattern and massing, she said, and not end up with bigger buildings and bigger lot sizes.

Form and density are definitely challenges, Pratt said. He wondered whether a zoning overlay district might be the best option.

Bonnie Bona agreed with Pratt that they need to wrap their arms around the issues of form and density. Rampson said a lot of the committee’s discussion for increasing density related to how the zoning could allow for additions to existing structures so that units could be increased without tearing down buildings or “sticking people in basements.”

Bona said she hoped they wouldn’t see downzoning like the city council authorized in Lower Burns Park, without balancing it with upzoning for greater density elsewhere. She added that she would hate to see this process get bogged down because they can’t reach consensus. The result will be projects like they’re seeing on South Fifth Avenue, she said, with houses being torn down and big box structures built.

Bona was referring to the City Place development by Alex de Parry, which the city council approved in September 2009. It conforms to existing zoning, and calls for demolition of several houses on South Fifth, to be replaced by two buildings separated by a surface parking lot with 24 total units, each with six bedrooms. De Parry hasn’t started building that project. He has proposed an alternative development called Heritage Row, which would entail renovating seven houses and constructing three new apartment buildings behind those houses, with an underground parking garage. That project, a planned unit development (PUD), has been rejected multiple times by council. See Chronicle coverage: “Heritage Row Status Update”

R4C/R2A Zoning: PC Discussion – Non-Conforming Structures

Diane Giannola brought up another issue: Zoning non-conformance. She questioned the draft recommendation, which calls for revising city code to allow for reconstruction of non-conforming structures in R4C and R2A districts, under certain conditions. That is, if a structure that doesn’t conform to zoning is damaged by fire or flooding, for example, it could be rebuilt in a way that was also non-conforming to zoning in that area. Shouldn’t the zoning simply be changed instead? she asked.

Derezinski said that was originally proposed, and it “got nailed” by committee members. The question is whether you rely on experts, or on people’s feelings, he said – it’s a tension.

Giannola argued that they should either revise the zoning or leave it as is – but they shouldn’t give people permission to ignore the zoning. Isn’t that the purpose of zoning – to tell people what they can do? She said she has a problem with making an exception for something that’s already wrong. That seems ridiculous, she said.

Reconstruction of non-conforming buildings was something that the owners of rental property on the committee wanted, Carlberg said. They don’t want the zoning to change, and they want the ability to rebuild without losing their property’s economic benefit.

Bona said it might be good to have an exception, especially for smaller lots. Kowalski noted that most lots aren’t wide enough to conform to existing zoning. The majority of structures don’t conform and couldn’t be rebuilt, he said – and owners like what they have.

R4C/R2A Zoning: PC Discussion – Second Opinion?

Kirk Westphal wondered whether the city council might want another opinion – perhaps the planning commission should weigh in. Derezinski noted that with so many non-conforming properties, you end up getting a lot of projects that are planned unit developments. Those PUDs allow for variances in zoning – essentially, a type of customized zoning for each project – which often results in a “hailstorm of opposition,” Derezinski said. He suggested that the planning commission at the least review the committee’s work and make recommendations to the council. Whatever they do will be controversial, he said.

Carlberg noted that the recommendations should also substantiate why they’re suggesting certain changes. Yes, Derezinski said, and also how the recommendations fit into the city’s master plan. Where do they want the community to go, with respect to zoning? If the planning commission believes that density is a good goal, they should say that, he added.

The committee’s process was as good as it could get, Derezinski said. They bent over backwards to get input – it took twice as long as expected. There were good people on the committee who spent a lot of time on the effort, he said, but he didn’t think anyone’s mind was changed. If the draft recommendations go directly to the council, he added, they won’t be useful.

Westphal asked whether the city council has discussed this issue. Not since it formed the advisory committee, Derezinski said.

R4C/R2A Zoning: PC Discussion – More on Density

Pratt returned to the topic of density, saying he wasn’t sure whether the draft report recommendations would result in greater or less housing density. That’s the first question that should be addressed, he said – they shouldn’t dive into details until it’s clear what the goal is for these zoning districts. What do people want to accomplish?

If the city council wants to scale back density and have less of a threat to existing neighborhoods, that’s one thing, Pratt said. But if councilmembers want to clean up the rental stock and add density in these districts, that would result in different recommendations.

Derezinski indicated that he’d prefer the second alternative, and that as a councilmember, he’d welcome the planning commission’s input. The city council has a lot on its plate, he said. Councilmembers want the expertise of people who know the issue – planning commission, supported by staff. Then it’s up to the council to accept or reject whatever recommendations they’re given.

One place to start, Pratt said, is to ask whether existing zoning in those R4C/R2A areas is a good thing. Is it the highest and best use of zoning for that area? If not, what changes can be made to reach the density goal that they feel is appropriate? And it’s not just density, he noted. There’s a boxy building at the corner of Liberty and Third that’s just two stories, but it’s really ugly, he said. How can they regulate zoning that won’t result in big box buildings – perhaps a zoning overlay would be the best approach.

Briggs said that density makes some sense for the city’s future, but not at the cost of destroying a neighborhood’s fabric. Although some people say that increased density is an assault on neighborhoods, she said, she believes it’s possible to achieve some sort of balance.

Carlberg noted that another challenge: There’s no financial gain for someone to build an apartment that looks nice and fits into the neighborhood. There was no one on the advisory committee who represented the perspective of a developer, she said. Many members didn’t even live in an R4C district – they lived next to one. So they didn’t have the experience of living in a mixed-use neighborhood with large apartment buildings from the 1950s.

Westphal clarified that the city’s master plan makes mention of density, but doesn’t have any action items related to it. He said he liked the idea of a zoning overlay – for many people, the issue isn’t so much about the size as it is about the form and massing of a building, he said.

Carlberg pointed out that small lots in these districts pose another challenge. The zoning currently calls for a minimum lot size of 8,500 square feet – and 83% of parcels in the R4C zoning districts do not conform to that size. Even for lots that meet that minimum standard, it would be hard to build a structure with the appropriate form on a lot that size. Carlberg also noted that for many people, it wouldn’t matter what the building looked like – they don’t want apartment buildings in a residential area with single-family homes.

Bona suggested a couple of approaches that the city council could take. The council could direct the planning commission to change the zoning to match structures that are already on the parcels in R4C and R2A districts. Or the council could direct the commission to make recommendations for increasing density in other ways, such as creating new zoning for certain areas, or using design guidelines.

Carlberg voiced support for the planning commission to weigh in, saying that the city council could then wrestle with both the advisory committee report as well as the commission’s recommendations.

Derezinski said the council shouldn’t be intimidated by the politics of it – there’s going to be controversy. “Isn’t that really inevitable?” he said. It goes back to whether they are a direct democracy or a representative democracy – and he’s in favor of adding the filter of councilmembers’ own judgement. There was a decent public process, he said, but the council will ultimately need to decide.

Pratt asked if the committee had discussed parking. That was a big concern, Rampson replied. [The committee's draft report calls for an increase in parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms, not the number of units.]

Briggs noted that you can’t separate the issues of parking and density. You can’t talk about the need for density because of sustainability, she said, then turn around and say you also need more space for cars.

Rampson said the student survey yielded some interesting results related to parking. [Among the results: 70% of respondents said they have a car, 98% said they use the car to run errands, and 66% said that having more options for shopping and amenities within walking distance of their home would encourage them to not have a car.]

