This current house at 515 N. Fifth, just south of Beakes, will be demolished to make way for a new four-unit residential development. (Photos by the writer.)

The site plan for 515 N. Fifth calls for demolishing the current house – which has three apartments – and building a three-story structure with four two-bedroom units. Two of those units will be condos, with the other two rented out as apartments. Although the building’s design had previously received harsh criticism from Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and Ray Detter of the downtown citizens advisory council, no one spoke against the project on Jan. 3 and the commission’s discussion was brief.

Also moving forward was a site plan for Summit Townhomes, a residential project at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, between Stone School and Platt roads. That project proposes 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings. The planning commission and city council have already approved annexation of the site from Pittsfield Township, although that process still awaits authorization at the state level.

In other action, commissioners took steps on two major planning projects that have been years in the making. They recommended that the city council distribute a draft of the South State Street corridor plan to neighboring jurisdictions and other stakeholders, including the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. It’s the next step toward adopting the corridor plan’s recommendations into the city’s master plan.

Commissioners also voted to adopt a sustainability framework as an element of city’s master plan, and recommended that the city council take the same action. The sustainability framework will become the seventh element in the master plan, which is used to guide decision-making in a variety of ways. Other elements are: (1) land use; (2) downtown plan; (3) transportation plan; (4) non-motorized plan; (5) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan; and (6) natural features master plan.

Related to that effort, planning manager Wendy Rampson highlighted a series of sustainability forums hosted by the city. The first one is on Wednesday, Jan. 9 and focuses on “sustainable systems,” looking at how weather changes might impact the community and the city’s infrastructure. All forums, held monthly through April, begin at 7 p.m. at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

The hour-long Jan. 3 meeting was relatively short, but commissioners are anticipating a much longer session on Jan. 15. That’s when two major residential projects will be on the agenda: a 14-story building on the northeast corner of Huron and Division, with 216 apartments; and a 13-story addition to the Pizza House building on Church Street, with 76 apartments. Both projects, especially the controversial proposal at 413 E. Huron, are expected to draw significant public commentary.

515 N. Fifth

On the Jan. 3 agenda was a request for site plan approval and a development agreement for a residential building at 515 N. Fifth Ave., between Kingsley and Beakes on the west side of North Fifth. The project is a three-story, 8,404-square-foot building with four two-bedroom units: two condominiums and two apartments.

Aerial view showing the location of 515 N. Fifth, outlined in black.

The apartments would be on the second and third floors, while the condos would be on the first floor, with entrances from the north and south sides. Parking would be provided in an attached four-car garage in the front of the structure, though the garage openings are located on the side, near the front of the building. [.pdf of site plan] The site is zoned R4C (multi-family residential district) and the existing house on the site, with three apartments, would be demolished. It was built in 1901. Construction is estimated to cost $925,500.

The owners are requesting a variance from the city’s conflicting land-use buffer ordinance, which requires a 15-foot buffer on the west, north and south sides. The buffer requirement to the west can be met, but the owners want to put in a narrower landscape buffer on the other sides – varying from two to 12 feet on the south, with a 12-foot buffer on the north. There would be a five-foot-high screening fence along the entire perimeter of the site. Approval for this variance is needed from the city’s zoning board of appeals, which is expected to address the issue at its Jan. 23 meeting.

The project had previously been postponed at the commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 meeting, as planning staff recommended giving the owners more time to address a range of issues related to utility, landscaping and natural features analysis. At that meeting, Christine Crockett, who’s president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and Ray Detter of the downtown citizens advisory council, spoke in opposition of the project. They had cited a range of objections, including their view that the design did not fit with the neighborhood.

This time, staff had recommended approval of the project. In giving the staff report, city planner Jill Thacher provided a drawing that showed the proposed development in the context of neighboring buildings.

Drawing that shows proposed 515 N. Fifth development (center) in the context of surrounding structures. The view is facing west from North Fifth. At the far right is the building that houses Annie’s Children’s Center, at the southwest corner of Fifth and Beakes.

Thacher noted that a request for this drawing was one of the reasons that planning commissioners postponed action on Dec. 4. All other reasons for postponement had been addressed, she said, and now staff was recommending approval.

515 N. Fifth: Public Commentary

Scott Bowers, the project’s architect, addressed the commission to elaborate on the building’s context to surrounding structures. On the drawing, the darker portion is the part that comes out toward the street, he said, and it’s in size and scale with other buildings on North Fifth. In the back, “we do blossom out and make it a little larger,” Bowers said, “but that’s at the rear of the site.”

515 N. Fifth: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona noted that the project drawings make the site appear absolutely flat, when it isn’t. She wanted to highlight that issue for staff so that the development doesn’t inadvertently create a problem for the neighbors with regard to drainage.

Sabra Briere was curious about the accessibility of these dwellings. At least two of the units must be approached by one- or two-story staircases, she noted. Project architect Scott Bowers explained that for the front two apartments, you’ll need to use stairs. For the condos in the back, there’s an eight-inch rise to get into the building. Briere noted that this would make it impossible for people in a wheelchair to use. That’s true, Bowers said, unless they built a ramp.

Scott Bowers, an architect for the residential development at 515 N. Fifth, at the Ann Arbor planning commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 meeting. He also attended the Jan. 3 meeting, when the project’s site plan was approved.

Briere wondered if a condo owner were to install a ramp, would they be required to move it if they subsequently sold the unit? Probably not, Bowers said – there’s nothing written into the condo agreement that would require removal.

In response to another query from Briere, Bowers said the door frames are all 36 inches wide, and there are ground floor restrooms in both condo units – but only one of those restrooms is designed for handicap accessibility. He noted that for one of the condos, they’ve looked at the possibility of eventually adding an elevator in the space that’s now designed for closets.

Briere also said she wanted to echo comments that were made at the Dec. 4 meeting, related to the building’s design. To her, a front porch opens onto the street, not the driveway, and makes it clear where the entrances are. “I find that looking at the drawings, I have no clue where the entrance is,” she said. Briere hoped that future infill development would take into consideration “approachability from the sidewalk, which is an important part of the downtown living experience.”

Thacher noted that since this site is outside of the downtown area, there are no design guidelines or anything else that would dictate streetfront character. “If they were a few blocks farther south, that would be different,” Thacher said.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the original design didn’t have a front entrance at all. The architect took feedback very seriously, she said, and redesigned the building so that there’s a front entry and a porch-like structure in the front. But there’s no code requirement or design review in this part of the city, she added, nor is the site in an historic district. If it’s important to have porches on the fronts of buildings, “then you may want to incorporate that into code,” Rampson said.

In general, Rampson said, the planning staff has been taking recommendations from the city’s master plan and working with project applicants to see if they can fit their designs within the standards outlined in the master plan.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement for 515. N. Fifth, subject to a variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Summit Townhomes

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a site plan for Summit Townhomes, a residential project at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, between Stone School and Platt roads. Similar versions of the site plan had been previously postponed by commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012. The property is on the north side of Ellsworth, and abuts the Cloverly Village condo development, which is located to the northwest of the site. It also abuts a piece of vacant land owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

At the June meeting, commissioners had approved annexation of the 2.95-acre site from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council, but still awaits authorization at the state level. And at the commission’s Nov. 20 meeting, the zoning for the property – R3 (townhouse dwelling district) – had been recommended for approval.

Aerial photo of property for Summit Townhomes, outlined in black. The property fronts Ellsworth Road and lies southeast of the Cloverly Village condominiums. The north/south road to the left is Stone School. The north/south road to the right is Shadowwood Drive, leading into the Forest Hills Cooperative townhome development. The structure in the top center of this image is Bryant Elementary School.

The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

A public sidewalk would be installed along Ellsworth, with other sidewalks interior to the site. The city is requesting a $14,880 donation to the parks system.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that nothing has changed since the project was reviewed by commissioners in December. Staff had previously asked for postponement so that some outstanding issues could be addressed related to site stabilization and the staff’s natural features analysis.

Although some minor issues remain, in the view of the staff most of the outstanding questions had been sufficiently dealt with and staff now recommended approval of the site plan. Any of the minor outstanding issues will need to be resolved before the project is brought to city council for approval, Rampson said. Those issues include a minor landscaping change, and showing a water main connection on the site plan to the north, so that if property to the north is developed, there’s the ability to link into the city’s system.

Another remaining issue is the need for approval from the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, which is pending.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this project.

Summit Townhomes: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona noted that when this project had been considered previously by the planning commission, commissioner Ken Clein had mentioned the height of the retaining walls to the east. Sometimes during building permit review, it can be missed that a handrail is required, she said. However, if landscaping is used appropriately, “you can get away without that,” she said. It’s a safety issue that either a handrail or landscaping be put on the wall so that someone doesn’t fall over the edge – she said landscaping would be a more attractive option. Bona said she just wanted to highlight that for staff. [Clein did not attend the Jan. 3 meeting.]

Tony Derezinski clarified with Rampson that the site plan would not be brought to the city council until all outstanding issues are dealt with.

Sabra Briere wondered how the children of families living in this development would get to the nearby Bryant Elementary School – as it wasn’t clear by looking at the maps, she said.

Rampson replied that there’s a portion of the site that butts up against the vacant land owned by AAPS to the north. But the slopes on the site leading up to that vacant land “are pretty substantial,” she added, “and there really isn’t an opportunity to have a nice, flat connection.” She said it’s not clear what the AAPS intends to do with its property, which has no street access and is still part of Pittsfield Township.

Briere pointed out that there’s no sidewalk on Ellsworth, so the question remained: How would children walk to Bryant? When Rampson noted that a sidewalk will be built as part of this development, Briere replied that there’s no sidewalk on Stone School Road, either. Rampson indicated that there were sidewalks in the Cloverly Village development as well as an asphalt path running next to Kingdom Hall Of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which would provide pedestrian access along Stone School Road. Briere asked if those sidewalks were maintained: Were they cleared in the winter? Rampson said that like any other sidewalk, clearing snow is the responsibility of the adjoining property owner.

Rampson noted that Briere’s point is well-taken – that it would be closer to walk through the vacant property to the north. There is a longer way for pedestrians to walk to the school, but Rampson didn’t know whether it would be possible to put in a connection to the vacant property.

