The change will allow University Bank to build 13 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 52 spaces on the site. The city planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the change at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting, after the proposal had been submitted to the city at least a year earlier. The council gave its initial approval to the change in the PUD at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

The long approval process could in part be attributed to opposition from immediate neighbors to specific elements of the plan, which was to some degree modified in response. A letter of opposition, attached to the council’s Dec. 19 agenda packet, made a more general objection to “the likelihood of further commercialization of the residential neighborhood.” [.pdf of letter of opposition][.jpg of aerial view with parcels]

Because the proposal was a change to the city’s zoning, it was a change to the city’s ordinances – a process that required a second approval by the council at a separate meeting, preceded by a public hearing.

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

Stephen Ranzini looks up at the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl, during a public reception and dedication for the piece at city hall on Tuesday evening. Ranzini, president of University Bank, later attended a planning commission meeting inside city hall, where he told commissioners that No Parking signs are ugly. It's not clear what he thought about the sculpture.

Changes to a University Bank site plan for property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion, were approved unanimously, despite some concerns voiced by neighbors during a public hearing on the proposal. The changes – which primarily relate to creation of a new parking lot – required amending the supplemental regulations of the site’s planned unit development (PUD) zoning district originally approved in 1978.

Also back for review was The Varsity, a proposed “planned project” consisting of a 13-story apartment building with 181 units at 425 E. Washington, between 411 Lofts and the First Baptist Church. Intended for students, it’s the first project to go through the city’s new design review process. Only minor changes had been made since the proposal was first considered at the planning commission’s Sept. 20 meeting.

Fourteen people spoke during a public hearing on The Varsity, including several residents of the nearby Sloan Plaza who raised concerns about traffic at the Huron Street entrance, as well as aesthetic issues with the building’s facade facing Huron. The project was supported by a paster pastor at the First Baptist Church and the head of the State Street merchant association.

In addition to public hearings held on these two projects, one person spoke during public commentary at the start of the meeting. Rick Stepanovic told commissioners that he’s a University of Michigan student, and that Wendy Rampson – head of the city’s planning staff – had spoken to one of his classes last year. Among other things, she’d mentioned the city’s need for more student input, he said. Since then he’s been elected to the Michigan Student Assembly, and was offering to provide that input, either as a resident – he lives in the neighborhood near Packard and Hill – or by taking an issue back to MSA for broader student feedback.

Stepanovic indicated his intent to attend future planning commission meetings, but noted that MSA meetings are held at the same time – on Tuesday evenings.

University Bank PUD

The planning commission first reviewed University Bank’s proposal at its Oct. 19, 2010 meeting. Bank officials had requested approval to revise a planned unit development (PUD), allowing an increase in the total number of employees and parking spaces permitted at the bank’s headquarters at 2015 Washtenaw Ave. – the site known as the Hoover Mansion. The proposal included a request to build 14 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 53 spaces on the site. At the time, planning staff recommended denial, stating that the project impacts natural features and doesn’t offer an overall benefit to the city, as required by a PUD.

Rather than denying the proposal, planning commissioners voted to postpone it and asked staff to work with the bank in finding an alternative parking option.

Nearly a year later, a revised proposal was on the agenda for the commission’s Sept. 8 meeting, reflecting a consensus that had been reached among planning staff, neighbors and bank officials. However, commissioners ended up postponing a recommendation again, because the final site plan had not yet been submitted by the bank.

By the Oct. 4 meeting, all pieces were in place. The proposal would increase the number of allowable employees from 50 to 59 at the bank’s headquarters and add a new parking lot on the site, with a setback of 24 feet from the eastern property line. That’s an additional nine feet away from the property line than originally proposed.

A continuous six-foot-high wall is proposed along the eastern and southeastern property lines, to screen the parking lot from 2021 Washtenaw Ave. and 2107-2109 Tuomy. Two landmark trees and 19 woodland trees totaling 186 caliper inches will be removed as part of the project, but the bank has proposed planting trees throughout the site totaling 223 caliper inches – more than is required.

The changes require amending the supplemental regulations of the site’s planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, which was originally approved in 1978.

University Bank: Public Hearing

Five people spoke during a public hearing on the proposal, including two representatives from the bank.

