Also that same evening, at a different public meeting away from the glitz and glamour of budget deliberations, an historic district study committee – appointed by the council in August 2009 – adopted its final report. The report recommends creation of an historic district along South Fifth and Fourth avenues, from William Street down to Packard Avenue, including the south side of Packard.

The colored overlays indicate existing Ann Arbor historic districts. The question mark indicates the general vicinity of the proposed new historic district. (Image links to .kmz file from the city's data catalog, which will open in GoogleEarth, displaying all the current historic districts in the city.)

The council would still need to approve the creation of the district. The issue is currently scheduled to come before the council for a first reading on June 21, followed by a second reading on July 5. A moratorium on all construction work in the area of the study will expire on Aug. 6.

If the historic district is approved, then the Heritage Row project – a planned unit development (PUD) proposed along the east side of Fifth Avenue south of William Street – would need to win approval not just from the city council, but also from the city’s historic district commission (HDC).

Heritage Row is due to come before the city council for its second reading on June 7. It received its first reading approval from the city council on May 3 – with no discussion, but with one dissenting vote from Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

This article takes a look at the recommendation of the historic district study committee, primarily through the lens of the public hearing held on May 5 in city council chambers. The conclusion of the hearing found Scott Munzel and Alex de Parry kidding back and forth with Beverly Strassmann – over their respective remarks at the public hearing. Munzel and de Parry are legal counsel and developer for the Heritage Row project, respectively, while Strassmann is president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association.

In his public hearing remarks, Munzel had – somewhat unexpectedly – presented a case that the area recommended as an historic district should, if anything, be larger than the study committee is recommending. The issue of the possible district’s size was already controversial at the point when the committee was appointed, and continues to be a bit of a chaffing point among residents.

To get to the point of the May 5 public hearing on the historic district study committee’s preliminary report, there’s a long chunk of recent history to wade through.

The city of Ann Arbor currently has 14 different historic districts. The first step in creating a new historic district is a city council appointment of a committee to undertake a study of an area. The study is supposed to determine if the built environment meets the criteria set forth in the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic districts.

We begin by looking at some background on how the size of the study area and pending development there factored into the council’s decision to appoint a study committee. Then we consider how the size of the recommended district is now factoring into support and opposition to the creation of the district.

City Council Says No to Study Committee

The proposal to appoint a study committee for the area south of William Street was first considered by the city council back in December 2008. It was a resolution sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and called for a study area roughly three blocks wide and two blocks long. From the Dec. 15, 2008 council resolution:

RESOLVED, That the area to be examined by this committee (“Study Area”) be generally the area between Fourth Avenue and Division Street, south of the East William Historic District, bounded by William Street and Madison Street;

Several people spoke at the public hearing that night and the council deliberated at some length on the question. Some wondered why the item had been added to the agenda only on Friday before their Monday meeting – but the counter to that complaint was that they’d received a draft resolution a week before. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had concerns about the “rush” to establish the committee.

Others had concerns that the establishment of the study committee would create a momentum and expectation that the district would actually be established. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) warned of a “self-full filling prophecy.” Objections also came from councilmembers, including the mayor, that many of the properties in the area lacked sufficient historical merit to contemplate their inclusion in an historic district. Christopher Taylor said he needed to see a larger pile of data for him to support a study committee.

In arguing for the appointment of the committee, Margie Teall (Ward 4) said that it was just a study committee, which did not mean that the council had to approve any recommendation of the committee.

In the end, the proposal won support only from Anglin, Briere, and Teall. For a more detailed account of public commentary and council deliberations from that meeting, see Chronicle coverage: “No Formal Study Committee for Germantown.”

City Council Says Yes to Study Committee

About eight months later, in August 2009, the city council had re-thought the issue of appointing an historic district study committee. The impetus behind the change in thinking was a development proposed for Fifth Avenue called City Place. The council had rejected a planned unit development (PUD) version of the project in January 2009. The council has fairly broad discretion to weigh the benefits of a project against the zoning changes inherent in a PUD proposal.

But by April 2009, the developer of the City Place project, Alex de Parry, had begun to move a “matter of right” (MOR) project through the site plan approval process. The city planning commission gave its approval to the MOR version on a 6-3 vote on April 21, 2009.

The city council has less discretion in approving a MOR project – one that is determined by city planning staff to meet all applicable codes. In the case of the City Place project, neighbors questioned the judgment of city staff in their determination that the project did meet applicable codes, specifically for height and setback requirements. Neighbors also raised questions about the version of project drawings that had been supplied in the lobby of city hall and to the planning commission – had the available drawings included the most recent revisions?

After review by the city attorney staff, opponents of the project won an intermediate victory: The City Place MOR project was remanded back to the planning commission in July 2009 due to problems in the version of drawings that had been made available to the planning commission. The commission’s 5-1 re-vote for the project on July 7 was a denial, lacking the six votes required for approval. But approval by the planning commission is not required in order for a site plan to be moved on for consideration by the city council, which has the final say.

On July 20, 2009 the City Place MOR project was back before the city council. And if a vote had been taken on the project, it would have almost certainly have passed. But an agreement had been struck with de Parry in order to avoid approving the MOR version, which consisted of two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot between them. It did not offer the energy efficiencies, below-grade parking, or affordable housing units that had been part of the case that de Parry had presented for the PUD version of the project.

The agreement was this: The city council would postpone the vote on the MOR, but de Parry could bring it back with a 35-day notice. In the interim, de Parry would work on revisions to the PUD, hoping to win support from the neighbors, or at least to damp down their opposition.

Orange-ish blocks are the proposed Heritage Row (top) and Moravian (bottom) developments. The whole magenta area was the area of study for the historic district study committee that was rejected by the city council in December 2008. The smaller, more opaque part of the magenta area has been recommended as an historic district by the committee that the council eventually did appoint in August 2009. That committee's area of study was the same as the opaque magenta area, except for the parcels on the south side of Packard. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

So on July 20, the council voted to postpone their vote on the City Place MOR until the following January.

At their next meeting, on Aug. 6, 2009, the city council considered a resolution to establish an historic district study committee with an associated moratorium on any construction work in the area of study. It was added to the agenda – on the same day as the council meeting – by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Objections to the resolution on the grounds that it had come at the last minute came from four councilmembers who supported a motion to postpone it: Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Leigh Greden (Ward 3), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

On the question of the resolution itself, only Smith and Derezinski were opposed.

The area proposed for study was smaller than the one that Anglin and Briere had suggested back in December 2008. It was confined to both sides of Fourth and Fifth avenues and bounded by Packard Street on the south.

The deliberations on the historic district and its associated moratorium on demolition and construction in the area of study reflected the fact that councilmembers wanted to block de Parry’s MOR project. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) characterized the use of a moratorium associated with an historic district as within the council’s arsenal of options.

At the same meeting, before it dealt with the historic district study committee, the council had entertained a moratorium on work in all R4C zoning districts, which would have also effectively blocked de Parry’s City Place project.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who brought the R4C moratorium forward, had talked about the idea at prior council meetings. During deliberations, Taylor was successful in amending the resolution to provide, among other things, an explicit exemption for The Moravian, a project located between Fourth and Fifth avenues along Madison Street. In the end, Anglin did not support his own amended resolution, but Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Leigh Greden (Ward 3) did.

The specific exemption for The Moravian was not necessary for the historic district study committee resolution – the area of study and its associated moratorium was smaller than the one proposed by Briere and Anglin back in December 2008. The study area did not include the area south of Packard, where the proposed Moravian was located:

RESOLVED, That the study area to be examined by this committee be the area encompassing properties that abut the east and west sides of South Fourth Avenue and South Fifth Avenue, bounded by the East William Historic District on the north, and Packard Street on the south, and also including 209, 215, and 219 Packard Street;

For a more detailed account of the council’s deliberations that evening, see Chronicle coverage: “Demolition Moratorium for Two-Block Area.”

Timeline Overview of City Place, Moravian, and Study Committee

The following timeline summarizes key points in the evolution of the study committee and the two developments proposed in the neighborhood.

• Jan. 15, 2008: City Place conditional rezoning – planning commission recommends denial.
• May 20, 2008: City Place PUD (planned unit development) – planning commission recommends denial.
• Sept. 4, 2008: City Place PUD – planning commission recommends denial.
• Dec. 15, 2008: Historic District Study Committee – city council rejects resolution to establish study committee for Germantown neighborhood.
• Jan. 5, 2009: City Place PUD – city council denies project on a unanimous 0-10 vote.
• April 21, 2009: City Place MOR (matter of right) – planning commission recommends approval on 6-3 vote.
• June 1, 2009: City Place MOR – city council postpones it due to inconsistencies in drawings provided on city’s website. [Errors attributed to city staff.]
• June 15, 2009: City Place MOR – city council sends it back to planning commission due to technical errors with drawings provided at the planning commission’s April meeting. [Errors attributed to city staff.]
• July 7, 2009: City Place MOR – planning commission recommends denial on 5-1 vote to approve (needed 6 votes for approval).
• July 20, 2009: City Place MOR – city council postpones until January 2010, to give the developer the opportunity to pursue a revised PUD. A condition was that the developer could bring back the matter of right project with 35-days notice.
• Aug. 6, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – city council establishes study committee plus a moratorium on demolition for a two-block area, including the proposed site of City Place, but not The Moravian.
• Aug. 11, 2009: City Place “Streetscape PUD” (a revised version of de Parry’s project) – receives planning staff initial review.
• Aug. 12, 2009: City Place “Streetscape PUD” – introduced to neighbors to comply with the neighbor participation ordinance.
• Aug. 17, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – city council revises language of moratorium to include all forms of work, including demolition.
• Aug. 30, 2009: City Place “Streetscape PUD” – application for project was not accepted by city planning staff.
• Sept. 8, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – members appointed.
• Sept. 21, 2009: City Place MOR – city council approves the project, but it cannot move forward because of the moratorium on demolition passed, together with the historic district study committee.
• Sept. 21, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – first meeting of the committee.
• Sept. 30, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets.
• Oct. 12, 2009: City Place “Streetscape PUD” –  de Parry gives update on “Streetscape PUD” at public meeting held at Conor O’Neill’s.
• Oct. 14, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets, expands area of research.
• Nov. 4, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets.
• Dec. 1, 2009: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets, contemplates recommendation to expand area of recommended district, 3-3 vote.
• Dec. 14, 2009: City Place “Streetscape PUD” – project now called “Heritage Row” and de Parry gives update at public meeting held at the Ann Arbor District Library.
• Jan. 5, 2010: The Moravian – the planning commission approves the project.
• Jan. 12, 2010: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets, consensus for smaller district.
• Feb. 16, 2010: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets.
• March 1, 2010: The Moravian – the city council approves at it at first reading.
• April 5, 2010: The Moravian – the city council rejects it at  second reading.
• May 3, 2010: Heritage Row –  the city council approves it at first reading.
• May 5, 2010: Historic District Public Hearing.
• May 17, 2010: Historic District Study Committee – committee meets, adopts final report.
• [scheduled] June 7, 2010: Heritage Row – second reading at city council.
• [scheduled] June 21, 2010: Fourth/Fifth Avenue Historic District – first reading at city council.
• [scheduled] July 5, 2010: Fourth/Fifth Avenue Historic District – second reading at city council.

Study Committee’s Dilemma: How Big a District?

The work of the study committee, which was appointed by the city council on Sept. 8, 2009, began at their first meeting on Sept. 21 with a division of labor to inventory the properties in the study area. Members of the committee are: Ina Hanel-Gerdenich, Susan Wineberg, Sarah (Shotwell) Wallace, Patrick McCauley, Rebecca Lopez Kriss, Tom Whitaker and Kristi Gilbert. McCauley and Wallace also serve on the city’s historic district commission. The committee was supported in their work by city planner Jill Thacher and consultant Kristine Kidorff.

The final product of the inventory is a series of “cards” – one per property – with detailed descriptions and photographs. Here’s an example of the text from one such card:

ADDRESS: 438 S Fifth Avenue, Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Michigan HISTORIC NAME: Erwin Schmid House #2    COMMON NAME: Schmid House
CONTRIBUTING: Yes DATE CONSTRUCTED: 1925 STYLE: Arts and Crafts MATERIALS FOUNDATION: Brick    WALLS: Brick    ROOF: Asphalt OTHER: Wood/Weatherboard
ARCHITECT: Herman Pipp SOURCE: Window shop drawings / Sanborn maps HISTORIC USE: DO/Single Dwelling    CURRENT USE: DO/Single Dwelling
DESCRIPTIVE NOTES: Two-story side gable with brick at first floor and wood clapboards at second floor. Tile shingles on dormer walls. Retains essential physical characteristics such as massing, materials, architectural details and retains historic integrity.
OTHER BUILDINGS/FEATURES: Wrought iron fence at front, shared with 444 S. Fifth Ave. Monumental tulip tree at south west corner of house and maple tree in rear yard contributes. Four bay garage with hip roof, brick facade, wood drop-lap siding sides and rear (built 1926-1931 – appears on 1931 Sanborn Map).
HISTORY: Built for Erwin E. Schmid in 1925 to replace the original italianate house built by his father Frederick Schmid, Jr., ca. 1874 (depicted in 1874 atlas of Washtenaw County). Erwin Schmid, who had been living next door at 444 S. Fifth Ave., moved into the older house in 1917, following the death of his father. The 1925 Sanborn map shows the rear wing of the old house remaining behind the new one (perhaps where the family lived while the new house was constructed). His widow and two children, Frederick K. and Emma M. lived in the house after Erwin’s death. Emma, who never married, remained there until she passed away in the 2000s and the house was sold to the current owners.
REFERENCES: 1874 Atlas, Sanborn maps, City Directories, Ann Arbor Daily News PHOTO FILE NAME: Fifth_438.jpg    DATE: September 30, 2009

How Big a District: Expanding the Scope of Study

With committee members well into their work cataloging the properties in the area of study specified in the city council resolution, at its Oct. 14, 2009 meeting the committee contemplated expanding the geographic scope of their research. Residents of the neighborhood south of Packard Street along Fourth and Fifth avenues were hopeful that the study committee would recommend as a district an area that extended south past Packard Street to Madison Street.

The appropriateness of inspecting a wider area than the area to be recommended as a district is implied by the applicable standards for defining boundaries:

Michigan’s Local Historic District Manual cites National Register Bulletin 15 [emphasis added]:

A district must be a definable geographic area that can be distinguished from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects or by documented differences in patterns of historic development or associations. It is seldom defined, however, by the limits of current parcels of ownership, management or planning boundaries. The boundaries must be based upon a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district.

To build a case for any particular boundaries, then, it seems incumbent upon a study committee to peer over any preliminary boundaries to test whether those properties outside the boundary should be properly included in the recommended district, or rather be analyzed as providing exactly the distinguishing features that provide a contrast to the properties inside the preliminary boundary.

The work by the study committee to inventory the additional properties south of Packard commenced. And by Dec. 1 enough of that work had been completed that the committee was ready to contemplate a recommendation for a district stretching south to Madison. With one member absent, there was a 3-3 split on the vote about that recommendation. From previous Chronicle coverage ["Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards"]:

… Patrick McCauley, who also serves on the city’s historic district commission, expressed concerns about recommending an historic district to the city council that stretched the boundaries of the area they’d been asked to study. McCauley indicated that Ward 5 representative to the council, Carsten Hohnke, had said the council had approved the study committee because it included a study area smaller than the one they’d rejected for study in late 2008. [Chronicle coverage: "No Formal Study Committee for Germantown"]

Committee member Rebecca Lopez Kriss indicated that she’d talked to a number of councilmembers about the possibility of expanding the district. What she’d heard, she said, was for the most part “wishy-washy political speak.” But councilmember Sandi Smith and mayor John Hieftje had said, according to Lopez Kriss, that they would not support an expanded district. Lopez Kriss at one point suggested submitting a recommendation for an expanded district and “letting the politicos fight it out.”

For her part, Ina Hanel-Gerdenich said that in conversation with Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, Briere had stressed that it was important to define boundaries “that make sense.” [Briere worked on the study committee that eventually recommended establishment of the Broadway historic district.]

Some of that “fighting it out” would involve a second development in the area. A district expanded down to Madison street would include the area of a development now named “The Moravian.” [Chronicle coverage: "The Madison Redux"].

Whitaker noted that there was support for homeowners on both sides of Packard for inclusion in an historic district. He was concerned, however, about the committee’s obligation to those who lived north of Packard. He worried that if they recommended an expanded district, that the city council, faced with a choice of voting it up or down, would vote it down. That, he said, put those to the north of Packard at risk.