Leonard Michaels of CIW Engineering – the project’s site engineers – came to the podium and reported that concerns were expressed on this issue during two citizens participation meetings that had been held for the project. Because of that, the project will provide a sidewalk and perhaps steps to mitigate the steep slope up to the vacant AAPS property. He hoped to get in contact with someone at AAPS so that the exact placement of the connection could be coordinated. When construction documents are drawn up, that connection will be clearly shown, he said.

Outcome: The site plan for Summit Townhomes was unanimously recommended for approval.

South State Corridor Plan

Moving ahead on a project that’s been long in the works, planning commissioners were asked to recommend that the city council distribute a draft of the South State Street corridor plan to neighboring jurisdictions and other stakeholders, including the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. It’s the next step toward adopting the corridor plan’s recommendations into the city’s master plan. [.pdf of draft South State corridor plan]

The plan includes more than 40 overall recommendations for the corridor, which stretches about 2 miles between Stimson Street at the north end down to Ellsworth in the south. Recommendations are organized into categories of the city’s sustainability framework: Land use and access, community, climate and energy, and resource management.

Among the recommendations are: (1) Evaluate use of vacant parcels for alternative energy generation; (2) Evaluate integration of public art along the corridor; (3) Evaluate use of open land for community gardens; (4) Assess and improve high crash areas along the corridor; (5) create boulevard on State Street between Eisenhower and I‐94 to enable safer automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; (6) Consider utilizing vacant parcels for athletic fields and recreation facilities; (7) Develop a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Ann Arbor railroad that will connect the planned Allen Creek bikeway to Pittsfield Township through the corridor; and (8) Resurface roads in the corridor.

Each recommendation includes several related action items. The report also provides a section that organizes the recommendations into each of three distinct sections of the corridor: (1) from Stimson on the north to Eisenhower Parkway; (2) from Eisenhower south to the I-94 interchange; and (3) from I-94 to Ellsworth. In addition, there are nine site-specific recommendations for areas including Briarwood Mall, the complex of hotels near Victors Way and Broadway, and the research park development near the corridor’s south end.

The city planning commission and staff have been discussing this project for several years, but have accelerated work on it within the past 12-18 months. See Chronicle coverage: “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look,” “Sustainability Goals Shape Corridor Study,” and “Ideas Floated for South State Corridor.”

In giving a staff report on the item on Jan. 3, planning manager Wendy Rampson said that the staff felt “it’s time to get it out there in the community and have them react to it.” Commissioners might want to make changes before approving it, she said, but the staff felt it was time to distribute the plan to get the state-mandated feedback from adjoining jurisdictions and others in the community.

Entities that will be receiving the plan include the planning commissions for Ann Arbor Township, Pittsfield Township, Scio Township, and Lodi Township; the Barton Hills Village long-range planning committee; the Washtenaw County board of commissioners; the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments; DTE Energy Services; Norfolk-Southern Railroad; Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; University of Michigan; and the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education.

After the city council authorizes the plan’s distribution, there’s a 42-day window for providing feedback. So comments likely would be due back to the city in mid-March, Rampson said. Meanwhile, she added, the commission’s master plan revisions committee can meet to review the document further.

There was no public hearing on this item.

South State Corridor Plan: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona wondered whether the Ann Arbor Railroad should be included as an organization from which to solicit feedback, given the significance of the railroad through that area. Rampson said the Ann Arbor Railroad should be on the list – the city is mandated by state law to notify the railroads about the plan. Rampson also noted that the ownership of the railroad is changing – Bona suggested contacting the new owners as well “because it may not get shared.”

Tony Derezinski congratulated the staff on a great report, saying he remembered when the commission talked about making the city’s corridors a priority about three years ago. They started with Washtenaw Avenue and now have South State as well, he noted. Even though the city didn’t get outside funding for the South State study, he said, the staff took it on themselves and did a great job. In both Reimagining Washtenaw and this South State project, the communication between different jurisdictions has been critical, he said. It’s been a very collaborative approach.

Diane Giannola had a question about the site-specific recommendations. For site 1-C – a 9-acre area of six parcels on the east side of South State Street south of Stimson, including four that are still part of Pittsfield Township – she wondered why the commission had decided to recommend M1 and M1-A (limited industrial) zoning. Rampson replied that because this was an historic use in the corridor, there was a sense that it was appropriate to keep a section of the corridor that would allow for those types of uses. She noted that “there was not unanimity of opinion on that among commissioners.”

Sabra Briere asked for a review of the rezonings that weren’t approved in the past year or so – those that were put off until the South State corridor study was completed. “I think we’ll see those again, and I want to understand it thoroughly before we confront requests for rezoning,” she said.

Rampson clarified that there had been three such requests. One had been postponed by the planning commission, awaiting additional information. [That was the 2.24-acre site at 2271 S. State St., on the east side of South State, across the street from a University of Michigan tennis facility. The owner, Capital Investment Co., requested rezoning from M1 (limited industrial) to M1A (limited light industrial) so that an auto dealership could be located there. Commissioners postponed action at their Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.]

Two other rezoning requests had been denied by city council within the past 18 months. Those included property at (1) 1643 and 1645 S. State St., south of Stimson and next to the Produce Station, where Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky, an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer are located; and (2) 1712 S. State – the former site for Treecity Health Collective, a medical marijuana dispensary.

Rampson clarified that at this point, the city council will just be asked to authorize the distribution of the corridor plan, not for approval of it. “We’re a ways away from actually having it come up for adoption,” she said.

Rampson also praised the efforts of Kristin Baja on this project, saying that Baja did the lion’s share of the work. Baja left the city last October to take a job at the city of Baltimore’s office of sustainability. “The credit goes to her on this,” Rampson said.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended that the city council distribute a draft of the South State Street corridor plan to neighboring jurisdictions and other stakeholders.

Sustainability Goals in Master Plan

A set of sustainability goals for the city has been in the works for nearly two years. In June of 2012, the planning commission had recommended approval of the 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. In September, commissioners voted to disseminate the framework to neighboring jurisdictions, which was a necessary step on the path toward including it in the city’s master plan.

At their Jan. 3 meeting, planning commissioners were asked to take the next step – adopting the sustainability framework as an element of city’s master plan. [.pdf of pre-amended sustainability document]

The item had been on the commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 agenda. Action was postponed at that time after some commissioners raised concerns regarding a goal for high-performance buildings.

The concerns related to a change that staff had made, based on feedback during the past few months. In the section on climate and energy goals, a phrase was added to a goal regarding high-performance buildings (added text in italics): “Increase efficiency in new and existing buildings within our community while preserving the architectural integrity of existing buildings.” According to staff, the change was made in response to concerns from some residents about the need to safeguard the historic integrity in older structures during sustainability retrofits.

During the Dec. 4 meeting there had been considerable discussion among commissioners about the appropriateness of inserting that new phrase. Commissioner Ken Clein – an architect with Quinn Evans – also noted that the phrase “high-performance” has a specific meaning among building professionals, which might not be completely consistent with what the city intends. Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that there was no urgency to adopt the framework at that meeting, and suggested that the staff could work on revising the language based on commissioners’ input and bring it back at a later date.

On Jan. 3, city planner Jill Thacher reported that she, Rampson and Clein had subsequently met to hash out some alternative language. The language suggested for the goal was this: “Sustainable Buildings – Reduce new and existing buildings’ energy use, carbon impact and construction waste, while respecting community context.”

The revised language was crafted so that it “would not infer compliance with a specific set of industry standards,” according to a staff memo.

Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,“ and “Final Forum: What Sustains Community?”

The sustainability framework will become the seventh element of the city’s master plan. Other elements are: (1) land use; (2) downtown plan; (3) transportation plan; (4) non-motorized plan; (5) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan; and (6) natural features master plan.

No one spoke during a public hearing on the item.

Sustainability Goals in Master Plan: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona said the revised language that was proposed was a great improvement. She appreciated wrapping energy conservation and community context into the same goal. She supported the revised language.

Kirk Westphal agreed that the new language was an improvement, and he thanked staff for working on the change – especially during the holidays.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to adopt the sustainability framework as an element of city’s master plan. In a separate vote, they recommended that the Ann Arbor city council also adopt the framework.

Sustainability: Upcoming Forums

During her planning manager’s report, Wendy Rampson highlighted a series of city-sponsored sustainability forums that will kick off on Wednesday, Jan. 9. That first panel discussion will focus on “sustainable systems,” looking at how weather changes might impact the community and the city’s infrastructure. Panelists include Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator; Dan Brown of the University of Michigan’s Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments; Jen Lawson, the city’s water quality manager; Cresson Slotten, manager of the city’s systems planning unit; Rick Norman, the city’s director of emergency management; and Jason Frenzel, Huron River Watershed Council’s adopt-a-stream and stewardship coordinator.

The Jan. 9 forum will be held at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location at 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m. Other upcoming forums are on Feb. 13 (economic vitality); March 21 (diverse housing); and April 18 (transportation options). More information – including links to last year’s sustainability forums – is available on the city’s sustainability forum website.

Communications & Commentary

During each meeting there are several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as public commentary. On Jan. 3, no one spoke during the two opportunities for public commentary.

Communications & Commentary: North Main Huron River Task Force

Bonnie Bona gave an update on the North Main Huron River Vision task force, which had met on Jan. 2. She reported that the group has divided into four subcommittees focused on (1) pedestrian and bike connections from Main Street to the Huron River, as well as access to pedestrian/bicycle right-of-way; (2) the intersections of Main & Depot and Main & Summit; (3) riverside amenities, including railroad crossings; and (4) the MichCon site off of Broadway.

Bona, who is the planning commission’s representative on the task force, noted that there’s obviously overlap on these topics, but all subcommittees will be reporting on their work at the main task force meetings. Information on all these meetings, which are open to the public, will be posted online, she said. The next task force meeting is on Jan. 23. The meetings typically are held from 5-7 p.m. at city hall in the basement conference room, 301 E. Huron.

Communications & Commentary: Farewell to Terri Blackmore

Tony Derezinski highlighted the recent departure of Terri Blackmore, who has served in local transportation planning for more than 30 years – most recently as executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS). She’s leaving to take a job as executive director of the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Derezinski said he wanted to give her a personal salute “for someone who has done well for the community and who was courageously upfront on an issue that was probably one of the hot issues of the time right now.” Blackmore had been an advocate for the countywide transit authority that ultimately did not gain support among a majority of local government leaders.