Dan Dever introduced himself as an attorney representing the Serwers, a couple who own a home that’s the closest residential property to the bank. He thanked planning staff for their work, but noted that there are two issues that are of serious concern to the Serwers. Nowhere in the supplemental regulations does it state that bank employees “shall not park on the driveway.” [The driveway into the Serwers' property is accessed via the bank's driveway.] He noted that for the past year, bank employees have been parking along the driveway leading to the bank building. Dever then read an excerpt from a letter that Ranzini had sent to the planning commission on Oct. 21, 2010, following the Oct. 20 planning commission meeting. From Ranzini’s letter:

We HATE the alternative proposal of building up berms that encroach into the lawn and parking spots alongside the driveway. This was foisted on us by the planning staff and at the suggestion of Kem-Tech, since it is the second least worst alternative to the proposed 13 unit parking lot. To illustrate to you and the neighbors how impractical the planning staff’s suggestion of parking alongside the driveway is and how this will damage the view shed, we will conduct the following experiment until the parking lot is approved: While previously we had taken a variety of measures to actively discourage our employees, visitors and bank examiners from parking in the driveway, we will remove those restrictions and encourage them to park there. I hope you have the opportunity to drive by over the next few weeks and take a look and how unsightly the cars in the front lawn area are.” [.pdf of Ranzini's letter]

Dever asked commissioners to add stronger language in the supplemental regulations: (1) adding that vehicles can’t be parked on either side of that driveway, and (2) requiring more than just one No Parking sign along that stretch. It’s important, he said, because bank officials “do not historically observe the written word.”

Ken Sprinkles of University Bank said he’s been working on this project for three years. The reason that cars are parked along the driveway is that there’s insufficient parking, he said. If the city approves additional parking, the bank would enforce a no-parking requirement along the driveway. The bank also plans to start issuing parking permit stickers for employee vehicles – that’s something they don’t currently do, Sprinkles said.

Gerald Serwer, who owns the home with a driveway that’s accessed via the bank’s driveway, told commissioners that changes to the bank’s site plan would affect the financial value of his home, as well as his ability to enjoy living there. If the bank has no intention of parking along the main driveway, he said, then it didn’t seem like bank officials should object to adding more No Parking signs. He also wanted to ensure that there’d be no parking along that driveway during construction of the new parking lot. Serwer also noted that he’s asked the bank to use stone veneer on the side of the 6-foot-high wall that faces their house, to match the house’s exterior. But the main issue is parking, he concluded.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, began by noting that the bank began this process 36 months ago. Since September, the bank has hired 30 people, he said, but only one of those is working in Ann Arbor. University Bank is the 11th largest employer of any bank in Michigan, he said, but job growth is happening at the bank’s offices in Farmington Hills and Clinton Township, instead of Ann Arbor, in part because of delays with this project.

Regarding No Parking signs, Ranzini said his preference is for one sign, because signs are ugly and affect the viewshed. In reference to the removal of trees, he noted that 100 years ago, the site was a sheep farm – every tree on the property is less than 100 years old. Regarding parking on the driveway, the bank started its “experiment” in having employees park along the driveway after the city requested alternatives to a new parking lot, he said. He wanted everyone to see what that would look like. And because the process to get approval has been so slow, he said, the experiment has lasted a year.

Ranzini urged the commission to approve the project, so that it can be considered by the city council. He hoped commissioners would do their part to help preserve an historic building, which he said is expensive to maintain. One of the biggest problems since the building was converted to offices in 1978 has been inadequate parking, he concluded.

Sheryl Serwer noted that it’s also been three years that she and her husband have been dealing with this issue – she first heard about it on her birthday three years ago. “Now I’m three years older and still worrying about it.” She said she’s come to accept the loss of trees on the site. But she’s still concerned about the parking – she’d like to get out of her driveway safely. In the winter, if it’s icy and there are cars parked on both sides of the entrance to her driveway, she said she’s afraid her car might slide into the parked vehicles. No Parking signs should be posted, she said, and parking shouldn’t be allowed there. She concluded by congratulating Ranzini for the growth of his business, and the recent birth of his child.

University Bank: Commission Discussion

Tony Derezinski began by asking planning staff to respond to the questions raised during public commentary, related to parking. How would the supplemental regulations be enforced? He said he thought the parties had reached an agreement – was this a new item?

Alexis DiLeo noted that this isn’t a public street – it’s not even a private street. It’s a driveway. The number of signs is discretional, she said, and the bank’s preference is for one sign.

