The meeting included a public hearing that lasted about an hour, with the majority of speakers supporting the request. More than 100 people attended the meeting, many of them wearing stickers that stated “I Proudly Support The Jesuits.”

The Jesuits had requested a special exception use to allow a “functional family” to live in a house zoned R1C (single-family dwelling). Without the special exception use, only up to four unrelated people could live there.

The code that allows this special exception use was adopted by Ann Arbor in 1991. Although the city’s ordinance has allowed for a “functional family” designation for more than two decades, this is the first time any group has requested it. The members are affiliated with the St. Mary Student Parish.

Approval requires six votes, but on June 3 the request had garnered support from only five of the seven commissioners who were present. Voting against it were Diane Giannola and Kirk Westphal. Two commissioners – Sabra Briere and Paras Parekh – had been absent. An attempt earlier in that meeting to postpone the vote had failed, with a majority of commissioners wanting to take action that night, apparently assuming it would pass. Later in that June 3 meeting, after the item had been rejected then reconsidered, the commission took another vote to postpone. That vote was 6-1, over dissent from Giannola.

Giannola again dissented on June 17 to the special exception use, but the remaining seven commissioners at the meeting –including Westphal – supported the request. Jeremy Peters was absent.

The planning commission has discretion to grant a special exception use, which does not require additional city council approval.

The commission’s action on June 3 had come after about an hour of a public hearing and two hours of deliberations. Of the 21 people who spoke at that time, the majority were opposed to the request, including representatives from the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association and the North Burns Park Association. Concerns included the possibility of lower property values, the chance of opening the door to student housing or cults, instability of the household because members aren’t related, and “gender housing discrimination.”

Some people directed criticism against the power, privilege and abuse of the Catholic church. Other praised the Jesuits, saying their concerns were strictly related to the zoning code, which they didn’t feel permitted this type of living arrangement in the R1C district. They suggested that the Jesuits could live in other districts – like R4C – that would allow for up to six unrelated people to live together without getting a special exception use.

The public hearing was continued on June 17, and this time drew considerably more supporters of the request. Of the 23 speakers on June 17, 16 supported the Jesuits’ request. Some of the speakers who opposed granting the Jesuits a special exception use as a “functional family” said they’d support it for a church purpose, noting that the Jesuits would be using it as a parsonage.

The commission had also received more than 75 emails/letters over the past two weeks, the vast majority of them in support of granting the special exception use. About 50 of those communications were attached to the commission’s online agenda.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald attended the June 17 meeting and fielded questions from commissioners. The resolution was amended slightly, with an intent to emphasize the long-term relationship of the Jesuits to each other.

The property is located in Ward 2. Both of the Ward 2 city councilmembers – Jane Lumm and Sally Petersen– attended the June 17 the planning commission meeting, but did not formally address the commission. The planning commission’s decision is final – as the request from the Jesuits does not need city council approval. Westphal – the planning commission’s chair – is running for city council in the Ward 2 Democratic primary. Westphal and Nancy Kaplan are vying to fill the open seat that’s being left by Sally Petersen’s mayoral candidacy. Councilmember Sabra Briere, who serves on the planning commission, is also running for mayor.

After the vote, members of the audience erupted in applause. One woman approached Ben Hawley, pastor and director of campus ministry for St. Mary Student Parish, saying: “Welcome to the neighborhood!”

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

Rezoning is recommended for the following public housing sites, two of which are currently zoned as public land:

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

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

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

In addition, the following two AAHC sites were also on the May 6 agenda to be rezoned, but were postponed by planning commissioners, in part because of concerns raised by the public.

• Mallett’s Creek Court: Requested rezoning of the east portion of this 2.3-acre parcel at 2670-2680 S. Main from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). There are three duplexes on the east side, which is in Ward 4. The west part of the site, which is vacant and in a floodway, would remain public land. The city is currently looking into the possibility of splitting the parcel and making the west section a part of Cranbrook Park.
• 805-807 W. Washington: Requested rezoning from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). It’s a 0.18 acre-parcel in Ward 5 that contains one duplex, with a garage that’s used for AAHC facilities storage.

During public commentary, the Mallett’s Creek Court and West Washington properties received the most attention. About a dozen neighbors of the Mallett’s Creek Court property spoke about concerns that the vacant part of the parcel would be sold or developed. Hall assured them that there’s no intent to sell, and in fact federal regulations that govern pubic housing prevent such a sale. She said AAHC hadn’t been aware that the vacant land was part of the parcel until they started the rezoning process.

Neighbors of the West Washington property are concerned about the amount of impervious surface on that site, and chronic flooding problems in that area.

AAHC and city staff will continue to evaluate these properties, which will likely return to the planning commission for consideration at a later date.

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

The planning commission’s rezoning recommendations will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St., where the planning commission held its May 6 meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Julie Weatherbee is chair of the R4C/R2A advisory committee, which met most recently on Aug. 28, 2013. The next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 11. (Photos by the writer.)