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

Absent: Ken Clein, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Similar versions of the site plan had been previously postponed by commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012.

At the June meeting, commissioners had approved annexation of the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council, but still awaits authorization at the state level. And at the commission’s Nov. 20 meeting, the zoning for the property – R3 (townhouse dwelling district) – had been recommended for approval.

The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

A public sidewalk would be installed along Ellsworth, with other sidewalks interior to the site. The city is planning to request a $14,880 donation to the parks system.

According to planning staff, the developer addressed the outstanding issues related to site stabilization and the staff’s natural features analysis. Staff had recommended approval of the site plan.

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

Former Ann Arbor planning commissioner Evan Pratt hugs Wendy Woods, the commission’s vice chair, after receiving recognition for his service at the group’s Nov. 20 meeting. On Nov. 6, Pratt was elected Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and resigned from the city’s planning commission because of obligations for his new job. (Photos by the writer.)

The climate action plan includes about 80 recommended actions to help achieve those goals, ranging from possible changes in city code to actions that individuals or organizations can take voluntarily, like weatherizing buildings. [.pdf list of recommendations]

In his presentation of the plan, Nate Geisler of the city’s energy office told commissioners that the plan doesn’t tie the city to making firm commitments about these actions, but “it sets us on the path to doing this.” He indicated an urgency in taking action, highlighting the negative impact of global warming and the risks associated with doing nothing. The plan – which is coordinated with the city’s sustainability framework and with a similar effort by the University of Michigan – has already been recommended by the city’s energy and environmental commissions, and will be forwarded to the city council for its consideration.

Bonnie Bona, a planning commissioner who served on the task force that developed this plan, praised Geisler and Wayne Appleyard, chair of the city’s energy commission, for their role in leading the initiative. She offered the planning commission’s help in implementing the recommended actions. More information about the overall effort is online at a2energy.org/climate.

Also on the Nov. 20 agenda was a site plan and zoning request for a residential project at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road – called the Summit Townhomes. A similar version of the project had been previously postponed by commissioners in June of 2012. The current plan calls for building 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

On Nov. 20, the commission recommended approval of zoning the property R3 (townhouse dwelling district). That zoning proposal will be forwarded to the city council. But because of outstanding issues – including questions related to regrading the site’s steep slope – commissioners followed planning staff’s advice and voted to postpone a recommendation on the site plan.

In other action, the commission granted a special exception use that will allow the Memorial Christian Church to use a building at 1900 Manchester Road, off of Washtenaw Avenue. The building has been owned by and used as the Ann Arbor regional headquarters for the Girl Scouts Council. And six parcels in the northeast Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood – on Geddes, Seneca and Onondaga – were recommended for rezoning from R1B to R1C. Both are types of single-family dwelling districts. The rezoning would allow some of the larger lots to be divided.

During the Nov. 20 meeting, commissioner Eric Mahler gave a brief update from the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC), which is reviewing recommendations on changes to the city’s R4C/R2A zoning district, including a report from a study advisory committee. He said ORC is still working on the project and hopes to have a report ready for city council in the spring of 2013. [For an overview of the R4C/R2A initiative, see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Group Weighs R4C/R2A Report."]

The meeting included a formal commendation for former planning commissioner Evan Pratt, who recently stepped down from the group after winning election on Nov. 6 as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. Pratt had served on the planning commission since 2004, and had been its most senior current member.

Climate Action Plan

A draft climate action plan for the city of Ann Arbor, two years in the making, was presented to the Ann Arbor planning commission for their recommendation. [.pdf of executive summary] Nate Geisler of the city’s energy office, who had given commissioners a briefing on the plan at their Nov. 13 working session, again made a presentation at the Nov. 20 meeting.

He gave an overview of the plan’s premise – that climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, with a detrimental impact on the environment in a variety of ways. He noted that this year, several records have been broken globally for high temperatures, and Hurricane Sandy has raised the issue more recently. “These are changes that scientists across the globe are seeing,” he said, “and that we hope to have a response to in the form of our own climate action plan.”

Geisler reported that in the absence of a federal plan, local communities have been developing their own plans. The city of Ypsilanti, for example, adopted a climate action plan in July of 2012. Although Ann Arbor took its first greenhouse gas emissions inventory in 2003, the city until now hasn’t had a climate action plan.

The executive summary describes the plan’s purpose this way:

This Climate Action Plan is community focused, meaning it is not limited to addressing municipal government emissions, which in Ann Arbor make up less than two percent of the entire community’s emissions inventory. The actions found in the Plan may not all be feasible immediately; some may never be possible. There also may be emerging or unexplored ideas not discussed in these pages that will be identified in the future. As with any large-scale project or endeavor, actions that the municipality ultimately implements that require upfront investments will be brought before decision makers for consideration.

Underlying this Plan is the belief that the consequences to society and natural systems from continued inaction far outweigh the costs and challenges associated with the implementation of the proposed actions.

The plan states that in 2010, total greenhouse gas emissions in Ann Arbor – including the University of Michigan – totaled over 2.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), compared to 2.19 million metric tons in 2000. By category, those emissions in 2010 came from UM (30%); the commercial/industrial sector (25%); the residential sector (22%); transportation (22%); and waste (less than 1%). The category of waste includes solid waste collection and future emissions from landfilling, annual methane from the closed Ann Arbor landfill, and annual emissions from wastewater treatment.

The plan’s goals include a 25% reduction in community greenhouse emissions (over the year 2000 baseline levels) by 2025. This is the same goal set by the University of Michigan. In the shorter term, the goal is a reduction of 8% in emissions by 2015 – that’s an existing “energy challenge” goal set by city council set in 2005. Long-term, a 90% reduction is sought by 2050.

Nate Geisler, energy programs associate for the city of Ann Arbor, at the Nov. 13 working session for the Ann Arbor planning commission.

The plan provides a range of strategies for achieving these goals, divided into four categories, which align with the city’s recently adopted sustainability framework: (1) energy and buildings; (2) land use and access; (3) resource management; and (4) community and health. Examples of about 80 recommended actions include weatherizing existing housing stock, maximizing the purchase of renewable energy, providing incentives for the use of public transit, adopting a water conservation ordinance, and starting a community “net-zero” home-building/renovation contest. [.pdf list of actions]

The plan doesn’t tie the city to making firm commitments about these actions, Geisler said, but “it sets us on the path to doing this.”

He noted that to reach the ambitious mid-century targets, a major shift has to happen to move away from fossil fuels as energy sources. In Michigan, with voters not approving Proposal 3 on the Nov. 6 ballot, the mandate remains for utility companies to generate just 10% of their power from renewable sources by 2015, he said. [Proposal 3 would have mandated 25% renewable energy by 2025.]

Development of the plan was funded by a two-year $50,000 pollution prevention grant that the city received in 2010 from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. The effort has been spearheaded by the city’s energy commission, which formed a task force to work on the project. Members included planning commissioner Bonnie Bona, who has given periodic updates to the planning commission. She is a project manager for the Clean Energy Coalition, an Ann Arbor-based nonprofit.

Both the energy and environmental commissions recommended approval of the plan at their October 2012 meetings. Geisler pointed to the website a2energy.org/climate for more information.

No one spoke at the public hearing for the plan.

Climate Action Plan: Commission Discussion

There was little discussion about the plan among commissioners. Bonnie Bona thanked Nate Geisler and Wayne Appleyard, chair of the city’s energy commission. [Appleyard attended the Nov. 20 meeting but did not formally address the planning commission.] She described the task force as a well-informed group, and she urged commissioners to read every word in the report. Bona also wanted to support the energy commission as it moves the plan forward, and asked that the planning commission be informed if there’s any help they can provide.

Ken Clein said he was also supportive of the plan, and asked a question about the measurement of CO2 emissions. Geisler said that in a micro-climate sense, the city can’t easily measure what its parts-per-million CO2 emissions might be. So estimates were made based on emissions that would be generated from certain actions, he said, and the cumulative impact was calculated. He said the city’s plan talks about the need, in a global sense, to be close to 350 parts-per-million, but the plan isn’t specific about how Ann Arbor can contribute to that goal.

Tony Derezinski praised the plan’s goals. But he noted that it focuses only on lowering CO2 emissions. For that, using wind, solar and other renewable energy only allows you to reach a certain level. “Does this really push you toward nuclear energy as the source?” he asked, noting that nuclear energy generates very little CO2 emissions.

Precinct-by-precinct results of Prop 3 voting in the city of Ann Arbor. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf)

Geisler estimated that the current DTE grid generated about 20% of its power using nuclear energy. The climate action plan doesn’t advocate for a particular type of energy, he said, though there’s an emphasis to increase the use of renewable energy. He indicated that the city doesn’t have the ability to take action on the level of generating power. However, he pointed to the city council’s advocacy role earlier this year – in unanimously passing a resolution in support of Proposal 3. The statewide ballot initiative was defeated on Nov. 6, but Geisler noted that it passed in Ann Arbor, with strong support in Washtenaw County as well.

It’s hard to know how things will change in the coming years, Geisler said, and how those changes will influence the ways that energy is generated. But it’s important not to wait, he added, and that’s why there’s urgency in taking the kinds of actions that are outlined in the climate action plan.

Outcome: Planning commissioners voted unanimously to recommend adopting the climate action plan. The recommendations from the planning, energy and environmental commissions will be forwarded to the city council for consideration, likely at its Dec. 17 meeting.

Summit Townhomes

The site plan and zoning for a residential project at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road – called the Summit Townhomes – was on the commission’s Nov. 20 agenda. The request included zoning the property R3 (townhouse dwelling district). A similar version of the project had been previously postponed by commissioners in June of 2012.

Aerial photo of property for Summit Townhomes, outlined in black. The property fronts Ellsworth Road and lies southeast of the Cloverly Village condominiums. The north/south road to the left is Stone School. The north/south road to the right is Shadowwood Drive, leading into the Forest Hills Cooperative townhome development. The structure in the top center of this image is Bryant Elementary School.

At the June meeting, commissioners had approved annexation of the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council and is awaiting state approval.

