From left: Chuck Gelman and Scott Reed at the Ann Arbor planning commission’s Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. Gelman, founder of the former Gelman Sciences Inc., lives in Sloan Plaza and opposes the adjacent proposed development at 413 E. Huron. In contrast, Reed believes the residential project is “desperately needed.” (Photos by the writer.)

Following a public hearing that included some emotional pleas to halt the project, planning commissioners voted to postpone action on a site plan for 413 E. Huron, a 14-story residential development geared to university students. City planning staff had recommended postponement because input on the project hadn’t yet been received from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, which must weigh in because of the building’s location along a state trunkline – Huron Street.

The design came under harsh criticism during the Jan. 15 public hearing, with some residents – including several from the adjacent Sloan Plaza – calling it a “behemoth,” a “folly” and a “massive student warehouse.” Several people criticized the developer for not being sufficiently responsive to concerns raised by the city’s design review board or feedback from residents.

Planning staff indicated that the item could be on the commission’s next regular meeting agenda, on Feb. 5. When commissioner Eric Mahler noted that the public hearing would continue, someone from the audience called out, “We’ll be back!”

Another 14-story student apartment building – at 614 Church St., on the Pizza House property – was also on the Jan. 15 agenda, and ultimately received a recommendation of approval from commissioners. That decision came despite objections from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments at 619 E. University.

Concerns were raised about how Zaragon residents will be impacted by construction at 624 Church. Zaragon opened a few years ago and is marketed to University of Michigan students. The developers of 624 Church intend to market their apartments to the same demographic. Larry Deitch, an attorney who also serves as a UM regent, was on hand to represent the Zaragon owners. He said they didn’t object to the project itself, but were concerned about safety related to the use of a crane during construction, among other issues.

Planning staff indicated that the issues raised by Deitch and other Zaragon representatives would be handled at the building permit stage. The planning commission was being asked to address planning and zoning requirements, and the project was in conformance with those regulations.

In discussing the project, Mahler pointed out that the city had gone through a “robust” discussion about zoning as part of the A2D2 process, and had decided that this area should be zoned D1. Now that D1 projects are coming forward, “we need to get used to that,” he said.

Commissioners dealt with two other items on the Jan. 15 agenda. They recommended approval of the site plan and rezoning for a retail development at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23 – called The Shoppes at 3600. The project had previously been postponed by the commission on Nov. 7, 2012.

Another item moving forward is a request for annexation of 2925 Devonshire Road, one of several Ann Arbor Township “islands” within the city. Commissioners also recommended approval to zone the 0.66-acre site as R1A (single-family dwelling district). The item prompted a brief discussion about the need for better communication with Ann Arbor Township officials.

413 E. Huron

The most controversial agenda item at the Jan. 15 meeting was a site plan for 413 E. Huron, a 14-story residential development proposed for the northeast corner of Huron and Division streets. Staff had recommended postponing the proposal because input on the project hadn’t been received from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. Because the building would be located along Huron Street – a state trunkline – MDOT must review the project.

An architectural rendering of 413 E. Huron project, looking northeast, was provided in the planning commission’s meeting packet.

Estimated to cost $45 million, the proposal calls for combining three lots on that corner and building a 14-story, 271,855-square-foot apartment building with 216 units (533 bedrooms) and underground parking for 132 vehicles. [.pdf of aerial map for the project]

The northern edge of the site is adjacent to the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. Existing structures – including a house on North Division that was built in 1901, and a small shop at the corner that most recently housed Papa John’s Pizza – would be demolished.

Zoning approved by city council as part of the A2D2 rezoning project would allow for the type of building being proposed. The site is zoned D1, the highest density allowed. However, nearby residents who oppose the development – including many living along North Division and in the nearby Sloan Plaza – object to its size and massing.

The city’s historic district commission also has weighed in, passing a resolution at its Dec. 13, 2012 meeting to “remind the Planning Commission and City Council of our joint obligation to preserve and protect historic districts and recommend that they take all reasonable measures to ensure that this new development will enhance and improve the Old Fourth Ward Historic District rather than diminish or weaken the vitality of this important district.” Members of the city’s HDC as well as neighborhood historic districts and preservation groups were among those who opposed the project during the Jan. 15 public hearing.

The first floor would include about 4,000-square-feet for retail space. On the third floor, the building would include a range of facilities for residents, including a gym, yoga studio, business center and outdoor pool. According to a planning staff memo, more than 40% of the apartments would have two bedrooms, with other apartment sizes including one-bedroom units (19%), three-bedroom units (10%) and four-bedroom units (28%). Bike parking and bike lockers would also be provided on site.

The design is described by the developer as “modern industrial,” with a mix of brick, concrete and metal screening. The project has been reviewed by the city’s design review board, resulting in some design changes – changes that the developer described as significant, but which residents characterized as insufficient. [.pdf of design review board recommendations]

The city also has calculated a park contribution of $133,920 for the project, a request that could be lowered based on the amount of open space or recreational facilities that are provided on site. The developer is under no obligation to make any parks contribution, however.

The developer is listed as Greenfield Partners, a Connecticut-based firm doing business here as Ann Arbor Green Property Owner LLC. The real estate development firm Carter – based in Atlanta, Georgia – is also a partner in the project.

413 E. Huron: Public Hearing

A public hearing on the project lasted over an hour and drew commentary from 21 people. Here are some highlights.

Conor McNally, chief development officer for Atlanta-based Carter – the lead firm in this development – told commissioners that he was excited to be there and would answer any questions. He noted that the project is consistent with the city’s downtown plan, and will add density but isn’t being built to maximize the density that’s allowed on the site.

Attorney Susan Friedlaender and Conor McNally, chief development officer for Atlanta-based Carter, were on hand representing the development team for 413 E. Huron. They argued unsuccessfully against postponing action.

He described the meeting with the design review board as thoughtful and productive. And as a result of that board meeting – in addition to meetings with local residents – “substantial” changes were made to the project’s design. Among the changes he highlighted were adding a signature architectural element, pulling back the facade along Huron Street, and moving the service area to the rear of the building. Unfortunately, he said, the comments from MDOT hadn’t been received yet. But he hoped the commission would recommend approval, contingent on the feedback from MDOT.

Susan Friedlaender, an attorney representing the developer, characterized the issue as whether the project met requirements in the city’s zoning ordinances and planning documents. The planning staff has indicated that it does, she said. Infrastructure is adequate to serve the development, she said. The city’s traffic engineer agreed with the results of the traffic study. The fire inspector doesn’t have a problem with the plans. Friedlaender pointed out that the city worked long and hard on the A2D2 zoning, and there was much debate about the issues that are being raised by the project’s opponents. The city had made the wise decision to zone this property D1, she said, and the project conforms to that zoning – so it’s hard to understand why there’s a recommendation for postponement, she said.

It’s not the developer’s fault that MDOT comments haven’t been received, Friedlaender said. It would be possible for commissioners to recommend approval, conditional on MDOT’s response. She noted that there might not be any need for changes to the project, and it was unfair to delay action when the project could easily be moved forward.

Scott Reed was the only resident who spoke in support of the project, saying it is “desperately needed.” He said he walked by there frequently and the area along Huron was hostile to pedestrians. A large, mixed-use project with retail and other features would result in more people coming to that area and would greatly improve the land use there, he said. Referring to a comment made earlier in the public hearing, Reed said that to call it a student warehouse is a “gross mischaracterization” of this project. There’s been a lot of fear and doubt regarding this proposal, as well as a lot of NIMBYism, he said. It’s important not to just consider the nearby property owners, Reed concluded, but to see this as a benefit to the entire city, bringing vibrancy to that part of town.

Opposition far outnumbered support for the project, from speakers representing neighborhood groups as well as individual residents.

Norm Hyman – an attorney representing Sloan Plaza, an office and residential building located adjacent to the proposed project – reviewed several objections to the proposal and noted that a letter he had sent to the commission covered some of these issues. [.pdf of Hyman's letter to the commission] The developer is trying to shoehorn too much into a constricted site – the building’s massing, scale and impact on the neighborhood are major concerns, he said. Residents of Sloan Plaza asked for a solar study to show the proposed building’s impact, but were told by the developer that the city ordinance doesn’t require such a study. Traffic and fire safety are other concerns, Hyman said – he described the building as a serious fire hazard, both to future residents of 413 E. Huron as well residents of Sloan Plaza. Hyman also expressed concern about the streetscape, and hoped that the building could step back in height from the front.

Don Duquette, right, was one of several Sloan Plaza residents who opposed the 413 E. Huron project.