Two main priorities have emerged as areas of concern: lot combinations, and a proposed “group housing” overlay district. Parking is also a concern, but several committee members noted that there isn’t time to reach consensus about parking recommendations. Only two more two-hour meetings are scheduled – on Sept. 11 and Sept. 25.

The committee’s original report had recommended imposing a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet. This would limit the ability of a developer to combine lots in order to build larger structures. It would be a way to limit the size of developments within R4C districts.

The planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee made a different recommendation, however, which was adopted by the full commission. Rather than requiring a specific lot size limit, lot combinations would be approved on a case-by-case basis. Review standards would be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. The planning commission has not yet developed details of how what standards would be used. Advisory committee members didn’t like this approach, saying that it seemed too arbitrary.

There are even fewer details at this point about a proposed group housing district, which planning commissioners envision as a future phase of R4C ordinance revisions. The planning commission recommendations call for a new zoning overlay district, located south and west of the University of Michigan’s central campus. It would be roughly an area outlined in the city’s Central Area Plan, but with final boundaries to be determined. [.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 new district would be intended to allow for flexibility by putting limits on density, but with premiums provided in exchange for community benefits such as pedestrian-friendly character and conformance with architectural design standards. For example, parking might be based on a building’s total floor-area ratio (FAR), independent of the number of units in a structure. The commission’s 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.

Advisory committee members were extremely skeptical of this approach, which one member characterized as “redlining.” Targeting housing for a particular type of resident – in this case, students – made many members uncomfortable. There was also uncertainty about the exact intention behind the recommendation.

Committee members have invited planning commissioner Bonnie Bona, who also serves on the commission’s ordinance revisions committee, to attend their Sept. 11 meeting. Their hope is to get clarity about the commission’s recommendations, as well as the intent behind those recommendations.

Several committee members stated that their overarching goal is to protect the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods, and to prevent older houses from being demolished. That’s the scenario that unfolded when seven houses were torn down along South Fifth Avenue to make way for the City Place apartments – a controversial development that was part of the impetus for the R4C/R2A review.

R4C/R2A Background

Over four years ago, on March 2, 2009, the city council directed the city’s planning staff and planning commission to review the R4C/R2A zoning districts in Ann Arbor’s “central area” neighborhoods. A few months later, in July 2009, the council created an advisory committee to provide input on the R4C/R2A zoning review. The committee’s recommendations were presented to the planning commission in a final report in May of 2012, with a set of recommendations and analysis. That report had been compiled by the planning staff. [.pdf of original advisory committee recommendations]

For the next year, planning commissioners who were members of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) reviewed the recommendations and discussed other possible changes as well.

The ORC ultimately made a different set of recommendations, which were approved by the full planning commission at its April 16, 2013 meeting. Those recommendations were forwarded to the city council, and did not include actual wording of the proposed ordinance changes. The ordinance revisions were expected to be the next step, following direction from the council.

The planning commission’s recommendations are described in two phases. There are some significant differences from the recommendations of the advisory committee, although many of the recommendations are the same. The changes in the first phase are seen as somewhat less controversial. For the first phase, here’s how the planning commission’s recommendations diverged from the advisory committee:

• Lot combinations need approval: Planning commission approval would be required for lot combinations in R4C districts, as part of a project’s site plan review. Review standards would be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. [The advisory committee had recommended imposing a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet, equal to an allowable density of three units. The consensus on the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) of the planning commission was that this maximum lot size would be too restrictive.]
• Conflicting land use buffer for vehicle areas only: The only areas that would require screening would be those used for vehicles – such as areas used for parking. This recommendation essentially reverts to the requirements used prior to 2011, when the city instituted changes to its landscape ordinance. Those changes expanded the conflicting land use buffer requirement in R4C districts to apply to the screening of buildings, in addition to vehicular use areas. The change resulted in an increase in variance requests for redevelopment in R4C districts, given the small size of the lots. [The issue was not part of the advisory committee's recommendations.]
• Further study of R2A district: Further study is recommended – to determine if the R2A lot size should be reduced to 6,000 square feet, allowing opportunities for duplex conversions. This number is based on the lot size requirement that was in place prior to 1984, when the requirement was raised to 8,500 square feet. [The advisory committee did not recommend zoning changes in the R2A district.]

A second phase would focus on creating a “group housing” zoning overlay district, but that is recognized by planning commissioners and staff as controversial. This “group housing” district was not part of the advisory committee’s recommendations.

Carl Luckenbach, an architect and member of the R4C/R2A advisory committee, at the Aug. 14, 2013 meeting of that group.

There was sentiment by some members of the original advisory committee that their work had been cut short by the planning staff, and that the final report presented to the planning commission on behalf of the committee did not fully reflect the committee’s consensus.

So at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the city council voted unanimously to reconstitute the advisory committee, with the goal of completing its work and responding to the planning commission’s recommendations.