The developer, Shawn Barrow of Orlando, Fla., had withdrawn his original proposal and in August submitted a new one, which was considered by planning commissioners on Nov. 20. Instead of an area plan, the current proposal is a site plan. The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

A public sidewalk would be installed along Ellsworth, with other sidewalks interior to the site. The city is planning to request a $14,880 donation to the parks system.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponing action. The development calls for extensive grading on the site, which includes steep slopes. Staff had expressed some concerns about that approach, which would require large amounts of soil to be removed from the site. According to a staff report, a postponement was requested so that the developer can address staff comments, and provide additional information about stabilization of the site and a natural features analysis. During his presentation to the commission on Nov. 20, city planner Matt Kowalski said that revised plans have been submitted, but the planning staff haven’t yet had the time to review them.

Summit Townhomes: Public Hearing

Snehal Shah told commissioners that he lived in the adjacent Cloverly Village, in a condominium that overlooks the proposed Summit Townhomes development. He was concerned about removal of 12 landmark trees, and wanted more information about that. Shah said his home overlooked the site, and he was concerned that the proposed townhomes would spoil the view and lower property values. He also asked about the elevation of the townhomes, and whether they would overwhelm the Cloverly Village condos.

Leonard Michaels of CIW Engineering in Rossford, Ohio introduced himself as the consulting engineer for this project. He noted that the project started in January of 2011 and that it’s been a “very arduous” process. There’s no question that it’s a challenging site, he said. Five different layout options had been submitted to the city, Michaels said. Under R3 zoning, it would be possible to build up to 29 units, he noted, but the proposed site plan has only 24 units – to make the layout easier. He said the project team could address the issues raised by the planning staff, but they were hoping for at least tentative approval that night because certain financing hinges on the project’s timing. He said he’d be happy to answer any questions.

Summit Townhomes: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by asking Matt Kowalski to address the question about landmark trees that had been raised during public commentary. Kowalski said he didn’t recall the exact species of the trees, but he pointed out where they were located on a schematic of the site, and said they would be replaced by a mix of deciduous and conifer trees around the perimeter of the site. [.pdf of landscaping plan]

In response to additional questions from Bona, Leonard Michaels – the project’s engineer – returned to the podium. He reported that the plan is to create a solid line of trees around the site’s periphery, which would fill in over time. On the east side there’s also a fairly large retaining wall, he noted.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Ken Clein.

From the audience, Snehal Shah of Cloverly Village shouted out that he had additional concerns about traffic onto Ellsworth, that he’d forgotten to raise during public commentary. Michaels told commissioners that one of the plans submitted to the city had included two driveways into the site off of Ellsworth, but the city’s traffic engineer had decided that only one driveway was necessary. The traffic impact of the project is so low that the city didn’t require a traffic study, Michaels said. He agreed that overall, traffic on Ellsworth is congested, but noted that the city’s traffic engineer didn’t feel the impact of the Summit Townhomes would be significant.

Michaels also noted that he was hoping to coordinate with the Ann Arbor Public Schools. The Summit Townhomes site is adjacent to land owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools, leading to Bryant Elementary School. Planning staff have suggested that the developer include pedestrian access for future connection with the school. Regarding the parks contribution, Michaels said that a contribution would be preferable to incorporating a recreation area onto the site.

Bona said she hoped the parks contribution would be made. When the commission previously considered this project in June, they’d heard from neighbors that there weren’t adequate parks and recreation areas in that part of the city, she noted. She asked planning staff to make sure that the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan addressed this issue.

Kowalski said parks planner Amy Kuras had been working with the developer about the parks contribution. Kowalski also had talked to Kuras about allocating the project’s parks contribution to the nearby Arbor Oaks park. The parks staff isn’t too concerned about the availability of parks and recreation options in that area, Kowalski said. Staff believes the amount of parkland is adequate. He also pointed out that the pedestrian connection to AAPS property is a request from the city, not a requirement.

Commissioners asked questions about the proposed retaining wall, stormwater runoff, site lighting, and issues related to the sloping of the site. Wendy Woods asked Michaels if he had any drawings to show the elevation of the retaining wall or the type of materials that would be used. Otherwise, she said, it would be hard for her to imagine what it would look like. Michaels replied that more detailed design would be based on estimated cost and available financing, which hadn’t been finalized.

In response to a query by Tony Derezinski, Kowalski said that planning staff still recommended a postponement. Although the developer had submitted responses to issues that had been raised by the city staff, Kowalski said he hadn’t yet had time to review those responses.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, observed that Michaels had suggested separating the zoning from the site plan, and she noted that the commission could choose to vote on those recommendations separately. The planning staff felt that the R3 zoning was appropriate. Rampson reported that because the zoning request would need to go through both a first and second reading at separate city council meetings, the process for zoning takes longer than for site plan approval.

Commissioners agreed to vote on the two recommendations separately.

Outcome: The commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of zoning the property R3 (townhouse dwelling district). That zoning recommendation will be forwarded to the city council. On a separate vote, commissioners unanimously voted to postpone action on the site plan approval.

Memorial Christian Church

A special exception use was being requested to allow the Memorial Christian Church to use a building at 1900 Manchester Road, off Washtenaw Avenue. It has been owned by and used as the Ann Arbor regional headquarters for the Girl Scouts Council. The church was previously located at 730 Tappan – the corner of Tappan and Hill – in a building that was purchased by the Michigan Alpha Chapter of Sigma Phi Epsilon earlier this year.

The request would allow the church to convert a 8,104-square-foot two-story office building to a church use for seating up to 111 people. This use is permitted under Chapter 55 (zoning) of the city code. No exterior changes are planned. The church hours are Sundays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Wednesday evenings from 7-9 p.m., and occasionally at other times during the week. There’s a 37-space parking lot on the site, with overflow parking on Manchester.

Memorial Christian Church: Public Hearing

The church’s pastor, Bob Brite, spoke to commissioners during a public hearing on the request, reporting that the church currently has 30-40 members. They are looking for a location where there’s room for growth, and this site will meet a lot of their needs.

Dan Mooney introduced himself as an architect representing BASEstudios in Ann Arbor. He said he was on hand to answer any questions that commissioners had about the project.

Memorial Christian Church: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked how the occupancy number of 111 had been set. Jeff Kahan replied that the site has 37 spaces, and the city requires one parking spot for every three people. The math is a straightforward calculation, working out to 111.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Bona told the pastor, Bob Brite, that she hoped the church could attract as many parishioners as the building’s capacity would hold. It’s a two-story building, and she wondered how the seating would work. Brite replied that the sanctuary will be on the second floor, which would hold up to 88 seats. They’re also planning to put a fellowship hall on that floor. The church hopes to lease space on the first floor to nonprofit tenants. He joked that unless someone famous joins their congregation, it will likely be a while before their group reaches the maximum 111. When they reach 88 parishioners, they’ll likely split into two services, he said. He invited commissioners to Sunday service.

Eric Mahler raised some concerns about traffic turning left onto Washtenaw Avenue, but Kahan clarified that there is no direct exit from the site onto Washtenaw. The parking lot exits onto Manchester, and there’s a signal at the intersection of Manchester and Washtenaw.

Wendy Woods said that as a former board member for the Girl Scouts and as someone whose daughters were Girl Scouts, she was glad to see the building used in this way.

Tony Derezinski noted that the neighborhood is accustomed to parking on the streets for church services. St. Francis of Assisi is located nearby on East Stadium Boulevard, he said. The Ann Arbor Assembly of God is even closer, at the split of Washtenaw and Stadium. Derezinski reported that he had voted there on Nov. 6 – it’s the polling station for his Ward 2 precinct.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to grant the special exception use. No action is required by city council.

Rezoning in Arbor Hills

A rezoning request for six parcels in the northeast Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood was on the Nov. 20 agenda. The sites would be rezoned from R1B to R1C. Both are types of single-family dwelling districts. The locations are 2014 Geddes Ave.; 2024 Geddes Ave.; 520 Onondaga St.; 2025 Seneca Ave.; 2023 Seneca Ave.; and 2019 Seneca Ave. [.jpg aerial view of parcels] These are six parcels in a block of 10 sites – the other four sites are already zoned R1C.

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

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

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Rezoning in Arbor Hills: Commission Discussion

There was no substantive discussion, but Tony Derezinski noted that one of the property owners – Clan Crawford – had a statewide reputation in the past and was known as “Mr. Zoning & Planning.” Crawford had authored several books on municipal zoning and planning practices in Michigan, and Derezinski said he would call up Crawford for advice when Derezinski was doing work in that field. Derezinski reported that Crawford was supportive of the proposed rezoning.

Outcome: The rezoning was unanimously recommended for approval, and will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Farewell to Evan Pratt

Evan Pratt, who had served on the Ann Arbor planning commission since 2004, was elected as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in the Nov. 6 general election. That new job requires that Pratt attend Tuesday evening meetings of the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission, precluding membership on the planning commission, which also meets on Tuesdays.

Evan Pratt, former Ann Arbor planning commissioner who was elected on Nov. 6 as the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

Pratt attended the Nov. 20 meeting to receive a certificate of appreciation from his former colleagues. Commissioners around the table praised his work and congratulated him on his new endeavor. Eleanore Adenekan said that as a relatively new commissioner, she had learned a lot from Pratt and she’s sorry to see him go. Tony Derezinski said he’d remember fondly the discussions they’ve had and work they’ve done – “sometimes tough, sometimes controversial, but always with friendship.” He invited Pratt to join commissioners after their meetings every once in a while “to give us your words of wisdom.” [Some commissioners go out together socially after meetings, typically to The Blue Tractor.]

Eric Mahler joked that they’d know if Pratt was doing his job because they’d see reports from the water resources commissioner’s office for projects that they’d be reviewing at the planning commission. Mahler recalled that when he joined the commission, Pratt was serving as chair. “You set a very high bar for all the future chairs to come.” He said the business of the commission could not have been done without Pratt.

Bonnie Bona began by saying “I can’t believe it – I’m now the senior planning commissioner because you left.” She said she’d miss not just his engineering perspective, but also “your layperson’s way of explaining all of that.” It was very helpful, and she thought it would be a huge asset in the water resources office too.