The general understanding of the committee is that council would likely approve a recommendation that was limited to the orginal study area. That view is supported by councilmember comments that were made at the meeting when council established the study committee.

Said committee member Kristi Gilbert at one point, “If they [the city council] were inclined to vote for it [expanded area], they’d have made the study area bigger.” She encouraged the committee to recommend the smaller area as an historic district.

Susan Wineberg said that her assumption all along in doing the research on the area south of Packard was that they were going to recommend that area for inclusion in an historic district.

Patrick McCauley noted that the key was to meet the definition of the boundaries, and that to him, the original boundaries made as much sense as the boundaries of the expansion they were considering.

At the committee’s December meeting, when they voted on the question of recommending an expanded district, it was a 3-3 split, with Sarah Shotwell [Wallace] absent from the meeting. Voting for the larger district: Ina Hanel-Gerdenich, Susan Wineberg, Tom Whitaker.  Voting for the smaller district: Kristi Gilbert, Patrick McCauley, Rebecca Lopez Kriss.

How Big a District: Consensus for Smaller District

At the Jan. 12, 2010 meeting, there was not a formal vote taken, but the consensus for a smaller district prevailed. Committee members felt the area south of Packard was of historical significance, but had a different history from the area north of Packard.

They discussed the possibility of forwarding a recommendation to the city council – either as part of their preliminary report, or as a separate communication – to establish an additional study committee for that area, or to add the area to the existing committee’s charge.

The end result was a resolution from the committee, made at its May 17 meeting, asking the city council to consider expanding the district. [.pdf of committee resolution on an expanded district] The study committee’s minutes show that a motion made at the committee’s May 17 meeting by Tom Whitaker, to expand the boundaries of the recommended district south to Madison, received no support from the committee other than Whitaker’s.

So the preliminary, as well as the final, report by the committee recommended an area for the historic district that is virtually the same as the study area. The only difference is that the committee is recommending that the historic district also include the houses on the south side of Packard Street itself. The recommended area does not include the houses on Fourth and Fifth avenues as far south as Madison.

How Big a District: Boundary Justification

Even though the boundary recommendation for the proposed historic district did not change between the preliminary and the final committee report, the discussion in the report of the boundary justification was amended. The bulk of the amendments to the boundary justification section addressed the eastern boundary. The preliminary report’s section on boundary justification read as follows:

BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION [preliminary report] …

The eastern boundary echoes the eastern boundary of the original plat of Ann Arbor. This area and that along the southern boundary of the district are marked by residential areas illustrating contextual themes separate from those of the proposed district. To the east lies Hamilton Place, a cluster of houses associated with a development by land owner Francis Hamilton in the early 20th century.

That contrasts with the longer passage in the final report:

BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION [final report] …

The eastern boundary is defined on the north end by the rear lot lines of the properties along the east side of South Fifth Avenue. Behind these properties is an early twentieth-century development that bisected Block 4 South, Range 6 East, of the original plat of Ann Arbor. This development, created by Francis Hamilton, included a new street called Hamilton Place, and featured densely-packed vernacular houses on smaller-than-average-sized lots. While the houses on Hamilton Place were constructed during the period of significance, they represent only one small phase of the period and generally share a common vernacular architectural style. This is distinct from the district itself which includes intact resources that span almost the entire period of significance, and which represent a variety of architectural styles. This area was not studied by the committee. The eastern boundary line is extended to Packard Street by continuing to follow the rear lot lines of the houses along the east side of South Fifth Avenue, and includes 305 Packard Street. Next to 305 Packard to the east, there is a modern apartment building. The area to the east and the one beyond the southern boundary of the district are marked by residential areas illustrating contextual themes separate from those of the proposed district. Both of these areas contain some residential buildings that were constructed at the same time as in the proposed district; however neither area was so densely developed as early as the proposed district.

The amplification of the eastern boundary discussion came after comments from the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office, which had provided comments to the study committee indicating the possible historical significance of properties in the vicinity of Hamilton Place.

Council’s Historic District Consideration

When the city council considers the committee’s recommendation to create the Fourth/Fifth Avenue Historic District – at a first reading on June 21, likely followed by a second  reading on July 5 – it will have already considered the Heritage Row project and either approved it or rejected it.

The Heritage Row project includes 79 units – 12 efficiencies, 9 1-bedroom, 43 2-bedroom, 14 3-bedroom, and 1 5-bedroom apartment. Those units will be distributed over seven renovated existing houses and three buildings to be constructed behind the existing houses.

Council’s HD Consideration: Implications for Heritage Row

If the council approves the Heritage Row PUD and then subsequently approves the creation of the historic district, Heritage Row would then need to be reviewed by the city’s historic district commission. That’s because the city council’s approval of the site plan and zoning would not include construction permitting. Approval from the historic district commission would still be required – in the form of a certificate of appropriateness or a notice to proceed – to undertake the construction of the project.

If the city council were to approve creation of the historic district, it’s conceivable that the Heritage Row project would pass muster with the historic district commission. In fact, de Parry has stated that he intends the project to be consistant with historic district guidelines and is not afraid of the possibility that the area would be declared an historic district.

On the other hand, it’s fair to say that if an historic district were established, the historic district commission would not approve the City Place matter of right project – that would entail the demolition of seven existing houses deemed to contribute to an historic district.

Given that de Parry has already won approval for the City Place matter of right project, it’s worth considering whether there’s any chance that the matter of right project could still be built. For example, if the city council approves the Heritage Row PUD, but does not establish an historic district, could de Parry go back to the City Place MOR?

No. Here’s why not. Approval of the Heritage Row PUD would entail a change in the city’s zoning to fit the project – that’s inherently what a PUD is. So the matter of right project would no longer be “matter of right,” because it would no longer meet the city’s code, which would now be defined by the PUD zoning.

Council’s HD Consideration: Arguments from the Public Hearing

The public commentary that the city council will likely hear on June 21, when it contemplates the creation of the historic district, is likely to be similar in flavor to the sentiments expressed at the May 5 public hearing held by the study committee on the preliminary report. The hearing took place at city council chambers.

The boundary issues were a common theme at the May 5 hearing, as was all-around praise for the hard work done by the study committee members – members of such committees are volunteers, who serve without compensation. Tom Luczak, for example, said he was impressed with the diligence and dedication of the committee members.

Luczak, who lives within the recommended historic district, allowed that one of his reasons for supporting the district could be seen as selfish – it might enhance property values. On the boundary issue, he said it would be nice for the neighborhood’s integrity if the neighborhood were extended farther south, but noted that it was a sensitive issue. He also pointed out that it might be extended farther east. But given a choice of having a smaller historic district or having none at all, he said, he’d prefer the smaller district.

Also addressing the study committee at the public hearing was Alice Ralph, who’s a candidate for the District 11 county commission seat that’s coming free due to commissioner Jeff Irwin’s candidacy for the District 53 state house seat. Ralph serves on the county’s historic district commission. She pointed out that part of the mission of the county’s historic district commission is to promote coordination and cooperation with other historic district commissions. She said she was always pleased to see community members working together on a common goal. She indicated a preference for making the boundaries of historic districts as generous as possible.

Addressing the committee as the owner of a house that was previously included in a now-defunct district [ruled in 2001 to be out of compliance with the regulations on establishment of historic districts] was Piotr Michalowski. He characterized his current ownership of the property as “just passing through” and said that it would be left to other generations as well. There were other places people could develop property in Ann Arbor, he said.

Another candidate for office addressed the committee in the form of John Floyd – he’s contesting the Ward 5 city council seat currently held by Carsten Hohnke. He described himself as a current property owner and past resident of an historic district – the Old West Side. What makes the Old West Side an historic district is not the buildings themselves, but rather the collection of buildings that gives the area its character, he said.

The city council had made a political decision to establish the boundaries of the study area in a particular way, Floyd said. But the decision about the boundaries for the recommended district, he told the committee, was a technical one, not a political one. It was important for the district to cross Packard Street and to go up East Jefferson Street, if it could. The area could become an asset to the city that is not available to other communities, he concluded.

Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, began her remarks by noting that she’d not been sent an email notification and had only two days notice of the hearing. She’d been told in February, she said, that she’d have adequate opportunity to state the case for an expanded district. She criticized the committee’s performance with respect to communication as being too much like the function of the city’s planning commission.

Strassmann gave examples of two houses from the 1860s located south of Packard Street and asked the committee to respect the wishes of the residents south of Packard who wished to be included in the historic district.

Also addressing the smaller-than-wished-for recommended district was Claudius Vincenz. Because it’s not the individual houses that are being designated, he said, it was important to include a larger area to capture the character of the entire neighborhood. He granted that the houses south of Packard were perhaps not as stately as those north of Packard, but contended that they were equally old. The perfectly natural physical boundary based on the floodplain, he said, would be at Madison Street, not Packard.

Graham Niles Miles introduced himself as the owner of 526 and 528 S. Fifth Ave. He reported that in the 1970s he had lived at the house at 539 S. Fifth Ave. In addition to that, Niles said he also owned four houses on South Fourth Avenue. Based on the floor joists – which are logs with the bark still visible – he estimates that they date from the 1860s. One of the houses he’d renovated a few years ago. And when the lathe and plaster were removed from the walls, he found old German newspapers and bricks lining the walls. The thermal mass of the bricks, he said, was intended to moderate the temperature of the house. Niles concluded that he’d like to see the houses south of Packard included in the historic district.

Former planning commissioner Ethel Potts declared that she’d never seen any task force or committee get off to as fast a start and work so hard as the study committee had. She said it was important to share Ann Arbor’s shared built heritage and that this was truly an historic neighborhood – and it’s larger than two blocks, she said. She said she was distressed about the number of historic houses that the city had lost, partly due to the disturbing record of the University of Michigan in destroying parts of neighborhoods.

Rita Mitchell advocated for workmanlike houses that were not necessarily by themselves noteworthy, but together as a collection they were valuable, she said. She told the committee she’d lived in such a house for 15 years, and she was happy with its quality – real plaster, real wood, real doors. She said she was in favor of preserving what the city has. The residents of the Old West Side historic district understand its value and they’ve chosen to live there and to stay there, she said. She concluded that it has not been a burden to live in an historic district.

Shirley Zempel said she’d moved to her house on South Fourth Avenue in 1977 and had never thought about it as an historic district. But she said that when she attended conferences in other university towns, she would walk around and noticed that all reasonably-sized college towns have neighborhoods such as these. It would behoove us to keep what we have and not destroy it, she concluded.

Ellen Ramsburgh, a member of the city’s historic district commission, lamented the fact that the city council, through a political process, had put the boundary where it had. As a member of the study committee that had recommended the Washtenaw-Hill Street historic district, she recalled that there had been similar distress over where to draw the boundary. She suggested that there be a recommendation to the council made that another study committee be appointed to consider expanding the district, noting that one of the strengths of other districts like the Old West Side was their size.

Scott Munzel addressed the committee as a representative of the Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership, which is the legal entity owning the Heritage Row project. He recognized that a lot of work went into the committee’s efforts, but as it currently stood, he said that the recommendation violated both state and federal law.

On the state level, he cited the 2001 case of Draprop Corp. versus Ann Arbor, in which the court had found that the individual properties across the city – which had been lumped together into one historic district – did not constitute an historic district. The reasoning was based on the fact that the properties were not “related by history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture.” Munzel was citing the definition of an historic district from Michigan’s Public Act 169, passed in 1970.

Although the boundary justification in the report offered three different theories as to why the area was an historic district, Munzel said, none of them related the properties in terms of the state legislation. The justifications for this district, he said, were remarkably similar to the justifications offered for the district that had been ruled in violation of the state’s statute 10 years ago. He concluded that the recommended district would not pass legal muster.

On the federal level, Munzel argued that the recommended district would violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause that required people in similar circumstances to be treated similarly. The property owners south of Packard, he said, were not being treated similarly to those north of Packard. There was zero rationale for the exclusion of the houses south of Packard from the district, he said. Why not extend along Jefferson? Why not extend all the way to Division? It did not take a rocket scientist, or even a clever lawyer, he said, to see that the equal protection clause was violated.

Munzel concluded with a third argument, “just to stir the pot a little bit,” he said. It involved the Bethlehem United Church of Christ in the recommended district. The historic district regulations would not apply to the church in any case, he said, because restricting the land use of a religious institution would impinge on the free exercise of religion. That was ironic, he said, because part of the rationale for recommending the district was based on the church building.

Bob Giles introduced himself as a homeowner on Fourth Avenue. He characterized the neighborhood as closely attached to the section that is south of Packard. He cautioned that the impact of excluding it would be significant. He had the abstract of his property, which dates from 1856. Reading through it was like reading the history of Ann Arbor, he said.

Alex de Parry told the committee that he’d been in Ann Arbor on Fifth Avenue since 1971. He told the committee he knew the neighborhood. De Parry said it was ironic because he actually agreed with the other comments that had been made during the hearing. The boundaries of the proposed district, however, were flawed, he said. He noted that there were six people opposed to the district within the current boundaries, but one of those had passed away the previous night.

Peter Webster told the committee he had submitted his comments in writing. In his verbal comments to the committee, he noted it was a requirement that prior study committee reports had to be included as part of the report. But there was only one sentence in the report that says anything about prior reports, he said.

Webster said there were other studies that had all concluded against a recommendation for establishing an historic district here. The themes identified in the study committee’s report are not identified in any of the prior study reports, he contended. Webster also pointed out that the report is supposed to establish a percentage of what is historic. The report, he said, just identifies every building as historic.

Anne Eisen told the committee that when she bought her house on South Fourth Ave in 1995, the house had a plaque, so she thought it had historic protection. And when she found out it was not protected, she had advocated for its protection. She’d been told that it was stupid to buy a house in that neighborhood, because it would be redeveloped. She felt like the benefit to the city was that it was getting an “historic park” at the homeowners’ expense within walking distance of downtown.

Ray Detter introduced himself as a resident and property owner in the Division Street historic district. He said he’d worked to establish that historic district. He allowed that every historic district has arbitrary boundaries. But he said that part of the value of the neighborhood was in the area south of Packard, and it deserved to be preserved. Detter warned that it was a policy of the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce to oppose additional historic districts near downtown, and instead to encourage development. He warned against that approach and said the city should encourage the preservation, not redevelopment, of these properties.

Frank Jacobson introduced himself as the owner of a Fifth Avenue house since 1992. Based on an aerial photo of the neighborhood he showed the committee, he concluded that the area north of Packard is not as coherent as the neighborhood south of Packard. He called for the historic district to extend farther south on Fifth Avenue. He characterized the proposed boundary as inconsistent with state law and suggested that one of the committee members owned property in the proposed district and therefore had a conflict of interest.

Scott Bonney, left, of Neumann/Smith Architects, talks with Newcombe Clark, a partner in The Moravian development. Neumann/Smith is the architect for both The Moravian and Zaragon Place 2. At right is Tim Stout of O'Neal Construction.

Monday afternoon’s public forum for Zaragon Place 2 – a proposed 14-story apartment building at the southeast corner of Thompson and William, next to Cottage Inn – was held by the developer and his team to comply with the city’s citizen participation ordinance.

But among those attending the two-hour open house at the Michigan Union were developers for both The Moravian and Heritage Row – two residential projects that have been vigorously opposed by some residents in the city’s near-south side.

There are significant differences among the three projects, but some connections as well, especially among the project teams. And all are at different stages of the process: plans for Zaragon Place 2 haven’t yet been submitted to the city’s planning department, while Heritage Row has been recommended by the planning commission and is expected to come before the city council in May. Meanwhile, in a grueling April 5 city council meeting that lasted well past 1 a.m., The Moravian failed to get the eight votes it needed for approval. Nearly 90 people – both supporters and opponents – spoke during a 3.5-hour public commentary on the project.

Based on reactions at Monday’s open house for Zaragon Place 2, it seems unlikely this latest project will arouse similar passions.

Zaragon Place 2 – Preliminary Design

The purpose of Monday’s citizen participation meeting was to comply with an ordinance that the city council passed in 2008 – taking effect at the start of 2009 – which requires that the developer hold a meeting about the proposed project prior to submitting it to the planning department. Property owners, residents and neighborhood groups within 1,000 feet of the project must be informed of the meeting – for Monday’s event, notices were mailed to about 1,500 addresses. The number is high in part because Zaragon Place 2 is just down the block from Tower Plaza, a 26-story condo building.

There was no formal presentation at the two-hour open house. Rather, developer Rick Perlman – a UM alumnus who lives in Chicago – was on hand to answer questions, as were architects with Neumann/Smith Architects of Southfield, which also designed Zaragon Place on East University. Initial floor plans and renderings of the 14-story building were displayed on easels.