There are 12 members on the reconstituted citizens advisory committee, including many who served on the original committee. City councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will represent the planning commission. [Former councilmember Tony Derezinski and former planning commissioner Jean Carlberg were on the original committee.] Jay Holland replaces Chuck Carver to represent rental property owners. From the wards: Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5). Weatherbee is chair of the group. Michelle Derr was also appointed to represent Ward 3, but decided not to participate. Dale will be giving feedback in writing, but does not plan to attend the committee meetings.

The group is working on a tight timeline, with only four meetings scheduled. Two of those meetings have taken place so far – on Aug. 14 and Aug. 28. Both were attended by The Chronicle. In addition, meetings are scheduled on Sept. 11 and Sept. 25, from 7-9 p.m. at city hall.

More information about the R4C/R2A zoning review is on the city’s website. [.pdf of planning commission recommendations] [.pdf of original advisory committee report] [.pdf of chart by Sabra Briere outlining differences between the advisory committee and planning commission recommendations] See also Chronicle coverage: “Planning Commission Signs Off on R4C Draft.”

Priority Areas

At the advisory committee’s first meeting on Aug. 14, the group discussed priority issues to focus their work, given that they planned to meet only four times. On Aug. 28, they reviewed a summary of those priorities that had been identified at their first meeting. [.pdf of priority areas document]

Julie Weatherbee, chair of the committee, stressed the need to focus their efforts and be clear about what they’re trying to “fix.” She noted that the two main consensus priorities were: (1) lot combinations, and (2) the proposed group housing overlay district.

From left: R4C/R2A advisory committee members Ellen Rambo and Nancy Leff.

Nancy Leff suggested that the committee make a clear statement about why they felt these two areas were a high priority. She cited part of the original charge from the city council as one of her main concerns: “Develop site design standards that encourage creative design while maintaining sensitivity for existing neighborhood character; …” [This is one of the "priority action strategies" identified in the 1992 Central Area Plan, which is part of the city's master plan. It was highlighted in the March 2, 2009 council resolution that directed the planning staff and planning commission to review R4C/R2A zoning districts. The advisory committee was subsequently established, on July 6, 2009, to provide input to the planning commission on this process.]

Leff said that for her, the advisory committee’s work boils down to addressing that charge. With the exception of some large fraternity houses and churches, the character of the neighborhoods in R4C districts is overwhelmingly single-family homes, she said – regardless of who is actually living in those homes. “If you eliminate the single-family homes in this zone, you are completely destroying the current and original nature and character of the properties in that zone,” she said. If developers are allowed to tear down those existing homes through lot combinations or group housing, Leff added, it will “completely obliterate” what’s left of the neighborhood’s character.

Sabra Briere cautioned against calling these structures single-family homes, saying it could cause people to quibble about whether the houses are rentals or owner-occupied, or about how many people are living there. It’s the visual fabric that the city needs to protect, Briere said, but not necessarily for the original use. There can be a lot of variance in that visual appearance, depending on where the lots are located, she said. Briere thought that lot combinations should be the committee’s top priority.

Eppie Potts agreed that the committee should avoid calling the buildings single-family homes. It’s not important who’s living there now, she said. It’s important to talk about the original plats. “It’s the buildings and their lots that we’re wanting to preserve,” she said, with traditional sizes and setbacks.

Ray Detter pointed out that the council’s original charge had quoted directly from the city’s Central Area Plan, and that those statements could back up the committee’s recommendations on lot combinations and group housing.

Weatherbee noted that some of the difficulty in addressing issues within the R4C district is that there are many different types of structures there now, from large older apartment buildings to smaller homes to duplexes. Some neighborhoods have tiny lots with hardly any setbacks, while other neighborhoods have large lots and setbacks. Sometimes, even opposite sides of the street have different character, she observed.

Priority Areas: Lot Combinations

The advisory committee’s original report had recommended imposing a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet. However, this recommendation was not accepted by the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) of the planning commission. ORC members felt that this maximum lot size would be too restrictive, and so they instead made the recommendation to handle lot combinations in R4C districts as part of a project’s site plan review, on a case-by-case basis. The ORC recommended that review standards be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. This recommendation was adopted by the full planning commission, but specific standards have not been proposed.

At the advisory committee’s Aug. 28 meeting, Eppie Potts said she thought the 6,525-square-foot maximum lot size was workable. It meant that there could be some lot combinations, but they’d be relatively small. Nancy Leff noted that the number of 6,525 wasn’t arbitrary – because it had been based on a survey of lot sizes within the R4C districts, she said, and that justification was supposed to be included in the committee’s report. But the justification hadn’t been part of the report, she noted.

Ellen Rambo recalled that when the advisory committee was first formed, it focused on the issue of non-conforming lots in the R4C district – because that was the problem that had been stressed most by planning staff. The intent of the 6,525-square-foot maximum lot size was to minimize the number of non-conforming lots within the R4C district.

Jay Holland of Jay Holland Construction Co. and Sabra Briere, who serves on the Ann Arbor city council and planning commission.