In addition to Hyman, several residents of Sloan Plaza spoke against the project, and many others were on hand but didn’t address the commission. Hugh Sonk pointed out that the building is 50% larger than The Varsity, another residential project being built on the other side of Huron Street, between Huron and Washington. Even though that building isn’t yet completed, it’s already an overwhelming presence on the site, he said. Sonk observed that the developers of 413 E. Huron didn’t want to entertain any suggestions that would add to the project’s timeline. But the city might have to live with this development for 100 years, so he didn’t think adding a few months to the process was unreasonable.

Phyllis Boniface, a psychiatrist with an office in Sloan Plaza, said her unit is the closest one to the foundation of the new building. The noise level will impact her practice, and she’s already talked to a realtor about moving out. Three other psychiatrists work there, and they all require a reasonably quiet environment. Boniface noted that several residents of Sloan Plaza are very elderly and fragile, and she didn’t know how this kind of disruption would impact them. She told commissioners that their conscience should be affected by this.

Don Duquette said he’s lived in Ann Arbor for 40 years and moved into Sloan Plaza about a year ago. [Duquette is a UM law professor and founder of the Child Advocacy Law Clinic.] The project won’t affect his view and in general he loves density and the experience of urban living. But this project will be massive, ugly and dangerous., he said. It will be located at a point when Huron Street narrows from five to four lanes, and will dominate “our beautiful city.” He asked commissioners to think about traffic – because already on Sundays, parking for a church on Huron Street blocks off one lane. There will also be “massive jaywalking” as students cross the street to get to campus. The project will make the area congested and dangerous. The city also should look for a more inter-generational use, not a project that’s just geared toward students. It will be a nuisance, and would be a folly for the city to approve it, he said. Duquette urged commissioners to vote it down.

In addition to people living at Sloan Plaza, several other local residents opposed the project. Architects Norm and Ilene Tyler, who live in an historic home on North Division near the proposed development, both addressed the commission. Norm Tyler said he was representing the downtown design guidelines citizens review committee. He showed commissioners a drawing of the proposed project in relation to nearby houses, and called it a “massive student warehouse.” It has three times the number of beds as the proposal for 624 Church St., he said, and is 100,000-square-feet larger than The Varsity, which he called the size of a Walmart. Tyler then shared how the city’s design guidelines apply to this proposal, and how those guidelines aren’t being followed. [.pdf of downtown design guidelines] As one example, he pointed to the guideline stating that site design should minimize shading of adjacent properties. But for this project, the shadow it casts will cause his home to be completely in shade at midday. Tyler concluded by urging commissioners to consider valid issues beyond the outstanding MDOT comments.

Doug Kelbaugh, a UM professor of architecture and urban planning, was waiting to speak against the 413 E. Huron development.

Ilene Tyler spoke later in the hearing, saying she represented the Ann Arbor Preservation Alliance. Homeowners and designers had met with the developers three times, she said, but the developers never made any changes that showed a respect for the concerns that had been raised. The developers have been unresponsive and uncooperative to input from citizens and city staff. Referring to the developers’ report on the citizen participation meeting, Tyler said it doesn’t reflect what actually happened. [.pdf of citizen participation report] Over 50 people were there, and all of them spoke against the project. Among her other concerns, Tyler said the project “ghettoizes” the neighborhood. She and her husband had recently invested in a renovation of their home, but this project will cause property values to decrease, she said. The neighborhood’s property values need protection, she concluded.

Doug Kelbaugh, a UM professor of architecture and urban planning who lives at the nearby Armory condos, described how the project’s streetscape would appear at eye level for people walking down Huron in either direction. He noted that other buildings along Huron – including larger structures like Campus Inn and Sloan Plaza – are set back from the street. Yet the building at 413 E. Huron would be “hard on the sidewalk,” shooting straight up from the second floor level. If you’re walking east on Huron toward the building, where the street narrows at Division, you’d be walking straight into it. Kelbaugh acknowledged that the project as designed is permissible, but he believes the city would come to regret it, calling it a very tall, wide sore thumb that will be with us forever.

Eleanor Pollack reminded commissioners that she had served on the Ann Street historic district study committee. She’d been watching the planning commission proceedings from home [the meetings are broadcast on the city's Community Television Network], and had been prompted to come by and speak during the public hearing about noise issues. For years, she and her husband had gone back-and-forth with Zingerman’s Deli – at the corner of Detroit and Kingsley – about the sound of the mechanical systemss, which they could hear from their home. Zingerman’s is a good neighbor, Pollack said, and worked to mitigate the sound. During the recent deli expansion, managers had talked to her about the issue. She pointed out that the mechanicals at 413 E. Huron would result in a “horrible drone” in the neighborhood, and she hoped the city would require the developer to mitigate that sound. She also asked commissioners to keep in mind that every time development encroaches on a residential area, it must be in character and should respect that neighborhood.

Eleanor Linn noted that she lives on Forest Court, near another large residential project [at 601 S. Forest – The Landmark]. She was adamantly opposed to the “monolith” proposed at 413 E. Huron. Several times a week she walks to Kerrytown, and takes different routes. She likes to go past the houses on Ann, Catherine and Division streets – the neighborhood adds to her quality of life and is the reason she’s lived in central Ann Arbor for the past 30 years. She urged commissioners to vote against the proposal and give the developer time to rethink the building’s north facade.

Peter Nagourney read a quote from Ada Louise Huxtable, an internationally known architecture critic who died earlier this month. He noted that architecture is Ann Arbor’s most important public art, and that this is the wrong building for this important corner of the city.

Steve Kaplan told commissioners he’s lived in Ann Arbor for 46 years and grew up in the family business of student housing. Opposition to 413 E. Huron isn’t about opposing density, he said. The arguments are very specific against this particular project, and how the building tries to achieve density. He said the opposition shouldn’t be seen as NIMBYism.

Ellen Ramsburgh, standing, talks with Ann Arbor planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Ken Clein during a break in the Jan. 15 planning commission meeting. Ramsburgh serves on the city’s historic district commission and spoke in opposition to the 413 E. Huron project.

Ellen Ramsburgh and Ben Bushkuhl – who both serve on the city’s historic district commission – spoke against the project. Ramsburgh read a resolution that the HDC had passed at its Dec. 13, 2012 meeting. [.pdf of HDC resolution on 413 E. Huron] The resolution stated that the project would “severely and adversely impact the Old Fourth Ward Historic District,” and the HDC resolved to “remind the Planning Commission and City Council of our joint obligation to preserve and protect historic districts and recommend that they take all reasonable measures to ensure that this new development will enhance and improve the Old Fourth Ward Historic District rather than diminish or weaken the vitality of this important district.”

Bushkuhl urged commissioners to postpone action so that developers could make improvements to the design.

Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, provided handouts with excerpts from the city’s downtown plan. [.pdf of downtown plan] She argued that the proposal isn’t consistent with D1 zoning, because it doesn’t take into account character areas. The developers have decided to create their own character areas, she said, which include new buildings like the city’s Justice Center. She called the proposed building a behemoth that looks like it’s constructed out of Legos. Crockett noted that this is the first time that the historic district commission has taken a position on a new development that’s not located in an historic district. She also wondered how the proposed trees to be planted in a buffer zone could survive in shallow soil without sunlight.

Allison Stupka of the Old West Side Association board said she had been involved with four other projects when developers had sought input from residents: The YMCA, Liberty Lofts, City Apartments, and 618 S. Main. As a neighborhood advocate, she said she’s worried about whether the developers are sensitive to neighbors – and she doesn’t see that sensitivity in the 413 E. Huron design. The developer for 618 S. Main had scrapped his original design in response to feedback, she said, and had done a very detailed solar shade study. She found it incredible that no such study had been undertaken for 413 E. Huron.

Ellen Thackery, a southeast Michigan field rep for the Michigan Historic Preservation Network and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, told commissioners that historic preservationists weren’t always against density. Good design can happen on the edges of historic districts, she said. But the sheer overwhelming mass and scale of this project doesn’t fit this area, and she urged commissioners to reject it.

Ray Detter, chair of the downtown citizens advisory council, reported that the council is very opposed to this development, because of all the reasons that had been previously articulated during the public hearing. The project fails to take into consideration the city’s design guidelines and character areas. The developers care only about the bottom line, he said. Referring to the design guidelines, Detter hoped the city would put more teeth into them. The advisory council recognizes that something will eventually be built on this site, but he urged commissioners to postpone the current proposal permanently.

413 E. Huron: Commission Discussion

Eric Mahler began deliberations by noting the late hour – as it was nearly 11:30 p.m. Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified that according to the commission’s bylaws, no new agenda item can be taken up after 11 p.m. But she added that this item had been taken up well before 11 p.m. – beginning with a staff report, then a public hearing.