Facing north: Site of the proposed Zaragon Place 2 at the southeast corner of Thompson and William. To the right is the 26-story Tower Plaza and the pink west wall of Cottage Inn restaurant.

Zaragon Place 2 – called ZP2 – is a sister building to the original Zaragon Place, Perlman told The Chronicle, with many of the same attributes. Like the first Zaragon, ZP2 will have first-floor retail, which will front Thompson and William streets. The 99 apartments will have 10-foot-high ceilings, stainless steel appliances, granite countertops and floors made of rubber from recycled tires. Both Zaragons have fitness rooms. Rent will likely be in the same price-range for both complexes, around $1,000 per tenant – “or whatever the market will bear,” Perlman said.

The mix of apartment sizes hasn’t been set, but there will be one-, two- and four-bedroom units housing between 200-350 residents. There are 248 tenants at Zaragon Place on East University, which Perlman said is serving mostly undergraduate students. ZP2′s location on the opposite side of campus will likely attract a higher percentage of graduate students – from the law school and business school, for example – as well as young professionals, he said.

About 40 parking spots will be included on the second and third levels of the building – in contrast to the other Zaragon, which has underground parking. And being on a corner lot with no tall buildings on either side allows for windows on all sides of the structure – every bedroom will have a window. Cottage Inn is a two-story building to the east of the proposed apartment complex. To the south is a University of Michigan surface parking lot.

The location on a corner lot – former site of a long-vacant bank building – should make it easier to build, Perlman said. He’ll be using the same team that worked on Zaragon Place, including Neumann/Smith Architects, O’Neal Construction as general contractor, and Midwestern Consulting for civil engineering work.

This project could be the first one approved under the city’s new A2D2 zoning – the site is zoned for D1, which allows for the densest development. Unlike The Moravian and Heritage Row, which are planned unit developments (PUDs), ZP2 is intended to be a “by right” development, meaning that it conforms to the site’s existing zoning codes.

The final piece of the A2D2 effort – the A2D2 design guidelines – haven’t yet been approved by the city council, but architect Scott Bonney said they’ve looked through the draft guidelines and are comfortable that the project will comply.

Plans for ZP2 will likely be submitted to the city’s planning department within a few weeks, with the hope it will come before planning commission in June and to the city council by August. If approvals are secured and construction can start this year, the project could be completed by 2012.

Monday’s Citizen Participation Meeting: Who Showed Up?

Most of the people who attended Monday’s meeting came during the first hour, and included a mix of residents, students, business owners and people associated with other developments.

Rick Perlman, right, developer of Zaragon Place 1 and 2, talks with Tom Luczak, a resident of the nearby neighborhood.

Several residents from the nearby South Fifth Avenue neighborhood dropped by, including some vocal opponents of The Moravian and Heritage Row projects. Feedback indicated that they would be supportive of Zaragon Place 2, given its location in the D1 zoning district. [Heritage Row on South Fifth Avenue is located in an area zoned for multi-family residential, or R4C. The Moravian's site, on Madison between Fourth and Fifth avenues, was a combination of R4C and M1 zoning, for light industrial uses.]

Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, showed up, as did John Splitt, one of the association’s board members and chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. Also attending was Ed Davidson, owner of Bivouac, a clothing and outdoor gear retailer on South State Street. He said he supports the Zaragon project: “We need more density – period.”

More residents mean more potential customers to keep stores in business, Davidson said. The State Street/East Liberty district has been hard hit by the economic downturn, losing long-time retailers Shaman Drum Bookshop and the John Leidy gift shop within the past year. Shaman Drum closed last summer after nearly 30 years in business. John Leidy, which opened in 1951, went out of business this February.

Peter Allen was one of several developers who came to the open house. Alex de Parry, developer of Heritage Row, attended as well. And Brad Moore, the architect for Heritage Row, had been one of the earliest to arrive. [Moore also does work for Cottage Inn, next door to the ZP2 project.] De Parry said his project will likely be coming before the city council for first reading on May 3. It was approved by planning commission at their March 16 meeting by a 6-2 vote.

Newcombe Clark, a partner in The Moravian project, showed up toward the end of Monday’s open house for ZP2. Several people on the Zaragon team – including Neumann/Smith Architects and Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting – had worked on The Moravian as well.

Yet another connection to Clark had nothing to do with development, however. Tim Stout of O’Neal Construction, the general contractor for ZP2, was heading to a marketing class later that evening for the UM Ross School of Business MBA program – Clark is taking the same class.

On an architect's scale model of the neighborhood, Tom Luczak points to a house on Fourth Avenue, next to the proposed project, The Moravian. The view is roughly from the northwest. Luczak spoke in opposition to the project. (Photos by the writer.)

The five-story, 62-unit building proposed for the section of East Madison Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor had come before the council with the recommendation of the city’s planning staff and a 7-1 vote recommendation from the city’s planning commission.

The public hearing on The Moravian included remarks from around 90 people on both sides of the issue. The Moravian alone – counting the public hearing, plus the deliberations by the council – took up over four hours of the meeting, which lasted well past 1 a.m.

Besides The Moravian, the council’s business included an item that would have reconsidered its recent decision to replace the entire Ann Arbor housing commission board. The motion for reconsideration was voted down, with no support, not even from its two sponsors – Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Kunselman cited the late hour as part of the reason for his lack of enthusiasm for pursuing the matter.

The council also tabled a proposed city ordinance that would ban cell phone use while driving. The council had postponed the measure to a specific date a few times previously. The tabling means that the ordinance can be brought back for consideration by the council, but by council rule it will die unless it is brought back within six months.

Also receiving brief discussion was a possible council rule on email that the council is now forced to  consider publicly at its next meeting under terms of a recent lawsuit settlement.

In Part 1 of this report, we focus exclusively on The Moravian.

The Moravian

Based on city council’s deliberations at the first reading of the project, at its March 1, 2010 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was a sure vote against the project, with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) also showing indications of a negative inclination. While also hinting a negative leaning, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) laid out parts of the city’s central area plan that highlight the difficulty in finding suitable locations to increase density.

On Monday, when the second reading of the proposal was before the council, the lack of support from those four councilmembers was enough to doom the project, which needed an 8-vote super-majority to win approval. [Hohnke was absent from Monday's meeting – thus he could not throw a vote in support of the project. But his Ward 5 colleague, Mike Anglin, read a statement from Hohnke against the project.] Mayor John Hieftje added a no vote, leaving the council with a simple six-vote majority, which left the project short by two votes.

The requirement of a super-majority had been triggered by submission of a protest petition under the city’s planned unit development (PUD) ordinance. [Chronicle coverage: "The Moravian Goes Before City Council"]

On the protest petition, Chapter 55 Article XI, Section 5:107 (5) of the city code specifies that:

(5) A protest against any proposed amendment to this chapter may be presented in writing to the City Clerk at or before the public hearing thereon. Such protest shall be duly signed by the owners of at least 20% of the area of land included in the proposed change, or the owners of at least 20% of the area of land included within an area extending outward 100 feet from any point on the boundary of the land included in the proposed change, excluding any other publicly owned land. Following the filing of a valid protest petition, adoption of an amendment to this chapter shall require at least 8 affirmative votes of the Council at the second reading on the ordinance.

The Moravian Public Hearing: General Climate

During the public hearing, some made allusions to “name-calling” by others. Possibly fitting that description could be the labeling of Moravian supporter Anya Dale as “Ms. Planning,” or the description of the neighborhood itself by numerous speakers  as “blighted,” or a description of opponents of the project as “sulkers.”

The controversy over The Moravian filled city council chambers with over 100 people.

The word NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard] was also dropped once or twice. Likely not fitting the description of “name calling” was a speaker who introduced himself saying, “I’m the mushroom!” The general atmosphere could fairly be described as imbued with a little awkward tension, with the council chambers filled with over a hundred people, many on both sides of the issue.

Still, the interactions between supporters and opponents seemed more good-natured and lighthearted than vicious. Before the meeting started, Beverly Strassmann was distributing pink 8.5 x 11 sheets of paper printed with “No Moravian PUD” throughout council chambers, but paused when she came to Joe Ferrario, saying she didn’t know who he was. Ferrario, who spoke in favor of the project – eased through the moment by quipping, “Is that a Butler or a Duke sign?” [The NCAA basketball finals were played that evening. Duke won.] Ferrario told The Chronicle that his son-in-law had attended Butler, and that there was a connection to Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski through his wife – so he was okay either way.

Of course, most speakers at the public hearing were not that ambivalent about the outcome of The Moravian vote. The sampling below is not exhaustive of the speakers or of the sentiments they expressed. They’re not presented in chronological order – they’re grouped somewhat thematically.

The Moravian Public Hearing: Where to Put Development

The opening tip went to the Moravian supporters opponents, with Tom Luczak working from a 1/25 scale model of the block – bounded on the north and south by Packard and Madison streets, and Fourth and Fifth avenues on the east and west – concluding that the model showed the proposed building was vastly out of scale. He characterized The Moravian as a good project in the wrong spot. An example of a good project in the right spot, said Luczak, was Zaragon Place 2. Luczak speculated that the house immediately adjacent to The Moravian would be so persistently in shadows that it would turn into a mushroom farm.

Walt Spiller, property owner and resident of the Fifth Avenue neighborhood, spoke against The Moravian.

Later, the owner of the house, Walt Spiller, began his speaking turn by announcing, “I’m the mushroom.” Spiller emphasized in his remarks that the city’s zoning represents a contract between the citizens and the city. [Spiller is a retired postal worker who used to deliver mail in the neighborhood, where he still lives.]

Jim Mogensen noted that developers were always “pushing the envelope” of what was possible, which was somewhat understandable given that there are limited areas left to develop. However, he wondered if the council would approve a similar project in the middle of Ann Arbor Hills – a relatively wealthy subdivision on the east side of Ann Arbor.

The theme of limited land on which to develop urban density was one picked up by Scott Munzel – in service of an argument for The Moravian. Munzel, who stressed he was speaking as a private citizen – he’s appeared before the city council in the past representing other developments – pointed to the reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reduction in sprawl, and the strengthening of the city core as specific benefits of the project. Once you take away the historic districts, the floodplain, the university’s property, parkland, and other properties unlikely to ever be developed, said Munzel, there was little land left. The idea that urban density should be limited to the area inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority boundary, said Munzel, allowed people to say they were for density, knowing it won’t happen.

Lou Glorie, a declared candidate for city council in Ward 5, echoed the sentiment that the project was inappropriate for its location. She said that anything could be pointed to as “blight” and that neighborhoods are the heart of a city. She suggested that the council should review how it was that staff and the planning commission had approved it.

Also objecting to the project as being in the wrong place was Deanne Relyea.

Deirdra Stockmann said she supported the project because it offered density in and near the downtown area where Ann Arbor needed a diversity of housing options. She said that on that evening there were voices and perspectives not heard enough in the forum of the city council chambers.

Responding to the idea from another speaker that there is “no magic line” that says things start and stop at a particular place, Claudius Vincenz stated that “it’s called ‘zoning.’” The Moravian did not, he said, add to the neighborhood, but rather took over the neighborhood.

Vivienne Armentrout suggested that the discussion surrounding The Moravian had shown that “the mask has slipped” and that the real objective is to expand downtown.

Emphasizing that the area where The Moravian is proposed is not in downtown, Richard Jacobson said that the city’s future land use plan calls for residential use in the area. [This is an allusion to the live/work units that are offered as part of the project.]

Describing herself as a resident of the “gritty urban edge” of the Old West Side neighborhood, Margaret Wong said that a project needed to be appropriate to a particular location. She wondered why in this instance the city was thinking about coloring outside the lines. The claimed benefits, she said, were not site specific.

Anya Dale spoke in favor of the project, objecting to the use of an architect's model that showed just the block where The Moravian was proposed, without surrounding blocks.

The architect’s model used by Luczak, which had been commissioned by opponents of the project, came under criticism from Anya Dale, who suggested that it illustrated something taught in Planning 101 courses: How to lie with maps. “You crop out what would make it relevant,” she said. She allowed that it was a very good job of cropping, but that it was cropping nonetheless. She emphasized that the city’s professional planning staff understands that density is not just about numbers but also about design.

Jean Pierre Nogues, responding to Anya Dale’s criticism that the buildings surrounding The Moravian had been cropped out of the model, noted that there was, in fact, a university building in the model, but it was hidden behind the “behemoth” of The Moravian. He observed that The Moravian did not offer many of the 1-2 bedroom units that young professionals would likely rent, but rather consisted predominantly of 3-4 bedroom units.

Nogues suggested that people would not move to New York City because they can’t find housing in Ann Arbor. Also picking up on the idea that The Moravian offered 3-4 bedroom units, Shirley Zempel contended that the project was being misrepresented as suitable for young professionals.

The Moravian Public Hearing: Who Wants to Live Where?

A number of people spoke, citing the perspective of young professionals who were looking for suitable, reasonably priced housing near the downtown area. Among them were Michele Heisler, an associate professor at the University of Michigan medical school, who introduced herself as a physician and a researcher who had secured three National Institute of Health grants and employed around 20 people at $40,000 to $70,000 a year. She expressed concern that housing options for her employees were limited near downtown – they don’t want to live in poorly-maintained rentals with other students and can’t afford the more expensive downtown lofts. She said the neighborhood where The Moravian is proposed struck her as blighted, saying, “I’m going to be honest about how it’s perceived.”

Tony Lupo who moved to Ann Arbor from New York and works for Salon Vox as the marketing director, reported that the Liberty Street salon employs 21 people, yet there is no viable housing for them to live in near downtown. Roger Hewitt, a member of the Downtown Development Authority board as well as a downtown business owner (Red Hawk, Revive and Replenish), reported that one of his employees lives close to the proposed Moravian project and is enthusiastic about it.

Chad Wiebesick said he would be one of the first people to move in. Part owner of the Necto Night Club, Scot Greig, lamented the lack of adequate housing for his employees – they all drive in, he said. None live in Ann Arbor.

Laurie Blakeney characterized herself as an “old townie” who moved here in 1971. She’d seen the downtown lose movie theaters and mid-sized department stores – now it consisted of restaurants, galleries and coffee shops, she said. She wanted to bring back the kind of downtown that used to exist that could support urban life, not just be a weekend destination. She said the downtown should be the kind of place that Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods could locate.

Linda Foit, a Ph.D student at the University of Michigan, spoke in favor of the project.

Megan Jenkins said she’d moved to Ann Arbor seven years ago, had fallen in love with it, and supported the project. Linda Foit, who’s a Ph.D student in biology at UM, described how she was only able to live near downtown because she was willing to live with three roommates in a “shitty place” – one that is old, not well-maintained, not well-insulated, with single-pane windows. She supported The Moravian, she said, because if it had been built three years ago when she came to Ann Arbor, she wouldn’t have to live in a place like that.

Downtown resident Nick Hoffman recounted how difficult it had been to find the place he lives in now – he’d put his name on wait lists and was renting elsewhere month-to-month to be as flexible as possible. He got the place because he was the first person to look at it – within 24 hours seven others came to look at the place. It had not even been advertised, he said, so strong was the word-of-mouth demand.

Norm Cox allowed that there was no such thing as a perfect development, but that the pros outweighed the cons. As a downtown business owner who employs young professionals, he said, he felt it was a nice balance of context and scale.

Saying it was the first time he’d spoken at a forum like this, Matt Turner supported the project. He allowed that it is difficult when things change, but said there was a lot of pent-up demand for housing for young professionals. More than a NIMBY issue, he said, was the sound of people leaving this town.

A software developer for entrepreneurial companies, Nick Stanley spoke in favor of the project. He said he currently lives in an historic house subdivided into apartments and that he and his wife will likely move after his wife finishes her masters degree. He allowed that the existing housing is cheap, but is not the same as affordable housing in a PUD – he’d happily occupy one of those units with his wife and cat, he said.

Ashley Terrace resident and 1998 UM grad Jennifer Raft said she enjoyed living there. She started by renting and has now purchased her unit, because someone else wanted to buy it. She suggested that 50-80 years from now, Ashley Terrace might seem small.

Kim Kachadoorian told the council that they had now close to 200 signatures on petitions against the project. She contended that there would be a net loss of affordable housing. What would keep people in Ann Arbor, she said, was not housing, but jobs.

After hearing several speakers support the project on the grounds that it offered housing suitable for young professionals, Piotr Michalowski said he wanted to “bring us back to reality.” He described The Moravian as a “student apartment complex.”

Citing his lack of success listing a two-bedroom apartment on Craigslist, Sean Ferris questioned whether The Moravian was really set up for young professionals.