Diane Giannola and Ken Clein echoed the sentiments of other commissioners, and wished Pratt luck.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, also thanked Pratt and said she appreciated his insights. He brought a great blend of his professional expertise and his layperson’s perspective to planning issues, she said. She hoped he would return with some Pecha Kucha presentations in the future, to provide some entertainment for the commission. [Pratt had given this kind of presentation to commissioners at one of their meetings two years ago, on the topic of roundabouts.]

Wendy Woods, the commission’s vice chair who was leading the meeting in the absence of chair Kirk Westphal, read aloud the certificate of appreciation and concluded by giving him a hug. Pratt said it had been great working as part of the team and with the planning staff. He thanked members of the public who attended meetings too, saying he appreciated everyone’s input. Commissioners and staff gave Pratt a round of applause.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Ken Clein, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, and Wendy Woods.

Absent: Kirk Westphal.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

However, on Nov. 20 the commission did recommend approval of zoning the property R3 (townhouse dwelling district). That zoning proposal will be forwarded to city council.

At the June meeting, commissioners had approved annexation of the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council and is awaiting state approval.

The developer, Shawn Barrow of Orlando, Fla., had withdrawn his original proposal and in August submitted a new one, which was considered by planning commissioners on Nov. 20. Instead of an area plan, the current proposal is a site plan. The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

A public sidewalk would be installed along Ellsworth, with other sidewalks interior to the site. The city is planning to request a $14,880 donation to the parks system.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponing action. The development calls for extensive grading on the site, which includes steep slopes. Staff had expressed some concerns about that approach, which would require large amounts of soil to be removed from the site. According to a staff report, a postponement was requested so that the developer can address staff comments, and provide additional information required to stabilize the site and a natural features analysis. During his presentation to the commission on Nov. 20, city planner Matt Kowalski said that revised plans have been submitted, but the planning staff haven’t yet had the time to review them.

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

Kirk Westphal oversees a vote at the July 17, 2012 Ann Arbor planning commission meeting. He was elected chair at the start of the meeting. In the foreground is commissioner Eleanore Adenekan. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners reviewed a site plan for the new Blake Transit Center (BTC), the main downtown hub for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. A new two-story transit center will be constructed on the same parcel as the existing center, midblock between Fourth and Fifth avenues, north of William and south of the federal building. But the new building will be located on the east side of that site – near Fifth Avenue, opposite its current location – and the direction of the current bus lane will be reversed. Buses will enter Fourth Avenue into an eastbound lane that exits onto Fifth.

Commissioners voiced a variety of concerns and feedback, centered on improving the pedestrian experience and the appearance of the building and landscaping. They elicited the fact that although zoning would allow for a structure up to 180 feet tall – about 16 stories – the foundation for the new BTC is planned to accommodate only four stories, with a two-story structure to be built initially.

Kirk Westphal said he’d been a bit surprised by news that the AATA is interested in buying the adjacent Fifth & William lot from the city. That possibility was mentioned as part of a design review committee report. He urged AATA’s CEO, Michael Ford, to talk with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about the AATA’s plans for Fifth & William, and to see if the DDA might be interested in collaborating to increase the footings and allow for a taller structure in the future. He noted that the DDA’s Connecting William Street effort, focused on plans to possibly develop certain city-owned sites, includes the Fifth & William lot.

As a public entity, the AATA does not have to follow the process for site plan approval that is required of private-sector property owners. The process is being conducted for review and input only. However, the planning commission did take a vote, unanimously affirming that the project does meet city requirements for private development, except for interior landscaping and driveway width. It will next be reviewed by the city council.

Another project that drew discussion is a private development proposed by Tom Fitzsimmons, for a three-story townhouse with five housing units at 922-926 Catherine St. During public commentary, several neighbors – including residents of the adjacent Catherine Commons condominiums – spoke in support of the project. However, some of them raised concerns about backups in the stormwater system, which is already a problem along Catherine Street. Staff indicated that those issues are likely tied to design flaws on the site of Catherine Commons. Members of the development team for the new project told commissioners that an underground stormwater detention system on their site could improve the situation along the street, and at the least would not make it worse.

Also at the July 17 meeting, three projects that had previously been considered by commissioners were back for various reasons. A site plan for a Speedway gas station at the northeast corner of North Maple and Miller had been postponed at the commission’s June 5 meeting, but was approved on July 17. Also approved by commissioners was a revised site plan for 2161 W. Stadium Blvd., where a Noodles & Co. restaurant is planned. Commissioners had signed off on the original project at their March 6, 2012 meeting – the revision involves shifting the building’s location 21 feet to the north. The former Sze-Chuan West restaurant there has already been demolished.

And parking for the Chalmers Place retail center on Washtenaw Avenue emerged again at the July 17 meeting. Commissioners approved a plan to increase the number of parking spaces on the center’s site from 88 to 112. A different parking plan had been rejected by the planning commission on May 1, after several neighbors spoke against it. There was no opposition to the new proposal.

Blake Transit Center

Planning commissioners were asked to review the plan for a new Blake Transit Center (BTC), the main downtown hub for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The new transit center will be constructed on the same site as the existing center, midblock between Fourth and Fifth avenues, north of William and south of the federal building. However, the new center will be built on the opposite side of that site.

Aerial view of the Blake Transit Center site plan.

Currently a one-story building, built in 1987, is located on the northwest corner of the site, near Fourth Avenue. Buses enter the facility from Fifth Avenue into a one-way, westbound lane that exits onto Fourth. The project entails demolishing the existing building and constructing a new two-story 12,019-square-foot transit center on the southeast corner of the site, near Fifth Avenue. The direction of the bus lane would be reversed, with buses entering Fourth Avenue into an eastbound lane that exits onto Fifth.

The new building will include space for a main customer service lobby, restrooms, offices for AATA and getDowntown staff, conference rooms, a staff break room, and a basement for storage and mechanical equipment. A high canopy of steel and tinted glass will run along the northern side of the building. Bike parking and benches would be included on the site, and bus stops along Fourth Avenue will be redesigned as part of the project.

A schematic of the proposed Blake Transit Center, viewed from South Fifth Avenue side.

AATA hopes to get LEED Gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council, and the project has several sustainability features. For example, roof stormwater run-off will be collected for “gray water” use, such as flushing toilets. Materials from the existing building will be recycled, and recycled materials will be used in the new building.

The project was considered by the city’s design review board at an April 18, 2012 meeting. [.pdf of design review board report] According to a memo from the planning staff, suggestions from some design review board members included: (1) keeping the building in its current location; (2) softening the design of the new building’s facade; and (3) enhancing an outdoor plaza with art and landscaping. In addition, planning staff recommended that AATA plant trees along Fourth and Fifth avenues.

As a public entity, AATA does not have to follow the process for site plan approval that is required of private-sector property owners. The process is being conducted for review and input only. Planning staff noted that there are only two ways in which the site plan does not conform to city code. For sites this size, the city requires 367 square feet of interior landscaping. The AATA site plan does not include any interior landscaping. Also, city code allows a maximum width of 30 feet for a driveway. In the AATA site plan, the driveway is 55 feet wide on South Fifth Avenue and 60 feet wide on South Fourth Avenue.

The current transit center would remain in use during construction of the new one.

Blake Transit Center: Public Commentary

Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, told commissioners that he wanted to give some context to the importance of the new building. AATA has outgrown its current transit center. Since BTC opened in 1987, bus ridership has increased more than 60%. More than 5,000 passengers use the center each day – and that brings about 1.5 million people into the center each year. About 40 buses an hour pass through BTC, and that number will likely increase in the coming years. Time and weather have also taken a toll on the building, pavement and other aspects of the site, and it’s not ADA compliant. Nor does the current building have the capacity for meeting rooms.

The new building will be an up-to-date facility, Ford said, designed to better accommodate AATA’s customers, employees, buses and pedestrians. It will include sustainability features in its construction, and incorporate many of the suggestions that have been made during community meetings with riders, downtown businesses, residents and other stakeholders. He said construction will be coordinated with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and Ann Arbor District Library, to minimize disruption to that area. [The library is embarking on a possible reconstruction of its downtown library, located across the street from the BTC at 343 S. Fifth. Also, South Fifth Avenue only recently reopened after being closed for nearly two years while a new underground parking structure – also located across the street from BTC – was built.]

Ford said they hoped to start construction this fall and be finished by next year’s art fairs in July. He looked forward to the commission’s support.

Stephen Kromkowski, a principal architect with the Lansing-based firm DLZ, said the project didn’t happen overnight. There has been lots of community outreach. It’s a tight site that needs to accommodate bus activity, he said. He noted that AATA acquired additional property to the south to “square off the site.” [The strip of land was purchased from the city of Ann Arbor, which owns the adjacent property to the south, which is currently a surface parking lot.] Kromkowski said the site can’t meet the interior landscaping requirements, due to a variety of constraints. He noted that there’s ongoing discussion with federal officials about adding a pedestrian path to the north of the site, running between Fourth and Fifth avenues on federal property. [The AATA site abuts property that houses the federal courthouse and post office.] Getting an agreement to use the land is not a quick process, he said.

Blake Transit Center: Commission Discussion – Building Materials

Diane Giannola asked about the canopy – what materials would be used? Kromkowski said it would be a steel structure with a glass canopy, designed to be dynamic and airy. When pressed by Giannola, who was concerned about whether the canopy would intensify the sun, Kromkowski noted that the glass will be slightly tinted and will be fritted, which will result in some “shading factors.” The frit will also help hide some of the dirt, he said, although there will be a maintenance plan for cleaning.

Giannola also asked whether canopies would be added to the bus stops along Fourth Avenue. Terry Black, AATA’s manager of maintenance, told her that all of those shelters would be redesigned as part of the project, with more protection from the elements. The current shelters are inadequate, he said.

Ken Clein commended AATA for pursuing LEED Gold certification.

Bonnie Bona noted that the current building is only 26 years old. What is being done in the proposed construction to make it last longer? she asked. The greenest building is one that’s already built, she said.

Kromkowski replied that materials are being selected for greater durability. He also noted that the existing building can’t accommodate the increase in AATA ridership, and isn’t structurally capable of supporting an additional story. It has a small lobby, which makes it more subject to abuse, he said. The new building’s lobby will be larger. There will also be minor design details to help create a more sustainable building, he said. For example, the current glass wall goes down to grade, he noted, and is more susceptible to deterioration from rain and salts. In the proposed design, the sill is raised about 18 inches. In general, the new building will be easier to maintain, he said.