Tony Derezinski indicated that there could be some ambiguity in this rule, and he felt it would be good to postpone action. That would also allow time for the city to receive feedback from MDOT, and to address other issues.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that typically, the commissioners put their issues about a project on the table before postponing, so that those issues can be addressed. However, she also observed that commissioners don’t function particularly well at this late hour.

Ken Clein’s concern was that if commissioners started to talk about the issues they had with this project, they might be there another hour at least. He suggested taking up the item at the next opportunity.

Mahler noted that the public hearing would continue when the project returned to the commission. His comment prompted someone in the audience to call out, “We’ll be back!”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone action on the 413 E. Huron proposal.

624 Church St.

The site plan and development agreement for a 14-story apartment building at 624 Church St. was the other major project on the planning commission’s Jan. 15 agenda.

Image from the planning commission’s meeting packet shows the front facade of the 624 Church proposal, in relation to an adjacent house.

The 83,807-square-foot, $17 million project is located next to Pizza House, on the west side of Church between South University and Willard. The building would include 75 apartments with a total of about 175 bedrooms, ranging in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.

The mix of apartments will include: 11 one-bedroom (14%); 21 two-bedroom (28%); 33 three-bedroom (44%); and 11 four-bedroom (14%). Other features include an enclosed room to store up to 60 bikes and a rooftop plaza with benches and a grilling area. It is located in the D1 zoning district, which allows for the highest level of density of any zoning district in the city.

Dennis Tice attended the Jan. 15 meeting to represent his family, which owns the property. The Tice family is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building to eventually be constructed. The new project would demolish an existing two-story house located south of the restaurant, replacing it with the 14-story building over the southern portion of the restaurant and above the former house and loading zone area. [.pdf of aerial map showing 624 Church location]

There will be no vehicle parking spaces on site. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, at its Oct. 3, 2012 meeting, authorized the project to purchase up to 42 monthly parking permits as part of the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The CIL provides an option to purchase monthly permits to fulfill the city’s parking requirement for a project, but the cost is at a rate 20% higher than standard pricing.

The developer hoped that those permits would be for spaces located at the nearby Forest Avenue parking structure. The DDA board has struggled with that decision, and had not publicly indicated a decision to designate the permits for that specific structure. A discussion on this issue at the Dec. 19, 2012 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee had been inconclusive. The apparent consensus among committee members at that meeting was for establishing a general policy on the location for CIL permits, before deciding the 624 Church St. issue. However, prior to the Jan. 15 planning commission meeting, DDA executive director Susan Pollay informed city staff that the board’s operations committee was recommending that the parking permit designations be made for the Forest Avenue structure.

The project was reviewed by the city’s design review board, and developers altered the design somewhat in response to the board’s feedback. [.pdf of design review board minutes and developer response] The developers also are offering to contribute $35,000 to the city’s parks unit for improvements to the plaza next to the Forest Street parking structure. The city had asked for a contribution of about $47,000 for parks.

The proposal calls for a zero setback from the west side property line, adjacent to Zaragon Place apartments. During a public hearing on the project, representatives of Zaragon Place told commissioners that they questioned the ability of the project to be constructed without endangering Zaragon residents. They had earlier emailed the city to raise concerns about how Zaragon – located at 619 E. University – will be impacted by construction. Zaragon opened a few years ago and is marketed to University of Michigan students. The developers of 624 Church intend to market their apartments to the same demographic. [.pdf of letter from Zaragon attorney] [.pdf of response from 624 Church developers] [.pdf of Zaragon's response to 624 Church letter]

The commission’s approval would be contingent on the developer addressing some outstanding issues raised by the city’s systems planning unit. The project will also require a variance from the building board of appeals to allow windows to be located on certain portions of the west side. If that variance isn’t granted, a slight reconfiguration of bedrooms in some of the apartments will be needed.

624 Church St.: Public Hearing

Fourteen people spoke at the public hearing on this project. Here are some highlights.

From left: Architect Brad Moore talks with Dennis Tice, whose family owns Pizza House and the proposed residential development at 624 Church St.

Dennis Tice told commissioners that he was on hand representing his family, as owners of Pizza House and this property. The project has been in the works for several years, he said. They were excited about it, and about their partnership with Opus Development. He was there to answer any questions that commissioners might have.

Two members of Opus Development – real estate manager Mark Bell and vice president Jim Caesar – addressed the commission. Bell gave a brief background about Opus, describing it as a family-run business that was founded in 1953 and that has developed more than 2,600 projects. The company prides itself on its safety, honesty, and professionalism, he said, and has a large staff of engineers, architects and construction experts to handle its work. He thanked the Tice family for this partnership, and said Opus was proud of the project.

Caesar addressed the safety and constructability concerns that had been raised by Zaragon Place representatives. Like Bell, he cited the number of projects that Opus has completed and the size of its staff of architects, engineers and construction experts. “Safety is our No. 1 priority,” he said. Caesar said he didn’t think the Zaragon owners understood how the construction could be handled. He gave some details about the types of crane that could be used – a luffing jib tower crane. It will be complicated, he said, but the site had been examined by the insurance carrier’s safety inspector and multiple crane companies, and it’s very feasible. Opus is building similar projects with this approach in other cities, he said, and it’s not a controversial issue.

Brad Moore, the project’s architect, noted that the Tice family had hired his firm in 2005 to nearly double the size of the Pizza House restaurant. When that project had been considered by the planning commission, commissioner Bonnie Bona had suggested putting in foundations to support a future vertical structure, he said. That’s what the owners did. The site could actually handle a building up to 17 stories high, but the city subsequently changed the zoning laws that lowered the height limits, Moore noted. Regarding the design, Moore pointed out that the building board of appeals would need to authorize the use of windows in certain sections facing Zaragon. If that request is denied, the project will use opaque windows in that part of the building – from the outside, the windows would look normal, but you wouldn’t be able to see out from the inside, he said.

Peter Allen told commissioners that he’d been in Ann Arbor about 40 years, and was involved in real estate development. He’d been engaged by Dennis Tice to help find partners for this development, and had introduced Tice to Opus Development. As part of that process, he’d done due diligence on Opus and had traveled to look at several of their projects. “I came away very impressed,” he said. Allen said the people at Opus have “great Midwest ethics” and would build a project that Ann Arbor will be proud of.

Local attorney Scott Munzel spoke on behalf of Opus Development. He reminded commissioners that this project was consistent with the city’s downtown plan, which called for the highest density land uses in this location. This project is consistent with that, he said, and is consistent with the city’s character guidelines and sustainability goals. He noted that obviously the western property line is of some interest – next to Zaragon – and that as the city grows there will be more of these kinds of conflicts. Other examples include One North Main, which abuts the Liberty Title building, and City Apartments development at First and Washington.

Munzel pointed out that there is no setback between Zaragon West, at the corner of William and Thompson, and the adjacent Cottage Inn building. “So it can be done,” he said. Regarding parking, Munzel noted that the city council had authorized a contribution-in-lieu program that allows projects to buy monthly permits at a premium, instead of providing on-site parking. The permits will be year-round, and will help during the summer months when the Forest Avenue structure has greater capacity. The project meets the city’s criteria for approval, Munzel said, and he hoped commissioners would recommend it for approval.

Scott Reed described himself as a student who has lived in Ann Arbor about five years. He thought the project is a great idea, and felt that some of the concerns expressed are misplaced. If more people live downtown, they won’t need to drive here from other places. Building dense housing is the solution, and he applauded this project. He hoped the city would see even more dense, mixed-use development in the future.

Two Bodman attorneys – Larry Deitch and Sandra Sorini Elser – spoke on behalf of Zaragon Place owners, Galileo Associates. Deitch, who also serves as a University of Michigan regent, described several issues with the site plan and he urged planning commissioners to postpone action until those issues are addressed. He highlighted issues that had been described in detail in a letter sent to the city in early January. [.pdf of letter from Zaragon attorney] In general, the main concerns related to the lack of a setback on the west side facing Zaragon Place, and the ability to construct the building without endangering Zaragon Place residents or trespassing on Zaragon Place property.

Larry Deitch, an attorney who spoke on behalf of the owners of Zaragon Place, adjacent to the proposed 624 Church development.

Deitch said that Neumann/Smith Architects and O’Neal Construction – firms that worked on the Zaragon development – have indicated that no crane system exists that can install heavy, precast concrete panels at a zero-setback property line without swinging the panels over neighboring property. Deitch also referred to Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) regulations for workers, and noted that Zaragon Place residents should be afforded at least that level of protection. Deitch concluded by saying that Zaragon Place owners aren’t against the project in concept, but believe it should include a setback of 10 feet on the west property line.