Recent UM graduate Idy Usoro reported that she lived off Plymouth Road on the east side because she wanted a more professional housing option, but she would really like to live downtown. She said that some of her peers had chosen to live in Plymouth because housing is more affordable there, and there’s “kind of a downtown” there, too.

Valerie Brugeman described herself as “blessed” to find a job in Ann Arbor upon graduation and had lived for a time in a house converted to rental. She’d have appreciated a nicer option, she said. She said the council should listen to young professionals.

Christina Sherry said she lives on the far western edge of Ann Arbor, near the “Welcome to Ann Arbor” sign, because she could not find a place to live downtown, though she had looked. One problem, she said, was that housing in downtown Ann Arbor was about the same price as housing in downtown Chicago.

Michael Papadopoulos introduced himself as a resident of Ashley Mews – “Yes, that’s a PUD!” he said. Out of 70 students in his masters program at the UM Ross School of Business, he said, he was the only student who plans to stay in Ann Arbor. He suggested that one reason Ann Arbor “fell flat on its face” with respect to retention was the fact that there was a lack of housing accessible to young professionals.

On the question of affordable housing units offered by The Moravian, Michael Zeidler observed that if less than 20% of the units were affordable, that meant that the other 80% were unaffordable – so it’d be wealthy young professionals who took those units. He concluded, “It seems kind of murky to me.”

Al McWilliams spoke about the difficulty of finding a place to live in downtown Ann Arbor if you make $35,000 to $50,000 a year. If they had not tried to find a place accessible to someone in that salary range, then he told the council they should ask someone who’s tried to do that.

Seventy-year-old Victor Munoz reported that when his mother- and father-in-law visited Ann Arbor 25 years ago, the thing they remarked on was that Ann Arbor was filled with young people and that we needed to keep young people in Ann Arbor. “You have to approve it,” he said about The Moravian. “We need it. We need three or four more like it.” What’s young? he asked. His answer of someone under 70 drew a laugh.

The Moravian Public Hearing: Historic Area or Blighted Neighborhood?

Currently under study by the city is the possibility of establishing an historic district close to the neighborhood where The Moravian is proposed. The area of study mandated by city council as part of the study committee’s charge includes the area roughly bounded by William Street on the north, Packard Street on the south, Fifth Avenue on the east, and Fourth Avenue on the west.

Bob Snyder and Betsy Price were seated just behind an architect's model of the block where The Moravian is proposed. Snyder spoke in opposition to the project.

The committee’s preliminary report recommends establishing an historic district that is essentially the same as the study area, but also includes the south side of Packard between Fourth and Fifth avenues. Parcel by parcel, the committee also inventoried and assessed the relative merits of the buildings south of Packard along Fourth and Fifth avenues, which includes the parcel where The Moravian was proposed.

In weighing the relative merits of buildings within an historic district, a structure is designated as “contributing” or “non-contributing” to the district depending on whether the structure is part of what justifies the designation of the area as a historic district.

The committee’s decision to expand the area of study was a conscious and deliberate one, and weighed the possibility of expanding the area recommended as an historic district – so that it would include the parcels where The Moravian was proposed to be built. [Some Chronicle coverage of the historic district study committee's work through 2009: "Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards"]

Ultimately, however, the committee chose not to risk the rejection of a district on the grounds that they’d recommended a district substantially larger than area they’d been asked to study. From earlier Chronicle coverage:

Committee member Rebecca Lopez Kriss indicated that she’d talked to a number of councilmembers about the possibility of expanding the district. What she’d heard, she said, was for the most part “wishy-washy political speak.” But councilmember Sandi Smith and mayor John Hieftje had said, according to Lopez Kriss, that they would not support an expanded district.

So the committee’s preliminary report – which is currently under review – recommends an area for an historic district that does not include The Moravian.

It’s in that context that some speakers at the public hearing mentioned the idea of an historic district.

Also alluding to the more than 200 signatures on petitions against the project was Beverly Strassmann, who is president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association. She suggested that the developer had deluded young professionals into thinking that the project offered them viable housing alternatives, when the actual mix was mostly 3-4 bedroom units. Strassmann objected to the characterization of the neighborhood as blighted, and cited the fact that the historic district study committee had found that seven of the eight houses slated for demolition would have been contributing to an historic district for that area. [The committee's preliminary report – available for download from the city's website – does not recommend an historic district for that area.]

Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, spoke against the project.

With the phrase “young professional” deployed by others with great frequency, Bob Snyder – who is president of the South University Neighborhood Association, and who can fairly be described as a senior member of the community – drew a laugh from the audience when he began with the quip, “I was once a young professional.” Snyder said the area should be part of the historic district proposed farther north, just south of William Street.

Owner of a property adjacent to the proposed project, Mustafa Ali described it as too big for that location. He said that property owners were interested in having their properties included in the proposed historic district. Responding to the implication of some speakers that the rental properties in the area were not safe and were blighted, he noted that the properties were regularly inspected and met safety codes.

In his remarks, Jeff Meyers suggested that we “stop pretending” that the neighborhood was worth preserving, characterizing it as a “blighted block that could become a vibrant hub.”

Reacting in part to the description of the neighborhood as blighted, Graham Miles said that property owners had put a lot of money into them, and tried to keep them up.

Mariah Cherem reported that she used to live in the neighborhood near The Moravian, which she characterized as surrounded by student rentals in which the tenants and landlords took little pride. She cited an improvement in public safety as a benefit to the project. Esha Krishnaswamy introduced herself as a UM law student, who had survived a house fire in which 50% of her body was burned. She pointed to the fact The Moravian would be safe – equipped with sprinklers.

Twelve-year Ann Arbor resident Joshua Brugeman said the project would add value to the block and would create a nice “bookend.” Citing Jane Jacobs’ work on urban planning, he suggested that more eyes on the street would mean greater safety.

Patrick Macoska spoke about how there can be a coexistence between houses in older neighborhoods and newer construction. He said that “blight” was a strong word – “shabby” might be better, he said, like a corduroy jacket worn around the edges.

Ted Kennedy said he supported the process that allowed change to happen. But he said he did like punk, rundown houses, and that the only way he was able to live near downtown was to share.

Citing the many reasons to approve the project and the few reasons not to approve the project, Bruce Worden said he supported it. A student slum, he said, is not a neighborhood. If you vote based on popular support, he said, he hoped they were keeping score.

Wiltrud Simbuerger compared riding her bike through the neighborhood of The Moravian to get to the Washtenaw Dairy to riding through a wasteland. The Moravian would mean more options for people who don’t want to purchase their own homes and who don’t want to live in a run-down rental.

Jason Costello supported the project on the grounds that it would redevelop a blighted neighborhood and increase the economic value of the community.

Bob Giles, owner of a rental property in the neighborhood, said that until that night he had not realized it was a “blighted” neighborhood. He reported that he had a current tenant who had no interest in continuing to live there if The Moravian were built. He wondered why anyone would want to build a beautiful building in a “blighted” neighborhood.

Graduating UM senior Jacob Smith told the council that he had started his own business in the field of new energy and that he planned to stay in Ann Arbor. He said that living in a place like The Moravian, which is proposed to use alternative energy, would be a great addition to his personal narrative.

Doug Galante spoke briefly, offering his support of the project.

Saying that the project was green and affordable and seemed to make sense, Jeremy Daly, a UM student, said he supported the project.

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

Business Community

Co-founder of Motawi Tileworks, Karim Motawi told the council that he lived in Ann Arbor for 10 years and would have liked to have had an option to live somewhere like The Moravian. He asked for a show of hands from those who supported the project – several hands were raised in response.

Richard Sheridan, CEO of Menlo Innovations, announced he was there to support The Moravian. He told the council that he’d supported every park and greenbelt millage that had been put before him, and that the other side of that was a need to support housing options like The Moravian. Not just people on his team need those options, he said, but the teams of his customers did as well.

Peter Schork, CEO of Ann Arbor State Bank, weighed in for The Moravian, citing its financial viability.

The president and CEO of Ann Arbor State Bank, Peter Schork, said he supported the project because of its financial viability. He drew a distinction between affordable housing like The Moravian offered and reasonably priced housing like the houses it would replace. He noted that he did not agree that they were “blighted,” saying he had been in the houses and that he’d in fact financed them. He wouldn’t have financed them if they were blighted, he said, then quipped, “maybe, I would have.”

Kyle Mazurek is vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce. He spoke in favor of the project on behalf of the chamber, citing as benefits the higher density, the provision of workforce housing, the removal of blight, improvement of floodwater storage, and increased tax revenue. Mazurek said he also supported the project on a personal level.

The owner of the Renaissance clothing store, Roger Pothus, lamented the fact that there seemed to be no vision for Ann Arbor, but rather each project was approved or disapproved on a per-parcel basis. He described the neighborhood as a few old rooming houses that were inefficient as to space utilization. He described how Nordstrom had looked at Ann Arbor’s downtown a few years ago as a possible location but had eventually abandoned Ann Arbor as too conflicted about development and eventually settled for Novi. Pothus also suggested that the fire that killed a student on South State Street a few days prior would not have happened in a building like The Moravian, which was to be built with a sprinkler system.

Stewart Beal said he runs a company with 130 construction professionals. What about the blue collar workers? he asked. He saw construction of The Moravian as an opportunity to put some of them to work.

Appealing to statistical projections from SEMCOG, Joe Ferrario noted that the population of Ann Arbor was not projected to grow very much in the next few decades – perhaps by about as many people as had filtered in and out of the room that night. He contrasted that with the projection that employment was going to grow by 18,000 jobs. That meant, he said, that the council would be debating the Madison Street Parking Structure – unless they approved projects like The Moravian. Nothing detracts from a neighborhood more, he said, than potholes and other neglected infrastructure due to a lack of adequate tax revenue.

Ken Fischer, president of the University Musical Society and board member of Ann Arbor SPARK, said he was speaking as a private citizen, but with the perspective of those two organizations. He said he supported the project and that it was consistent with various kinds of attraction projects to make Ann Arbor friendly to the demographic of young professionals.

Introducing himself as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, Tim Galea said that the city should encourage density for the benefit of culture and business environment.

The Moravian Public Hearing: Various Technical Standards

Susan Morrison, an attorney who spoke on behalf of Beverly Strassmann and Claudius Vincenz at the public hearing, also submitted a letter that included multiple points about whether the PUD ordinance standards were met by the project. Among them was the fact that the historic district study committee had designated buildings as contributing to a potential historic district – buildings that would be demolished in order to build The Moravian. [Note that the area currently proposed as an historic district in the committee's preliminary report does not include The Moravian's parcels.]

An attorney with Dickinson Wright, Peter Webster, stated that The Moravian did meet the PUD ordinance requirement and that affordable housing is not being taken away. The neighborhood, he said, included more than just the one block of single-family houses.

Marianne Zorza took issue with the way that other PUDs – The Gallery, Kingsley Lane and Glen Ann Place – had been compared to The Moravian as a way to argue for the project based on consistency of applying the ordinance.

An architect on the project, Scott Bonney, noted that they had “buried as much parking as possible.” The minimal setback of the building to Madison Street, which some speakers criticized, was something the city’s planning commission had requested, he said.

Among several points made by Brad Mikus was a note in the planning commission minutes of Jan. 6, 2010 that in a major storm event there would be 1-2 feet of water standing in the parking structure under the building. “That sounds like a problem,” he suggested. Vince Caruso expressed concern about the project’s proximity to the Allen Creek floodway. Describing a vote for the project as a “big mistake,” Barbara Copi said it would be premature, given that the FEMA maps showing the floodplain were not yet finalized.

The site engineer for the project, Midwestern Consulting’s, Scott Betzoldt, addressed two different studies: a traffic study and a stormwater study. On the stormwater study, he said that the FEMA maps were not yet published, but they knew what they would be based on the data underlying the maps. The project would increase the stormwater detention beyond the required levels from 17,500 cubic feet to 38,000 cubic feet of storage, he said. He noted the traffic study he performed was not required of the project, but that it had been undertaken voluntarily. It had been reviewed and approved by the city’s traffic engineer, he said.

A sound engineer, Kenric Van Wyk, who’d been retained by neighbors of the project, noted that there was no acoustical screening specified for various elements of the project, and that the project would need to meet the standards of the city’s noise ordinance. A transportation engineer with Professional Engineering Associates, Michael Labadie critiqued the traffic study undertaken by the developer, noting that it had not been undertaken during the school year.

John Jackson criticized the 5-story streetwall of the building, saying that even in the core downtown areas, the streetwall is supposed to step back after four stories. Rita Mitchell addressed various technical problems with conformity with the PUD ordinance, including open space.

Resident and former planning commissioner Ethel Potts weighed in against The Moravian, saying that the council could not legally approve it – an adequate public benefit had not been achieved, she said. The demolition of affordable housing to build the project, she said, had to be considered against the benefit of affordable housing units offered by the project. Kathy Boris questioned how the demolition of eight two-story homes was consistent with the PUD ordinance requirement that the project provide a community benefit.

Anne Eisen said that some of the people opposed to The Moravian, and who’d opposed it for two years, had been inaccurately described as supporting the project.

The Moravian Public Hearing: City Sulkers

Appealing to the notion of “sustainability,” Joan Lowenstein noted that we often talk about sustainable cars, buses, and buildings, but asked, What about a sustainable population? She rejected the idea that neighborhoods are the building blocks of sustainability and suggested instead that the building blocks are people. The city allocates money to Ann Arbor SPARK to try to bring business to the area, she said, but there’s no place for people to live.

Former councilmember and current DDA board member Joan Lowenstein called people, not neighborhoods, the building blocks of the community. She spoke in favor of the project.

Lowenstein then suggested that people in Ann Arbor like to sulk. For example, they like to sulk about the fact that there’s no local newspaper anymore. They like to sulk about the fact that the whole city might flood. She concluded by encouraging the council to say no to the sulkers and yes to The Moravian.

Following Lowenstein to the podium, Charles Loucks allowed that he opposed the project but that he was not a sulker. He was against it, he said, because he said it set a bad precedent for process. Peter Nagourney also rejected the idea that it was a matter of whether people sulked or not. Instead, he said, it was the fact that the project violated the city’s central area plan, the standards of the PUD ordinance, as well as the floodplain regulations.

Former planning commissioner James D’Amour encouraged the council not to think of the staff recommendation for approval as a “holy writ.” He said he disagreed with the idea that Joan Lowenstein had expressed that neighborhoods weren’t the building blocks of the community. He also said he wanted an apology from the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce because they were not representing him on this issue.

The Moravian Public Hearing: How Do We Decide What We Want?

The principle that Ray Detter cited, which he encouraged the council to follow, was essentially this one: “A proposal that is opposed by a clear majority of the residents in a neighborhood should not be forced upon those people, unless there is no other way to accomplish something that would be good for the community as a whole.” That came in a email from mayor John Hieftje sent the previous Sunday morning to multiple recipients in response to the suggestion that he would be wise in an election year to vote against the project. Detter emphasized that density should be kept in downtown, not near downtown.

John Floyd opposed the project, suggesting that the discussion was a proxy for a larger conversation about what we should do with Ann Arbor's historic neighborhoods.

A declared candidate for the city council in Ward 5, John Floyd offered the perspective of a homeowner, saying it was difficult to judge how people felt about their own homes for someone who has never owned a home they loved. He allowed that youth has not just energy, but also inexperience.

Floyd suggested that the real discussion the community needed to have was about what we wanted to do with the historic neighborhoods. He described the discussion about The Moravian as a proxy for that larger discussion, and that it was the wrong time to have it.

The Moravian Public Hearing: The Developers

Speaking for The Moravian’s development team, Newcombe Clark noted that many of the project’s features that had been criticized – rooftop patios, for example – had been added because they had been asked to add them. He traced the process back two years of getting input about what people wanted to see. He emphasized that the project was financially viable. He asked the council for “the courage of leadership” and not to act in fear of a “minority of voters who show up in August [for the Democratic primary].”

Newcombe Clark signs in after delivering his remarks for the public hearing. The task of riding herd on speakers to sign in fell to Margie Teall (Ward 4), whose seat at the table is next to the sign in sheet.

The project’s developer, Jeff Helminski, observed that there was an unprecedented level of support for a private development in the room, which he found both inspiring and humbling. Helminski said they had looked at every PUD proposal approved by the city to gauge the city’s past administration of its PUD ordinance. He said his team believed it was clear that The Moravian met the standard. As far as the contract with the community that zoning reflected, Helminski asked the council to consider the contract with everyone for a consistent application of the law and the standards.