Based on the discussion by planning commissioners, Rampson said, it seemed there was consensus for the commission to review the R4C/R2A issue. She said she’d schedule a time for commissioners to be more fully briefed by staff.

In a follow-up phone conversation with The Chronicle, Kowalski said he’s revising the draft report based on committee member comments at their final meeting, and will present that version to planning commissioners at one of their regular meetings later this summer. In a separate phone interview this week, Rampson said it’s possible that some advisory committee members will submit a “minority report” to accompany the full committee report, giving their alternative recommendations.

Rampson described several possibilities that planning commissioners might pursue. They could discuss the report at one of their regular meetings and make their own recommendations or comments about it, either informally – communicated to council via Derezinski – or through a formal resolution or memorandum. Another option would be for the commission’s ordinance revisions committee to tackle changes to R4C/R2A districts, developing specific ordinance language that the full commission could then review and possibly recommend to city council. Or commissioners could ask to hold a joint session with the council, she said, to talk through these issues directly.

Ultimately, it will be city councilmembers who decide what action, if any, to take on proposed zoning changes.

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor planning commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Council voted down the more general prohibition on new development in R4C/R2A residential districts, but approved the historic district study committee with its attached moratorium on demolition. It’s a case where the vote tally alone doesn’t tell the whole story – or even an accurate one: Counter to what one might expect, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) voted against the R4C/R2A moratorium, while Leigh Greden (Ward 3) voted for it.

A third major agenda item facing council was also related to new development: the Near North planned unit development (PUD) proposed for North Main Street just south of Summit Street, which is an affordable housing project that includes the nonprofit Avalon Housing as a partner. The council voted to move Near North on to a second reading, when a final decision will be made.

But probably the most important matter considered by council on Thursday appeared on the agenda as an “introduction” by the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, who spent around a half hour telling the city council why the city’s projected financial condition is worse now than it had been when the FY 2010 budget was adopted in the spring. Crawford’s presentation was characterized during commentary from the public later in the meeting as the “first salvo in a PR campaign” for a city income tax.

A bit of breaking news from Crawford’s report: bonds for the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage were issued on Aug. 5.

Revenue Projections: Report from the CFO

The city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, started his update by acknowledging that oftentimes speakers begin their remarks with a joke, but he said, “There is no joke tonight.” He then spent the next half hour not joking.

There are some national-level reports with glimmers of hope that the economy is starting to turn around, Crawford said, like the fact that stocks are starting to climb. But the glimmers are based primarily on the fact that the measurables are not declining as fast, he said.

What we confront locally, Crawford said, is grim: June unemployment figures for Ann Arbor and the state of Michigan are 10.6% and 15.2%, respectively. Part of the impact of high unemployment levels is that people spend less money – that causes state sales tax revenues to decrease. So far this year, state sales tax revenues are down 8%.

Sales Tax and State Revenue Sharing

What does state sales tax have to do with the city of Ann Arbor’s budget? Part of the sales tax collected by the state of Michigan is allocated to municipalities like Ann Arbor through “state revenue sharing.” That state revenue sharing has two components: (i) a constitutional part based on a fixed formula, and (ii) a statutory part over which the state legislature can exercise discretion, depending on state budget needs.

Queried by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) about possible changes in the two kinds of state revenue sharing, Crawford clarified that both kinds of state shared revenue would go down as a function of the 8% year-to-date decrease in sales tax revenues. That’s because the total amount of sales tax revenues determines the “size of the bucket” from which both types of shared revenue are taken. The statutory share could go down even further, Crawford explained, because the state legislature showed no signs that the resolution to the state’s budget issues would be addressed – the state currently shows $9 billion in expenses compared to $7 billion in revenues. Part of the $2 billion gap is expected to be covered with state sales tax money that would have otherwise gone to municipalities through state revenue sharing.

How much money are we talking about? And what has been the historical pattern of state shared revenue? In 2002 the city of Ann Arbor received $6.2 million in statutory state shared revenue and $7.5 million in constitutional state shared revenue. In FY 2009 those totals had changed to $2.9 million and $7.9 million, respectively – roughly a $3 million decrease since 2002.

Projections on which the adopted FY 2010 budget were based saw state shared revenue levels as flat compared to last year. Based on the actual 8% drop in sales tax collections, plus a pessimistic assessment of likely action by the state legislature to address its own budget, Crawford is now projecting $1 million to $1.9 million less in state shared revenue in FY 2010.

Added with $1 million less than projected in investment income, $0.2 million less in traffic citations, and $0.2 million less in development review fees, Crawford sketched a picture for councilmembers of a $2.4 million to $3.3 million shortfall for FY 2010, which is the current budget year. For next year, continued decreases in state shared revenue, traffic citations, and development review fees, together with a yet-to-be renegotiated parking agreement that assumes $1.7 million to be paid to the city by the Downtown Development Authority, led to a possible projected shortfall of $4 million to $5.8 million, said Crawford.

In terms of percentage of the budget, those shortfalls translate into 3-4% and 5-7% deficits for FY 2010 and FY 2011 respectively. In terms of people, it translates into 24-40 full-time employees for the first year, and 50-70 in the second year, whose salaries would not be covered.

New Reality

Declining property tax revenues did not factor into the slides Crawford showed councilmembers explaining why the forecast had become more grim since they had adopted their budget for FY 2010 in May. Why not? While property tax revenues continued to decline, Crawford said, so far this year they were tracking as they’d been forecast.

Still, factors other than property taxes had led to Crawford’s conclusion that, “We’re looking at a new reality.” Part of that reality was, said Crawford, that the city would be facing the prospect of service reductions. Whereas in the last decade, the reduction in staffing levels – from around 1,000 in 2001 to around 800 in 2009 – had been achieved through greater efficiencies, without reducing services, this next cycle could be different.

Councilmember Questions

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted to know what the impact of the early-out police retirement incentive had been, which the council had authorized in the spring. [There had been 34 officers who qualified for the program and based on a June 30, 2009 memo from Crawford, 26 of them had elected to accept the incentive, with the possibility that two additional officers might also accept because they'd been given a deadline extension for the decision.] In responding to Anglin, Crawford indicated that the cost of the buyout had been around $5 million, which had been paid out of the city’s reserve.

Anglin wanted to know what the effect the reduction of the reserve from around 17% of expenditures to around 10% had had on the city’s bond rating. Crawford indicated that the city’s 10-11% reserve fell within the policy range of 8-12%. Further, Crawford said, the city had been given a rating of Aa2 the previous day, when they had issued the bonds for the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked what other programs might exist at the federal level to help cities. Crawford said that he was not aware of any that might be relevant, and stressed that to date the federal stimulus package dollars that had been approved did not address needs that are related to recurring operations.

Derezinski inquired to what extent collaboration with other government entities was being explored – Ypsilanti and the Ann Arbor Public Schools, for example. Crawford said that in the IT department there were three different projects he was working on in collaboration with Washtenaw County. As a matter of philosophy, Crawford explained, whenever any issue comes up, possible collaborations are considered. City administrator Roger Fraser stressed that no two public sector organizations do business the same way, which meant that a desired collaboration might not happen today, but rather could be realized one to two years down the road. Fraser pointed to the new sheriff, Jerry Clayton, as “a major turn for the positive” in terms of the potential for collaboration with the county.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked when council might be provided with “some species of articulation” for the kind of decreases in services they might be looking at. Crawford deferred to Fraser on the question. Fraser stressed that the forecast reflected a “probable case.” He said he continued to stress that managers of departments needed to make cost reductions a priority. In September, Fraser said, the exact picture would be clearer.