Sorini, who works out of Bodman’s Ann Arbor office, noted that Opus has given assurances that there will be no danger to residents during construction – but she said Zaragon would like to get some proof of that. She pointed out that Zaragon West was built with brick, not heavy precast panels, so there had not been the same construction concerns.

Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architects told commissioners that he did the design for Zaragon and Zaragon West. He applauded the 624 Church proposal and called it a fantastic addition to Ann Arbor. But he pointed out that when the Zaragon projects were designed, the buildings were set back from the property lines so that they could be constructed without endangering the neighbors. He also noted that the Zaragon projects did not require a variance from the building board of appeals, nor did they need to obtain easements. That’s not the case with the 624 Church development, he observed.

Eleanor Linn began by reporting that she lives on Forest Court near the proposed project. She’s just lived through the construction of another major development, 601 S. Forest, and she’s not happy that another project is coming. [The city council recently enacted a change in its noise ordinance, as a result of Linn's activism in connection with the 601 S. Forest construction.] Even though the zoning permits a 14-story building at that location, the structure will block the afternoon sun on her home. But the city doesn’t consider that as an impact on residents’ health and welfare, she said. Linn also said that the developers haven’t listened to neighbors’ concerns about the look of the building. Linn’s final concern related to parking. She notes that already she has to call the police regarding parking violations in the neighborhood, and it will likely put additional strain on resources if more monthly permits are allocated to the Forest Avenue structure.

Ethel Potts, an Ann Arbor resident and former planning commissioner, raised two concerns. One is parking – she already has a difficult time finding a spot at the Forest Avenue structure, which she noted that the University of Michigan uses, too. She worried that giving parking permits at that location would make it even harder for others to park there. Potts also questioned the building setbacks, wondering if they were sufficient.

Peter Nagourney said he was very pleased that the building went through the design review process successfully. But he also was very concerned about parking. Even though the Forest Avenue structure is nearly empty in the summer, during the school year it’s almost always full, he said. Taking away 42 spots for monthly permits will force some people to park in the neighborhood, he said.

Ray Detter, chair of the downtown citizens advisory council, said the council supports the project, subject to outstanding issues being addressed – including the legal challenges that have recently been raised. He hoped that the assurances given by Opus were true. He observed that it was interesting to have both this project and the 413 E. Huron development being considered on the same night. The two projects had also been at the design review board and had held citizen participation meetings on the same night. “We’ve certainly had a chance to compare these two projects,” he said. Detter believed that 624 Church would serve a greater diversity of residents, including accommodations for “more mature adults.” Dennis Tice is putting his life into this project, Detter said, and it’s a project that the advisory council wants to support. He didn’t believe it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion

Several issues were highlighted during the commission’s deliberations. In addition to concerns raised by representatives for Zaragon Place, other topics touched on by commissioners included maintenance, exterior design, LEED certification, stormwater management, parks, parking and citizen participation.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Exterior Issues, Zaragon Place

Bonnie Bona drew attention to the proposed loading zone on the building’s south side, and said her understanding is that the driveway is shared with the adjacent property owner. Was there an easement agreement for that use?

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Architect Brad Moore replied that they haven’t been able to find a written record of that agreement, but that it’s been in place as long as the Tice family can remember.

Bona then said she was concerned about the zero setback, not just from a constructability viewpoint but also from a maintenance perspective. It’s in the city’s best interest to make sure there’s an easement agreement, she said, to make sure that the building owners can wash or replace windows, for example. If that side can’t be accessed, “then we as a community have a problem,” she said. Bona added that she wasn’t as concerned about the specific legal issues, but the maintenance issue was a concern.

Jim Caesar of Opus replied that the precast panels require no maintenance or sealers. The joints would require some maintenance, but if necessary, workers could access the joints through inside closets, and recaulk from the interior.

Wendy Woods followed up by asking how, exactly, did the developers intend to keep the windows clean. Mark Bell of Opus said it wasn’t their intent to get into these kind of details at the meeting – a response that elicited laughter from the audience. He said the building was carefully designed to be serviced and maintained from the inside out. But the developers also believe that they have an existing easement that will allow them to maintain the building from the exterior, too.

Woods noted that the legal issues brought up by the representatives of Zaragon Place were new to the planning commissioners, and she assumed they would be worked out. She then asked the planning staff if they had looked into some of the other issues that had been raised by Zaragon Place representatives. City planner Matt Kowalski replied that a lot of the issues are related to construction and would be handled at the building permit stage. If there are issues between the two owners, he said, then those two parties should work it out. The purview of the planning commission is zoning, he said.

Tony Derezinski clarified with Kowalski that Zaragon Place had been built after the foundations for a taller structure on the Pizza House property were in place. So Zaragon Place was built when its owners knew full well that a larger building would likely be constructed next to it, Derezinski said. He then asked whether either Zaragon Place or Zaragon West had been required to show proof about construction safety. No, Kowalski said – it’s not something that’s typically required at this stage.

Derezinski asked whether the planning staff stood by its recommendation for approval. Yes, Kowalski said, if the contingencies are met. Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that the letter from Bodman had been reviewed by the city attorney’s staff. Most of the issues are construction-related, she said. Site plan regulations don’t address constructability – those issues are handled in the building permit process.

Kirk Westphal also reiterated that exterior maintenance issues aren’t in the purview of the planning commission. He wondered whether similar questions were raised for Zaragon West, which abuts the Cottage Inn building. Rampson couldn’t recall that such concerns about Zaragon West had been raised – at least not at the site plan stage.

Eric Mahler said there are a lot of things to like about this project, and that improved student housing is always a benefit to the city. He pointed out that the city had gone through a “robust” discussion about zoning as part of the A2D2 process, and had decided that this area should be zoned D1. Now that D1 projects are coming forward, “we need to get used to that,” he said. Mahler, who is an attorney, said he hoped that the two parties could work out their differences amicably.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Other Design Issues

Bona wondered how the developers had arrived at the mix of apartment sizes, in terms of the number of bedrooms. Mark Bell of Opus replied that the decision is tied to the building’s location, relative to its competitors. In the South University area, there are two buildings – Zaragon Place and The Landmark – that have a greater proportion of units with four, five or six bedrooms, he said. The 624 Church design also responded to input from the citizen participation meeting. The original design had called for 195 bedrooms, but they ratcheted that number down to 175, Bell said.

Mark Bell of Opus Development.

Bona observed that there were no studio apartments. Bell said Opus has done a lot of development geared toward students, graduate students and young professionals. Their units are bigger than their competitors, he said, and they’re seeing great results from that in other markets.

Ken Clein noted that the project would be seeking LEED Silver certification (under the U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program). What happens if that’s not achieved? Kowalski replied that the developer would be fined. Those details would be laid out in the development agreement, he said. Rampson added that documents verifying the LEED certification must be shown within six months after the building receives its certificate of occupancy. If it’s not achieved, fines are determined through a formula specified in the zoning ordinance, she said.

Clein also asked some questions about the materials that would be used on the building. As an architect himself, he indicated it’s easy to make any material look like the image provided in the meeting packet – implying that it might actually appear much different in reality. He said he understood that there are very real financial pressures in projects like this, that might affect the choice of materials. Kowalski said it would be possible to include specific materials in the development agreement, before it’s presented to the city council for approval.

Clein also asked how the developers planned to manage student move-ins and move-outs. Bell reported that Campus Advantage will be the property manager. He said they will have a detailed plan to handle the process.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Stormwater Management

Eric Mahler asked about the site’s stormwater management. Architect Brad Moore noted that the site is already 100% impervious, and the project calls for all runoff to be handled in underground tanks. Todd Pascoe, a senior project engineer with Atwell, elaborated. He explained that an existing underground chamber was built when Pizza House expanded a few years ago, and is designed to handle a “first flush.” That underground system will be modified so that it can handle a “bank full” flood. The chamber is bottomless, which allows stormwater to infiltrate. Overflow will go into the city’s storm sewer system.

Bonnie Bona noted that the design review board had suggested that the project include a “vegetated” roof as a way to help handle stormwater runoff. Moore said that was being considered.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Citizen Participation

Sabra Briere said she had searched in vain to find certain aspects of the citizens participation report. She couldn’t find information about the number of citizens who were sent notices by mail, nor copies of the information that was sent to the public.

Sabra Briere, who serves on the Ann Arbor planning commission and is a Ward 1 representative to city council.