Julie Weatherbee pointed out that the committee hadn’t wanted to prohibit lot combinations entirely, because combining lots makes sense in some situations. She wondered if the committee wanted to bring back that same number of 6,525 square feet as part of their new set of recommendations.

Ilene Tyler supported that approach. “We need a number,” she said. Under the planning commission’s proposal, all lot combinations would require the commission’s review. “Who knows what judgment or criteria they’re going to use?” Tyler said, adding that there needs to be clear guidelines.

Ray Detter felt that the ORC and planning commission want to set up an “arbitrary” approach to lot combinations, similar to the customized zoning of a planned unit development (PUD). He referred to a memo that the advisory committee had received from Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff regarding how to regulate lot combinations. [.pdf of Kahan's memo] The planning commission’s proposal is “exactly what Kahan seems to suggest that we shouldn’t do,” Detter contended.

Detter liked the idea of allowing a specific lot size or following the original plats. He also said he wanted to be fair to developers. He and Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, worked hard to support developer Tom Fitzsimmons for a development on Catherine Street, Detter said. It had been proposed for two vacant lots zoned R4C in an historic area, he said. If there had been restrictions on lot combinations at the time, Detter noted, Fitzsimmons had indicated that the project would not have been possible. Detter wanted to make sure that zoning would allow projects like the Catherine Street development to occur, calling it a “special case.”

Eppie Potts found it disturbing that the planning commission didn’t set any standards for making its decisions related to lot combinations. Eventually, those standards would be developed, she noted, “but meanwhile, a lot of damage is done.”

Regarding lot combinations, Jay Holland – owner of Jay Holland Construction Company – felt that problems with new developments generally relate to massing, not to the size of the lot. He also noted that some very large homes in historic districts survived, because they were converted to multi-family homes or offices.

Holland reported that he’d been around in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the city expanded the minimum lot size in R4C districts from 6,000 square feet to 8,400 square feet. That’s contradictory to what some advisory committee members are now proposing, he said. “It seems like if it were broken, it would have been fixed long before now.”

Holland said he believed in urban redevelopment, “in a good way.” There’s a benefit to restoring structures that are deteriorating, he said, even if it means shifting the buildings and the existing lot lines. If the city makes that kind of project too difficult, “it won’t be happening,” he said.

Nancy Leff said she didn’t think she and Holland were very far apart in what they wanted. Her concern was simply the possibility that a developer could tear down multiple houses and put up a large apartment building, for example. Once built, it’s unlikely that an apartment building would be torn down in the future in order to build smaller homes, she noted. Holland replied that perhaps a developer would want to tear down old dilapidated homes in order to build newer houses – though perhaps not as many. His point was that it’s the massing that’s more of a concern.

Weatherbee told Holland that if there were more developers like him, “this town would be better off. I think the trouble is, whether it’s our processes or the people, we don’t get a lot of great projects,” she said. At this point, people might be reacting to the bad projects that have come forward, she noted.

Potts agreed that massing was an issue, and that’s why she’s in favor of limiting lot combinations. “The only reason anyone seems to want to combine lots and take down houses is to build something very massive,” she said, which violates the character of these neighborhoods. “So mass is our problem.”

The only way Potts said she can think of to prevent this is to restrict the lot combinations to a specific square footage, which probably amounts to two or three lots at the most.

Holland countered by saying that lot combinations would be needed if someone wanted to build several detached homes as part of the same development. Other committee members were supportive of that idea, but unsure how it could be accomplished. Briere asked Holland how he would write that outcome into the city code. “That’s the challenge,” she said.

Ray Detter, a member of the reconstituted R4C/R2A advisory committee. Detter was not a member of the original committee, but attended many of their meetings.

Detter brought up the City Place development on South Fifth Avenue, saying he sat through all the meetings when the project was first brought forward as a planned unit development (PUD). He said the developer threatened the city that if the PUD wasn’t approved, then a by-right project based on R4C zoning would be proposed instead. Ultimately, the project was built based on R4C zoning, Detter said, “and what we got was that awful thing [done by] combining lots.” Detter added that he wanted to revise the zoning so that no one can threaten to build anything like that again.

Holland said he was under the impression that the developer had proposed to save the existing homes there. Detter replied that such an alternative had been proposed, but it didn’t happen “because it was all baloney, and the money wasn’t there.” [By way of additional background, the city council had denied approval of the project.]

Weatherbee characterized the City Place project as “kind of a failure on everyone’s part” – a failure of the planning process, the city council, the owner, and the neighbors. People didn’t believe that the developer would be able to build a project using the existing homes along Fifth Avenue, she noted, “but we didn’t let him try it.”

City Place was a failure of the city’s process, Weatherbee said. “We don’t want our current zoning to be the worst of all options, where nobody’s really happy.” The hope would be to make it possible to have developments that everyone can live with, she said – “or something better.”