Moratorium on New Development in R4C/R2A

The proposed moratorium on new development in R4C/R2A areas had been brought forward by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) at the previous council meeting, when it had been postponed. The key resolved clause of the resolution submitted by Anglin read: “That City Council hereby imposes a moratorium on all new development that requires site plan approval, expansion of existing development that requires site plan approval, zoning changes, special exception uses, or other comparable zoning items, in the R4C and R2A zoning districts … ”

The idea of a moratorium had been mooted at planning commission at least as far back as April 2009. [See previous Chronicle coverage.] Several speakers at public commentary voiced their support for a moratorium.

Moratorium: Public Commentary

Mozhagn Savabiesfahani: Savabiesfahani was signed up under public commentary reserve time to speak to the issue of the moratorium on new development in R4C districts. She began by thanking the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, for the grim presentation on the city’s economic outlook. If the state of Michigan needed $2 billion dollars to make up a budget shortfall, she suggested, then the U.S. should think about getting back the $300 billion in aid that it had given to Israel. She then called on the council to stop the demolition of the seven houses on South Fifth Avenue where the City Place project is proposed to be built. She said that her response to a friend who asked her why she cared about those houses was this: If you destroy history anywhere, you’re destroying history everywhere. So she was opposed to the erasure of history locally, just the same as she was opposed to it in the Middle East.

Susan Morrison: Morrison introduced herself as a resident and an attorney speaking on behalf of several individuals who are members of the Germantown Neighborhood Association. She urged the adoption of the temporary moratorium on new development in R4C zoning districts. She noted that courts have upheld the validity of moratoria, and contended that the need for a moratorium is evident, given that the goals and recommendations of the Central Area Plan had not yet been implemented in the zoning code. As a legal matter, she said, there is no question that the moratorium would be considered a reasonable one. No one could argue that it’s been a sudden or rash decision, she said, given the long history of discussion throughout the community.

Marvin Bartlett: Bartlett urged the council to adopt the moratorium on new development in R4C districts. He read aloud a poetic effort, that went by too quickly for The Chronicle to capture in any significant part. It included the line, “Disarm the developers, please!”

Claudius Vincenz: Vincenz offered council a compliment for their rapid turnout on consideration of the moratorium. He asked that the moratorium include a prohibition against demolition, because it’s easy to “create facts on the ground.” He also asked that the council not exempt PUD site plans from the moratorium, saying that such an exemption would introduce new dynamics in the play and counter-play between developers and residents. Such an exemption, he said, would change the dynamic from “little league” matter-of-right developments to “big league” PUDs. He drew an analogy of having a flat tire while driving on the highway – instead of stopping and fixing the problem, an exemption would be like deciding to slow down to 10 mph but keep going. Addressing the historic district study committee, he argued that the boundaries should not be defined by artificial lines on a map, but should be based on the natural topography. That meant that the area should go down to Madison Street, which is the beginning of the flood plain, and not stop at Packard Street.

Moratorium: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) began by emphasizing that the resolution provided protections for people who wanted to do work on their homes – only those projects requiring site plan approval would be subject to the moratorium. Referring to the R4C/R2A study committee, which would be appointed the same night, he said that the moratorium would allow time to “get our house in order.” The study committee will provide the city council with a report and recommendations for potential ordinance changes in R4C/R2A zoning districts.

One basic premise of the moratorium is that while revisions to the zoning are being considered, no development should take place, to prevent a rush of proposals that aim to avoid compliance with any new changes that might be proposed.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that he was supportive of the notion of a moratorium, but wanted to propose a total of four amendments. We’ve indicated those amendments by red-lining strikethroughs and blue-facing additions:

RESOLVED, That City Council hereby imposes a moratorium on all new development that requires site plan approval, expansion of existing development that requires site plan approval, [Amendment 3; see also below] zoning changes, special exception uses, or other comparable zoning items, in the R4C and R2A zoning districts [Amendment 1] within the Central Planning Area, and that any petitions or permits for such items be deferred for a period of [Amendment 2] 180 365 days from the date of this resolution in conjunction with the study and revision of the zoning ordinances pertaining to these districts, with the following exceptions:

• Approval of development, redevelopment, or the issuance of building permits for projects that do not require an approved site plan, including but not limited to construction of or addition to one single or two-family dwelling or accessory structure on a parcel;
• [Amendment 3] Petitions for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and PUD site plans;
• [Amendment 4] The following petitions that have been accepted by the City for review prior to the date of this resolution and are under review by the City:
  
  1. City Place Site Plan
  2. Casa Dominick’s Revised and Expanded PUD Zoning District
  3. The Moravian PUD Zoning District and PUD Site Plan;

Anglin accepted the first two amendments as friendly to his resolution, saying they dealt with timing and geographic scope and were thus “non-substantive.” The third and fourth prompted a longer council discussion.

Council first handled Amendment 3.

In response to a question from Margie Teall (Ward 4) about why the PUD site plans would be exempted, Taylor argued that the rationale for the moratorium was to give the city an opportunity to align the zoning with the master plan, and that affected specifically “matter-of-right” projects. PUDs inherently did not follow existing zoning, and their approval “rises and falls not by right,” said Taylor, but by a separate ordinance – an ordinance that is not currently under review by any study committee.

Taylor did allow that a PUD was in a way tied to the nature of the prevailing zoning where a PUD was proposed – the prevailing zoning acted as a foil to establish whether or not a proposal required a PUD rezoning.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) contrasted the experience of councilmembers in reviewing PUD proposals with that of neighborhoods who opposed them. For councilmembers, she said, it was always intriguing to see how well planning commission, planning staff, the developer and the public had done their respective jobs, and that it was an enlightening and rewarding experience. For the neighborhoods, however, she felt like it was merely frustrating. She compared the idea of imposing a moratorium, but exempting PUDs, with offering a carrot but hitting the neighborhoods with a stick, too.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated that he’d gotten to a place where he was not inclined to be supportive of a moratorium – the downside was the perception that the city was changing the rules in the middle of the game. But he said that he’d support the amendments because they would lessen the city’s legal exposure. Responding to Briere’s comments, he said he appreciated her concern about the neighborhoods feeling threatened, but said that a moratorium wouldn’t have an effect on what could eventually wind up being built.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed some of the same sentiment as Hohnke in not supporting the overall idea of a moratorium, but supporting the amendments. This was consistent, he explained, with the legislative role of “making something bad less bad.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he supported the sound logic that Taylor had used, saying that a PUD is a customized form of zoning that gave the council great discretion.

Anglin weighed in against excluding PUDs from the moratorium, saying that they reflected a radical change to a neighborhood. Rapundalo objected to the way that Anglin had characterized PUDs, saying that Anglin implied that PUDs were inherently bad and negative. It does a disservice to the PUD designation, said Rapundalo, to suggest they’re all bad.

Mayor John Hieftje posed a hypothetical: What if the study committee finished its work in two weeks? Then anyone would still be free to bring a PUD proposal forward next week. [This seemed to be a different way of making the same point that Hohnke had made earlier – for a PUD, there'd be no material effect on what could eventually be proposed.]