She was concerned that the report of the citizens participation meeting was just a summary presented in the form of a Q&A, and did not indicate concerns that had been raised. Briere said she failed to find information that would reassure her that the citizens participation requirements were being met.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson replied that the citizens participation ordinance does not specify a template for making a report, so that’s something that the council might want to change. Briere observed that the ordinance does indicate that a form will be provided to petitioners by the planning staff. [It was Briere's effort after her election to the city council in 2007 that resulted in the enactment of the citizen participation ordinance.]

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Parks & Open Space

Diane Giannola wondered whether the outdoor plaza in front of the building would be open to the public. The design calls for a 70-by-20 foot area at street level, or about 1,400 square feet. Brad Moore replied that there’s no fence around it.

Bonnie Bona was concerned about the plaza becoming “dead space.”

Regarding the parks contribution, Sabra Briere said she’d spent a lot of time reviewing the various premium options, and couldn’t find a reference to that. She didn’t find mention of it as a payment-in-lieu for a benefit or as a requirement. Matt Kowalski responded, saying the parks contribution is not a requirement – it’s requested. “So it’s a kindness,” Briere observed.

Bona noted that the downtown area is probably where parks and green space are most needed. People who live downtown need it more than people living in neighborhoods, but there aren’t sufficient resources, she said. Bona asked the developers to reconsider the amount of their contribution to parks.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Parking

Bona noted that bicycle parking has been brought up in some recent planning commission discussions. It appears that bike storage rooms in student apartment buildings don’t get used very much, she said – and that’s something that the developers might want to look at. They might be meeting the city requirements, but she’s concerned that bike storage is being put in the wrong place. Bona suggested putting more hoops in the plaza area.

Bona said she was having a hard time with the parking contribution-in-lieu issue. She’d like to get input from the South University merchants association about how the parking structure is used. The thought of using the city’s parking structures for vehicle storage is concerning, she said, and she didn’t like the idea of parking permits being used that way. She knew that the decision had already been made, but she wanted to challenge the idea. Merchants should know that they’re losing spaces for their customers.

Westphal noted that this is a by-right project, and that the parking meets city code requirements. He encouraged neighbors to pursue the issue with city councilmembers, regarding the impact of parking on neighborhood streets.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend approval of its 624 Church St. site plan and development agreement. It will next be considered for approval by the city council.

The Shoppes at 3600

A proposed retail development at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23, was again on the Jan. 15 agenda. The project – called The Shoppes at 3600 – was previously postponed by the commission on Nov. 7, 2012.

Aerial view of a proposed retail development on Plymouth Road west of US-23 – The Shoppes at 3600. The site is in the complex where the Holiday Inn North Campus is located, visible on the right side of this image. This document was included in the planning commission’s meeting packet.

On Jan. 15, commissioners were asked to recommend approval of the project’s original site plan as well as rezoning for the land – from R5 (motel-hotel district) to C3 (fringe commercial district). The site is located in the same complex as the Holiday Inn North Campus. Responding to some commissioner concerns voiced at the November 2012 meeting, the developer had provided an alternative site plan that was reviewed on Jan. 15. But the developer sought approval for the original layout. The owner is listed as Ann Arbor Farms Hotel Corp., with property being developed by Diverse Development in Holland, Ohio.

The developer hopes to build 9,490-square foot, one-story retail building, which would be constructed in what’s now the parking lot and front yard for the hotel, at an estimated cost of $1 million. The building would have space for several businesses, including a restaurant with a one-lane drive-through window and outdoor seating. An existing shared driveway off of Plymouth Road would be used to access the site. The original site plan calls for 33 parking spots and four covered bike parking spots near the entrance.

The commission’s recommendation is contingent on four conditions: (1) approval of a land division, to divide off a 1.15 acre parcel from the parking lot and front yard of the 10.85-acre hotel site where the Holiday Inn North Campus is located; (2) approval of an administrative amendment to the parent site plan to change the parking for the hotel, because some spaces will be removed to allow for the new building; (3) recording an ingress/egress easement along the existing drive from Plymouth Road, so that a new curb cut would not be needed; and (4) recording stormwater and cross-parking easements between the hotel and the new building.

The Shoppes at 3600: Public Hearing

Three people addressed the commission during a public hearing on this project.

Ken Hicks spoke on behalf of Diverse Development, the Ohio firm that’s overseeing this project. He and architect Scott Bowers highlighted several aspects of the plan that had been revised, and addressed some of the concerns that commissioners had raised at the Nov. 7 meeting.

Warren Attarian of Ann Arbor – in the nearby Orchard Hills/Maplewood subdivision – told commissioners that the major objection by neighbors was to the queuing of cars for the drive-through, near the sidewalk by Plymouth Road. The original plan doesn’t leave much room between the sidewalk and the drive-through, he noted, while the alternative plan moves the drive-through so that it’s parallel to US-23. The alternative plan also gives better pedestrian access to the gas station and hotel, he said. Attarian hoped the alternative plan would move forward. He suggested that commissioners take a close look at the plans and request more details.

The Shoppes at 3600: Commission Discussion

Tony Derezinski asked the city’s planning staff what their preference was between the original and the revised plan. City planner Chris Cheng reported that the staff thinks the original proposal probably would be more feasible. Derezinski also asked about “cosmetic” changes that had been made to the plan, and Cheng also reviewed those – including design changes that made all four sides of the building look like the front.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Sabra Briere asked where deliveries would be made. Ken Hicks of Diverse Development indicated that deliveries would be made at the front of the building, which faced the parking lot. Briere then asked about the side of the building that would face Plymouth Road. If it’s blocked by landscaping, why would anyone cross Plymouth to get to the shops, if the building isn’t visible?

Hicks explained that commissioners had raised concerns that the side of the building that faces Plymouth would look like the back. So the developers had redesigned the facade with signs, windows and awnings to make it more like a front. Diane Giannola clarified with the architect that the windows on that side are actually functional.

Wendy Woods thanked the developer for coming up with an alternative site plan. She thought the facades looked better. Woods asked about a berm that’s currently located along Plymouth Road: What would happen to the berm? Cheng replied that it would be flattened, and that quite a few trees would be removed from that area.

Woods wondered how the building would be made to appear inviting for people driving by on Plymouth. Hicks pointed to landscaping, signs and the architectural look of the building. The trees in the right-of-way along Plymouth won’t be removed, he noted.

Eleanore Adenekan asked about traffic: Had traffic been addressed? Hicks replied that a traffic study had been required, and that it would be necessary to install signs by the exit onto Plymouth clearly indicating that vehicles can only turn right.

Bonnie Bona also thanked the developer for developing an alternative plan. She observed that the commission was struggling: Commissioners wanted buildings closer to the street, but then in a seeming contradiction they were asking that the facade be hidden with landscaping. That’s because the side facing Plymouth is actually the back of the building, she noted. Adding the windows on that side will help, but there are doors that will almost never be used. She pointed out that landlords tend to ignore the back of a commercial building, ignoring things like graffiti and trash. She wondered what assurance the city had that in this case, that the landlord will pay attention to that.

Hicks replied that Diverse Development held its properties for a long time. The only way to do that and to keep tenants is to maintain the property, he said. They hire parking lot sweepers, for example, and Hicks said he personally visits the company’s holdings regularly to check on conditions. The intent is to make tenants happy, he said.

Bona also asked about the landscaping along the Plymouth side. Scott Bowers, the project’s architect, reported that he lives in that neighborhood and promised the building would look good. There will be 6-7 foot conifers planted between the drive-through and Plymouth Road, intended to screen cars in that drive-through lane. But the building would still be visible from the road, he said.

Ken Clein echoed Bona’s comments about the conundrum of the building facade facing Plymouth. He noted that in reality, not a lot of pedestrians walk along that road. For that location, this approach and land use is probably warranted, he said.

Saying that she’d reviewed the notes on a citizen participation meeting that the developer had held, Briere pointed out there was an expectation that people from Cleary University – located on the other side of Plymouth Road – would be coming to the businesses in this development. Is there an expectation that a crosswalk will be installed?

That’s not likely, Cheng replied. Unless a stoplight is installed, it’s doubtful that crossing at that location would be encouraged. The safest way for pedestrians to cross is at the intersection of Green and Plymouth.

Kirk Westphal asked how a pedestrian walkway would be handled across the service drive on the site. Hicks indicated that the walkway will be flush with the curbs, and made of patterned concrete.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the project’s original site plan as well as rezoning for the land – from R5 (motel-hotel district) to C3 (fringe commercial district). The requests will next be considered by the city council.

Devonshire Annexation

The Ann Arbor planning commission was asked to recommend approval of the annexation for 2925 Devonshire Road, one of several Ann Arbor Township “islands” within the city. Also on the Jan. 15 agenda was a request to zone the 0.66-acre site as R1A (single-family dwelling district).