If it meant that the project wouldn’t otherwise be approved, would the bank be willing to add another sign? Derezinski wondered. Ranzini said he wanted to make clear that bank employees didn’t start parking along the driveway until the planning staff suggested there might be a more viable alternative to the new parking lot. Parking in the driveway is ugly, he said. The experiment is done, so there won’t be parking there any longer. The bank might reluctantly put up another sign, he added, but signs are ugly.

Derezinski asked whether it would be possible to add the requirement of an additional sign in the supplemental regulations. “A beautiful one,” he quipped.

DiLeo suggested a possible place within the supplemental regulations to insert a sign requirement, and Derezinski made a motion to do that. Kirk Westphal clarified with DiLeo that previously, there was no mention of a sign at all. When asked about enforcement, DiLeo said a violation would be handled just like any other zoning violation – for example, if the bank removed a tree that had been stipulated to be preserved by the PUD’s supplemental regulations.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said the city wouldn’t ticket or tow cars parked on private property. If someone complained about a violation, the city could fine the property owner. She indicated that adding something like the sign requirement was highly unusual.

Derezinski then expressed frustration, saying ”it’s too bad we’re getting formal.” This shouldn’t be a problem, he said, but there’s been a lot of history regarding this project. He thought the parties had moved past that, but now they’re quibbling over a small thing.

Derezinski said he’d made a motion to amend the supplemental regulations so that everyone could reach resolution. But now he felt there’s a clear understanding of expectations, so he was withdrawing the motion to amend.

Evan Pratt hoped that people felt all of the issues were being addressed. When changes to a PUD are requested, it requires give and take, he observed. He applauded the bank’s parking experiment. The original thinking was that it would be good to avoid adding more pavement, he said, and the experiment tested whether other parking options were viable. It’s taken a year, but it sounds like they now have a good outcome, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of changes to the bank’s site plan and supplemental regulations. The project will now be forwarded to the city council.

The Varsity at Ann Arbor

At their Sept. 20, 2011 meeting, the planning commission had made an initial review of The Varsity, a 13-story building at 425 E. Washington, stretching from East Washington to East Huron in the block between South State and South Division. The proposed development is located east of the 411 Lofts building and west of the First Baptist Church, and is currently the site of a two-story office building that formerly housed the Prescription Shop. Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff told commissioners that the design hasn’t altered significantly since that meeting.

Minor modifications include narrowing the walkway on the building’s east side, mounting lights on the building instead of poles along the east side of the path, and removing decorative pillars at both ends of the walkway, previously proposed on the east side of the path and on the First Baptist Church property. Because the church is located in an historic district, any changes on its property would have required approval by the city’s historic district commission.

The main features of the project are unchanged. The 177,180-square-foot apartment building is to include 181 apartments with a total of 415 bedrooms, to be marketed to university students. The plan also calls for 70 parking spaces, both underground and on the street level, with entrances off of East Huron and East Washington. In addition, two spaces would be provided on adjacent property (owned by the same developer) to use for a car-sharing service like Zipcar. A total of 121 bike spaces are also proposed for the project.

The Varsity at Ann Arbor: Public Commentary

Fourteen people spoke during a public hearing on The Varsity.

Hugh Sonk spoke on behalf of the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association, and restated many of the concerns that he raised at the commission’s Sept. 20 meeting. Sloan Plaza is located at 505 E. Huron, just east and across the street from The Varsity site, and residents are concerned about the development’s impact on their quality of life. Specifically, they are concerned about increased traffic congestion as vehicles turn into the building’s Huron Street entrance.

People who currently have monthly parking permits at the existing site will be displaced, Sonk said, potentially causing parking problems in the area. Sonk’s final concern related to the Huron Street facade, which he described as bland. It doesn’t reflect the character of the adjacent historical buildings, he said, and it needs to be treated as an important front to one of the city’s major thoroughfares. The current design doesn’t do that, he said.

Ethel Potts, a former planning commissioner, described the public hearing as an important one, since it’s a new major building downtown and the first one that’s gone through the city’s new design review process. She noted that city officials have said the recent downtown zoning changes and design review process will be reviewed next spring, to see if it’s delivering what residents want.

This building and its review show some flaws in the process and in the city’s ordinances, she said. For one thing, the design review doesn’t deal with height and mass, Potts noted – and The Varsity isn’t compatible with the scale and character of surrounding buildings. How will the small, elegant, historic church live with a tall, broad wall along its lot line? Potts also pointed to a lack of green space in the design. “Weren’t we seeking downtown livability?” she asked.