A discussion ensued about whether amendment 4 was in part redundant – if amendment 3 meant that all PUDs were exempt from the moratorium. The city attorney and staff were called on to interpret. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked if it might not be possible to find wording that didn’t require the interpretation of the city attorney. The word “all” was inserted into amendment 3, with councilmembers indicating that they would delete the specific reference to Casa Dominick’s and The Moravian when amendment 4 was considered.

While the wording change and the plan to delete specific reference to two PUDs in amendment 4 seemed like a technicality, it appeared to change Briere’s mind about her vote. She said that the discussion had provided some clarity – it would be all PUDs that would be exempted, not just two specific projects.

Outcome: Taylor’s amendment 3 passed on a roll call vote, with dissent from Anglin.

With the change to amendment 4 to reflect only exemption of the City Place project (the other projects being subsumed under amendment 3 as PUDs), councilmembers focused their deliberations on that project. Hieftje led off by saying that a moratorium on development was not the best mechanism to apply to the City Place project, if the intent was to protect the houses there. Why not? The moratorium on new development did not include a prohibition against demolition. Plus, said Hieftje, a failure to exempt City Place provided some legal exposure for the city.

Briere prefaced her argument for exempting the project from the moratorium by saying, “I don’t think there are many people who think I love this project.” Briere then articulated a view that was echoed by many others: In postponing the City Place matter-of-right project at its previous meeting, the city council had made a commitment to the developer that he could bring it back with 35 days notice. If it were included in the moratorium, then that would reflect a failure to honor that commitment.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Rapundalo echoed much the same sentiment. Smith stressed that it was dangerous to deviate from the predictability of the regulatory process when someone goes down a path in good faith. Rapundalo noted, “There are such things as property rights,” adding, “Let’s be honest – it’s an attempt to stop a development.” Rapundalo cautioned that it would send a very chilling message to the broader community that Ann Arbor is closed for development.

Deliberations seemed to be covering much of the same ground when Higgins called the question – a parliamentary move that forces councilmembers to vote immediately on whether to continue discussion of the current motion, which in this case was amendment 4. Hieftje at first mistakenly asked for discussion on the calling of the question – and had to appeal to the city attorney for help. There is no discussion that’s attached to the calling of the question, and councilmembers voted on whether to continue deliberations. Hieftje, Hohnke, and Anglin voted against cutting off deliberations, with their colleagues forcing a vote on amendment 4.

Outcome: Taylor’s amendment 4 passed with dissent only from Anglin.

For the resolution on the moratorium, even as amended, there turned out to be little support. So the first part of Smith’s statement as she opened deliberations seemed mistaken in hindsight: “I sense I may be in the minority, but I can’t in good conscience send a message to the rest of the world that we’re not interested in growth in our city.” She noted that as the other aspects of the city’s zoning had been reviewed, no moratoria had been needed. This last point later was echoed by Higgins and Hohnke.

Derezinski also echoed Smith’s view, adding that he was concerned about potential litigation. If the moratorium did, in fact, pass muster, he said, then it would be in a court – and that would be expensive. He recalled that when he practiced law he had “a wonderful hourly rate.” He then described the amended resolution as an attempt to “put lipstick on a pig.”

Anglin said that by amending the resolution, council had said to residents that if they came forward with cogent arguments then they didn’t really count and their rights weren’t protected. As amended, Anglin said, he was not going to vote for the resolution, either.

Rapundalo said that his concern with the resolution was: What is the specific protection for people that needed to be put in place? The amendments, he said, gave him some comfort that the risk of legal exposure was diminished and he was thus willing to support it.

Taylor said that there were some other areas of R4C/R2A zoning districts besides the one where City Place was sited that should be considered – on Church, Tappan, and Hill streets.

Teall said the amendments went a long way but not all the way. For her, the moratorium was too broad.

Hohnke also characterized the moratorium as too broad a tool, and the concern being addressed – the incompatibility of master planning with zoning ordinances – did not rise to the level of health, safety and welfare. In any case, Hohnke said, it would not prevent demolition.

Briere, for her part, said that the moratorium applied to a much wider area than what had been the focus, namely Germantown. The area of the moratorium, she warned, was large enough that the decision should not be made based on the emotion of City Place in Germantown. A moratorium was the wrong tool, she said.

Outcome: The moratorium failed with only Rapundalo, Taylor and Leigh Greden voting yes.

Historic District Study Committee

A resolution sponsored by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) to establish a historic district study committee was added to the agenda on the day of the council’s meeting. The council had considered a similar resolution in December 2008. One difference between the resolution the council considered on Thursday and the one it rejected in December was the inclusion Thursday for a moratorium on demolition in the study area.

Another difference was that the study area was considerably smaller:

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

Hohnke led off deliberations by reminding his colleagues that they’d considered something similar before, and that this time the area was smaller. The study committee could extend the boundaries for a recommended historic district, he said, if they thought it was appropriate to do so.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that the proposal raised a lot of intriguing issues, but given that it had just been added to the agenda that day, he had not had a chance to look at it. He thus moved to postpone the decision. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Leigh Greden (Ward 3) supported Derezinski’s effort to postpone. Greden said he’d like to see a map. His colleagues pointed out that a map was included in the meeting packet.

Marica Higgins (Ward 4) said she was not in favor of a postponement. She noted that they’d said back in December 2008 they’d bring back a resolution if the proposed study area was smaller – it was smaller.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Honhke got clarification that the study committee had to be established first and then, at a separate meeting, the members appointed.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) initially said that he was in favor of a postponement to expand the scope of the study area, but when it was clarified that the committee could recommend a wider area for establishment of a historic district than the study area, he was content to vote on it that night.

The clarification on the boundary issue came from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who said she could not support a postponement based on the boundary issue.

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.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), responding in part to Derezinski, weighed in against postponement. He noted there’d been a great deal of discussion on the point and that he considered it to be a subset of the previous proposal and thus felt adequately prepared to vote.

Mayor John Hieftje then reduced the talk to a very practical level: How long does it take to issue a demolition permit? The implication here was that a property owner who wanted to demolish a building within the study area might have enough time to accomplish that, if the council were to postpone the decision until its next meeting. Wendy Rampson, with the city’s systems planning unit, estimated that for a residential building it would probably take around two weeks, including the utility shutoffs.

Hohnke got clarification from the city attorney’s staff that a site plan is not tied to demolition. So the commitment the council made to the City Place developer to bring back the matter-of-right site plan with 35 days notice could still be honored.

Assessing the 12 days they’d have to wait until next council meeting and the estimated two weeks it would take to get a demolition permit, Taylor concluded: “That’s pretty close.”

Outcome: The motion to postpone consideration of the historic district study committee failed, with Smith, Derezinski, Rapundalo, and Greden voting for it.

Faced with the need to vote that night on the study committee, Smith criticized the proposal with its accompanying moratorium on demolition as “punitive.” She said that the council had set aside the City Place matter-of-right project, with the expectation that the PUD version of the project would be worked on as a part of the regulatory process – an expectation that would not be met with the creation of a historic district study committee.

Derezinski agreed with Smith, saying that it sends a “bad message.” He said it was “aimed at one project.”

Taylor Hohnke argued for the resolution he’d sponsored, saying, “This is within the rules of the game. It’s within our arsenal of options.” While he allowed that he was not sure if he would ultimately support a historic district for the area, Taylor Hohnke said he was eager to learn what the study committee had to say.

Hieftje was blunt in saying that the matter-of-right project was a “lever” in order to achieve a PUD down the road. The developer, Hieftje contended, was using every tool in the toolbox, and the establishment of a historic district study committee was a tool in council’s tool box.