From left: Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson and planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Bona wondered why she should believe that the new building will last more than 26 years. She said she understood the rationale of needing a new building from a programmatic standpoint. But what about the structural longevity? Kromkowski replied that about 95% of DLZ’s projects are publicly funded, so the firm is aware of the concerns about longevity. The materials are chosen for greater durability, even though that means a higher initial cost, he said – it yields a longer-term savings. Although more economical materials could be used, that’s short-sighted, he said. At the same time, he said they understand the need to be prudent with public funding.

Bona noted that typically you’d expect publicly funded projects to seek the lowest bid, despite the fact that the projects need to stand up over time and withstand a lot of abuse. She asked that the AATA make sure it tells the city council about aspects of the building’s design that improve longevity. She encouraged the designers to find as much opportunity as possible to incorporate aspects of longevity into the design, given that the facility probably won’t be maintained as well as they’d like it to be.

Kromkowski replied that they’ve been trying to do that. One example is that the site will include a snow-melt system – heating the driveway to melt the snow, to reduce the amount of plowing and salt that’s needed. That approach reduces wear and tear on the driveway, and reduces the amount of salt discharged into the stormwater system, he said.

Black said he’s the project manager on this effort, and that’s one of the challenges he’s given to the designers. It’s a public facility, and will take a lot of abuse. He also manages all of the AATA’s facilities, he noted, so he understands the importance of design, and of using materials that are durable and easy to clean and maintain.

Blake Transit Center: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Tony Derezinski asked about the traffic flow. With the potential of a new library in that same area, how will the AATA’s change in traffic flow affect that stretch of South Fifth, regarding both vehicles and pedestrians? Black replied that AATA had conducted a traffic study, because that had been one of their operational concerns. There were no issues, he said. The DDA is also happy with the new design, he said. And it helps that the traffic from the underground parking structure doesn’t exit onto South Fifth.

Blake Transit Center: Commission Discussion – Future Development

Tony Derezinski observed that the proposed building is two stories high. Was there any consideration of additional stories or air rights for future development? Black explained that the foundations are designed to support a taller building – as high as four floors. Later in the discussion, in response to a question from Bonnie Bona, city planner Jeff Kahan noted that the zoning allows height up to 180 feet, or about 16 stories.

Kirk Westphal said he rides the bus every day, and takes it as a great sign for the community that this investment is being made. He had questions about two written comments that the AATA had made in response to the design review board. Westphal quoted from that response: ”…assuming AATA is able to acquire the Fifth and William Parking lot site at some point in the future.”

He noted that the Ann Arbor DDA is undergoing a visioning process for the William Street area. [The effort, called Connecting William Street, aims to find alternate uses for the city-owned surface parking lots in the area bounded by William, Ashley, Liberty and Division streets.] Westphal serves on the Connecting William Street committee, and said the statement about AATA’s hopes to acquire the Fifth and William lot took him a little bit by surprise. He wondered if this plan has been shared with the DDA.

Michael Ford said he’d had some conversations with Susan Pollay. [Pollay is executive director of the DDA.]

Westphal thought it was great to have the forethought to put in footings to support a taller building. He asked that Ford talk about that again with the DDA, especially since the future of the site to the south of the AATA property is in question. “I don’t like regrets in situations like this,” Westphal said. There might be a way to increase footings in collaboration with the DDA.

Ford said he meets with Pollay regularly to talk about collaboration with the DDA and the library, and the general aesthetics of the area. He said he’d “dial back in” to make sure there’s not something he’s missing.

Blake Transit Center: Commission Discussion – Landscaping

Bonnie Bona said she was disappointed that the project didn’t meet the city’s interior landscaping requirements. There’s a lot of concern about providing sufficient green space downtown, she said. While she appreciated the fact that buses require more pavement, she hoped more green space could be added near the street. She also said she’d rather not have the greenscreens – screens made from climbing plants – that were indicated in the design. However, she said she understood that the screens might be there for functional purposes, to block wind and rain.

Ken Clein asked for more details on the greenscreens that were shown on the architectural drawings along the site’s south border. They look more like fences, he said. Kromkowski said they’ve gotten different types of feedback about the greenscreens. During the site plan review, there was a request from planning staff to provide more trees rather than greenscreens, Kromkowski said. Given the tight site, there’s not enough space for both, he said, so the current plan has eliminated the greenscreens in lieu of trees.

Kromkowski said they don’t want to create a barrier or fence, but trees alone don’t really provide a screening.

Following up on written comments from the design review board, Westphal wondered if any consideration had been given to adding street trees. Rob Sherman, a landscape architect with DLZ, said there’s boundary landscaping between the AATA and the Fifth & William surface parking lot. In terms of the sidewalk along Fifth Avenue, Sherman said they haven’t yet obtained information from the DDA about the configuration of that area. Kromkowski said they hoped a tree well would be located near the building along that Fifth Avenue side, to soften the facade.

As they discuss adding more trees on the site, Kromkowski said, several issues arise, including maintenance. Because of the number of people in that area, the trees will take more abuse. There’s also a safety issue, he said, in terms of lines of sight for drivers. The overall site width is 66 feet, he noted, and the building itself is 36 feet wide – narrower than the city council chambers, he noted. That said, they’d be open to possibly adding one or two more trees.

Bona wanted to reinforce having trees on the sidewalks, since there’s so much pavement on the site. She’d like to see two trees on the east side and one on the west.

Blake Transit Center: Commission Discussion – Other Design Issues

Derezinski praised the site plan, but wondered whether the canopy and width of the drive take into account possible future bus technology, related to size or exhaust. He also wondered about accessibility for handicapped patrons, in both the building and the overall site.

In terms of accessibility, Kromkowski said the building and site are fully accessible. Because the building is funded in part with federal grants, it meets additional federal accessibility guidelines as well. The design also takes into account the fact that bus exhaust is located at the back of the bus, so exhaust fumes won’t be trapped under the canopy. He noted that the canopy is designed to be high so that people can’t climb or hang off of it, but it also allows for better air flow.

Kromkowski noted that some buses are longer than they used to be, and that’s been factored into the design.

Black added that there are 41 hybrid buses in AATA’s current fleet – or about 3/4 of the total fleet – that operate with much lower emissions. Sixteen more buses have been ordered, and 11 of those will be hybrids, he said. Black didn’t anticipate the length or width would change dramatically in the near future. If they decided to start using articulating buses, “that would be a completely different story,” he said. Those types of buses are much longer, and wouldn’t fit on the proposed site.

Clein thought the design should give more consideration to the main entrance for pedestrians – celebrating how people get into the building. The recessed doors might provide some protection from the elements, but that makes it less obvious where people can enter, he said. Clein asked the designers to take another look at that.

Westphal said he understood that the site was designed for riders and employees, but he’s concerned about the relationship of the site to pedestrians and people who don’t use the bus. Although the Fifth Avenue facade has a relationship with the library, he also felt it doesn’t celebrate transit or ridership to the extent that the community does. The east and west sides are where most people will interact with the building, but the design shows a cinderblock wall on one side, he said, and a stairwell on the other.

Kromkowski replied that the material on the outside is limestone, though that’s difficult to discern from the drawings. The west side is where the restrooms are located, he noted. Windows aren’t large along the south side because that’s where the service space is located – restrooms, employee showers, the elevator, and services like security and the money-counting operation. The areas with larger windows are for the getDowntown offices and conference rooms. It’s a fairly narrow facade, he said, so there are fewer design options. The AATA logo and signs on that South Fifth side were an attempt to boost the facade, he said, but it’s the canopy that will really identify where the entrance is. He didn’t think there’d be confusion. However, Kromkowski said he’d take the commission’s suggestions into consideration, and see if they could make some changes.

Westphal wondered whether an awning or something could be added to the Fifth Avenue entrance, so that people coming from William or Liberty could see it more clearly. Kromkowski said the building is close to the property line, but he could look at it again. The signs on the facade will be backlit so they’ll glow in the evening, he noted. He didn’t think the entry would be difficult to see. The lights in the lobby and on the canopy will glow as well, he said. Though the design is sensitive about light trespassing, he anticipated the site would become an “evening icon.”

Bona noted that signage isn’t in the purview of the planning commission, and public projects don’t require the commission’s approval. But she said she finds it interesting that big signs get put in a place that very few people actually see. Most people will be coming to the center from the north or south, and won’t see the sign on the west facade facing South Fifth Avenue. The only people who’ll see it are coming from the library. There’s no pedestrian signage on the building, she noted – it could use signs that are smaller, not very high, and perpendicular to the sidewalk. She asked that they consider adding that kind of signage. That issue is part of the conversation about this building’s relationship with pedestrians and people who don’t ride the bus, she said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to affirm that the Blake Transit Center project meets city requirements for private development, with two exceptions involving landscaping and driveway width.

Catherine Street Townhomes

The rezoning and site plan for a three-story townhouse with five housing units at 922-926 Catherine St. was on the commission’s July 17 agenda. The two vacant parcels are on the south side of Catherine between Ingalls and Glen, across from the University of Michigan School of Nursing building. The lots are located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district.

Aerial view of site for Catherine Street townhomes.

The development – which according to the owner, Tom Fitzsimmons, will be marketed to students, UM employees, young homebuyers, and empty nesters – entails rezoning the parcels from PUD (planned unit development) to R4C (multi-family residential). The PUD zoning is tied to a previous development that was approved but never built. The current site plan is contingent on approval from the city’s zoning board of appeals for variances from the conflicting land use buffer requirement. The two lots must also be combined as a condition before the city issues building permits.

Five garages would be part of the development, with nine parking spaces and bike storage located below the townhouses. A 24-foot-wide curb cut is proposed off Catherine Street for a driveway, which would run along the east side of the site leading to the garages. Two units would face north onto Catherine Street, with the three remaining units facing west.

The proposed building and site layout plans were approved by the Ann Arbor Historic District Commission on April 12, 2012.

Catherine Street Townhomes: Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary, including four residents of Catherine Street.