The Moravian: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off council deliberations by asking if the noise engineer was still in the room to answer some questions. He was not.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) then read aloud from a statement that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had asked be read in his absence. The statement contended that when a project tears the social compact reflected in the zoning, then the public benefits offered by the project needed to be “bold enough to mend that tear.” The statement also compared the idea of allowing density at the location of The Moravian to pricking holes in the membrane to allow “density leakage” outside of the downtown. Hohnke was against the project.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – the council’s representative to the planning commission, which had recommended the project on a 7-1 vote – cited the planning commission’s vote, plus the city planning staff’s recommendation. On planning commission, he had voted for the project. [See Chronicle coverage: "Moravian Moves Forward, Despite Protests"]

Derezinski also asked for commentary from city planning staff – Wendy Rampson and Alexis DiLeo – on the letter from Peter Webster that outlined a comparison of The Moravian to some past PUD developments the city council had approved – Glen Ann Place, The Gallery, and Kingsley Lane. Rampson explained that each PUD proposal is evaluated on its own merit.

The benefits of the project that Rampson ticked through included the live/work units as innovative land use, the variety in design, the efficiency of land use and alternative energy, additional stormwater holding capacity, below-grade parking, and the expansion of affordable housing.

Responding to a comment made during the public hearing, DiLeo noted that the supplemental regulations did address the maximum number of bedrooms and the unit mix.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know if it was true that there’d be 1-2 feet of standing water in the parking structure in the event of a 100-year storm. Rampson confirmed this was true – the idea was to design the building so that the water goes into the parking structure, not the living units. In response to questions from Higgins, Rampson also confirmed that the stormwater detention tanks would include swirl concentrators to help filter it, so that the quality and quantity of the stormwater was addressed. The water from the detention tanks would be outlet to the storm sewer system at a restricted rate, Rampson explained.

Jeff Helminski, developer of The Moravian, responded to questions from councilmembers.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked developer Jeff Helminski about the issue of noise and acoustical screening. Helmisnki confirmed that the project would need to meet the standards of the city’s noise ordinance, whether there was screening or not. Teall asked about the contention that neighbors had been misled by Helminski originally telling them that it would be a two-story building. Helminski said he had never presented the project as a two-story building.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the underlying zoning of The Moravian – existing zoning that would need to be changed. He wanted to know why a previous project – Avery House, which had been proposed by the Black Elks on the north side of town – had not come up in comparing previous PUD projects. [Avery House was rejected by the city council.] Rampson clarified that Avery House had not been a PUD, but rather a planned project.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) confirmed with Rampson that the The Moravian did not fall inside of the historic district study committee’s recommended area, based on their preliminary report.

Smith noted that the geothermal system was “optional” – she wanted to know what would make the geothermal system actually be implemented? Helminski explained that the ability to implement geothermal couldn’t be confirmed until a full depth well – around 300 feet – was drilled and the thermal conductivity of the soils was confirmed for a full well. They’d drilled test bores to this point. In the event it was not possible to implement a geothermal system, Helminski said, they would possibly use photovoltaic, wind, or purchase green energy from an alternate source.

Asked what level of LEED the project intended to achieve, Helminski said that they would achieve basic certification, and possibly achieve the Silver LEED designation.

Smith asked about some of the accommodations that had been made to the project design in response to feedback from neighbors. Helminski cited the shape of the building, the minimization of the frontage on Fifth Avenue, the change of the basic design from its initial modern theme, and pulling the building as far south as possible.

Anglin asked what would happen if there were a mishap with the geothermal system – would that be even more serious, given its location in a floodplain? Helminski said that of the two options for media used in geothermal systems – glycol and water – the planned option was for water. So any leakage from the system would mean that it was simply water.

Asked by Anglin about the status of the project’s brownfield application, Helminski said that there’d been a couple of meetings scheduled but canceled due to budget work that the city was doing. He’d talked to Matt Naud, Helmiski said. [Naud is the city's environmental coordinator.]

Briere then suggested that “we should be talking about how we’re going to vote.” She then recounted how she’d met with the developers about their project four or five times over the course of two-and-a-half years. She said that Hohnke was right, in his written statement, to remind everyone of the social compact implicit in the city’s zoning, and said she’d be voting no.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asks someone to join her and city attorney Stephen Postema in a conversation before the council meeting started.

She noted that the The Moravian was larger than Perry School or the UM building in the neighborhood and that the mix of units was predominantly 3-4 bedroom units, not 1-2 bedrooms.

Briere noted that while the developer had studied and reviewed previous proposals that had been approved, he should have also studied those that had been rejected – Avery House, 42 North, and City Place.

Derezinski  said he’d vote yes, because he would defer to the city’s planning staff recommendation and their expertise. He cited the 7-1 vote by the planning commission in favor of the project. He allowed that the city council’s vote was the final one. Until the R4C zoning district is revised, he said, the city had the PUD as an available option. The Moravian, he concluded, did meet the criteria for a PUD.

Teall said she’d support the project and echoed Derezinski’s sentiments. Responding to Jim Mogensen’s comments during the public hearing, about the possibility of such a project in Ann Arbor Hills, Teall said that the council would not approve that kind of project – because it was not near downtown or walkable. Teall also cited the improved safety that The Moravian represented, calling it “a leap ahead.” She stated that Ann Arbor is a city, not a small town, and The Moravian would not turn it into a big city.

Smith also echoed Derezinski’s comments. She highlighted the underground parking as a bonus. She contended that much of the “open space” pointed to on the rest of the block was actually used as backyard parking. She recalled how a place at Madison and Fifth had been her first apartment and characterized it as a “transitional neighborhood.” She also cited the additional affordable housing units as a benefit, saying that even with their addition, the city had a ways to go to get to 100 units. [This is a reference to the 100 units of affordable housing lost when the old YMCA at Fifth and William was demolished. Chronicle coverage: "The  100 Units of Affordable Housing."]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that this was “not a perfect project.” He also allowed that it was a project about which reasonable people could differ in their conclusions. Taylor saw the decision as centering around how you see the neighborhood. In this, Taylor echoed the same framing he’d used to talk about his vote over a year ago during deliberations on another project in roughly the same neighborhood, City Place. [From the council's Jan. 5, 2009 meeting]:

How one views it, [Taylor] said, depends on whether you’re looking north or looking south. He suggested that residents are looking exclusively to the south, which discounts factually what the neighborhood is. To the north there’s an 8-story parking structure, a surface lot, a library, which are part and parcel of the neighborhood. He described the area as some species of interface that needed to be considered as such. He concluded by saying that the dedicated apartment buildings in the neighborhood itself and those structures to the north are all a part of the “gestalt of the space.”

On Monday, talking about The Moravian – located down the street from where City Place had been proposed, a bit farther from downtown Ann Arbor – Taylor said that whether the project was out of scale or appropriate depended on what area you considered. If you see the relevant area as that bounded by Madison Street and Fourth and Fifth avenues, he said, you could conclude that The Moravian was out of scale. If you see the relevant area as the corridor of Madison from the Fingerle lumberyard and Main Street, then one could conclude that it was appropriate in scale. Although he supported the project, Taylor cautioned that it should not have any implications for tear-downs in R4C neighborhoods – this was a unique case that also involved M-1 zoning.

Anglin allowed that the city did need additional 1-2 bedroom apartments, but that this project did not offer that. However, he acknowledged that the passion of the people who spoke in favor of the project that evening was “a clear message for us.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) echoed the sentiments of Taylor and Smith, saying he’d support the project. He rejected the term “buffer” for The Moravian, saying that to him, it was an excellent “interface.” He said that what The Moravian offered was more diversity of housing. In his day job [as executive director of MichBio], Rapundalo said, he sees the challenges of bringing highly-skilled 25- to 35-year-olds to the area. What they want, he said, is not just 1-2 bedroom units, but rather a diversity of options.

Mayor John Hieftje said he did not believe that the project met the PUD standards. In his review of the material, he said, he did not agree with the findings in the staff report. The 12 affordable units offered by the project, he said, were too little to offer in return for the rezoning. He did not think that the area would remain the way it was and would eventually change. He rejected the idea that if the council did not approve this project that it meant they didn’t believe in density.

Outcome: The council vote was 6-4 in favor of the Moravian, which left it two votes short of the 8-vote super-majority the project needed for approval. Voting for the project were: Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Voting against the project were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), mayor John Hieftje. Carsten Hohnke was absent.

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

Absent: Carsten Hohnke

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

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who co-sponsored a new ordinance banning use of cell phones while driving or bicycling. The ban does not apply to driving one's council chair before the meeting starts. (Photos by the writer.)

But it was approved without the support of the measure’s two sponsors, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). The version adopted by council specified a 3% minimum cut in compensation packages, taken over the aggregate of non-union workers. By the time the resolution was passed, it had also shed a “whereas” clause that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) called “self-laudatory.”

In development news, The Moravian – a planned unit development (PUD) proposed on East Madison Street – received unanimous council support at its first reading. Approval at two readings is required for final approval. But Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to a resident request made at the previous night’s caucus to give some clue at the first reading as to how councilmembers were thinking about the project: “I’ll be voting against it at second reading – so there’s no question in the community’s mind.”

Based on the Sunday caucus, The Moravian will face a protest petition, which raises the bar for approval from six to eight votes.

The council also wrangled through a proposed ban on cell phone use while driving and bicycling – at a level of detail unusual for a first reading. The measure had undergone enough revisions since it was approved at the council’s previous meeting that its status Monday was reset to a first reading. Dissent on the ban came from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who questioned whether it should be undertaken at the local level – as opposed to the state. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) also dissented, pointing to the fact that the ban did not include hands-free phones.

The council also transacted a variety of other business, including a repeal of the city’s bicycle registration program, which is to be replaced with a new system after further consultation with stakeholders. The bicycle registration program, as well as other business and announcements, will be wrapped up in Part 2 of this report.

The 3% Budget Directive

Before the council on Monday was a resolution that gave the city administrator, Roger Fraser, direction on preparing the city’s budget. Fraser must, per the city charter, submit a budget to the council by its second meeting in April – this year, that’s on April 19. By May 17, their second meeting in May, the council must vote to adopt the budget with any amendments they choose to make. If the council does not adopt a budget, then the budget proposed by the city administrator is adopted by default.

The resolution before the council on Monday night requires Fraser to report back on the directives by April 1, which is before the budget proposal is due.

The resolution before the council differed from an earlier version, which had called for a 3% reduction in the “base salary” of non-union workers. The version before the council on Monday called for a minimum of a 3% reduction in their “compensation packages.”

Budget Directive: Amendment on Travel Allowance

The resolution before the council eliminated a $1,000/year travel allowance for the mayor and a $560/year travel allowance for councilmembers.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) proposed an amendment to keep the mayor’s travel allowance, saying that it’s important for the mayor to go forward throughout the state to represent the city. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) agreed, saying that he’d been unaware that councilmembers had a travel allowance, and that he didn’t need one. However, said Anglin, the mayor is the symbol of the city.

Outcome: The amendment to keep the mayor’s travel allowance was approved, with dissent from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Budget Directive: Amendment on Self-Laudatory Language

The resolution included a “whereas” clause that listed off councilmembers who had voluntarily committed to giving back 3% of their council salaries as having demonstrated leadership. [Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Council Delays Vote on Pay Cuts"]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), whose name was listed, said that for his part he felt the clause was “self-laudatory” and did not see the need for it. An accompanying “resolved” clause called on all councilmembers to commit to the 3% give-back. Independently of whether it was possible for the council to compel the action of individual councilmembers, said Taylor, he felt it was not proper as a body to mandate something that is voluntary by nature.

Outcome: The clauses involving city councilmembers’ 3% salary give-back’s were deleted, with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Budget Directive: Amendment on Percentage for Administrator and Attorney

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) proposed an amendment to a “resolved” clause that singled out the city attorney and the city administrator among the non-union workers targeted by the resolution for a minimum 3% reduction in compensation.  The attorney and the administrator are positions that report directly to the council, and the council sets their salaries.

Calling the 3% artificial, Briere said she felt the top of the pay scale could take a bigger hit: 5%.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), however, said that she was encouraged by the word “minimum” and thought that it allowed enough flexibility, so she didn’t support specifying 5%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what the implications were numerically – the compensation packages covered salary, benefits, and vacation days. As much as he wanted the top administrators to show leadership, said Kunselman, he hesitated to use a broad brush.

Foreground to background: Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who had sponsored the resolution, said that the April deadline provided an opportunity to give additional direction before the final budget is proposed by the administrator.

Mayor Hieftje noted that council sets the pay of the city administrator and the city attorney, and could do so at their next performance review.

Higgins also noted that the resolution was a way to give public notice of the expectation and to give the two top administrators the “platform” to make changes.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that the 3% reduction was what they’d asked staff in general to accept and that the language specified a minimum, so he was not supportive of the amendment. He allowed, however, that if the amendment passed, he would be contributing an additional 2% of his council salary back to the city to bring his total up to 5%.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), however, said he felt that 5% was the proper place for the bar to be set.

Outcome: Briere’s amendment that reduced the city attorney and the city administrator’s compensation by 5% – instead of a minimum of 3% – failed, with support only from Briere and Taylor.

Budget Directive: Amendment on Collective versus Distributive

For linguists who specialize in the sub-field of semantics focusing on the the interpretation of English plurals, Monday’s council meeting would have been a welcome respite from their usual fodder, which tends to focus on pianos and the men who lift them.

Consider, for example, the following sentences about some men, say, Smith, Jones and Green:

1. The men ate cake.
2. The men gathered in the kitchen.
3. The men lifted a piano.

Sentence (1) is true just when Smith, Jones, and Green each ate cake. That is, the meaning of sentence (1) requires the eating of cake to distribute over each of them: Smith ate cake, Jones ate cake and Green ate cake. For sentence (2), Smith, Jones and Green each have to be in the kitchen together in some event of gathering, but the sentence is not about the men as individuals – it’s about the men collectively. That is, the meaning of the sentence does not require that Smith gathered, Jones gathered and Green gathered.

Sentence (3) is the one that applies to the discussion at the city council meeting. It’s a sentence that has a distributive meaning – it could be about Smith lifting a piano, Jones lifting a piano and Green lifting a piano. Or it could have a collective meaning – it could be about Smith, Jones and Green, who worked together to lift a piano. On the collective meaning, it’s not the case that Smith lifted a piano, and Jones lifted a piano and Green lifted a piano.

At issue was the following “resolved” clause in the budget resolution:

RESOLVED, That beginning July 1, 2010 the compensation packages for all non-union employees will be reduced by a minimum of 3%;

Replace “the compensation packages for all non-union employees” with “the men” and replace “be reduced by a minimum of 3%” with “lift a piano” and you get something like sentence (3).

Councilmembers debated whether the resolution meant that the total of compensation packages summed over all employees had to be reduced by 3% – maybe Smith got a 1% cut but Jones got a 4% cut – or rather that it meant each employee had to get at least a 3% cut.

The Chronicle asked Peter Lasersohn, a professor of linguistics and specialist in the semantics of plurals at the University of Illinois, to weigh in on that question. His response was unambiguous:

Sentences with plural definite subjects are systematically ambiguous between collective and distributive readings, so I think the “RESOLVED” clause can be interpreted either way. I feel bad for Jones …

At the city council meeting, it was Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who brought up the question of the distributive versus the collective understanding of the sentence. He’d begun his questioning by asking if the city administrator was “compelled” by the resolution to deliver a budget as described by the resolution. City attorney Stephen Postema allowed that this was the intent of the resolution, but that it was the budget process itself [see section introduction] that compelled the kind of budget the council wanted.

As Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wraps up his point about the aggregate interpretation of the budget directive, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) raises her hand to ask to speak.

Hohnke wanted to know if the 3% reduction applied to each person. Turning to Fraser, he asked: “How do you understand this?” Fraser replied that the resolution did not specify how to do it and that his staff’s job was to come back with their suggestion as to how to do it.

About the idea that it was each employee who had to have at least a 3% cut, concluded Hohnke: “That’s not what I’m understanding you to understand.” Otherwise put, Hohnke was on the same page with Fraser that it did not require a minimum 3% reduction of each employee’s compensation.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) weighed in, saying that it was fine if the intent was to allow for an aggregation that amounted to a 3% reduction, but contended that was not what the resolution said. “If Jones is not reduced, then it’s not consistent,” he said. Taylor then proposed an amendment that added the phrase “in the aggregate.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) objected, saying that what Taylor was doing was changing the words to something that Fraser already understood the resolution to mean, and that they would have an opportunity to make any adjustments in April.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) characterized the change as a grammarian’s correction, which she appreciated. City attorney Stephen Postema weighed in, saying that Higgins was correct about the opportunity in April, but allowed that Taylor’s suggestion of “in the aggregate” was useful.