Outcome: The establishment of a historic district study committee passed, with dissent from Smith and Derezinski.

Near North PUD

Near North is a planned unit development – as contrasted with a “matter-of-right” project. As such it does not conform to the existing zoning, and the city council’s role will be to assess whether the public benefit offered by the project is adequate to justify a rezoning so that it can be built.

The building, proposed for the east side of North Main Street just south of Summit Street, comprises 40 residential units (44 bedrooms total) to be built in a five-story apartment building with 2,950 square feet of commercial space and 1,645 square feet of office space attached to the building. Forty parking spaces would be provided below the building, with an additional 10 spaces not under the building.

All of the units are proposed to be affordable under Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) standards, which target rents for income levels at or below 50% of area median income (AMI). In addition, 14 of the units are designated as “supportive housing” for individuals having no more than 30% of AMI.

Several people spoke during the public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting – this was not the official public hearing on the matter. That will be scheduled when the proposal comes before council for a second and final reading.

Near North Public Comment Reserved Time

Bill Godfrey: Godfrey is a partner in Three Oaks Group, the team that is developing the Near North project. He stressed that the project consists of 100% affordable housing units. He also emphasized that the public engagement process had been extensive, which had included three design charettes and three planning commission meetings. That process he characterized as constructive and collaborative – one that had resulted in many changes to the design. He allowed that the 5-2 vote for the project by the planning commission was a recommendation for denial, but said that commissioner Craig Borum, who’d been absent for the vote, had indicated via email that he would have voted for the project, had he been present. Later, during council deliberations, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – who is the city council’s representative to planning commission and was also absent from the Near North vote – said he, too, would have voted for the project.

Kate Warner: Warner introduced herself as a retired University of Michigan urban planning professor, who’d previously served on the housing policy board, the affordable housing commission and co-directed the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corporation. She said that in her 35 years of study and work to increase the supply of affordable housing, she’d rarely seen factors of land use and economics so well aligned as with Near North. Its moderate density, she said, made it appropriate for alocation in an “interface zone” between the neighborhoods and downtown, which is proximate to the pool of service jobs in the downtown that could employ residents. Its mixed commercial use component strengthened its economics, she said.

Mary Browning: Browning introduced herself as speaking on behalf of the Religious Action for Affordable Housing (RAAH). She reported that her son has an efficiency apartment with Avalon Housing and expressed her hope that the council would approved the Near North project, in which Avalon is a partner. She pointed out that the Delonis Center – the downtown homeless shelter – can only be successful if there is housing to which shelter residents can eventually move.

Michael Appel: Appel is the executive director of Avalon Housing. He emphasized that the 100% affordable nature of the project set an unprecedented high standard for affordable housing in PUD projects. The design with a mixture of uses and its density, he contended, were right for the location. The moderate density, he said, was not as high as the proposed D2 zoning district closer to downtown and not as low as the residential areas further from downtown. He concluded by saying that he knew they had not achieved the support for the project from the immediate neighbors, but that they would continue to listen and participate in dialogue.

Lisa Marra: Marra spoke in favor of Near North, saying that there was no doubt about the quality of services that Avalon would offer. Addressing concerns about the scale of the project, she noted that the neighborhood shows a variety of different scales and that the new building would have a positive impact on that mix of scales. Damian Farrell, the architect for the project, would not site the building poorly, she said. The North Main corridor, she continued, does not currently convey the spirit of the town, which has historic homes coexisting with green new buildings. The Near North project, she said, would serve as a symbol that the community is serious about its goals.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge introduced himself as a progressive, Christian-guided Democrat. He called on the council, the residents of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and southeast Michigan, to recognize the need for enlightened development. He encouraged the council to invite expert economists and leaders of local economic institutions to study the situation. We cannot wait, he said, to begin addressing the need for affordable housing and transportation. He suggested that the council begin with a reform of site plan requirements for new developments that would include a human rights amendment.

Near North: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) led off deliberations by characterizing the project as “not new to us.” He’d had a chance to see the project in a fair amount of detail already, as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, which had recommended denial of the project on a 5-2 vote for it. Even though it had a majority of votes for it, the failure to reach a 6-vote majority from the 9-member body meant that it had been recommended for denial. Derezinski said he “pled guilty” to being absent for that vote, but would have voted for it.

Derezinski said he felt that better than 90% agreement had been achieved on the project among all parties and that it was a case of being willing to accept a three-quarter loaf.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) indicated that he’d support the project at this first reading, but wanted to continue to listen to the public and the developer. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she agreed with Greden’s sentiments, but said that she did not think a three-quarter loaf was enough – she’d prefer nine-tenths of a loaf.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that the success of Avalon Housing depended on its integration into the neighborhood. He noted that there were two Avalon houses in his own neighborhood that were not noticeable as low-income supportive housing. He said that the kind of harmony and agreement expressed by the developer was not true, saying that there was still disagreement with the project from residents.

Anglin said that even though an alternate proposal had been brought forward at the 11th hour, he hoped that it would be considered by the developer. [In The Chronicle's caucus report, we noted that North Central Property Owners Association representatives at that meeting indicated that they had developed an alternative proposal that would have roughly 30 units at around the same size (750 sq ft) as the developer’s version. A key difference would be that it would have a maximum of three stories, as contrasted with Near North, which includes a section of the structure that is five stories tall.]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said that she would support the project at this first reading because of the extent of the affordability offered by the housing units.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) advised that the minutes from the planning commission meeting when Derezinski had been absent from the vote indicated that only Derezinksi had been absent – which was not consistent with the statement made by Michael Appel that commissioner Craig Borum had also been absent, but would have voted for Near North. She asked the city administrator, Roger Fraser, to follow up to see that the minutes were corrected.

Higgins also emphasized that whether someone would have voted for the project or not did not change the fact that the project had failed to win the planning commission’s recommendation. Still, she said that the levels of affordable housing offered by the project made her more than willing to move the proposal to a second reading.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted the importance of the continued dialog between the developer and the neighborhood group. She characterized the issue as not the affordability of the housing, but rather the massing of the building.

Mayor John Hieftje reported that he’d met with representatives of NCPOA and had appreciated ttheir alternate proposal. He said he found the levels of affordability very attractive.

Outcome: The Near North PUD approved at first reading. Final approval will not come until its second reading before council, which will be accompanied by a public hearing.

Exemption Certificate for AVL Inc.

There was a public hearing on the receipt of the application for an exemption certificate, but the council did not have an action item on its agenda.

Karen Sidney: Sidney noted that while the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, had just given a presentation on the doom and gloom of the city’s financial picture, the exemption certificate was a tax break, which “the rest of us pay for.” Sidney pointed to the $38 million in Single Business Tax abatement provided by the state to Google, as well as the free parking spaces provided by the city of Ann Arbor, but asked what Google had provided. [The internet company had said it expected to hire 1,000 people over five years, but in the first three years, they've only brought around 250 on board at its Ann Arbor location.]

Thomas Partridge: Partridge asked that all such certificates have a return on investment clause attached.

During his communications from council turn, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), objected to what he said was a characterization by Sidney of the certificate as writing a check and handing it over. He said there’s a prescribed procedure and that the step to be considered by the council that night was simply the acceptance of the application. When the details of the certificate were worked out, he explained, they would reflect the city’s policy of what community elements are expected.