Ellen Rambo quoted from the 2009 land use element of the city’s master plan – the final sentence in this paragraph:

Action F – Reinforce residential neighborhoods in the area south and west of Central Campus by developing new zoning definitions and standards that support organized group housing opportunities. Examples of ordinance revisions include amendments to reduce nonconformities, elimination of special exception use approvals and minimum house size in some areas. Additional buffer areas between single-family and student areas may be needed. Off-street parking requirements and density limitations, however, should not be reduced in these areas.

Rambo wondered how Holland envisioned creating “friendly, livable streets” with new developments that are aesthetically pleasing. Was there a way to prevent the kind of monolithic buildings that are being constructed?

Holland replied that he’s not a designer, but he was under the impression that the planning staff, planning commission and city council are interested in developing some kind of design overlay. It takes a lot of time, he added, “and you don’t always get it right the first time.”

At the end of the meeting, the group – with the exception of Holland – reached consensus on the recommendation of limiting lot combinations to a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet, which is 1.5 times the current minimum lot size.

Tyler noted that the original priority for the advisory committee was to try to bring more of the existing lots into conformance with zoning. “It wasn’t that we were opposing development,” she said. Currently, any time owners of a non-conforming property want to make changes, they have to get approval from the zoning board of appeals. “So it wasn’t just a protectionism angle on this,” Tyler said. “It really was a bigger gesture on our part to say that there are a lot of people who suffer, and not just single-family owner-occupants.”

Holland said he agreed with the ORC recommendations regarding lot size, not with the advisory committee. He suggested that the committee’s report could reflect the majority opinion as well as his dissent.

Weatherbee noted that she’d be shocked if the committee had 100% agreement on these recommendations. “We’re not screaming at each other – that’s one step forward,” she joked.

Priority Areas: Group Housing

In their discussion about the proposed group housing overlay district, Julie Weatherbee noted that the original advisory committee had talked about the idea of overlay districts, and had liked the idea of using those to capture the different characteristics of neighborhoods within the R4C zoning districts. But the planning commission’s proposal for a group housing overlay district isn’t one that committee members like, she said. “I personally don’t like the idea of zoning districts that are set up for certain types of people,” Weatherbee said. If you substituted a racial or gender designation instead of students, “then I would be ballistic.” Setting up a zoning for a student district makes her very uncomfortable.

Sabra Briere noted that there are currently some areas that are already zoned for group housing, but there are housing cooperatives in other parts of the city too. For group housing that’s not in an area zoned for that use, then any changes to that structure must seek variances from the zoning board of appeals, she said.

If someone wanted to establish a new residence that’s considered group housing – located in an area where that type of housing isn’t allowed – the developer would have to petition both the planning commission and zoning board of appeals, she said.

Ilene Tyler, an architect and member of the R4C/R2A advisory committee who lives in Ward 1.

Ray Detter called the current boundaries for a possible group housing district as “malleable” and “very arbitrary.” Some areas are included that he didn’t consider student housing districts, he said, while some areas with student housing “dumps” aren’t included. [As a possible later phase proposal, details of the group housing designation haven't been fleshed out by planning commissioners or staff.]

Eppie Potts voiced concern about a lack of clarity regarding what a group housing overlay district means, compared to other possible overlays, such as those for design standards. Nancy Leff agreed, saying the proposal for a group housing district seems like a new type of zoning, rather than an overlay.

Ilene Tyler noted that some people view historic districts as a form of overlay zoning, because it crosses boundaries of different zoning districts.

Jay Holland said that in the case of historic district requirements, the restrictions related more to massing than to lot size. Leff didn’t think it was possible to separate lot size from massing.

Detter said that even if there were an overlay for group housing, development in that area should still have to conform to the requirements of R4C zoning too. The problem is that decisions related to the group housing overlay might be made by the planning commission “in almost an arbitrary way,” he said. “I don’t want that kind of situation at all.”

Briere clarified that a zoning overlay district would go on top of the underlying zoning. For example, in a group housing overlay district, it might be possible to increase the number of people per unit or per acre, she explained. But the zoning as it relates to lot combinations wouldn’t change. “The lots are restricted the way they are everywhere else in R4C,” she said. Or it might be desirable to add even more restrictions using an overlay approach, Briere said. There are some overlay areas in the D1 district that restrict building height more than the standard D1 regulations, she noted.

An overlay district is designed to be non-arbitrary and enforceable, Briere said, as well as clearly understandable and predictable. “That we haven’t managed that yet is a shame.”

Based on Briere’s explanation, Leff replied that the group housing proposal “violates all those principles, because there are no regulations or standards.” Briere pointed out that the planning commission plans to develop those standards in the second phase of these revisions.

Potts felt the only rationale for a group housing overlay would be to create more density, and she expressed skepticism about the approach. Detter quipped: “You don’t want a fraternity next to your house.”

Weatherbee again stressed that this is a topic that the advisory committee needs to explore with Bonnie Bona, because none of the committee members are comfortable with the vague proposal. Bona, a member of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee, is expected to attend the Sept. 11 meeting of the advisory committee.