Jayne Thorson spoke on behalf of the Catherine Commons Condo Association – Catherine Commons is located immediately east of the proposed development. She said the decrease in the proposed landscape buffer, from 15 feet to 4 feet, is a small concern. But her major concern involved stormwater drainage. The current situation is inadequate even with two vacant lots of highly absorbent lawn, she said. Thorson noted that she had shared her concerns with city staff, including Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator.

Tom Fitzsimmons, developer of the proposed townhomes at 922-926 Catherine St.

She then read aloud from a letter she had sent to the developer, Tom Fitzsimmons, which described her concerns related to stormwater drainage. It stated that when Catherine Commons was built, apparently no one considered the effect on drainage – and the city should never have been approved the plan for it. The lowest points in the neighborhood are the drain in the Catherine Commons driveway and the lower-level garages and condos. In heavy persistent rains, the main storm sewer fills to capacity then overflows. That storm sewer doesn’t allow water from the Catherine Commons drain to flow into it, she said.

The city had addressed this by partially covering two street drains with metal plates in an effort to reduce the inflow, Thorson stated, and that generally worked. Later, those plates on the street drains were removed, so residents made a similar effort to cover the drains with a mat during heavy rains. That usually suffices, she said, although people tend to steal the mat. This drainage has been a serious problem. They’ve made do, but her concern is that if the two lots are paved over, it will flood with even the slightest sprinkle.

Edward Yee, another resident of Catherine Commons, said he’s seen two major floods since living there, and he wanted to lend support and credence to Thorson’s comments. Starting at the entrance to the University of Michigan parking structure, water flows down the south side of Catherine. Yee also noted that in the past, the city staff had indicated they would consider putting in a larger drain when they resurfaced Catherine. The resurfacing happened, but the new drain was not installed.

Chris Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, told commissioners that she and other local residents – her husband Jeff Crockett, Ray Detter, Julie Ritter, and Wap John – had met with Fitzsimmons and had seen the design. They felt he had paid attention to things that were important. The design is compatible with the historic district. It’s the right size, scale and massing, and will bring more residents to the neighborhood. They like the way that part of the development will face onto Catherine. They weren’t in a position to know about the stormwater concern, she said, but she felt that it wasn’t a problem just for this development – it’s something that needs to be resolved for the entire street. Overall, it was a good development, she said. She hoped the other issues could be resolved and that it would be approved.

Julie Ritter, who lives on Catherine Street near the proposed development, called it a wonderful project and hoped it would be approved. She said she’s seen a lot of projects proposed for that site, and this is by far the best one. She also hoped the city could resolve the water issue – as it’s been a problem since she’s lived on Catherine.

Tom Fitzsimmons, the developer, told commissioners that he and his project team had spent time with the neighbors, and had received a very positive response from the city’s historic district commission. They had also met with residents of Catherine Commons, but he indicated that the stormwater issue raised earlier in public commentary had taken him a little by surprise. This site plan will actually reduce the net flow of water into the city’s stormwater system – as the plan includes an underground stormwater detention system. He said he didn’t know the cause or history of the water problems, but that his engineers have told him that the project won’t increase the problem.

Chet Hill, with the Johnson Hill Land Ethics Studio, assured commissioners that there would be less surface runoff from the site, because stormwater would be captured in an underground detention system underneath the driveway. It’s really a street problem, as he understands it. Hill also noted that while the project is seeking a variance to the city’s conflicting land use buffer, the overall landscaping far exceeds ordinance requirements. The open space for a project this size also exceeds ordinance requirements. The idea is to make this project fit into the neighborhood, he said.

Catherine Street Townhomes: Commission Discussion

Eric Mahler wondered why they had to go through the exercise of rezoning. Would it be more advantageous to leave it as a PUD (planned unit development)?

City planner Chris Cheng explained that if the site is zoned R4C, the project would be a by-right project – and if it conforms to city code, the developer would have the right to build it. If it’s zoned R4C, the developer believes there would be less potential for “additional interpretations” by the city council, Cheng said. Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that because the PUD was put in place prior to the requirement that PUDs include supplemental regulations, the city would need to create a new zoning district. It seemed to be more effort than it was worth.

Bonnie Bona clarified that there were two landscaping issues. One is to allow existing trees on the west side to count as the requirement for the conflicting land use buffer, as opposed to planting additional trees. That’s a modification that simply requires approval from the planning commission. The other is a request for a variance from the 15-foot-wide conflicting land use buffer on the east side of the property. The developer is asking for a 4-foot buffer instead, and to waive the requirement that trees be located every 15 feet along that property line. Those changes would require a variance from the zoning board of appeals.

Proposed townhomes at 922-926 Catherine Street, viewed from the street.

Cheng noted that the conflicting land use buffer was a relatively new requirement. If there’s no variance, then the landscaping buffer would be a total of 30 feet (15 feet on the east and west sides). Bona noted that the planning commission tried to change this requirement, but the changes “did not survive” the city council.

Bona then asked what size storm event is this project designed for. She was concerned about how this project will impact larger storm events. Cheng replied that the site’s stormwater system is designed to handle a “first flush” event, as required by city code. He also said he talked to an engineer in the city’s systems planning unit, and no project is planned to address the stormwater concerns raised in public commentary – there’s nothing in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) related to it. The problem seems to be related to a design flaw in the Catherine Commons development, he said, related to the elevation of a catch basin on that property. So the new development won’t be able to address the problem.

Bona wondered what it would take to add a project to the CIP to address the problem. Cheng expressed some skepticism that this would be possible, given that it stems from a problem located on private property.

Bona said she’d like the city to continue addressing it, but she realized it wasn’t a problem created by the proposed development. She commended the developer and his design team. The idea behind the citizen’s participation ordinance is to get input, and it sounded like that input had been used in the project.

Ken Clein and Eleanore Adenekan also expressed support for the project, as well as concerns about flooding. Clein said he appreciated that this development includes units that face the street.

Kirk Westphal raised the issue of the mats that Thorson had mentioned during public commentary, used to cover the storm drains. Is that something that’s advisable or inadvisable? he asked. Rampson said it’s “highly unusual” but it sounds like it’s working. Since it’s not permanent construction, she didn’t think there was anything in the city code that prevented it.

Diane Giannola asked whether the recent work on Glen Street had helped the stormwater problem on Catherine. Cheng said the work didn’t address the issue directly, but he could ask about it.

Rampson said that the planning staff will continue working with the city’s systems planning unit to look at the stormwater issue between now and the time that the proposed development is considered by city council.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to recommend that the city council approve the rezoning and site plan for a three-story townhouse with five housing units at 922-926 Catherine St. The commission also recommended approval of the variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals related to the conflicting land use buffer requirement. 

Chalmers Place Parking

Planning commissioners were asked to approve a site plan for the Chalmers Place employee parking lot, increasing the number of spaces there. The project also required a landscaping modification. The retail/office center is located at the intersection of Chalmers and Washtenaw Avenue, west of Arborland Mall.

A different parking plan had been rejected by the planning commission on May 1, after several neighbors spoke against it during public commentary. That plan had entailed building a new 43-space parking lot at the back of the Chalmers Place retail/office center, on a vacant lot that is zoned R1B (single-family residential). The owner, Len Nadolski, subsequently withdrew that plan.

The new proposal would increase the number of parking spaces on the center’s site from 88 to 112. The 24 new spaces would be used mainly by employees of the center, and would be located on the property’s north side, off an existing service drive on the east side of the building. The plan requires a variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals because a maximum of 100 parking spaces is permitted by city code (Chapter 59, Off-Street Parking) for a commercial center of this size. Another variance from the ZBA is required to reduce the width of a conflicting land use buffer.

The extra spaces will result in about a 2,500-square-foot increase of the total amount of impervious surface on the site, which will be offset by a new underground storm pipe meeting 100-year storm regulations.

The project included a request for modifying the city’s interior landscaping requirement, which could be granted by the commission without further approval. For this site, the city requires that at least 50% of the interior landscape must be depressed bioretention areas and used for stormwater management. An exemption was requested, according to a staff memo, because “existing grades and drainage patterns make it impractical to create functional recessed islands on this developed site.”

Chalmers Place Parking: Public Hearing

Kevin Travers, the center’s property manager, was the only person to speak during the public hearing. Len Nadolski, the center’s owner, attended the meeting but did not formally address the commission.

Travers reiterated points that he and others who are affiliated with the center had made at the May 1 meeting. He noted that they’ve proposed an alternative plan because the original one hadn’t been well received. They regrouped after that May 1 meeting, taking into account the comments from neighbors and the planning commissioners. He said he has represented the center since 2005, and the parking is needed very badly. If the center were at 100% occupancy, they wouldn’t be here asking for more parking, he said. But occupancy is only at 50%, and parking is always the first roadblock to getting new tenants. It’s hurting the business financially, he said. This extra parking will give the center a shot in the arm, Travers concluded, and help it survive long-term.

Chalmers Place Parking: Commission Discussion

Diane Giannola said she was happy to see a solution to the problem, even though she knew it wasn’t as much parking as the center had wanted. She hoped that by having more parking for employees in the back, it would free up spaces in the front for customers and that tenants could be found for the vacant stores.

She said she’s never been afraid of extra parking, though she realized that others on the commission would disagree. She hoped that this situation would make people see that parking is tied to how successful a business might be. Although the city wants to encourage public transit, they also need to pay attention to the success of small businesses, she said. Giannola noted that this time, no one had attended the public hearing to speak against the project. [At the May 1 meeting, 18 people had spoken during public commentary about the previous parking proposal. The majority of them were neighbors who opposed the project.]

Bonnie Bona said she appreciated that there’s a parking problem and she hoped this would help solve it. She said she’s always been a little unclear about how the city can determine a parking requirement without knowing the potential uses for businesses that might be located in a retail or office complex. One example is the Courtyard Shops on Plymouth Avenue, she said. When more retail businesses were located there, plenty of parking was available. But as some of those businesses have been replaced by food businesses, the parking is often full. She wondered why parking was a problem for Chalmers Place even though the center was only at 50% occupancy.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson replied that about 10 years ago, the city’s staff evaluated the commercial parking requirements by going out and doing actual counts of parking use for businesses. It could be that trends have changed since then, she said. Definitely food services require more parking than other uses, as do businesses like the nail salon, where customers stay for longer periods.