Aerial view of 2925 Devonshire (outlined in black). The main road at the top of this image is Geddes.

The property – owned by Keith Kocher and Sara Saberi – is vacant, but within a residential neighborhood south of Geddes. 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.

The parcel is adjacent to a property that was annexed into Ann Arbor earlier this year by the city council, following recommendation at the planning commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 meeting. That parcel – at 3100 Geddes Road site, owned by Mike and Deb McMullen – is located south of Geddes and north of Devonshire, between Heatherway Street and Hickory Lane. Both parcels were part of a larger lot that had been divided into four parcels earlier this year by Ann Arbor Township.

No one spoke at a public hearing on this item.

Devonshire Annexation: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona observed that this parcel was part of a larger lot that was divided by Ann Arbor Township, before being annexed into the city. That means the city has no input into the size of the lot.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, replied: “We found that surprising, too.” She said that city staff have contacted the township to request that in the future, the township circulate its intent when considering a land division.

Kirk Westphal clarified with Rampson that there’s an agreement between the township and the city regarding which land will eventually be annexed. Rampson indicated that the boundaries are well known.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the annexation for 2925 Devonshire Road, as well as R1A (single-family dwelling district) zoning for the parcel. The zoning and annexation require Ann Arbor city council approval.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

On Jan. 15, commissioners recommended that the city council approve the project’s original site plan as well as rezoning for the land – from R5 (motel-hotel district) to C3 (fringe commercial district). The site is located in the same complex as the Holiday Inn North Campus. [.pdf of aerial map showing project's location] Responding to some commissioner concerns voiced at the November 2012 meeting, the developer had provided an alternative site plan that was reviewed on Jan. 15. But the developer sought approval for the original layout. The owner is listed as Ann Arbor Farms Hotel Corp., with property being developed by Diverse Development in Holland, Ohio.

The developer hopes to build 9,490-square foot, one-story retail building, which would be constructed in what’s now the parking lot and front yard for the hotel, at an estimated cost of $1 million. The building would have space for several businesses, including a restaurant with a one-lane drive-through window and outdoor seating. An existing shared driveway off of Plymouth Road would be used to access the site. The original site plan calls for 33 parking spots and four covered bike parking spots near the entrance.

The commission’s recommendation is contingent on four conditions: (1) approval of a land division, to divide off a 1.15 acre parcel from the parking lot and front yard of the 10.85-acre hotel site where the Holiday Inn North Campus is located; (2) approval of an administrative amendment to the parent site plan to change the parking for the hotel, because some spaces will be removed to allow for the new building; (3) recording an ingress/egress easement along the existing drive from Plymouth Road, so that a new curb cut would not be needed; and (4) recording stormwater and cross-parking easements between the hotel and the new building.

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

The current PUD zoning, which was approved in 1989, allows for certain C3 (fringe commercial) uses, but due to an increased need for parking that would be created, it does not allow for (1) restaurants with seating, (2) barber/beauty shops on the first floor, or (3) office uses on the second floor, with the exception of medical/dental offices. Changes requested to the PUD supplemental regulations would allow for urgent care and restaurant uses at the site, with no additional parking. No exterior changes are proposed.

There are nearly 200 parking spaces available at the site. To accommodate potential increased parking demand, the building’s owner – Nadim Ajlouny of Orchard Lake, Mich. – is offering to provide bus passes to all employees on the site and to provide an additional 14 enclosed bicycle parking spaces. Some commissioners expressed support for this alternative to more parking spaces, with Erica Briggs saying she hoped to see this kind of thing extended throughout the Washtenaw Avenue corridor.

A citizen’s participation meeting was held about the changes on Oct. 17, with nine people attending. According to a staff report, no concerns were raised at that meeting, and the planning staff hasn’t received any other feedback or concerns about the project.

The changes will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

This brief was filed from the planning commission’s Dec. 6, 2011 meeting in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron.

A rendering of one of four buildings planned at Arbor Hills Crossing, located on the southeast corner of Platt and Washtenaw. This view is looking northwest from the center of the site. (Image by ReFORM Studios)

The project involves tearing down several vacant structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site is also directly north of the new location for Summers-Knoll School. Planning commissioners had approved the Summers-Knoll project at their May 17 meeting.

Comments from commissioners about Arbor Hills Crossing ranged from disappointment in the lack of density to concerns about pedestrian safety. Commissioners generally expressed the sense that they were glad to see the site developed.

Citing some outstanding issues, planning staff recommended postponing action on the plan. Several commissioners raised other issues they’d like to see addressed before the site plans come back to the commission for approval. Among those issues: future plans for bike lanes along Washtenaw Avenue, as identified in the city’s non-motorized transportation plan; and possible pedestrian access to a wetland area. The vote to pospone was unanimous.

Later in the meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson got feedback on a draft memo to Pittsfield Township, providing input from the commission on the township’s draft master plan. In part, the memo states an objection to the township’s description of itself as “providing an Ann Arbor mailing address while placing a much lower tax burden on businesses.” The memo points out that the plan could be improved by emphasizing regional cooperation.

Arbor Hills Crossing Site Plan

The planning commission was asked to consider the site plan for Arbor Hills Crossing at 3100 Washtenaw Avenue, a property at the southeast corner of Washtenaw and Platt, owned by Campus Realty. [In 2006, the city had approved a site plan for a different retail development at that location, but it was never built.] Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning department gave the staff report.

The plan calls for demolishing several commercial buildings and constructing a 90,700-square-foot retail and office center with four buildings, 310 parking spaces and 30 covered bike parking spaces on a 7.45-acre site. Retail space would primarily include smaller stores that would be visible from Washtenaw Avenue – three of the buildings face that road.

Aerial drawing of Arbor Hills Crossing proposal. Washtenaw Avenue runs along the north border of the property. Platt Road is on the property's west edge. The project is across Washtenaw from Huron Village Plaza, where a Whole Foods grocery is located.

The developer is proposing to consolidate five existing curb cuts along Washtenaw into one entrance. Vehicles could also access the site from Platt Road. An exit-only road onto Platt on the south side of the site will also be available through an easement from the adjacent property owner.

A wetlands area is located in the southwest corner of the site – the developer plans to build a “pocket park” near it, as a gathering place for customers. The plan also calls for removing two landmark trees – a 64-inch silver maple and a 12-inch ginkgo – as well as 36 non-landmark trees. The developer proposes planting a total of 106 trees throughout the site.

DiLeo described results of a traffic impact study, which found that the proposed project is likely to generate 306 trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 692 trips during the weekday evening peak hour. Traffic is simply bad along that stretch, DiLeo said, but would be improved if a traffic signal at Platt and Washtenaw is installed.

As part of the site plan, the developer is proposing a 23-foot-wide easement along Washtenaw Avenue for a 10-foot shared use path, a bus pullout, and landscaping. The concept is amenable to planning staff, DiLeo said, but they’re trying to determine whether an easement is the right mechanism for it. A dedicated right-of-way might be more appropriate.

DiLeo noted that a citizens participation meeting was held on Feb. 16, 2011; it was attended by 28 people.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponement, citing several unresolved issues: (1) a formal decision from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) on installation of a traffic signal at the Washtenaw/Platt intersection; (2) approval of the plan by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner; and (3) resolution of issues related to the 23-foot easement along Washtenaw Avenue, including which parties will be involved and what mechanism would be used to handle that easement.

Separately, the developer has filed a brownfield plan for the site that’s being considered by the city’s brownfield plan review committee. The brownfield plan would allow for a TIF (tax increment finance) to reimburse the developer for removal of contaminated soil, caused by a repair shop at an auto dealership previously located at the site.

Arbor Hills Crossing: Public Hearing

Two people representing the developer spoke during the project’s public hearing. Tom Covert of Atwell, an Ann Arbor civil engineering and landscape architecture firm, said he was there along with others in the project team, including Tom Stegeman and Norm Hyman from the ownership group. Covert highlighted several aspects of the development, noting that the wetlands area is a central focal feature and wouldn’t be impacted by the project – it would become part of a pocket park, and would be a place for patrons to congregate, he said.

This rendering shows a bird's-eye view of Arbor Hills Crossing, looking southeast. The intersection of Washtenaw and Platt is at the bottom right of this drawing.

Because there’s a 30-40 foot difference in grade between the property’s northwest and southeast corners, they looked at the design as a series of plateaus, he said. The layout is designed to give the development a sense of scale, creating pedestrian space along Washtenaw that invites people into the site, he said. Covert pointed out that they’re consolidating five curb cuts on the property along Washtenaw Avenue into a single cut. There, the exit onto Washtenaw will be limited to a right turn only, Covert said, though vehicles can enter from either direction. The other access is from Platt.