Priority Areas: Parking

Parking was another concern raised by advisory committee members. But committee chair Julie Weatherbee told the group that she didn’t think they’d be able to reach consensus on that topic, given their time constraints. She felt the best approach might be to give some general guidance, rather than a detailed recommendation for parking.

Ilene Tyler wanted to recommend against having the planning commission introduce any change to the existing parking regulations.

Ray Detter felt that residential parking permit programs were effective in controlling parking in the neighborhoods. He suggested that might be a strategy deployed more widely in R4C districts. He noted that enforcement is still a problem, however.

Eppie Potts said she felt strongly about the parking issue. She felt parking regulations could be used to address the problem of six-bedroom student apartments. When developers don’t have to provide parking, she said, they can build a larger structure with more bedrooms per unit.

Related to the six-bedroom concern, Sabra Briere wondered why the previous advisory committee hadn’t recommended that the city put a limit on the number of people per unit that a development could accommodate. Tyler reported that the committee had talked about it, but they couldn’t reach consensus so it was not included in the final report.

Potts noted that the committee had also made parking recommendations that didn’t get included in the report.

Weatherbee added that the committee had decided to let the planning staff take the lead on some of these issues, and as a result, some of the recommendations got “derailed.” She said she didn’t blame staff, noting that the committee had been complicit in this approach.

Jay Holland thought that the parking requirements for high-rise developments “have really put a burden on the neighborhoods.” It’s not fair that smaller, existing home have to provide more parking, proportionally, than large apartment buildings with more residents. The same disparity also applies to setbacks, he said.

The advisory committee will likely take up the issue of parking at a future meeting.

Questions for Ordinance Revisions Committee

At the advisory committee’s initial meeting on Aug. 14, the group discussed differences between its original recommendations – presented in a report that was delivered to the planning commission in May of 2012 – and the ultimate recommendation of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC), which was approved by the full planning commission and forwarded to city council. They also noted that some of their recommendations didn’t make it into the final advisory committee report, which was prepared by Matt Kowalski of the city’s planning staff. Committee members felt that in some cases, that report didn’t accurately reflect the advisory committee’s actual consensus.

At the suggestion of Julie Weatherbee, the R4C/R2A advisory committee members agreed to limit their speaking turns. They were given 2 minutes per turn. Weatherbee used her iPad as a timer.

In their discussion on Aug. 14, several advisory committee members had questions about the intent and meaning of some of the ORC’s recommendations. Ultimately, the group decided to invite a member of the ORC to one of the advisory committee meetings, to answer questions and help get clarity on some of these issues. Committee members talked about which ORC member might be best suited to handle the questions. Ray Detter suggested either Bonnie Bona or Kirk Westphal, saying that he did not want Diane Giannola to come. [Westphal is running for city council in Ward 2. Wendy Woods also serves on the ORC.]

The group reached consensus that Bona would be invited to attend. Julie Weatherbee, chair of the advisory committee, suggested providing questions to Bona in advance of the meeting, so that Bona wouldn’t be “blindsided.”

Although the hope was for Bona to attend the Aug. 28 meeting, she couldn’t make it until the group’s session on Sept. 11. So on Aug. 28, advisory committee members spent part of their meeting discussing possible questions for Bona. [.pdf of draft questions]

The main concerns focused on the proposed group housing overlay, with committee members questioning the purpose of such an overlay, as well as concerns over a lack of details and the targeting of a specific group – in this case, students. Nancy Leff called it a kind of redlining. Detter added that the committee isn’t opposed to overlays that protect the scale and character of the neighborhoods, but they are opposed to the creation of a student neighborhood.

Eppie Potts said the overarching question for Bona should be: Why did the ORC make the recommendations that it did? Detter added that the committee is really asking Bona to justify the ORC’s positions. When he has asked Bona in previous conversations about the rationale, she indicated that it was based on the city’s central area plan, Detter reported. “At this point, it’s not our job to simply put in everything that’s in the central area plan,” he said. “It’s our job, at least as far as this committee is concerned, to preserve the character and scale of the R4C areas.”

Several committee members suggested narrowing down the number of questions, so that there would be time for Bona to answer, along with time for some dialogue. Briere volunteered to compile a shorter set of questions for Bona.

Public Commentary

Three people spoke during the opportunity for public commentary at the end of the Aug. 28 meeting.

Eppie Potts, a member of the R4C/R2A advisory committee, talks with resident Eleanor Linn prior to the committee’s Aug. 28 meeting.

Eleanor Linn said she had several notes, but that the committee had addressed all of the topics she was interested in. She noted that not all of the draft questions for Bonnie Bona were appropriate, and some should be answered by city staff – questions about legal issues, for example. Linn also wanted to make sure the committee asked Bona about what problem these zoning revisions are trying to correct. That would be good to know, she said, rather than guessing the intent of the ORC.