When Sandi Smith (Ward 1) attempted to end the deliberation on Taylor’s proposed amendment by “calling the question,” the motion to end deliberations narrowly failed with only five votes – those of Smith, Briere, Rapundalo, Higgins, and Hohnke.

So Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who sponsored the original resolution, weighed in. The intent, he said, actually was to set a baseline, with the idea that Fraser could adjust that.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) observed that Fraser and Taylor had a different interpretation of what the resolution said – so it was worth addressing – and wondered if deleting the word “all” would help. Taylor didn’t think so, saying that it was useful for highlighting the aggregate.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) took the “grammatical quibbling” to illustrate the futility of the process. By “process” he meant the idea that the council would express a budget directive in the form of a resolution. He’d weighed in earlier during the deliberations against the idea of doing that, and asked Higgins, who was one of the most senior members of the council, if that had been done in the past. Higgins affirmed it had been done.

Also on the subject of process, earlier in the deliberations Rapundalo had said that in the past the budget committee had given budget directives that had “never seen the light of day.” Passing a resolution of the council was a way to make it public and transparent, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje gave a nudge to wrap up the discussion by saying that if they were spending that much time on this amendment, then the budget decisions themselves were going to be “fun.”

Before they voted on Taylor’s amendment, Hohnke picked up on the topic of process, and noted that Fraser had asked the council for direction, and that the resolution provided that explicit direction.

Outcome: The amendment inserting “in the aggregate” succeeded, with Anglin, Briere, Derezinski, Taylor, Kunselman, Teall and Hohnke voting for it.

Overall final outcome: The council passed the 3% budget directive resolution as amended, with dissent from Derezinski, Rapundalo and Higgins.

Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving

Before the council was an ordinance that prohibits use of cell phones while driving or bicycling.

Cell Phones: Public Commentary

At the conclusion of their meeting during public commentary general time, two speakers addressed the council about cell phone use. One speaker was concerned about allowing exceptions for certain people involved in emergency preparedness exercises – that set a bad precedent, he said. He encouraged the city to allow the issue to be addressed at the state level.

A second speaker asked the council to at least consider the cost of informing the public that such an ordinance would be enforced in the city, noting that there were numerous access points into the city, where signage might be required.

Cell Phones: Council Deliberations

The ordinance had already won the support of the council at its previous meeting. But it had undergone changes that were numerous enough that an additional first reading was warranted, said one of the measure’s sponsors, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), on Monday. The changes were not really substantive, he contended, but their sheer number created enough red lines that it gave “the appearance thereof.”

Paul Green, a research professor at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, provided some expert testimony on cell phone use while driving.

The changes, he said, were the result of various communication with other councilmembers and community members. Rapundalo called to the podium Paul Green, a research professor at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, whose research focuses on driver distraction and driver workload.

One of the key research findings that Green explained to councilmembers was the idea that the problem with cell phones is not the object held in the hand, but rather the distraction of the conversation. The proposed ordinance would also make it illegal to do “destination entry” for GPS devices – Green explained that the distraction of a GPS device use was in the attention required to do that data entry, not in reading the map or listening to directions.

Why, asked Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), was talking on the phone different from talking to a passenger? Green explained that the key difference was that the passenger is also aware of the driving situation: you come to a stop, then look left and right – your passenger also looks left and right. The person on the other end of a cell phone conversation with a driver, Green said, will continue to “blab on until they hear a crash.” Listening to the radio, Green said, is completely discretionary, whereas the demands of a phone conversation are not – it’s rude not to take one’s regular conversational turn.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to know whether the ordinance made cell phone use while driving a primary or secondary offense. It’s proposed to be a primary offense, which means that police officers would be able to pull over a driver just for cell phone use. Secondary traffic offenses are only enforced if there is some other reason to pull a driver over.

Responding to a question from Rapundalo, chief of police Barnett Jones said it was important that it be a primary offense, because it would allow them to begin to “harden the community” against the behavior. Jones cited a 2003-04 statistic that attributed 24,000 traffic deaths nationwide to cell phone use while driving. He characterized it as a major safety hazard.

Chief Jones allowed that he himself has switched to hands-free Bluetooth technology for use while driving. Taylor picked up later on the hands-free versus hand-held distinction, and pointed to Green’s research conclusion that the distraction arises not because the hands are occupied, but because the mind is occupied. So Taylor wanted to know how the ordinance might be enforced, if the exception for hands-free use were not made in the ordinance. [The ordinance language provides for a number of exceptions, hands-free devices among them.]

Jones said that without the exception, it would put officers in a very prohibitive position. In that case, he said, they should consider going the whole way, and address people applying lipstick and eating cheeseburgers as well.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said that if it was about safety, then “let’s go all the way.” She took a shot at the overall clarity of the language, asking, “Was this written up by the attorney’s office?” When city attorney Stephen Postema acknowledged that it had been written up by his office, she told him that she had to break down the paragraphs to understand what it meant.

Higgins asked Jones if other non-driving tasks were prohibited under other aspects of the vehicle code. Jones allowed that something like applying lipstick while driving could be enforced as “careless driving.” Higgins wanted to know why use of a cell phone while driving could not be handled the same way. Jones said that having an ordinance with specific language addressing cell phones made it “cleaner in a court of law.”

Higgins also asked about the burden of proof. In the case that a driver offers a defense that they were using a device in a hands-free manner, the burden of proof falls to the driver.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered what the difference was between holding an iPhone with a map displayed on it – which seemed to be prohibited – versus holding a paper map. Green clarified that the ordinance as written allowed someone to look at an iPhone map, but not to enter the destination.

Taylor came back to the data entry question by focusing on the “or otherwise operate” phrase in the ordinance. If the concern was typing, he said, they should talk about typing. Green clarified that the “or otherwise operate” phrase was meant to prevent the pressing of the various buttons to select “points of interest” from the map, which entailed reading through detailed menus of options.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she had trouble with the ordinance – she’d prefer to see it done at the state level. She said she appreciated the efforts and the work of those who’d put time into the ordinance, but she felt it should happen in the context of the Michigan State Vehicle Code. Rapundalo had mentioned earlier that violations of the local ordinance would not result in points added to a driver’s license – because there’s no analogous state statute.

Hiefte said he thought that the work on the ordinance, with the changes that had been made to the ordinance since its first introduction, was a good example of the process working to produce a better piece of legislation.

Outcome: The ordinance banning cell phone use while driving or cycling was approved on first reading with dissent from Higgins and Smith. Enactment will be contingent on approval at a second reading.

Planned Unit Development (PUD): The Moravian

Planned unit developments are requests for rezoning of a parcel to accommodate projects that offer a public benefit in exchange for the rezoning. They are, stressed Stephen Kunselman on Monday night, discretionary on the part of the city council. They contrast with “by right” proposals that meet all aspects of city code. Kunselman also offered a tweak of the interpretation of the letters PUD – “promises until developed” – an allusion to the fact that a number of PUDs have been granted, but never built.

The Moravian is an almost 75,000-square-foot, four-story building over one level of parking containing 62 dwelling units, with a combined total of 150 bedrooms, and 90 off-street parking spaces. Twelve of the 62 proposed dwelling units are to be for affordable- to lower-income households. The project is located on East Madison Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues.

Moravian: Public Comment

Several people signed up to comment during reserved time at the start of the meeting, but not all of them appeared. Speculation called out from the audience suggested some might have had problems finding parking or that they thought their speaking time was at the end of the meeting.

Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, touched on a number of points speaking in opposition to the project. She contended that since the year 2000, 41 projects had been approved by the city that had not begun construction – for example, 601 S. Forest, Ann Arbor City Apartments, Broadway Village, and Kingsley Lane. She noted that there was a high percentage of vacancy in developments targeting student renters – 411 Lofts and The Courtyards, for example.

Strassmann also emphasized that South Fifth Avenue is a major commuter artery and that it needs to flow smoothly. The addition of 150 more bedrooms and 90 parking spaces, she feared, would cause ingress/egress problems. She was also concerned about the net effect on affordable housing, saying that while The Moravian offered 12 units of affordable housing, 19 units would be lost.

Shirley Zempel characterized The Moravian as “huge.” The building goes right up to the sidewalk on three sides, she said – Fifth Avenue, East Madison Street, and Fourth Avenue. She echoed the point Strassmann had made about the impact on traffic along Fifth, saying she’d have difficulty pulling out of her own driveway.

Kim Kachadoorian stressed the idea that The Moravian was not in downtown, but rather near downtown. She cautioned the council that some of the renderings provided by the developer showed surrounding houses with 5-6 stairs leading up to their front porches, when in fact they had 3-4 stairs. This left the impression that the houses were taller than they are, she said. Kachadoorian also contended that one rendering of The Moravian depicted the 5-story building as the same height as a 3-story University of Michigan building across Fourth Avenue from The Moravian. She cautioned against giveaways for developers.

Claudius Vincenz also stressed that The Moravian was not in downtown, but rather near downtown. He characterized the city staff report as deficient and biased. He said that when reading through the staff report, he thought it was the developer’s application. He objected to the fact that the planning commission had referred to some houses in the the neighborhood with the word “dumps.” He allowed that they are not mansion-type houses, but that they are affordable.

Richard Jacobson spoke during public commentary general time at the conclusion of the meeting. He stressed that based on the PUD review standards, a request should not be granted if the request is made in order to circumvent existing zoning. Jacobson contended that the project, in fact, was an attempt to circumvent existing zoning standards. He characterized the housing offered as “private dorms.”

Anne Eisen also spoke at the conclusion of the meeting. She asked the council to read carefully the planning commission minutes. What the developer characterizes as support from neighbors is, in fact, not support, she said.

Kyle Mazurek, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of that organization as well as himself, a young professional living in Ward 5. He ticked through a number of benefits provided by the project: higher density development of the downtown area, expansion of workforce affordable housing opportunities in the downtown area, removal of blighted structures and obsolete industrial buildings, floodplain mitigation, property tax revenue to the city, enhanced housing options for young professionals, encouragement of alternative modes of transportation, enhancement of downtown area businesses and energy efficiency.

At the conclusion of the council meeting, speaking during public commentary general time, the developer of the project, Jeff Helminski, addressed the council saying that he recognized the challenge they faced in analyzing such a complex project, which had taken two years to bring to this point. He encouraged the council to rely on the city’s professional planning staff as well as the PUD standards of review. Responding to Strassmann’s concerns about approved projects that had not yet been built, he said he was confident that he could bring the project to fruition.

Responding to a report Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had given during his communications that he’d found studio apartments in the neighborhood that rented for $760 including utilities, Helminski stated that the affordable units in The Moravian would rent for no more than $690, and that their affordable status was assured in perpetuity through the supplemental regulations of the PUD. Addressing concerns about the FEMA flood maps that had not been finalized, he contended that the data was final and that The Moravian had been planned based on that data. What they were waiting for, he said, was the final publication of the maps based on the data.

Moravian: Council Deliberations

At the caucus held the previous evening, on Sunday, Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, indicated that a protest petition would be submitted against The Moravian. That would raise the bar for council approval from six to eight votes out of 11.

Jeff Helminski, developer of The Moravian, chatted with Margie Teall (Ward 4) before the council meeting started.

On Monday, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to a resident request made at the previous night’s caucus to give some clue at the first reading as to how councilmembers were thinking about the project: “I’ll be voting against it at second reading – so there’s no question in the community’s mind,” he said.

At the council table on Monday, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) made remarks that could fairly be interpreted to mean their support at second reading is uncertain. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) read from two contrasting passages in the city’s central area plan to illustrate the conflicting concerns that surround council’s evaluation of the project.

Council deliberations began with Hohnke alluding to another project in roughly the same neighborhood, Heritage Row – which began life as City Place. The council had voted down the City Place PUD a little over a year ago. Hohnke said he imagined that residents were getting a bit weary. He characterized the conversation about what kind of development is appropriate for the neighborhood as a “long slog.”

On the question “What is downtown?” Hohnke said it was clear for him: The downtown boundary is William Street. That meant, said Honhke, that the neighborhood under discussion – which lies south of William – is not downtown. So Hohnke said that many of the considerations for added public benefit offered by The Moravian – based on what’s called for in the downtown (e.g., added density) – did not carry a lot of weight with him. Hohnke concluded that the benefits required of a PUD were a significant threshold that had to be met, given that the city would be setting aside the existing zoning on the site.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reported that there had been an extended discussion at the previous night’s caucus and that he had a whole series of questions that he would be circulating by email. Among his concerns: statements by neighbors that had been misrepresented by the developer; the number of projects in the city that had been approved, but not started; flood maps that had not yet been issued.

During his communications time earlier in the meeting, Anglin said he’d walked the neighborhood and found a house with three studio units for rent: $760 including utilities. He questioned whether it was possible to build new construction that was equally affordable.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) picked up on the issue of flood maps, and Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, confirmed that no permits could be pulled until the FEMA flood maps were finalized, which would potentially be within the next year.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d vote yes at first reading so that the dialog could continue. She allowed that the Downtown Development Authority‘s taxing district is one way to define downtown. But she noted that the neighborhood in question was near downtown. She noted that there’d been a lot of time spent discussing what is appropriate in a near downtown neighborhood. One of those issues, she said, involved whether parking meters were appropriate there. [Smith has worked since last year to forestall installation of parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown, which were seen as a potential revenue source.]

Smith noted that they were getting pushback from people who also objected to development in the center city – they wanted the top of the Library Lot to be established as a park.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that the role of the first reading was to introduce a topic to the public, but that in this case, “it’s like introducing Methuselah.” Derezinski, who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, had already seen the project in a fair amount of detail when it was reviewed by that body. Derezinski stressed that the city’s professional planning staff had put a lot of time into the project. He said that you have to pay serious attention to staff recommendations – city staff had recommended approval, and the planning commission vote was 7-1 in favor. He urged his council colleagues to really read the staff report so that the project got a fair hearing.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed Derezinski’s sentiments, saying that the DDA boundary was artificial – the site in question was an urban neighborhood in an urban setting, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) suggested that for a project to take two years to come forward, it meant that there was likely something wrong with the project. He said he thought the project was out of context and character for the neighborhood and did not do much for “more doors on the street.” He felt that it was geared towards students. It was like taking The Courtyards housing development on the north end of Broadway, he said, and “plopping” it near downtown. He said he’d vote for it at first reading, but would oppose it at the second reading.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was not quite as definitive – she said she’d hate to cut off debate this early. She said she’d not looked at the project in detail, yet. Instead, she said, she’d oriented herself to the city’s central area plan and the PUD regulations [.txt file of PUD review standards].  She’d done that, she said, as a response to the challenge that had been made at the previous night’s caucus by Eppie Potts to give some clue what the council was thinking. Briere said it had caused her to reflect on what one should say at a first reading, when the council is just moving the process forward.

The standards for PUD review referenced by Briere, contained in the city code and presented here in severely abbreviated form, are as follows:

(6) Standards for PUD zoning district review. The commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and City Council shall approve or deny the proposed PUD zoning district based on the following standards:

(a) The use or uses, physical characteristics, design features, or amenities proposed shall have a beneficial effect for the City, in terms of public health, safety, welfare, aesthetics, or convenience, or any combination thereof, on present and potential surrounding land uses. …

(b) This beneficial effect for the City shall be one which could not be achieved under any other zoning classification and shall be one which is not required to be provided under any existing standard, regulation or ordinance of any local, state or federal agency.

(c) The use or uses proposed shall not have a detrimental effect on public utilities or surrounding properties.

(d) The use or uses proposed shall be consistent with the master plan and policies adopted by the City or the petitioner shall provide adequate justification for departures from the approved plans and policies.

(e) If the proposed district allows residential uses, the residential density proposed shall be consistent with the residential density recommendation of the master plan, or the underlying zoning when the master plan does not contain a residential density recommendation, unless additional density has been proposed in order to provide affordable housing for lower income households …

(f) The supplemental regulations shall include analysis and justification sufficient to determine what the purported benefit is, how the special benefit will be provided, and performance standards by which the special benefit will be evaluated.

(g) Safe, convenient, uncongested, and well-defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation within and to the district shall be provided and, where feasible, the proposal shall encourage and support the use of alternative methods of transportation.

(h) Disturbance of existing natural features, historical features and historically significant architectural features of the district shall be limited to the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable use of the land and the benefit to the community shall be substantially greater than any negative impacts.