Christine Crockett introduced herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and a member of the committee that helped write the city’s design guidelines. The design review board, neighbors and people who’ve spoken during public commentary have all been emphatic that design of The Varsity’s north facade is unacceptable, Crockett said. It’s been tweaked a little, but is essentially 13 stories of yellow brick that’s unrelieved by pattern, texture or sympathy with the surrounding character district, she said.

The building will be there for decades, Crockett noted, so it’s important to make it as attractive as possible, adding that the architect should be ashamed. The Varsity developer and design team have the chance to make that block of Huron Street better and more pedestrian friendly, she said. “There are ways they can do it, but they won’t.”

Another issue is the walkway on the building’s east side, Crockett said. The design review board had indicated this summer that the walkway is too narrow, but now the developer has narrowed it even more, she said. It’s going to be like a tunnel – unattractive and dangerous, she said.

Stephan Trendov, an urban planner, said he’s in favor of the project. This summer he had attended a 2.5-hour meeting about The Varsity at the Michigan Union, and the group there had spent time talking about the building facade and pedestrian walkway. The vision is to move pedestrians from Huron all the way to East Liberty, he said, but this walkway doesn’t do that. There are opportunities for improvements, like adding a pergola or landscaping. The community is watching, he said, and so far, the reaction to what’s been discussed hasn’t been impressive. There haven’t been enough changes.

Donnie Gross, the project’s developer, told commissioners that he’s proud of the project. He could have designed a box-like by-right project, he said, but they’ve done more than that. Despite what people during the public hearing have indicated, Gross said, he and the design team have listened to input and changed the design 20-30 times. Turning to some of the previous speakers, Gross told them that just because they didn’t get everything they want doesn’t mean he hasn’t listened and made changes.

One of the first things his team did was to meet with the neighboring church, Gross said. It’s important to get the church’s approval, because they’ll be neighbors for the next 100 years. They’ll also be asking the church for an easement, so that the walkway on the east side of The Varsity can be widened, he said.

Gross said he’s not opposed to retail in the building, but he’s seen the difficulty that the neighboring 411 Lofts has had in finding tenants. “I’m opposed to retail that’s empty.” Instead, The Varsity is designed so that residents of the building will be like a “3-D billboard,” using a fitness area and lounge in the lower levels. The building would look naked and drab if the first floor were dark, but as long as there is light and activity, it doesn’t matter if the activity is someone getting a pizza or using a computer. The Varsity will add life to East Washington, he said. He noted that the plaza area on East Washington will include a green roof.

Noting that he owns the historic house next to The Varsity site, Gross told commissioners that even the soil beneath the house is declared historic, so he’s unable to excavate it. If he could excavate, he could add more underground parking and have only one entrance – but that’s not possible. He concluded by noting that citizens can say anything to make developers look bad, but there are reasons behind these decisions.

Maurice Binkow, another Sloan Plaza resident, said he joined others in objecting to the unsightly design of The Varsity’s Huron facade, along a road with so many distinguished buildings. He also expressed concern about the Huron entrance into the parking garage, noting that cars would likely be backed up onto Huron as they wait to enter. It would also be a problem for cars coming out onto Huron, if they were making a lefthand turn. He asked that the developer put a lease restriction in place that would prevent left turns onto Huron.

Noting that she is Maurice Binkow’s wife, Linda Binkow said that some of the city’s greatest assets are the properties along Huron Street– they are an exceptionally attractive and valuable part of the city. The city collects tax revenues from those properties, she added. Putting a building like The Varsity on Huron will cause traffic problems and greatly decrease the value of property in that area, she said. It’s not in the city’s interest to do that. She suggested that the building could be designed with a setback, and additional stories.

Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, observed that The Varsity could be built by-right, and that although the design review is mandatory, compliance is voluntary. He said he respected the views of neighbors in the area and residents of Sloan Plaza, but noted that the association’s board has reviewed the building plans and had voted unanimously in support of it. The association has been told that parking spaces will be freed up in Tally Hall [Liberty Square] as soon as the underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue is completed. That should help the parking situation.

The plaza on the East Washington side is an essential buffer for the church, Heywood said. And while the association would prefer retail on the first floor, that can’t be mandated – and the association doesn’t want to see empty space there, like it’s been for 411 Lofts. He noted that the space could be easily convertible into retail or commercial use, if a good proposal comes forward in the future. The association board respectfully requests approval of The Varsity, he concluded.