Gwen Nystuen characterized the committee’s discussion as good. The issue of group housing is a big one, she said, and it’s unclear what is meant by that. Nystuen was happy to see that there seemed to be unanimity on the committee that a student overlay district was not appropriate. Nystuen joked that she has lived next to a fraternity for about 50 years, so she’s familiar with group housing.

Regarding group housing, Christine Crockett said it’s important to avoid designating zoning for a particular demographic, such as students. “It’s creating a ghetto – saying that this is the senior citizen part of town, or this is the Asian-American part of town.” It’s a way of encouraging people where to live, Crockett added, and “that’s a very dangerous direction to go in.”

One issue that concerns her is the demolition of older houses, Crockett continued, even houses that could be rehabilitated. That’s what bothered people more than anything regarding the City Place development, she said. So it’s more than just a simple issue of lot size. She noted that Tom Fitzsimmons, for example, has taken down houses in the city’s central area and built new structures that are more suburban in nature – and he didn’t have to combine lots to do that. She said it was alarming when you have the bullnose of a garage facing the sidewalk, where there once was a porch.

Crockett also thought the committee needed to be more specific. “The more vague your recommendations are, the more it’s going to be interpreted by the planning commission,” she said. The committee needs to imagine the worst possible scenario, she added, “because that has happened in this town.”

Julie Weatherbee asked Crockett for an example of a specific recommendation. R4C neighborhoods vary widely, Weatherbee noted, so what’s appropriate for one neighborhood might not be appropriate for another. In her neighborhood, Weatherbee said, all of the houses have porches, but in some neighborhoods they don’t.

Crockett replied that for the most part, all houses originally had porches. Ilene Tyler noted that houses built after the mid-1920s or 1930s don’t necessarily have porches. Linn added that her house was built in 1914 and it doesn’t have a front porch, because the house is rotated on the lot – so the side of the house faces the street.

Weatherbee asked Crockett if she was referring to design specifics. Crockett replied that she’d like the committee to include a recommendation that discouraged the demolition of houses. She noted that a house of historical significance had been demolished in the north central area, and replaced with a house “that’s so suburban looking, it’s offensive” – even though it fits the current zoning.

Committee members present: Sabra Briere, Ellen Rambo, Julie Weatherbee, Ilene Tyler, Ray Detter, Nancy Leff, Eppie Potts, Jay Holland.

Absent: Wendy Carman, Carl Luckenbach.

Next meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the basement of city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

At its July 1, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council voted to reconstitute the citizens committee, which had previously worked to provide input on possible changes to zoning in the R4C/R2A (multi-family) zoning districts. That action followed the planning commission’s vote at its April 16, 2013 meeting to send recommendations to the city council for revisions to the R4C zoning areas – but without the actual wording of the ordinance changes. Those recommendations, which were crafted with input from the original citizens advisory committee, were provided to the council as an item of communication on May 20, 2013.

When the the planning commission discussed its annual work plan at a June 4, 2013 meeting, the group set a goal of completing actual amendments to the R4C/R2A zoning ordinance by March of 2014. But before the council gives additional direction to the planning commission about these recommendations, the advisory committee will have another chance to weigh in.

The committee will be chaired by Julie Weatherbee. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will represent the planning commission and city council. Other members appointed to the committee on July 1 were: Chuck Carver representing rental property owners; Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo and Michelle Derr (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5). However, the membership is expected to change slightly. Any changes to the committee would require city council approval.

At a July 9 working session of the planning commission, Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson had reported that the planning staff will offer only as much staff involvement as the committee members want. She had indicated that when the committee had done its original work, some members felt that “staff cut the conversation off unduly, so we don’t want to reinforce that by being on the committee if we’re not needed,” she said. So planning staff will attend the meetings only if asked.

In addition to Aug. 14, other meetings of the R4C/R2A advisory committee are set for the following Wednesdays from 7-9 p.m.: Aug. 28, Sept. 11, and Sept. 25.

More information about the R4C/R2A zoning review is on the city’s website. [.pdf of planning commission recommendations] [.pdf of original advisory committee report] [.pdf of chart by Sabra Briere outlining differences between the advisory committee and planning commission recommendations] See also Chronicle coverage: “Planning Commission Signs Off on R4C Draft.”

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]

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

An April 9, 2013 working session was a first chance for all commissioners to have a look at the recommendations, which will be formally presented at the commission’s April 16 regular meeting.

The commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) has been working on draft recommendations since the summer of 2012. The committee’s work follows a report delivered in May 2012 by an R4C/R2A zoning district study advisory committee that had worked on the issue since December 2009. [.pdf of advisory committee report.

For more background on the issues leading up to this current study – which dates back several decades – see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Group Weighs R4C/R2A Report" and "Effort to Overhaul R4C Zoning Continues"]

R4C zoning allows for multiple-family residential dwellings, such as apartment buildings. 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.” The advisory committee’s work had focused on preserving the character of existing neighborhoods, in part by preventing current structures from being demolished and replaced with larger buildings.