The passages from the city’s central area plan, which Briere read aloud, were these:

[page 21] Finally, the current zoning does not provide guidelines for what is appropriate density in relationship to the area, and it does not reflect density differences between the various neighborhoods.  The ordinance allows more bulk and density than many neighborhoods want or consider appropriate.  Conversely, the City Council and Planning Commission have steadily decreased allowable density since the 1960s, making it difficult for residential infill development to occur, resulting in nonconformities.

[page 41 ] In various locations around Ann Arbor, houses are overshadowed by larger commercial, residential or institutional buildings that are out of scale with existing surrounding development. In addition to being aesthetically displeasing, out-of-scale construction alters the quality of living conditions in adjacent structures by blocking air and light and by covering open green space with excessive building mass.

Outcome: The Moravian was given approval on first reading. Final approval would need to be given at a second reading.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, March 15, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

At the Sunday Ann Arbor city council caucus, from left: Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Also attending the caucus from the city council were Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and John Hieftje (mayor). (Photo by the writer.)

Due to receive its first reading on Monday night at the council’s regular meeting is The Moravian – a  five-story residential and work/live space planned unit development (PUD) along the 500 block of Fifth Avenue and the 200 block of East Madison. The project was given a recommendation for approval from the city’s planning commission on a 7-1 vote in January 2010. [Chronicle coverage: "Moravian Moves Forward Despite Protests"]

At Sunday’s caucus, some residents said they were keen to see a substantive discussion at The Moravian’s first reading, but councilmembers cautioned that the first reading was typically not the time when they argued a particular position. Residents indicated that they’d gathered enough signatures from surrounding land owners to meet a city code threshold that would force an 8-vote super-majority – out of 11 votes – at a second reading of the PUD proposal.

Also receiving a first reading on Monday will be a proposed ban on cell phone use while driving. The ban had already received approval on first reading at the council’s last meeting, but due to subsequent significant revisions to the ordinance language, it will be heard again Monday as a first reading. The council’s agenda indicates that the public hearing, generally held along with an ordinance’s second reading, has been canceled. That will be rescheduled to coincide with the second reading.

A budget directive – reducing all non-union staff salaries by 3% – had been postponed from the last council meeting and will be considered by the council on Monday in a slightly revised form. As a council resolution – as opposed to an ordinance – it will require just one reading. A key revision in the intervening postponement: It’s now a minimum 3% cut that’s specified, which leaves the door open for even greater cuts.

Background: First, Second Readings and Petitions

Why do ordinances require two readings before city council in order to be enacted? It’s a requirement of the city charter:

SECTION 7.3.
…
(b) Each proposed ordinance shall receive two readings, which may be by title only, unless ordered by the Council to be read in full or in part. After the first reading of a proposed ordinance, the Council shall determine whether it shall be advanced to a second reading. The second reading shall not be given earlier than the next regular Council meeting.

The Moravian, as a planned unit development (PUD), requests a change in the city’s zoning – zoning districts are a part of the set of city ordinances and are recorded in Chapter 55 of the city code.

The zoning of parcels surrounding The Moravian also came up in discussion at Monday’s caucus, because those parcels factor into a calculation for protest petitions that can be filed against a PUD. Chapter 55 Article XI, Section 5:107 (5) specifies that [emphasis added]:

(5) A protest against any proposed amendment to this chapter may be presented in writing to the City Clerk at or before the public hearing thereon. Such protest shall be duly signed by the owners of at least 20% of the area of land included in the proposed change, or the owners of at least 20% of the area of land included within an area extending outward 100 feet from any point on the boundary of the land included in the proposed change, excluding any other publicly owned land. Following the filing of a valid protest petition, adoption of an amendment to this chapter shall require at least 8 affirmative votes of the Council at the second reading on the ordinance.

Beverly Strassmann, who is president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, contended at Sunday’s caucus that the city clerk’s office had thus far declined to accept the petition that had been prepared against The Moravian – apparently on the grounds that the first reading on The Moravian had not yet taken place. Strassmann was concerned that the petition would not be accepted in time to have an impact. Councilmembers at caucus assured her that they’d check into the petition submission issue.

Aerial view of The Moravian, looking northeast. A computer-generated image of the proposed project is located in the center of this picture – the U-shaped building. The South Main Market complex is in the foreground; Perry School, now used as offices by the University of Michigan, is to the upper right. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Strassmann’s other concern about the petition was that the University of Michigan-owned building across Fourth Avenue, east of the proposed The Moravian, was inappropriately zoned as M1, which is “limited industrial district,” not PL, or “public land.”

If it were zoned as public land, she said, it would not factor into the land area calculation for the protest petition, making it easier to meet the 20% threshold – on the assumption that UM would not sign. [Editor's note: The Chronicle's reading of the code requirement on the protest petition is that the university property would properly be excluded, because it is "publicly owned." The code requirement on petitions does not say "zoned as public land."]

On the issue of whether the university-owned building was currently improperly zoned as M1, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) weighed in saying that actual land use was different from zoning – the zoning might well be different from the land’s actual use.

Kunselman queried Strassmann as to whether she had enough signatures even without the UM property, and she indicated that she did. However, she was not able to give an estimate of what percentage had been achieved.

Past Protest Petitions: City Place

About a year ago, the same kind of protest petition had an impact on the City Place PUD north of Packard on Fifth Avenue, but in the same general neighborhood as the The Moravian. [Chronicle coverage: "Residents Organize to Defeat City Place"]

The petition not only raised the number of votes necessary for approval to eight – the fact of the petition caused councilmembers who’d been inclined to vote for the project to change their thinking. At a Sunday caucus on July 19, 2009, some months after the City Place vote in January, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) allowed that he’d come to the City Place vote inclined to support the project, but the fact of the petition had given the neighborhood opposition to the project greater clarity.

The vote against City Place was thus 10-0 – the council had had six likely votes in favor of the project, but not the eight needed to make it stick. [Sandi Smith (Ward 1) did not attend that meeting.]

The Moravian: Due Process and Deliberations at First Reading

At Sunday’s caucus, Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, asked the council not to approve The Moravian for a second reading but rather to send the developer back for a public participation meeting. Why? In January 2009, an ordinance took effect that the council had approved, which requires developers to hold a meeting with neighbors of proposed developments and submit a report on that meeting with their site plan submission.

It was that report that Strassmann had a problem with. She contended that the representations in the report were “fraudulent” and thus could not possibly satisfy the ordinance requirement. She said she took issue with the characterization of herself as “verbally abusive” and reported that other residents at the meeting also felt that their comments had been misrepresented by the developer. One of the meetings described in the report, Strassmann said, took place on Dec. 23, 2008. [Chronicle coverage of the Dec. 23 meeting: "The Madison Redux"]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) commented that this was the nature of the public participation ordinance – it was up to the developer to hold the meeting and to write the report. Kunselman said he wasn’t so concerned about the he-said-she-said aspect. Rather, his main question was whether the objections of Strassmann and others to the content of the report had been established as a part of the public record. Strassmann indicated that at least one resident, Walt Spiller, had registered his objections at the planning commission’s public hearing, but she was uncertain whether that had been included in the commission’s minutes.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) used his laptop computer to retrieve the minutes and read aloud:

Walt Spiller, 548 South Fifth Avenue, adjacent homeowner to the north, asked that appropriate buffering be provided between his property and this project. He believed the petitioner’s representation of his comments were a misinterpretation, adding that he told the petitioner he would not bring this up in a public forum if the petitioner would redact the entire statement under his name. It was not done, he said. His main opposition to this proposal was that it was out of scale and character with the existing neighborhood.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had helped push forward the passage of the still relatively new public participation ordinance, noted that it was due for an annual review and that the issue of a report’s content should be included in its review. [The ordinance took effect in January 2009.] The question of when additional meetings are triggered is also something she said should be reviewed – city staff were interpreting the ordinance’s reference to “amended planned unit development zoning district” in a way that didn’t include all changes, she said. [Related Chronicle coverage: "Heritage Row Redux: Process Clarified"]

Jack Eaton, responding to Strassmann’s use of the word “fraud,” suggested that the council focus attention away from that word and instead focus on the idea that the public participation ordinance should be taken seriously. He suggested that one way to achieve that at Monday’s first reading would be to ask the developer to amend the report on the public participation meeting to reflect residents’ comments accurately.

At Sunday’s caucus, many of the same concerns  were expressed about The Moravian that neighbors had conveyed at the planning commission’s meeting: the building was out of scale with the neighborhood; the building would create shadows on surrounding buildings; 5th floor terraces should not count as open space. Strassmann summarized the way she felt the planning commission had treated the developer: “Planning commission has coddled the developer as if he was breastfeeding.” [In early 2006, the city council passed a revision to Chapter 112 of the city code that makes explicit a mother's right to breastfeed in places of public accommodation.]

Briere, responding to concerns raised by Strassmann that there was no actual brownfield on The Moravian site, told Strassmann that brownfields did not necessarily require that there be pollution – “urban blight” was sufficient. And someone could decide that there was “urban blight,” Briere said, even though you might not agree that it was blighted. Briere drew upon her experience with a proposed development near her neighborhood – the Lowertown development near Broadway – in providing the explanation to Strassmann.

The Moravian is an almost 75,000-square-foot, four-story building over one level of parking containing 62 dwelling units, with a combined total of 150 bedrooms, and 90 off-street parking spaces. Twelve of the 62 proposed dwelling units are to be affordable to lower-income households.

Ethel Potts, a resident of Ward 5, expressed her hope that the council would use their deliberations at the first reading of The Moravian to give the public “some clue” as to how they were thinking about the project. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that she tried to keep a really open mind at first reading and avoided getting to an actual decision until “the last possible moment.” She also told Potts that she felt the council had done a better job recently of discussing things at first reading.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that The Moravian looked to him to be very similar to The Courtyards, a development near UM’s north campus at 1780 Broadway.

Mayor John Hieftje compared the process to the evaluation a jury makes and that it was important not to make a decision until all the evidence was in.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), a former state senator, said that was a similar pattern in the state legislature. The first reading, said Derezinski, basically alerts the public that the issue is now before the public body.

Cell Phones: Back to First Reading

At their last regular meeting on Feb. 16, 2010, the city council approved at its first reading a ban on cell phone use while driving. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that the discussion at their deliberations and feedback from residents – he’d received at least 40 emails – had reflected the usefulness of the first reading. Since then, the ordinance has undergone significant and numerous revisions, so that on Monday, it comes before council again as a first reading. [.txt file of original cell phone ordinance; .txt file of revised cell phone ordinance].

Mayor John Hieftje said that some of the revisions, allowing exceptions involving public emergency drills, had been prompted by resident input. From the revised ordinance:

(e) the person uses the electronic device while performing his or her duties as a volunteer in the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Communications Commission and as provided for in Title 47, Part 97, Subpart E, Section 97.407 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Budget

Caucus conversation touched on a number of budget-related issues.

How Is This Paid For?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the Monday agenda provided a number of “opportunities to spend money.” So she floated the idea to her council colleagues that the fund from which the money would be drawn be included on the agenda, so that the public would have a clearer understanding of where the money came from. Mayor John Hieftje said he thought that was not a bad idea.

The 3% Budget Directive

Postponed from the council’s last regular meeting, on Feb. 16, 2010, and now coming before the council on Monday, is a resolution directing the city administrator to cut non-union salaries by 3%. The resolution has been revised in the interim. [.txt file of original budget directive; .txt file of revised budget directive].

At Sunday’s caucus, Briere characterized a key difference between the two versions as the requirement that the cut be a minimum of 3%, which highlights the possibility that the cut could  be greater than 3%. In a “budget white paper,” circulated to residents, Briere has suggested specifically that for top management positions, the amount of the cut could be greater – as much as 10%. [.pdf file of Briere's budget white paper]

The Municipal Service Charge

Leslie Morris attended caucus and reflected on her service on the Ann Arbor city council from the mid-’70s through the early ’80′s and subsequently on the city’s park advisory commission. She told councilmembers that she was there to talk about golf,  though she had never been a golfer. She recalled how a park open space plan from 1966, in its first sentence, had identified a new golf course as the city’s greatest park need. She noted that there was no supporting material or data in the plan for that statement. She attributed it to the fact that the Leslie family was interested in selling the land to the city that is now the Leslie Golf Course – on “very favorable terms” to the city, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje clarified that for the land where the Leslie Science and Nature Center is located, it was a donation, and that for the golf course it was $1,000 per year.

Morris noted that during her period of public service, they had always felt that golf should pay its own way. But sometime in the ’90s, she said, golf was separated from the general fund, with the result that there were charges made “to ourselves” for golf that were not applied to other recreational activities. She characterized the situation that the city had gotten itself into as not quite fair.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the municipal service charges made to different service units was what Morris meant by “charging ourselves.” He said that unclarity on this charge was one reason the council had asked city staff to explain it more clearly at an upcoming meeting on the budget, on March 8.

Hieftje said that when he was first elected to city council in 1999, he had heard that the reason the golf courses were separated out from the general fund was to “protect” them. Kunselman agreed that this rationale was based on the idea that if the golf courses were making money, then they would be “milked.” Kunselman suggested that the city’s municipal service charge was, in fact, a way of “milking” the golf courses.

Developer Jeff Helminski speaks to Ann Arbor planning commissioners about his project, The Moravian. In the background are commissioners Wendy Woods and Diane Giannola. (Photos by the writer.)

About two dozen residents attended the meeting. All but one of the 16 people who spoke during time for public commentary opposed the project, some vehemently.

Opponents’ main concern is that the five-story, 62-unit building is out of scale and out of character with the neighborhood, which has older homes, but is not protected by an historic district. [The neighborhood also is on the edge of an industrial area – The Moravian is planned on a lot across the street from the Fingerle Lumber complex.]

But in approving the requested planned unit development (PUD) zoning, commissioners cited a range of public benefits, including the 12 units of affordable housing within the building – a benefit that neighbors dispute. The project will now be considered by city council at an upcoming meeting.

Residents vow to continue fighting it. “We’re going to redouble our efforts,” Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, told commissioners after their vote.

Separately, planning commissioners approved a rezoning request for a gas station on Packard Road, with some stipulations.

The Moravian

The Moravian is the latest incarnation of a project that began its life as The Madison. Originally designed as a 14-story building with 161 units, The Madison also went through different versions, scaling back in response to city staff and neighborhood concerns. [See Chronicle coverage of a December 2008 meeting between neighbors and developer Jeff Helminski and Newcombe Clark of Bluestone Realty: "The Madison Redux"]

The Moravian was brought forward in 2009, coming before the planning commission in October. At that time, commissioners postponed action on the project, asking the developer to get additional feedback from the staff and neighbors, and to incorporate that feedback into the design.

Staff Report on The Moravian

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff gave a report on The Moravian – the staff recommended approval of the PUD zoning district and site plan. [The complete staff report (a 32.9 MB .pdf file) is available to download from the city's website.]

The PUD approval hinged on public benefits, and the staff report cited three: 1) innovation in land use, 2) efficiency in land use and energy, and 3) expansion of the city’s affordable housing supply.

In the case of The Moravian, the 12 units designated as affordable would be offered at rents accessible to people earning no more than 80% of the area median income (AMI).

Later in the meeting, in response to questions from commissioners, DiLeo elaborated on those benefits. The innovation in land use relates to the use of underground parking, rather than surface parking, she said. Efficiency in land use and energy includes the proposed LEED certification and the use of geothermal energy – a renewable source. The project includes 12 units of affordable housing, she noted, or 19% of the total units in the building. That was a benefit, especially given the location near downtown.

In her presentation, DiLeo described several ways in which the current version of the project differs from the one presented in October. Among them:

• Affordable housing units were increased from nine to 12. The units designated as affordable entail all of the project’s nine one-bedroom apartments and three efficiency apartments.
• The total number of units decreased from 63 to 62, with 150 total bedrooms and “flex” rooms.
• There were changes to the three- and four-bedroom units. Previously, all bedrooms in those units were paired with bathrooms. In the current design, one bedroom in each of those units is designated a “flex” room, with no bathroom attached. So a previous four-bedroom unit is now described as a three-bedroom with flex room, and a previous three-bedroom unit is called a two-bedroom with flex room.
• Several architectural changes were made, including the addition of cornices, sills and other features, with changes in the exterior’s color, material and plane to make it a better fit for the character of the neighborhood, according to the staff report. Windows were increased in size and grouped, rather than placed at regular intervals.
• Outdoor terraces were added to the fourth floor, for use as “active” open space.
• To reduce the impact on the neighboring house at 543 S. Fourth Ave., a mansard roof was eliminated on that side, and outdoor terraces on the fourth floor were added to create a “step-down” effect.
• A maximum size was added to the description of live/work units – spaces designed for residents who are also small business owners, artists or sole practitioners (though non-residents could lease this first-floor space as well). There will be a minimum of two and a maximum of six live/work units, with each unit having a maximum of 1,200 square feet and a total maximum of 3,000 square feet for all live/work units.