Communications from Council: Driving and Cell Phones

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) reported that he and his Ward 2 colleague, Tony Derezinski, had asked the city attorney’s office to draft an ordinance to prohibit cell phone usage and texting while driving. He owned up to currently being an offender, but said that New York City had passed a similar ordinance and that it was a public safety issue. It will likely come before council at its Aug. 17 meeting.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the council’s agenda was now time-stamped, which meant that it was easier to distinguish different versions of that document.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reported on a “wonderful thing” that had happened in Ward 5, namely the Michigan Inn on Jackson near I-94 had been demolished. “Let’s hope something good goes up,” he concluded.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reported that the rules committee had been meeting over the last several months and that there would be a need for the council as a whole to have a work session to have a dialogue on rules changes.

Higgins also advised that the council’s administrative committee was asking that councilmembers fill out their surveys on the performance review of the city administrator (Roger Fraser) and the city attorney (Stephen Postema), as it was time for their annual assessments. [Both of these positions report to the city council.]

Mayor John Hieftje explained his rationale for objecting to the unison choral singing that had taken place at the previous council meeting: It could not be tolerated, he contended, because enforcing a rule against multiple people speaking at the same time was the only way catcalls and heckling could be prevented.

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

Absent: none.

Next Council Meeting: Monday, Aug. 17, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Lyric sheet to a song sung by Libby Hunter at the public hearing on the City Place site plan. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Even an apparently mundane proposal from Leigh Greden (Ward 3) to allow for an additional exception to parking on front lawns was not acted on by council. In that case, they referred it to the planning commission.

However, the council did accomplish a substitution of taxable Build America Bonds for the tax-free general obligation bonds already authorized for the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure, plus a site plan approval for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s park-and-ride lot at Plymouth Road and US-23.

And finally, Mayor John Hieftje gave an interpretation of council public hearing speaking rules that precludes audience members from joining in a group chorus when a speaker at the podium is singing: To the strains of “Glory, Glory Hallelujah, Density is coming to ya,” Hieftje warned he might “clear the room.”

The meeting was also notable for the closed session conducted in the course of the meeting to discuss attorney-client privileged information – it lasted over an hour, but provided a chance for attendees to mingle.

We begin this report in a somewhat unconventional spot: the Communications from Council. They were noteworthy, because the first communication – from Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) – put that section of the meeting to one of its potentially more important uses: notification of council and the public of upcoming openings on boards and commissions.

Communications from Council

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) alerted his colleagues and the public to the fact that there were two slots that were expiring on the Greenbelt Advisory Commission (GAC). One of the open GAC positions is specified to be the representative of an environmental group, while the other is to be filled with a plant biologist or animal biologist. He encouraged those with an interest to step forward and apply.

He also alerted the public that the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) was in the process of revising its bylaws, which would lead to an expansion of that body to include a wider range of transportation users. There would, therefore, potentially be additional seats on WATS.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reminded the residents of Ward 4 that their Area Height and Placement community meeting would take place at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 23 at Cobblestone Farm.

Higgins also addressed a concern about scheduling a status report on the Stadium bridge replacement. She wanted to explore the possibility that a status report could be combined with an early August meeting about the concept and design process. City administrator Roger Fraser had expressed his preference to combine that update on the bridge’s status with the design work at the council’s Aug. 17 meeting.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) alerted the public to a meeting on Wednesday, July 22 from 6-7 p.m. at Slauson Middle School on the subject of a pedestrian refuge island at the intersection of Seventh & Washington streets. He thanked his Ward 5 colleague Carsten Hohnke for bringing it forward. He said there would be a series of ordinance changes undertaken to help alter the perception that in Ann Arbor, cars ruled. When a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, Anglin said, cars should stop.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) alerted his colleagues to two different infrastructure projects, one that had just been completed and the other which was just beginning. He commended city staff for the completion of the Nixon/Huron roundabout. He noted that many initial naysayers were now champions of the design. Rapundalo reported that the East Washtenaw/Huron Parkway project had begun that night and would continue for a number of months.

A2D2 Rezoning Package

A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) is a multi-year process to improve zoning, urban design, transportation and development in the downtown area. Several people spoke during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, addressing the A2D2 item on the agenda.

John Etter: Etter said that he was there once again about the reconsideration of the proposed zoning of East Huron Street from D1 to D2. Etter supports the zoning of the area as D2 (a buffer zone between commercial and residential neighborhoods), not D1 as currently specified. He cited a letter written from the Michigan Department of Transportation opposed to the rezoning of the area as D1. In response to criticism that the author of the letter lacked experience, Etter cited the author’s 18 years of experience in the Michigan Department of Transportation as head of the Kalamazoo County office, plus five years of experience with the Indiana Department of Transportation. How can anyone defend your argument as reasonable, he asked?

Lazar Greenfield: Greenfield commended the council for their decision to review the downtown zoning. He noted that the Calthorpe study recommended enhancing pedestrian scale, whereas a D1 designation for East Huron violated that recommendation. He noted that the University of Michigan North Quad construction, together with the Children’s Hospital expansion, had not been factored into the D1 rezoning. He said that he supported further development, but only that which did not threaten Ann Arbor’s quality of life.

Hugh Sonk: Sonk introduced himself as the president of the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association. He cited various specific points of the 2005 Calthorpe study that he said argued against a D1 zoning for East Huron Street. Among them was on page 13, where it is noted that the non-pedestrian scale of Huron Street is described as a “negative.” Page 20, he said, recommends buildings that are somewhere between three and 10 stories tall for East Huron Street. A D1 zoning, he pointed out, would allow buildings much taller than that. He then went on to suggest the formation of a political action committee based on the 465,000 alumni from the University of Michigan that would be dedicated to the protection of quality of life in Ann Arbor. That suggestion drew applause from the audience.

Council Deliberations

Work on the  A2D2 zoning package, which includes a comprehensive rezoning of downtown Ann Arbor, can be traced back at least to 2005. In council’s deliberations on Monday, it was Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), the council’s representative to the A2D2 oversight committee, who suggested the postponement. The rationale was based on the fact that work on design guidelines would commence in earnest at a Sept. 14 work session and that it was essentially an opportunity to bring the two processes – zoning and design guidelines – into closer chronological alignment. In addition, it will give councilmembers more time to consider adjustments to building height and mass specifications suggested by the DDA board.

Outcome: A2D2 was postponed to the council’s Sept. 8 meeting.

Moratorium on Development in R4C/R2A Zoning Districts

Several people spoke during public comment about a proposed moratorium on building in districts zoned for multi-family residential dwellings (R4C) and two-family dwellings (R2A).

Mozhagn Savabieasfahani: She noted that she had been coming to city council meetings for many years asking for a boycott of Israel. She suggested that if Ann Arbor wanted to decide for itself how our city looks, that we could take a lesson from the democratic movement in Iran by simply stating, “This is how we want our city to look!” Referring to the City Place project on that night’s agenda, she described the removal of seven homes as “despicable.” It’s shameful, she said, to demolish part of our history. She encouraged the council to place a moratorium – also an item on the council’s agenda – on demolition. She then transitioned to talk about what she described as another demolition site – Palestine. She reflected on 25 years of Ann Arbor activism against the continued financing of Israel by the United States. She described Israel as the second biggest warmonger in the Middle East, behind United States. She warned that Israel was now planning to bomb her own country, Iran.