The current draft recommendations propose implementing changes in two phases. The first phase primarily includes changes that were recommended by the advisory committee, with some modifications made by the ORC. [.pdf of chart comparing existing code, advisory committee recommendations, and ORC recommendations]

For example, the ORC is recommending parking requirements that less stringent than either the existing requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit or the advisory committee recommendations (1.5 spaces per unit for 0-4 bedroom units, and 2 spaces per unit for 5-6 bedrooms). The ORC parking recommendation is for 1 space per unit for 0-4 bedrooms, and 1.5 spaces per unit for 5-6 bedrooms.

In addition, the ORC is recommending these changes for the first phase:

• Lot combinations need approval: Planning commission approval would be required for lot combinations in R4C districts, as part of a project’s site plan review. Review standards would be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. [The advisory commission had recommended instituting a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet, equal to an allowable density of three units. The ORC consensus was that this maximum lot size would be too restrictive.]
• Conflicting land use buffer for vehicle areas only:  The only areas that would require screening would be those used for vehicles – such as areas used for parking. This recommendation essentially reverts to the requirements used prior to 2011, when the city instituted changes to its landscape ordinance. Those changes expanded the conflicting land use buffer requirement in R4C districts to apply to the screening of buildings, in addition to vehicular use areas. The change resulted in an increase in variance requests for redevelopment in R4C districts, given the small size of the lots. [The issue was not part of the advisory committee's recommendations.]
• Further study of R2A district: Further study is called for to determine if the R2A lot size should be reduced to 6,000 square feet, allowing opportunities for duplex conversions. This number is based on the lot size requirement that was in place prior to 1984, when the requirement was raised to 8,500 square feet. [The advisory committee did not recommend zoning changes in the R2A district.]

Based on discussions among staff and the ORC at previous meetings attended by The Chronicle, these first-phase recommendations are seen as somewhat easier to implement, because there is general consensus on them.

A second phase would focus on creating a “group housing” zoning district. The advisory committee had recommended preserving the character of existing R4C neighborhoods by creating overlay districts on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, with standards for massing, design and patterns of development. Instead of that approach, ORC has 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]

Map showing proposed group housing district, outlined in red. Roughly, the boundaries are State Street on the west, Dewey and McKinley on the south, Forest on the east, and Hill and Monroe on the north. The yellow-green areas indicate lots that are zoned R4C. The blue boundary is an earlier draft of a possible group housing district.

The intent is to address issues that are somewhat unique to neighborhoods with a large amount of student housing. In general, the approach would allow for flexibility through the use of 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 ORC also recommends studying a payment-in-lieu-of-parking approach, similar to the policy in place for the downtown area.

About a dozen members of the public and from the R4C/R2A advisory committee attended the April 9 work session, as did city councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5). There were two opportunities for public commentary. Several members of the advisory committee expressed concerns about the proposed group housing district, as well as with other aspects of the recommendations related to parking, lot size, lot combinations and other elements.

The planning commission intends to hold a public hearing on these recommendations at its April 16, 2013 meeting. If approved, the recommendations would be forwarded to the city council for consideration. If the recommendations meet with approval from the city 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.

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

The property – owned by Keith Kocher and Sara Saberi – is vacant, but within a residential neighborhood south of Geddes. [.pdf of aerial map showing property location] The owners plan to build a new house there, and would be required to pay an estimated $41,337 to connect to the city’s water and sewer mains. A storm sewer improvement charge of $3,477 is also required.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 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.

The 3100 Geddes Road site, owned by Mike and Deb McMullen, is a 0.46-acre parcel located south of Geddes and north of Devonshire, between Heatherway Street and Hickory Lane. It was part of a larger lot that had been divided into four parcels earlier this year by Ann Arbor Township. This particular parcel, with an existing home, does not have frontage onto either Geddes or Devonshire, but does have a drive onto Geddes and has easements for access onto both roads. [.pdf of aerial view showing 3100 Geddes]

The 1.03-acre parcel at 3355 Geddes is located on the north side of Geddes, east of Windycrest Drive. The owner/petitioner is listed as Bashar Abdulsattar. There is a single-family home on the property. [.pdf of aerial view showing 3355 Geddes]

Both sites will be connected to the city’s public water and sanitary sewer service.

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

According to a staff memo, the rezoning came from city council at the request of property owners: Raymond Maturo and Ann Mulhern; Joseph and Suzanne Upton; Rishindra and Gwendolyn Reddy; Shahrzad Vazirzadeh and Chad Patterson; Vassilios Lambropoulos and Artemis Leontis; and the Clan Crawford Jr. Trust.

R1B zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Three of the parcels don’t conform with that zoning. Under the proposed R1C zoning, all parcels would conform with required lot size and width. The rezoning would potentially allow three of the parcels – each lot size currently about 17,500 square feet – to be divided in the future, if other city code requirements are met.

The rezoning requires city council approval.

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