Ray Detter of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) told commissioners that he appreciated the building’s green roof – this was the first time he’d heard about it. This whole design review process is new, he said, and it’s an educational process too. Everyone’s had a chance to discuss the design, even though changes aren’t compulsory. He noted that CAC supports the plaza setback on East Washington, and the mews on the east side. The developer didn’t have to do those those things. The CAC would like to see the first-floor parking moved underground, and wants the mews walkway expanded even more, Detter said. That walkway, leading to a crosswalk across Washington and into the alley next to Tally Hall, would result in improving the alley, he said, so that it’s ”not the dump it is now.”

Stacey Simpson Duke, co-pastor of the First Baptist Church, handed out a letter she’d written in support of the project. [.pdf of Simpson Duke's letter] She said she never wanted a high-rise building next to the church – she liked seeing the sun set from the church – and she had spoken against the A2D2 zoning changes for downtown that were ultimately approved.

However, the people involved with The Varsity have been the best neighbors they could possibly be, Duke said. The design team has met with church representatives monthly, have listened to input and have explicitly incorporated design elements to address the church’s concerns. Simpson Duke said she’s especially excited about the walkway and the plaza next to the church. She’s also excited about the 400 students who’ll be living there, and the increased foot traffic in that area. She thanked the developer and his team for being good neighbors.

Joan French, a resident of Sloan Plaza, urged commissioners not to allow the Huron Street facade to be a back door. People along Huron can see the beautiful buildings like Campus Inn and the University of Michigan’s new North Quad. She supported the project, but wanted to see details on the Huron entrance that will make people say “wow.”

Brad Moore, an architect on The Varsity project, brought up a panel with samples of the materials that would be used on the building. The renderings of the building that were projected on-screen during the meeting showed a color of brick that was more yellow than it actually would be, he said. The brick evokes the exterior of UM’s original chemistry building, and is intended to be distinctive from the bright red brick of 411 Lofts.

There will be architectural detail, Moore said. Regarding the walkway, there’s no objection to widening it, Moore said, but The Varsity developer can’t do a site plan on the church’s property. Moore said he was certain that in the future the walk would be widened – that action might be handled administratively by city staff, or with the help of the church working through the historic district commission process.

Moore also reported that there will be a lease condition that specifies “right in, right out” only turns for the entrance off of Huron Street. There will be video surveillance cameras to monitor compliance, and if there are complaints, the building’s owner can impose sanctions against tenants who violate that condition, Moore said.

Bob Keane, a principal with WDG Architects in Washington D.C. who also spoke at the Sept. 20 meeting on behalf of the developer, addressed design concerns of the Huron facade. He described several ways in which the design has been changed. For example, the former metal garage door now will have frosted glass panels and look very elegant, he said, evocative of a storefront. There’s also a pedestrian entrance on the Huron side. People will drive by and think it’s the front entrance, Keane said, describing it as an “elegant urban facade.”

The final speaker was Rita Gelman, a resident of Sloan Plaza. (Her husband, Chuck Gelman, attended the meeting but did not speak during the public hearing.) She handed out a letter to commissioners, and said her main concerns are parking, green space and traffic. It’s important to keep the quality of the Huron Street corridor, but the proposed building looks humongous and commercial, she said. In contrast, Sloan Plaza is a building that looks residential, she said.

The Varsity at Ann Arbor: Commission Discussion

Kirk Westphal noted that the city had received a letter from Laura Houk, chairperson of the Ann Arbor Cooperative Preschool, a tenant at the First Baptist Church. [.pdf of Houk's letter] Houk had expressed concern about possible hazardous materials, noise and traffic during the demolition and construction phases of the project, and the impact on the preschool, which uses an outdoor playground year-round. She wanted the city to ensure that the developer mitigate the effects of the demolition and construction.

Westphal asked how those concerns would be addressed. Alexis DiLeo said she planned to meet with the preschool director, and go over the basic process for projects like this. The developer has had at least one meeting with the preschool too, she said. Regarding hazardous materials, if there are any on that site, there are state and federal regulations that govern the handling of those materials. She said she trusted that the developer would take steps to minimize the impact.