Vivienne Armentrout: Armentrout began by noting that the previous speaker, Hugh Sonk, who had suggested a political action committee based on University of Michigan alumni, would be “a hard act to follow.” Armentrout stated that she was there that evening to support a moratorium on development in R4C and R2A districts. She said that to her, it represented a rational planning process: to ensure that a zoning category fits the master plan. With regard to that fit, she said everyone acknowledges that there are currently deficiencies. She described the 180 days of the proposed moratorium as a relatively short period. The tension between the Central Area Plan on the one hand and “matter of right” development on the other could be solved, she continued, by leaving the R4C/R2A study committee to do its work. She noted that the proposed moratorium had a built-in appeals process, and that the city council could repeal it at any time. Although the moratorium had come up in connection with the City Place project, Armentrout pointed out that the council was now contemplating a postponement of City Place that evening, so there was no longer a connection to a particular project. She concluded by encouraging the council to see the moratorium has an example of good government and good planning, not as anti-development.

Hatim Elhady: Elhady began by thanking Vivienne Armentrout for the sentiments she had expressed, and commended councilmember Anglin for bringing forward the notion of a moratorium. “Let’s try not to emulate Southfield,” he joked. He described a moratorium simply as taking “a breather.” He stated that he was not anti-development except when it endangers Ann Arbor’s quality of life. [Elhady is running as an independent for the Ward 4 council seat currently occupied by Marcia Higgins.]

Maureen Sloan: Sloan spoke on behalf of the Homebuilders Association of Washtenaw County. She asked that the proposed moratorium be tabled, citing questions about its legality because it did not address issues of health, safety, or welfare. She then ticked through various service problems with the city’s building department connected to issuance of permits and inspections. It had a negative impact on contractors and homeowners alike, she said. Among complaints that she cited were (i) delayed inspections, (ii) lack of consistency among inspectors, (iii) new items cited on re-inspection, (iv) a lack of mutual respect and (v) poor communication about scheduling appointments.

Beverly Strassmann: Strassmann spoke in favor of the proposed moratorium on R4C zoning, saying that it protected against unplanned development – sprawl. She warned the council that a vote against the moratorium was a vote for sprawl. She noted that while other communities were trying to engineer a sense of charm and history, Ann Arbor already has a sense of charm and history. As an argument for the moratorium, she cited the fact that currently there are no R4C projects before the city. If councilmembers did not support the moratorium, she told them that they would be “declaring war against your own constituents.”

Claudius Vincenz: Vincenz has spoken frequently in public hearings on the City Place project and thus introduced himself by saying “I’m afraid you know me by now!” He stated that his neighborhood was under assault. Because of the tension between the Central Area Plan and the definitions of R4C zoning, he said, it’s time to call a timeout – by applying a moratorium. Among the specific problems that he pointed out with the R4C zoning district was the number of bedrooms allowed – six. The city code did not define exactly what a six-bedroom apartment actually is. The result, he said, could be an apartment complex where 200 people had only 36 parking spots.

Council Deliberations

The basic idea of declaring a moratorium on development in R4C/R2A is to hedge the possibility that there would be a rush to push projects forward in advance of any changes to zoning definitions and districts that might come from the work of a recently created study committee to look at the R4C/R2A districts citywide.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who brought the initiative forward, led off deliberations by addressing, in part, one of the objections raised during public comment by Maureen Sloan, who suggested that public safety and welfare was not at issue. He contended that psychological welfare of the public was at issue. About the council’s fear of a lawsuit in connection with a moratorium, Anglin contended that if the fear of a lawsuit was council’s primary guidance, they would never get any change.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) suggested that the idea of a moratorium warranted very serious consideration. He noted that previously the city had never granted such a moratorium. And in connection with the discussion about the legality of a moratorium, he noted that the historical examples that had been cited were fraught with litigation. He described a moratorium as a “the nuclear option.” Said Derezinski, “You don’t drop the bomb without serious consideration.” He thus proposed a postponement until the council’s Aug. 17 meeting.

Mayor John Hieftje and councilmember Sabra Briere convinced Derezinski to move the postponement to the Aug. 6 meeting, saying that at that time they could extend the postponement to Aug. 17 if necessary.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) suggested that until the council took up the matter again, that they contemplate whether there were other zoning districts that needed to be included in the moratorium as well. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was in favor of the postponement to Aug. 6, noting that there were 1,300 property owners throughout the city who would be affected by such a moratorium.

Briere, who favors a moratorium, echoed Taylor’s sentiments. She said that although she supported a moratorium, she also had an obligation to represent her ward’s views. “My ward has not been heard on this,” she concluded.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked if the city had any obligation to notify the 1,300 property owners of the impending moratorium. City attorney Stephen Postma indicated that in fact there was no requirement that the property owners be noticed.

Outcome: Consideration of the moratorium on development in R4C/R2A districts was postponed until Aug. 6. The voice vote was unanimous with except for dissent from Anglin.

Coda: During the public commentary open time – at the end of the meeting – Vivienne Armentrout noted something in the proposed language of the moratorium that might have assuaged some of the councilmember’s concerns about homeowners being affected who had possible renovation plans. She  pointed out for councilmembers concerned about property owners – specifically homeowners – that the language of the proposed moratorium explicitly excludes any activity that does not require a site plan.

Plymouth and US-23 Park-and-Ride

Jim Mogensen: Speaking during public comment time, Mogensen suggested to councilmembers that there were two different policy points that can be made on this fairly pro forma approval. The first, he said, was that the pedestrian walkway – an “escape hatch” – and 28 bicycle spots reflected a commitment to the political correctness of having a multi-modal facility, when in fact it was not clear how bicyclists or pedestrians would get to the lot. The other policy point, he said, was that if the AATA reconfigured the bus routes and the new park-and-ride so that it is less easy for people who live here to get around using the bus, then that creates a tension. The tension is based on the fact that it’s the people who live in the urban area who pay for the buses through their millage.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge said that before this particular park-and-ride facility was put forward there should have been a plan for a coordinated city and countywide system for park-and-ride lots. He called for a coordinated countywide regional bus service with attendant para-transit service. This park-and-ride lot, Partridge contended, reflected a piecemeal approach.

Council deliberations

Chris White, director of service development with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, was on hand to explain details of the site plan for the park-and-ride at Plymouth and US-23. The primary motivation, he said, was that the Green Road park-and-ride was now over capacity. It was being paid for with stimulus funds, he said. They anticipated starting construction in the fall, with completion sometime in November and service starting in January 2010.

White underwent close questioning from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who wanted to know if there had been any discussion with the University of Michigan about simply expanding the existing Green Road lot instead of picking an entirely new site. Part of the rationale, said White, had to do with issues concerning barriers to attracting drivers to use a park-and-ride lot. One of those is that drivers tend to prefer not to go much out of their way to get to the park-and-ride lot, White said. The proposed new lot’s location right off of US-23 corresponded to a phase change for drivers coming off of US-23 highway-style driving and going into the city roads. The location was thus ideal for attracting users, he concluded.

Acknowledging Rapundalo’s point that UM now owned all the property adjoining the Green Road lot as a result of Pfizer’s sale of the land to the university, White said that the planning for the park-and-ride lot had taken place before the sale.

Outcome: The site plan was unanimously approved.