The distance between buildings is designed to be similar to a city block, Covert said – if you drive to the site, you could park and easily walk to two or three of the four buildings without moving your car. Landscaping features on the site include a planned rain garden between two of the buildings, and use of native plants so that no irrigation is required. Part of the stormwater management system includes capturing water in the rain garden, then releasing it to an underground detention basin and into the preserved wetland.

Robb Burroughs of ReFORM Studios Inc., the project’s architect, described some of the project’s design aspects. He highlighted the building at the northwest corner, at Washtenaw and Platt. To balance out the site and deal with the grade changes, the first floor will be below grade, with entrances facing the parking area on the east side. The second floor of that building will be at street level facing Washtenaw, visible from the intersection of Platt and Washtenaw. The strategy is to create a walkable, pedestrian-friendly experience internal to the site, Burroughs said.

They’ve designed a “contemporary building palette,” Burroughs said, integrating pedestrian elements like awnings, windows, and unique corner treatments. A tall vertical element on the northwest building will anchor the Platt and Washtenaw corner – it will likely be made of regionally sourced wood, he said, or latticed steel.

Arbor Hills Crossing: Commissioner Discussion

Jean Carlberg opened the discussion by expressing her concern over how close the sidewalk is to Washtenaw Avenue at the front of the property. Cars typically travel at 40-45 miles per hour, she noted, indicating it can be dangerous to pedestrians. On the opposite side of Washtenaw, there’s a grass buffer between the sidewalk and street.

Internal to the site, the development includes sidewalks, Carlberg said, but it’s more likely that people will walk across the parking lot to get from building to building. That’s also a safety issue. And though she said she was glad to see the site being redeveloped, she criticized the design of the building facing Platt, saying it was plain and unwelcoming. There was nothing to attract people who used the county recreation center across the street, she said. ”I think you’re missing an opportunity there.”

Kirk Westphal asked planning staff what the city’s recourse is if construction isn’t completed. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, described two different scenarios. If the incomplete work relates to the infrastructure portion of the project – such as installing a water main – then the city can step in and complete the work, and bill the developer. If the bill is unpaid, the city can place a lien on the property. However, if the work that’s incomplete is a building or other parts of the development that don’t relate to city infrastructure, it’s considered a nuisance case – it’s trickier, she said, but the city would have the option of taking the developer to court.

Related to the site’s proximity to Whole Foods, Westphal said he could imagine pedestrians crossing Washtenaw Avenue either coming from or going to the Huron Village Plaza, where the grocery store is located. Rampson said that as part of the Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement project, there have been discussions about having a mid-block crossing along that stretch.

However, she said, a traffic engineer who’s looked at that section of Washtenaw is concerned about traffic “stacking” – vehicles backing up as they wait for pedestrians to cross mid-block. If there’s a stoplight installed at Washtenaw and Platt, that would ensure a safe pedestrian crossing, she noted. Pedestrians might still try to cross mid-block anyway, Rampson said, but since there’s a bus stop located close to the intersection, there’s a better chance that people would cross at the light.

From left: Planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods, and Diane Giannola review documents at their June 7, 2011 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Erica Briggs began her comments by saying it would obviously be a great improvement to have this development on the site. She shared Carlberg’s concerns about pedestrian safety along Washtenaw. Briggs also wondered whether the 23-foot easement on the north side of the parcel next to Washtenaw – to accommodate the sidewalk and a “tree lawn” – would also be sufficient for a bike lane at some point in the future.

Covert said a bike lane would need to use land intended for the tree lawn, which would be 10-12 feet wide. Briggs confirmed with Covert that the bike lane design would result in sacrificing the pedestrian experience in favor of cyclists.

Briggs also wondered whether there could be trails through the wetland area. Covert described the design as including a sidewalk that would wrap around the wetland, and a landscaped area for people to congregate on the east side of the wetland. But when he’s been physically on the site, the wetlands have been wet – there are no plans to put trails through it.

Finally, Briggs asked whether they had considered aligning the Washtenaw entrance/exit with the Whole Foods entrance/exit across Washtenaw Avenue – in the current design, you’d have a slight jog to get from one to the other, she noted. Covert said they looked at that possibility, but felt there’d be too much potential traffic conflict with people turning into and out of both spots, or trying to drive straight across.

Bonnie Bona spoke next, saying she would start with the “big question” – floor area ratio (FAR). She noted that the city had recently revised its area, height and placement (AHP) zoning. [City council approved the AHP amendments at its Jan. 3, 2011 meeting. 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 an FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in an FAR of 200%. For more background, see Chronicle coverage: "Zoning 101: Area, Height, Placement"]

The AHP changes include allowing for up to 200% FAR at that location, Bona said, but Arbor Hills Crossing has a FAR of 28%. ”What didn’t we do right?” she asked. ”What did we not do to encourage density on your site?”

It’s disappointing to see the site being underused, Bona said, especially considering the increased number of commuters coming into Ann Arbor. She noted that according to the 2010 census, there are 60,000 people commuting to Ann Arbor, compared to 45,000 commuters in 2000.

Tom Stegeman of Campus Realty came to the podium to respond to Bona. Financial feasibility and the project’s viability were paramount, he said, noting that the site plan for the previous development at that location proposed greater density – but the developer wasn’t able to build it. It would be nice to have more mixed-use options, including residential, but they have to respect market conditions, he said.

They’re confident they can build the proposed project, Stegeman said, and they won’t start construction until they have pre-leased the buildings and have their financing in place.

Bona said she would have preferred a more phased-in site plan, that would eventually have created a denser development, because whatever is built will likely be there for 50 years, she said. The site is also on the city’s most efficient bus route – Route 4, traveling between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – with the most frequent number of buses. It’s unfortunate that the project doesn’t take advantage of that, she said.

Turning to parking, Bona asked what it would have taken for them to have built a parking structure, rather than a surface lot. Stegeman said the expense of a structure, coupled with market demand, were the main factors.

Bona then asked if they’d considered providing vehicle access from their development to the site east of their land. Whenever possible, it’s important that interior connections are provided between developments, she said – that keeps at least some traffic off of Washtenaw. She urged them to explore that possibility.

Diane Giannola asked whether the project would be relying on brownfield tax credits – those are being eliminated by the state, she said. Her question was answered by Anne Jamieson-Urena, director of brownfield and redevelopment incentives for AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services. [Jamieson-Urena is also involved in the Packard Square project at the former Georgetown Mall site – Washtenaw County commissioners approved the brownfield plan and grant application for that project last month.]

Jamieson-Urena said it’s no longer feasible to seek brownfield tax credits, because of state legislative changes. However, brownfield status would still allow them to seek tax increment financing, which would offset costs of cleaning contaminated soil on the site.

Wendy Woods directed her initial comments at the project’s south side, noting that it adjoins property that will soon be used for a school. [At their May 17, 2011 meeting, planning commissioners approved a special exception use for the property at 2203 Platt. The approval allows Summers-Knoll – a private school for grades K-8 – to convert the office building there into a school.]

Woods said she could imagine there’d be conflicts with vehicles coming out of the school, near the Arbor Hills Crossing exit onto Platt. She suggested that perhaps left turns could be restricted at certain times of the day, when traffic might be higher coming out of the school.

Covert shared some traffic count data, and said they anticipated that peak hours for their development wouldn’t coincide with peak hours for the school. Stegeman said he’d talked multiple times with Ron Weiser – a Summers-Knoll supporter and founder of McKinley, a real estate development firm – and that they’ll continue to communicate regularly with representatives from the school as the project progresses.

Eric Mahler, chair of the planning commission, asked about the status of the traffic signal at Platt and Washtenaw. Covert reported that they had submitted a traffic report and their project plans to MDOT, and paid application fees. They’ve had discussions with several MDOT representatives, he said, but don’t have anything in writing about the traffic signal installation. He said they’ve also had many discussions with AATA about the bus pullout, and have resubmitted their plans for stormwater management to the county water resources commissioner – they expect approval on that part of the project soon.

In wrapping up the discussion, several commissioners weighed in with issues they’d like the developer to address – in addition to the issues that staff had identified. They included: (1) looking at future plans for bike lanes along Washtenaw Avenue, as identified in the city’s non-motorized transportation plan; (2) identifying possible access to the wetland area; (3) aligning the Washtenaw entrance/exit with the Whole Foods/Huron Village Plaza entrance/exit across the street; (4) exploring the possibility of getting an easement and opening up vehicle traffic to the property on the east side of the development; and (5) addressing the width of the sidewalks along Washtenaw to ensure a sufficient buffer for pedestrians.