Final approval of the PUD site plan will be subject to adoption of new flood maps being developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). DiLeo said those might not be completed for six months or so. Drafts of those maps show altered boundaries of the floodway, with the result that the floodway no longer includes the Moravian site. The project would still be located in the 100-year floodplain of Allen’s Creek. According to the staff report, the proposed development would provide about 29,900 cubic feet of flood storage in a stormwater management system, an increase of about 74% compared with capacity of the existing site.

Walt Spiller, center, talks with Shirley Zempel, right, and Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association. Spiller's two-story home would be an immediate neighbor of the five-story Moravian.

Public Commentary: Pre-Vote

Sixteen people spoke during a public hearing on the project, which lasted about an hour. Many comments touched on similar concerns. Here’s a sampling.

Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, said she represented residents and that there was “massive opposition” to the project – opposition that’s documented in petitions from residents, she said. It was incredible that the turnout for this meeting was as high as it was, she said, given that they’d just learned of the public hearing two days prior. She described the building as “an offense,” totally out of scale with other buildings in the neighborhood – 25 times bigger than the largest house, for example.

The public benefits cited are illusory, Strassmann added, noting that 19 units of affordable housing currently on the site will be eliminated, replaced by fewer units that are smaller. LEED certification – cited by staff as a benefit – can be avoided by paying penalties, she said.

Strassmann also expressed concern that what was being characterized as workforce housing would become housing for students, saying that vacancy rates show there’s not a need for that. She argued that the project is being pushed through without regard for the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or the city. “Please do not show us contempt,” she said. “Please protect our fundamental rights as citizens.”

Kim Kachadoorian described the Germantown area as the last intact near-downtown neighborhood, and said it was disheartening to see it dismembered for more student housing. There’s already a glut of housing for students and young professionals in the city, she said. And when the University of Michigan opens North Quad, a large student dormitory at the corner of State and Huron, she predicted there will be a significant increase in rental vacancies in the near-downtown area.

Kachadoorian also had concerns about parking. Though the project includes 90 parking spaces, most of them in an underground garage, there are enough bedrooms for between 150-300 people, she noted. Already there are cars parked illegally in that area every day, she said. Kachadoorian concluded by saying the project would be perfect for Ann Arbor – just not at that location.

Ellen Ramsburgh, a member of the city’s historic district commission, said she supported previous comments by the neighbors. She reminded commissioners that there were two relevant study committees whose work had not yet been completed: 1) the R4C & R2A zoning district study advisory committee, which is looking at possible ordinance changes in these residential districts, and 2) a study committee appointed by city council in August to explore whether an historic district would be appropriate for an area along Fourth and Fifth avenues – which could include the site of the proposed Moravian. [See Chronicle coverage of the historic district study committee: "Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards"]

Ramsburgh said she hoped the commission wouldn’t approve anything that’s not within the framework of those studies. Even though historic homes in that neighborhood aren’t currently protected under an historic district, she concluded, tearing down those homes would be just as much of a loss.

This elevation rendering of The Moravian shows the home of Walt Spiller to the north of the building. (Image links to larger file.)

Walt Spiller owns a home on Fifth Avenue that sits directly next to the site, to the north, where The Moravian would be built.  He also owns several rental properties in the area. He asked commissioners that residents near The Moravian be given the same consideration that was given to residents near the Packard Road gas station, a rezoning request discussed earlier in the meeting. [See below – commissioners added restrictions related to noise on the site.]

Spiller pointed out that the large tree depicted in the developer’s schematic of the site for The Moravian actually stood on his property. But his main point was an objection to how his remarks had been characterized by the developer in a report to the planning staff. He said the comments attributed to him in the report – which stated that his response to the project’s conceptual plan were “encouraging” – were a complete misinterpretation, and he wanted them to be stricken from the report. He said that in this case, PUD stands for “planning upside down,” given the scale of the project.

Ethel Potts, a former Ann Arbor planning commissioner, acknowledged that the project had been tweaked, but said that she saw no major changes from its previous version. The building’s height and mass don’t fit the area, she said. The affordable housing benefit cited by staff should be discounted, given the greater amount of affordable housing that will be displaced because of the project. Further, she said, PUDs are not supposed to grossly violate the underlying zoning – but this one does.

Potts also objected to the entrance for vehicles on Fifth Avenue, citing traffic concerns. And she noted that the building would be in the floodplain, and that a structure across the street – now occupied by the University of Michigan – regularly floods. In general, she said the project departs from the city’s central area plan and R4C residential zoning, and she urged commissioners not to approve it.

Jeff Helminski, developer for The Moravian, was the only speaker in favor of the project. He said the project had been altered in response to feedback from the city staff and neighbors, and that he hoped the commissioners would evaluate it based on the balance they’d achieved between the level of zoning variance requested and the level of public benefits.

Helminski noted that the project followed the guidance provided by the city’s office of community development regarding the affordable housing component. The Moravian will improve the character of this area, he said, as well as add $200,000 annually to the city’s tax base. During a time when the city and schools face a budget crisis, with possible layoffs of firefighters and teachers, the increase to the tax base should be an important factor, he said.

Commissioner Deliberations

Jean Carlberg began the discussion by asking a question about the flood maps – she wondered if the fact that the site plan approval is contingent on adoption of the flood maps meant that the project would be on hold until then. DiLeo explained that staff had discussed the issue with the developer, who understood that constraint. Building permits wouldn’t be issued until the new maps are adopted, but if the site plan were approved, the developer could move ahead to line up financing.

Planning commissioner Jean Carlberg, a former city councilmember, reviews documents during the Jan. 5 planning commission meeting.

Tony Derezinski, who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, asked DiLeo to respond to several residents who had raised safety concerns about traffic at the Fifth Avenue entrance.

DiLeo said that city traffic engineers had evaluated a traffic impact study that was done for the previous, higher-density proposal. They found that the location of the driveway met all the necessary requirements, she said. [From the staff report: "Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is well defined and access is safe. The traffic impact study provided for a previous, more intense development on this site concluded there would be no congestion in or near the district as a result of the rezoning. The previous traffic impact study conclusions continue to be valid for the currently proposed, less intense uses."]

Bonnie Bona, chair of the commission, asked for a response to some of the residents, who during public commentary had said that a computer-generated image of the building, from the perspective of an aerial view, was misleading. They contended that it appeared to show the five-story Moravian at a height level to a three-story building across the street.

Developer Jeff Helminski explained that the three-story building at the northwest corner of Fourth and Madison – used as offices by the University of Michigan – had a higher floor-to-floor span than The Moravian. That meant that the three stories reached the same height as the fourth floor of The Moravian, he said.

Erica Briggs clarified with Helminski that the fourth-floor terraces of the proposed Moravian were open to all residences – they are, he said. She also asked for a breakdown of the number of different sized units within the building. Here’s the breakdown:

• Three-bedroom plus flex room (formerly four-bedroom) = 6
• Two-bedroom plus flex room (formerly three-bedroom) = 36
• Two-bedroom = 8
• One-bedroom = 9
• Efficiency = 3

Briggs also cautioned the city’s planning staff to avoid making its report sound like a marketing brochure for the developer. She specifically cited the tone of the report’s section on supplemental regulations.

In characterizing her response to the project, Briggs said she was impressed by the tweaks that the developer had made. The project isn’t horrendous or monstrous, she said, and it fits with the city’s efforts to increase density downtown. However, it’s significant that the entire neighborhood opposes the project, and she was especially disturbed to hear that Walt Spiller’s remarks had been misrepresented by the developer. In addition, she felt the building was out of scale with the neighborhood, and that it would attract students, not young professionals.

Kirk Westphal echoed Briggs’ concerns about the marketing language in the staff report, and asked that all references to the types of people who might be living there be eliminated from the report before it goes to council.

Westhpal also clarified that the stormwater management system would be upgraded from the existing site – DiLeo confirmed that was correct.

Aerial view of The Moravian, looking northeast. A computer-generated image of the proposed project is located in the center of this picture – the U-shaped building. The South Main Market complex is in the foreground; Perry School, now used as offices by the University of Michigan, is to the upper right. (Links to larger image.)

Bona said she had struggled with this project, wanting to be open to creative ideas while at the same time protecting neighborhoods. Complicating the decision is the fact that this site is at the boundary between two zoning districts – to the south, the Fingerle Lumber property is zoned D2, a “transition” category that still allows for greater density than the residential zoning of R4C.

It carries some weight, Bona said, that The Moravian is down the hill from the residential neighborhood. Another factor: the Fingerle property, because it’s in the floodway, won’t likely be densely developed in the future – there will probably be a lot of open space on that site, she said. It’s important to look at the entire area, not just the neighborhood to the north.

Bonnie Bona also cited several of the public benefits as weighing in the development’s favor, including the use of renewable energy, the underground parking and the LEED certification. She noted that penalties written into the PUD for not complying with LEED were significant, so the developer would be more likely to comply.

“It’s not perfect, but I think I can imagine it being a good addition to the neighborhood over time,” she concluded.

Tony Derezinski agreed. He said it was significant to him that the project had earned staff approval – he takes their recommendations seriously, he said. Though opponents had shown up to the meeting, Derezinski said there are many people cited in the report who do approve of the project. He also noted that many of the people speaking against the project don’t actually live in that neighborhood. The project provides more low-cost housing and goes a long way toward improving that area, he said, and warrants approval.

Evan Pratt thanked everyone who had participated in the discussion about the project over the months, saying that their input had made the process rigorous, resulting in more benefits for the city. He offered an apology, on behalf of the city, about any notification problems that might have occurred, and said he hoped city staff would improve on that in the future.

Jean Carlberg said the project had definitely improved, saying the design was now reminiscent of row houses. The building did not seem out of scale to her, compared to the three-story structure nearby and the taller Perry School building just up the street. She said she had checked city records and found that there were only six owner-occupied homes nearby, out of 37 properties, so it was fair to characterize the neighborhood as primarily rental already.

The additional residents in the neighborhood would benefit the city’s downtown commercial district, which would be within walking distance. She said she’d been in favor of the development before, and was even more so now.

Diane Giannola took issue with what appeared to be a pejorative view of having housing for students in that area. She said whether students or young professionals, most people in their 20s had roommates. The project was perfectly within scale for the area, she said, and she supported it.

Both Erica Briggs and Wendy Woods responded to Carlberg’s comments about rental housing, saying that it shouldn’t matter if the houses in that area were owner-occupied or rented. Some renters take better care of their houses than homeowners, Briggs said. She added that the building seemed to fit from the perspective of the south side of that area, but she didn’t think they should dismiss the neighbors who were looking at the project from the perspective of their homes to the north.

Woods thanked residents who had voiced their concerns. She said it might sound corny, but it was important to remember that both sides of the debate are just trying to make the city a better place to raise their families.

Westphal said he still had reservations about how the project comports with the central area plan. Regarding the PUD, he said he was on the fence about this project more than any others he’d encountered. He was also disappointed about the number of affordable housing units, and the fact that they were all one-bedroom and efficiency apartments. However, he said, the city staff are the experts, and their recommendation sets the bar higher for dissent.

Outcome: The commission voted to approve the PUD zoning and site plan for The Moravian, with Erica Briggs dissenting.

Erica Briggs was the only planning commissioner to vote against The Moravian. She cited concerns from the neighbors in explaining her decision.

Public Commentary: Post-Vote

Eight residents spoke during the meeting’s final public commentary time, berating commissioners for their decision and vowing to continue fighting the project. They commended Erica Briggs for her lone vote against it, one man tipping his hat to her in a dramatic flourish. Beverly Strassmann thanked Briggs for her integrity and for being the “lone, honest voice” on the commission.

With his voice raised in anger, Richard Jacobson verbally slammed commissioners, saying “you guys voted on a lie,” referring to the computer-generated rendering that showed the height of the five-story Moravian on par with the height of a neighboring three-story building. He said if the commission knowingly accepted a lie, that made them corrupt. Bonnie Bona, chair of the commission, repeatedly asked that he lower his voice – she had no gavel, but tried to restore order by tapping her nameplate on the table.

Another speaker attacked the commission’s professionalism, saying that their discussion of the building’s height centered on the computer-generated rendering, not on the actual elevation numbers. “You discussed this like children looking at a coloring book,” he said. He also criticized their discussion of hydrology, noting that the project’s storm collection system, which is designed to retain stormwater runoff for up to 24 hours, would be immaterial during a 100-year flood event. These points, among others, made it clear that commissioners had made up their minds before coming to the meeting, he said, and he hoped that they hadn’t reached their decision in a dark room with the developer.

Strassmann said that city officials couldn’t get away with this, and she urged residents to not lose hope. Because of the late notification about the public hearing, residents weren’t able to turn out in full force, she said, but anyone interested in continuing the fight should check out the Stop the Moravian website for updates. “We’ve seen bad things in Ann Arbor,” she said, “but this pretty much takes the cake.”

At the end of the commentary, Briggs said she could appreciate the fact that there was a lot of anger in the room, but that the tone of the public commentary had been disrespectful. She knew her colleagues to have integrity, she said. Her remarks prompted immediate outcry from those residents still gathered around the speakers podium, at which point Bona called for an adjournment of the meeting.

Gallup One Stop Gas Station

A far less contentious public hearing was held for a rezoning and site plan request for the Gallup One Stop gas station at 2955 Packard Road, just west of the intersection with Platt. The hearing and subsequent discussion was held prior to the public hearing and discussion on The Moravian.

Todd Quatro explains the renovation plans for the Gallup One Stop gas station on Packard. The owner, Charles Gallup, attended the meeting but did not address the commission.

Todd Quatro, who’s handling the project for the station’s owner, Charles Gallup, spoke during the public hearing in support of the request, and was on hand to answer questions from commissioners. Only one other person spoke during the hearing, wondering why the site needed to be rezoned and asking for clarification regarding setbacks and runoff into the Mallets Creek watershed.

Quatro told commissioners that the owner was trying to spruce up the station – which sells Citgo gas – in hopes of returning it to a profitable status. In response to a query from Jean Carlberg, he said that two nearby gas stations were struggling as well.

The request for rezoning from a C1 (local business district) to a C2B (business service district) is related in part to the site’s history. Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff said that as far as they could tell, there’d been a gas station at that location for 43 years, before the property was annexed into the city. It is currently non-conforming with the area’s C1 zoning, so the station can’t be expanded or altered without special permission. Quatro said they were following the city staff’s recommendations in seeking C2B rezoning.

The plan includes making a 464-square-foot addition to the existing 1,835-square-foot convenience center, creating 14 parking spaces and two bicycle parking spots, relocating the gas pumps, and installing a new canopy with recessed lighting. In addition, the project will entail landscaping – including 25 new red oak, red maple and white spruce trees – some minor regrading and a new stormwater detention system. Regarding landscaping, Erica Briggs urged Quatro to make the pedestrian experience along Packard – where bushes will be planted – as pleasant as possible.

Briggs also asked whether it would be possible to add a sidewalk from the sidewalk on Packard to the front of the convenience center. Because of the configuration of the site, the setbacks required and the location of the stormwater detention system, that would be difficult to do, Quatro said.

Charles Gallup, owner of the Gallup One Stop gas station on Packard Road, has been in the business more than 60 years.

Part of the reason for the reconfiguration is to improve the maneuverability of the large fuel trucks that pull into the station, Quatro said. They had consulted with one of the drivers about where to relocate the pumps, he said. The change also means that the pumps will be farther way from the apartment building on the east side of the site.

Many of the questions from commissioners related to the station’s impact on nearby residences. Bonnie Bona said she liked the proposed recessed lighting in the new canopy – she had stopped by the Citgo near Briarwood Mall, which has similar lighting. She described it as casting bright light in a directional way down on the pavement, but that it’s otherwise dim.

Several commissioners asked staff to add restrictions on the station’s hours of operation, which will be set at 6 a.m. until midnight. Also added to the proposal was a restriction limiting the use of exterior speakers to communication between customers at the pump and the station employees in the convenience store. This restriction was to address neighbors’ concerns over noise from the station – though several commissioners noted that they couldn’t control noise – including loud music – coming from the customers’ vehicles.

If approval is gained from council, the project will likely begin in April, Quatro said.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning, site plan and a special exemption use. The project will next be considered by city council.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Erica Briggs, Evan Pratt, Jean Carlberg, Kirk Westphal, Tony Derezinski, Wendy Woods

Absent: Eric Mahler

Next meeting: Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010, in city council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. The meeting is pushed back from its usual Tuesday date because of the Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. [confirm date]