City Place Site Plan Approval

The public hearing on City Place – a project proposed  on the east side of South Fifth Avenue just south of William – included many of the same speakers and touched on many of the same themes that have appeared from the start of the meandering path that the project has taken through the city’s planning process in its various forms. Here’s a timeline:

• Jan. 15, 2008: Conditional rezoning – Ann Arbor Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: None. NO: Bonnie Bona, Craig Borum, Jean Carlberg, Ron Emaus, Joan Lowenstein, Eric Mahler, Ethel Potts, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal.
• May 20, 2008: PUD (planned unit development) – Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: Emaus. NO: Bona, Borum, Carlberg, Lowenstein, Mahler, Potts, Westphal. ABSENT: Pratt.
• Sept. 4, 2008: PUD – Ann Arbor Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: Borum, Lowenstein. NO: Bona, Carlberg, Potts, Pratt, Westphal, Woods.
• Jan. 5, 2009: PUD – City Council denied on a unanimous 0-10 vote. NO: Hieftje, Briere, Derezinski, Rapundalo, Greden, Taylor, Teall, Higgins, Hohnke, Anglin. ABSENT: Smith.
• April 21, 2009: MOR (matter of right) – Planning Commission recommends approval on 6-3 vote.
  YES: Bona, Carlberg, Derezinski, Mahler, Westphal, Woods. NO: Potts, Borum, Pratt.
• June 1, 2009: MOR – City Council postponed due to inconsistencies in drawings provided on website.
• June 15, 2009: MOR – City Council sent it back to Planning Commission due to technical errors with drawings provided at the Planning Commission April meeting.
• July 7, 2009: MOR – Planning Commission recommended denial on 5-1 vote to approve (needed 6).
• July 20, 2009: MOR – City Council postpones until January 2010.

The matter-of-right (MOR) project before council on Monday night was a 24-unit project with six bedrooms per unit.

The public hearing was noteworthy for its musical component. Libby Hunter sang a song as her contribution to the public hearing. [This is the second time Hunter has treated council to a singing public commentary.] For the final chorus, sung to the tune of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” several members of the audience joined it.

This provoked Hieftje to threaten to “clear the room.” Before he could follow through, the song ended. [When The Chronicle followed up later, city attorney Stephen Postema clarified that the phrase simply meant that council would have taken a break and allow things to settle down.]

When the song ended, Hieftje stressed that only one person could speak at a time and the rules needed to be followed. At subsequent public speaking turns several speakers addressed Hieftje’s reaction.

Among them was Karen Sidney, who began her remarks with an apparent allusion to the recently FOIA-ed emails among councilmembers during meetings, saying: “Council will get the respect from citizens that they give to citizens.” Glenn Thompson, for his speaking turn, suggested that council needs a sense of humor, saying, “Your iron fist will rust and crumble someday.”

Charles Loucks noted that when people join in singing, there’s chaos – because it breaks the rules. So why, he asked, can we allow developers to break the rules?

Chip Lind, after apologizing for singing – he didn’t know the rules, he said –  referred to the proposed design of the project by saying: “If it looks like a giant square, we become square.”

Also worth noting as somewhat different from previous public hearings was the presentation of a new 3-D model of a hypothetical building by resident Tom Whitaker, who has previously brought a different model to public meetings on City Place. The new model demonstrates the interpretation of roof height that city planning staff uses to determine conformance with the zoning code. Whereas his previous model was constructed so that he could lift off the narrow strip corresponding to the “roof,” the new version is constructed so that he can add something – a piece of “trim” – that results in a “reduction” of the building’s height.

Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) began deliberations by describing the City Place project as having been a “contentious issue.” He said that one thread running through the history of the project was the possibility that some of the disagreement might be resolved to the potential satisfaction of neighbors, the city council, and the petitioner, Alex de Parry.

He therefore suggested a postponement of the City Place matter of right project until the council’s second meeting in January of 2010. The postponement included a provision that the city of Ann Arbor accept a PUD application for a project that might reflect the kind of compromise the various parties hoped to achieve.

Outcome: The postponement was approved unanimously.

Build America Bonds

The general obligation bonds that had been authorized for issuance at city council’s Feb. 17, 2009 meeting are tax-free. That is, for the purchaser of such a bond as an investment, the typically lower interest rate earned from a municipal bond is somewhat balanced by the fact that the earnings are tax-free. Build America Bonds, explained the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, are taxable and thus have a somewhat higher interest rate – on its face more expensive for the city. But what is special about Build America Bonds is that they provide coverage of some of the debt service. The direct federal subsidy payment to local governments is equal to 35% of the total coupon interest paid to investors.

In brief deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) clarified that switching from one kind of general obligation bonds to another would not require council to wait an additional 45 days before issuance. The time requirement had already been met, she said, in the time that had passed since Feb. 17. The 45-day time window allows for the possible circulation of the petition that, if successful, would require a voter referendum on the bond issuance.

Outcome: The issuance of $49 million to $50 million worth of Build America Bonds was unanimously approved.

Front Yard Parking

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) introduced a resolution that would revise how parking in front yards is controlled. Parking cars in front yards, Greden explained, is currently prohibited except for two cases: University of Michigan football Saturdays and art fairs.

The change he was proposing would allow churches and other houses of worship to park cars on their front lawns up to two times a year and would require a permit, he explained. He said that the second reading was proposed for Aug. 17 instead of at the council’s next meeting in two weeks, because of a staff request that they be given enough time to inform the public about the change.

In subsequent deliberations by Rapundalo, Anglin, and Higgins, it was determined that it would be best to refer the matter to the planning commission. What really seemed to seal the deal was input from community services director, Jayne Miller, who said that revisions to Chapter 59 of the city code do normally go through the planning commission.

Outcome: The proposed change was referred to the planning commission.

Outdoor Sales

The council’s agenda included an item to allow temporary outdoor sales and displayed goods and services as a special exception use for C3 commercial zoning districts. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) thanked the city staff for moving the change along quickly. The impact of the change included the ability to hold a farmers market in the Westgate parking lot next to Zingerman’s Roadhouse.

Outcome: The change to allow uses to include outdoor markets was unanimously approved.

Nominations

Leah Gunn and and Russ Collins were nominated for reappointments to the Downtown Development Authority board.

Other Commentary

Chip Lind: Lind said he wasn’t really planning to speak at the concluding public commentary session, but he had missed his bus and figured, why not. He suggested that the city think about making compost bins available. He also suggested that Ann Arbor have its own currency.

Tim Hull: Hull alerted Council to the problems at Arborland in connection with the eviction of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority bus stop from that parking plaza. He suggested that a crosswalk be installed to ensure pedestrian safety to bus riders who had to cross Washtenaw Avenue to get to the bus stop that had previously been located in the parking lot. On a separate topic, he also addressed a bar ID policy, noting that his attempt to purchase a drink at  Bar Louie had foundered on the fact that he had a Michigan state ID but not a driver’s license.

Thomas Partridge: During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Partridge introduced himself as a Democratic uniter on the local, state, and national level. He gave endorsements in the Democratic primary races for city council: Ward 3 – LuAnne Bullington; Ward 5 – Mike Anglin. He said he perceived both of those candidates to be decent people with progressive policies. On a separate note, he urged council that for all the resolutions they were considering that evening, that amendments be passed to ensure democratic access, singling out a special need for access to transportation and affordable housing. He allowed that there had been disagreements over the zoning of a particular site, but that they needed to unite with the goal of democratic access.

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

Absent: none.

Next Council Meeting: Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Note the different day, Thursday – a schedule revision to accommodate the Aug. 4 primary elections.