Carlberg also suggested looking at alternatives for tree placement along Washtenaw, keeping in mind that bike lanes might be added in the future. Trees should be located so that they wouldn’t have to be taken down in the future to make room for a bike lane, she said, “because taking down trees in this city is like taking your life in your hands.”

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Arbor Hills Crossing site plan. No date has been set for reconsideration.

Feedback for Pittsfield Township Master Plan

Based on input from planning commissioners, city planning staff had drafted some comments to give to Pittsfield Township regarding the township’s draft master plan. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, asked commissioners for feedback on the document – which includes some questions and recommendations – before sending the memo to township officials. [.pdf of draft memo]

In particular, she wondered about the tone of the last recommendation – did it sound too defensive? Ann Arbor’s draft memo states:

The “Successful Economy” section indicates that, “Pittsfield Township has the critical advantage of being located to the immediate south of the City of Ann Arbor and providing an Ann Arbor mailing address while placing a much lower tax burden on businesses”. It should be noted that by far the largest tax burden on both City and Township businesses is for school systems, which the plan rightfully notes is competitive advantage for attracting residents. Given this fact, the statement can be interpreted as indicating that Pittsfield Township is a better place to do business than the City of Ann Arbor. This can also be interpreted as being inconsistent with language in the same chapter that emphasizes regional cooperation.

City of Ann Arbor taxpayers support the economic vitality of the region by subsidizing transit service to outlying communities, providing an outstanding park and recreation system available free of charge to Township residents, providing recycling and composting facilities that are available to township residents, maintaining roads and non-motorized facilities that township residents depend on to get to work and services, and contributing substantially to human service organizations that provide a safety net for County residents. The plan would be more successful in emphasizing inter-jurisdictional cooperation if it highlighted those things that the Township is doing to benefit the region rather than indicating that it is a better place to do business than the City of Ann Arbor.

Several commissioners weighed in, generally supportive of the statement. Evan Pratt indicated that while it was pointed, it wasn’t the first recommendation on the list. Wendy Woods noted that the statement is all true, and Diane Giannola added that it needs to be said – even if the township doesn’t respond to it.

Bonnie Bona suggested one additional word for the last sentence [indicated in italics]:

The plan would be more successful in emphasizing inter-jurisdictional cooperation if it also highlighted those things that the Township is doing to benefit the region rather than indicating that it is a better place to do business than the City of Ann Arbor.

Other minor changes in the draft were recommended – Rampson said she’d run the final version past Eric Mahler, the commission’s chair, before sending it to Pittsfield.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the revised response to Pittsfield Township’s master plan.

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

Absent: Tony Derezinski

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, June 21  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 do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Michael Kessler queries potential users of coworking space at 118 S. Main about what they'd commit to and at what price. (Special thanks to Bill Merrill, who lent The Chronicle his camera.)

At noon on Tuesday, around 50 people gathered in the space at 118 S. Main St. to evaluate its potential as a place for coworking by independent operators. Coworking includes income-earning activity that ranges from people working solo in physical proximity with other independent workers, to collaboration with some of them on a single project – without belonging to a common business concern.

But it wasn’t just the physical space that people were keen to see (over a free catered lunch). They also wanted to know what Michael Kessler had in mind for the actual space-use agreements. Kessler has an arrangement with Ed Shaffran, who owns the Goodyear Building which houses the potential coworking space.

So what people wanted to know from Kessler on Tuesday was: What do you get, and how much does it cost? And what Kessler wanted to know from attendees was: Would you actually use this space, and how much would you pay?

After brief introductory remarks by Kessler, the conversation threatened briefly to stall until Bill Tozier piped up. Tozier, who is affiliated with Not An Employee, which is a standard-bearer for coworking in Ann Arbor, exhorted Kessler: “Describe the space!” What everyone could see were the bare brick walls that are a common feature of Shaffran’s properties. Common enough, that Shaffran knows you are kidding if you suggest to him, as The Chronicle did, that what the bricks need is a good coat of paint. Patrons of Arcadian Too Antiques, which was the most recent tenant there, will not remember exposed brick walls in the store.  Part of the work Kessler has had done in the last few weeks is remove the plaster from the bricks.

The view from the mezzanine level. The bright light is from the Main Street side. (Special thanks to Bill Merrill, who lent The Chronicle his camera.)

What Tozier meant, of course, was that Kessler needed to describe what the roughly 3,000 square foot space would look like when configured for coworking. Kessler ticked off various features: a meeting area, a bathroom, a 12-person conference room, a training area, lockers for security, and a place to pick up mail.

The ability to receive mail at a Main Street Ann Arbor address was a real plus for Jessica Rauch, president of The Generation Project. After the presentation, she told The Chronicle that The Generation Project would be moving to Washington D.C. in a year and a half, but that in the meantime, she was keen to have space to work from that was not her apartment.

A concern expressed in small talk before Kessler’s presentation, as well as during the ensuing conversation, was: How does noise get regulated in the coworking space? The noise issue was illustrated perfectly during a back-and-forth between Kessler and Dan Cooney, who were both speaking from the middle of the room. Off to the front of the building, Cooney’s comments were rendered almost indiscernible on that side of the room by conversational noise in the same corner. Conversational volume management in that case came in the form of a finger snap.

Other logistical challenges of managing a shared space include access. One attendee wanted to know if she’d be able to get into the space during later, evening hours, because she works for a west coast company. Answer: The intention is to provide 24/7 availability though a key card system most likely to be installed on the side entrance. Users of the space would swipe in and out.

Michael Kessler one-ups UPS's whiteboard ads by using a piece of drywall to write on.

Swiping would not be necessary to open the door to get out, but having a record of exactly when the space was being used would be helpful moving forward in arranging availability. The idea of being able to check the current physical space usage without physically going there met with a lot of enthusiasm in the room:  If you can see online that there are already a full complement of people using the space, it saves showing up only to be disappointed that there’s no room for you to cowork at that particular time.

Generally there was a lot of positive sentiment expressed in the room on Tuesday, even if there was some caution that could be found in internet backchannels. People said they really wanted to see the space succeed. Interest in the existence of a coworking space in Ann Arbor (or at least interest in measuring interest) goes at least as far back as May 2008. Based on a Chronicle conversation with Jennifer Burn after the presentation, that interest could go back even further. Before moving to a South State Street location in late 2005, Burn said, ICON Creative Technologies Group used to lease out work space to independent operators. And according to Jacqueline Yang, of Zattoo Inc., sub-leasing work space to independents is a practice they have adopted as well after recent downsizing. Yang was attending the Tuesday lunch partly with an eye towards possible use of the coworking space by a local initiative for Tech Cocktail.

Drawing of the street entrance to the coworking space. (Special thanks to Bill Merrill, who lent The Chronicle his camera.)

What the coworking space is imagined to be was clarified a bit on Tuesday when David Bloom, executive in residence at Ann Arbor SPARK, contrasted it with the space that SPARK offers through its business incubators. The incubators, said Bloom at Tuesday’s lunch, are “not about community – it’s about business acceleration.” The tenants of its incubators, continued Bloom, have the ambition to create lots of jobs and revenues.

So the coworking space on South Main is not meant as an incubator in that sense. But it’s also meant to be more than coffee houses – with their attendant overhead music, sometimes dodgy Wifi connections, and non-guaranteed access to electrical power for a laptop computer. Still, the South Main space will likely provide a coffee kiosk, staffed probably by Mighty Good Coffee, which had its brew on hand Tuesday for lunch. In addition to providing “eyes-on-site,” the kiosk at the entrance off the street would provide an interface zone between the public street and the private coworking space further back.

The public conversation on Tuesday yielded a show of about 30 hands of people who’d be interested in access to the coworking space at $100 per month. To get to the $10,000 a month that Kessler says he needs to make it work, that means the 30 hands will need to actually commit and get a couple of friends to commit as well.

Reached by phone the day after the lunch, Kessler said that followup communication with lunch attendees was positive enough that he’s got workers executing on the designs that people saw at the lunch, which had been drawn up by architect Clifford Cushard of Cushard Design Associates. Target date for the construction of the space is March 2009. The user agreements still need to be hammered out by legal counsel.

But now after hearing feedback from the potential users – about the physical space and the desired kinds of uses – Kessler said he’s developing a concrete and specific plan. As he put it at Tuesday’s lunch, he is “the decider,” which drew a laugh. But by phone, Kessler allowed that how the space actually gets used, and the day-to-day patterns that evolve, will be determined by those who are actually using the space.

[Editor's note: Please direct inquiries about the coworking space to Michael Kessler at coworkinga2 [at] gmail [daht] com]