Bona asked what uses were being sought for the center. The mix of tenants is not an exact science, Travers replied. They try to avoid food uses, but finding a delicate balance is difficult. He also cited the nail salon as a business where customers stay for long periods, especially this time of year “when women like to show their feet,” he said. That business is generally packed on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays.

Bona noted that the center is located on Washtenaw Avenue, where the city’s most efficient bus route runs in terms of frequency of service and hours of service. [The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority's Route #4 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti runs along Washtenaw Avenue.] She asked if the management team had thought about providing motivation for employees not to use the center’s parking.

Travers reported that many of the prospective tenants are franchises for corporations that are located in places like New Jersey. When the suggestion of public transit is made, “the conversations go south,” he said. Verizon’s corporate policy, for example, is that every employee gets a parking space. He noted that the center’s management did look into public transportation, because there’s a bus stop in front of the center. But most employees come from relatively far away, and using a bus wasn’t always an option.

Eric Mahler also was glad that a compromise had been worked out. He noted that he had been the only commissioner to vote in favor of the previous proposal. Like Giannola, he said, he’s not afraid of parking – especially for small businesses. The reality is that people will drive there, he said. He was glad they came up with an alternative that also worked for the neighbors.

Outcome: The Chalmers Place parking plan and landscaping modification were approved unanimously. The project does not require additional approval by the city council. However, it will need to go before the city’s zoning board of appeals.

Speedway Gas Station

On the agenda was a site plan proposal for a Speedway gas station at the northeast corner of North Maple and Miller. The plan had been initially considered at the commission’s June 5 meeting, but was postponed.

Site of a proposed Speedway gas station at the northeast corner of Maple and Miller. The vegetation at the back of the site will remain in place as a buffer between the station and the residential neighborhood.

The project is located at 1300 N. Maple on a 1.39-acre site. The proposal also included a request to rezone a portion of the site from PL (public land) to C3 (fringe commercial). A third element requiring approval was a resolution to allow the existing vegetation on the site to count as part of the city’s conflicting land use buffer.

The plan calls for demolishing an existing 1,500-square-foot vacant service station building, which was built in the 1950s, and constructing a new 3,968-square-foot, single-story gas station and convenience store with five pumps. The gasoline pumps will be covered by a 28-foot by 121-foot canopy. Fourteen parking spaces will be provided next to the convenience store, and six bicycle hoops will be located on the south side of the building, adjacent to a sidewalk leading to Miller.

According to a staff report, underground storage tanks have been removed and an environmental analysis of the site is underway. If any environmental contamination is found, the owner will be required to remediate the site to meet requirements of the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality.

The staff report states that since the June 5 meeting, the city’s traffic engineer has reviewed a revised plan and confirmed that traffic issues have been addressed and the site plan meets the requirements of Chapter 47 (Streets) of the city code. The city’s natural resources planning coordinator has reviewed and recommended approval of a revised landscaping plan and landscape modification request. The modification, which requires only planning commission approval, would allow existing vegetation on the eastern property line to count as part of the landscaping requirement for the city’s conflicting land use buffer.

The plan will preserve all existing trees within the 25 feet at the back of the property, an area that includes an existing 5-foot-wide pedestrian path. In addition, seven oak trees will be planted along the sides of the proposed building, and required landscaping within the site will be provided.

Speedway Gas Station: Commission Discussion

No one spoke at a public hearing on the project.

Bonnie Bona asked whether the staff had any position on the landscaping plan. Matt Kowalski, who gave the planning staff report, noted that if all of the invasive plants were all removed from the eastern part of the site, the remaining foliage would be very thin. A neighbor had contacted the city to request that the vegetation there not be removed. He noted that the city’s natural resources planning coordinator had reviewed and approved the proposal.

Ken Clein asked about the building materials, indicating that it wasn’t possible to discern from the packet of information given to commissioners. Kowalski said the information is included in the architectural plan submitted to the city, but it’s not typically part of the staff report.

Kevin Foley of Grand Rapids, representing the owner, reported that the construction will include standard asphalt shingles for the roof and a material called Quick Brick for the building, which is a masonry block that has the appearance of brick.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and rezoning for the Speedway gas station at Miller and North Maple. The recommendations will be forwarded to city council.

Noodles & Co. Site Plan

A site plan for 2161 W. Stadium Blvd. – where a Noodles & Co. restaurant is planned – was on the agenda for the commission’s July 17 meeting.

A site plan for that location – site of the former Sze-Chuan West, adjacent to Bell’s Diner and Stadium Hardware – had been previously approved by commissioners at their March 6, 2012 meeting, and subsequently by the city council in April. But the future tenant wanted to revise the site plan and shift the building 21 feet to the north. The new location provides space for one row of parking along the south side of the building, to be accessed from the Big M car wash site at 2151 W. Stadium.

The existing 4,300-square-foot restaurant has already been demolished. The proposal calls for building a new 2,679-square-foot one-story restaurant with a 615-square-foot unenclosed patio at the front of the building. The 1.15-acre site is located on the west side of West Stadium, south of Liberty.

The site plan approval would be contingent on a land division request that’s currently being reviewed by the city’s planning staff. The division would separate the restaurant parcel from a larger parcel at 2151 W. Stadium, where the Big M car wash is located. Both parcels are owned by Chuck Gallup of Gallup Properties.

Another contingency relates to an easement that allows the site to access West Stadium. Currently, there’s a 10-foot access easement to the north – a shared driveway with 2163-2177 W. Stadium, where the building that houses Bell’s Diner and Stadium Hardware is located. However, the owner of that property is unwilling to expand that easement. Instead, a 20-foot permanent access easement across the adjacent property to the south – where the Big M car wash is located – will be required. No drive-through is proposed for the restaurant.

There will be 30 parking spaces – 22 in the back of the building and eight along the south side.

Noodles & Co. Site Plan: Public Hearing & Commission Discussion

Todd Quatro introduced himself as a project engineer who was there to answer any questions. There were no other speakers at the project’s public hearing.

Eleanore Adenekan clarified with staff that the restaurant won’t include a drive-through, and that the additional parking will be on the south side, next to the side of the building that faces the car wash.

Diane Giannola wondered whether it would be easy for customers to see that the parking is located behind the restaurant. Quatro replied that it should be fairly easy to see, because the drive between the car wash and the restaurant will be widened. There will also be “informal” accessibility from the north side, he said.

Facing east: The fenced-in site at the left of the photo is the location for a proposed Noodles & Co. restaurant. The building that formerly housed the Sze-Chuan West restaurant there has been demolished.

Tony Derezinski followed up on the term “informal” – what does that mean? Quatro explained the situation with the easement to the north of the Noodles & Co. site. It’s just for access, not for parking, he said.

Derezinski also asked what might happen if the car wash is busy and cars line up. Quatro indicated that there’s more than adequate capacity to handle the car wash business and allow access to the restaurant.

Bonnie Bona noted that planning staff had asked about removing one of the parking spots closest to the street. She asked for Quatro’s response to that suggestion. [The staff report states: "Staff recommends that the eastern most parking space adjacent to Stadium be removed to allow for safer ingress/egress to the main door and better pedestrian access from the adjacent parking area."

Quatro said that Noodles & Co. had felt strongly about keeping the parking there.

Bona also observed that she was happy to see the building close to the street, but because the parking is in the back, customers will just see the unadorned back of the building. Quatro replied that the kitchen is located there, so unless you put a fake window on the back, there's no other option. He noted that this is a standard corporate design for Noodles & Co.

Bona suggested that Quatro remind Noodles & Co. that this will be what most customers see. Perhaps even a door that's nicer than the standard service entrance would help. If the company can decorate the front and sides of the building, she said, it can also decorate the back.

Ken Clein noted that Bona had pointed out some interesting conundrums about a mostly auto-dominated strip. It's unfortunate that people parking there will mostly see the back of the building.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the site plan revisions.

Election of Officers

The planning commission's bylaws state that officers will be elected at the first regular meeting in July. The July 3 meeting had been cancelled, so the first regular meeting fell on July 17.

Eric Mahler, who has served as chair since July 2010, began the meeting and oversaw the election of the new chair, vice chair and secretary. Only one person was nominated for each position, so the election was handled as a voice vote rather than a secret ballot, in conformance with the commission's bylaws. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws] All votes were unanimous.

Kirk Westphal, who has been serving as vice chair, was elected chair. Although she was absent, Wendy Woods was elected as vice chair. Westphal indicated that Woods had been amenable to that outcome. Bonnie Bona was elected as secretary. Diane Giannola has served as secretary for the past two years.

Westphal and Mahler exchanged seats and Mahler handed over the wooden gavel – the leadership transition was completed without a coup.

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

Absent: Evan Pratt, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Due to the Aug. 7 primary election, the planning commission’s next meeting will be held later in the week – on Wednesday, Aug. 8 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The 2.95-acre site at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, just east of Stone School Road, is currently located in Pittsfield Township. The developer wants to remove an existing single-family home and detached garage, and build 24 townhomes in four, two-story buildings, with attached single-car garages for each unit. The plan calls for R3 (townhouse dwelling district) zoning. The developer is Shawn Barrow of Orlando, Fla.

The development calls for extensive grading on the site, which includes steep slopes. Staff had expressed concerns about the grading and had requested revisions to the plans, which are currently under review.

According to a staff report, the site is adjacent to land owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools, abutting Bryant Elementary School. Planning staff have suggested that the developer include pedestrian access for future connection with the school. According to a staff report, the planning staff also asked the developer to consider the city master plan’s community-oriented design guidelines when developing the project’s site plan. Those guidelines for townhome developments include rear-accessed garages, front porches, clustered design to preserve natural features, an on-site playground, open space, and pedestrian links with adjacent developments.

Several residents from the nearby Forest Hills Cooperative Townhouse development came to the June 19 meeting to speak in opposition to the development. They argued that this area was already densely developed, with several major housing developments and a lack of services, like places for children to play. Traffic along Ellsworth was also a concern.

In part based on that feedback, commissioners asked staff a range of questions that they’d like to have answered before considering the zoning and area plan request. The commissioners concerns related to zoning options, traffic volume, the location and amount of parkland in that area, and the capacity of utilities to handle increased density.

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