Erica Briggs noted that the developer’s ultimate intent is eventually to widen the walkway – that’s great, she said. In response to a query from Briggs about lighting, Brad Moore said there’s not currently room for pedestal lighting along the walkway – lights will be mounted on the building. But the intent is to include pedestal lighting in the future, and the developer would pay for it.

Briggs expressed concern that the sidewalk in front of the East Washington entrance isn’t clearly defined – that might be a safety issue, she said. She encouraged the design team to give more thought about how to make the pedestrian experience as safe as possible, especially in the driveway area leading to the parking garage.

Briggs also asked whether the developer planned to add any amenities for bicyclists – she had broached this subject at the Sept. 20 meeting, suggesting that things like a free air pump would be a public amenity. Donnie Gross, the developer, said he couldn’t make a commitment about that, but said they would explore that possibility.

Diane Giannola said her only concern is parking. She realized that the project includes the minimum number of parking spaces required by the city, and noted that the intent is to encourage people not to use cars. But she’s more of a realist, she said, and worries that there’ll be an even bigger parking problem in that area than there is now. [This issue was also addressed in an email sent to the planning staff by Jerry Weaver, manager for the Firestone shop at the corner of Division and Huron. He stated that because of parking needs at 411 Lofts, people are parking at other lots in the area and more cars have been impounded this fall than the prior 10 years combined. .pdf of Weaver's letter]

Giannola said that the way The Varsity selects its tenants will determine whether the development is a good neighbor. She asked that the owner find ways to discourage people from bringing cars. Eric Mahler, chair of the planning commission, quickly added that the city doesn’t advocate for discrimination based on anything.

For his part, Mahler pointed to the development agreement for The Varsity, citing the section stipulating that plazas on the site are intended to serve in lieu of a financial contribution to city parks:

(P-8) For the benefit of the residents of the PROPRIETOR’S development, in lieu of a contribution of $112,000 to the CITY Parks and Recreation Services Unit prior to the issuance of building permits, to construct and maintain as an integral part of the development the proposed amenities in the north and south plazas and the walkway along the east side of the site as generally illustrated and described in the exhibits to this Agreement. [.pdf of draft development agreement]

Mahler wondered whether the city can seek an injunction against the developer, if the plazas aren’t built as envisioned. DiLeo said the city won’t issue a certificate of occupancy unless the project passes a site inspection and meets all the requirements outlined in the development agreement.

Westphal weighed in again with several observations. He said he can see how the plazas benefit the church, but it gets tricky when zoning is bent to fit one neighbor.

By way of background, The Varsity is a “planned project,” which allows some limited flexibility in design. The setback to accommodate the plaza on East Washington, for example, is greater than would otherwise be allowed for a by-right project on that site. It differs from a planned unit development (PUD) in granting far less flexibility. From Chapter 55 of the city code [emphasis added]:

Planned Projects. 5:68. The intent of this section is to provide an added degree of flexibility in the placement and interrelationship of the buildings within the planned project and to provide for permanent open space preservation within planned projects. Modifications of the area, height, placement requirements, and lot sizes, where used for permanent open space preservation, of this Chapter may be permitted if the planned project would result in the preservation of natural features, additional open space, greater building or parking setback, energy conserving design, preservation of historic or architectural features, expansion of the supply of affordable housing for lower income households or a beneficial arrangement of buildings. A planned project shall maintain the permitted uses and requirements for maximum density, maximum floor area and minimum usable open space specified in this Chapter for the zoning district(s) in which the proposed planned project is located.

Westphal praised the plans to eventually widen the walkway, and said he appreciated the bike parking. Regarding vehicle parking, he said things won’t change until the message gets out that the city doesn’t want to see large portions of land used for car storage. He doesn’t have a problem with limited parking on that site.

He also commended the design review board, saying that they didn’t suggest changes that are too burdensome. He hoped that people would stay tuned for a review of the design process next year.

Noting that he hadn’t attended the Sept. 20 meeting, Evan Pratt asked whether the design of the Huron facade had changed since then. No, DiLeo replied, but the design had changed since the developer’s team met with the design review board in the summer.

Tony Derezinski said the planned project approach is a creative way to work with The Varsity’s neighbor and create an attractive plaza, even though it’s larger than what would otherwise be allowed by code. He indicated that some people wouldn’t be satisfied with any design, and at some point it’s the commission’s responsibility to say enough is enough. The developer has shown willingness to make some changes, he said, and if retail eventually becomes viable, the developer will include that. Derezinski concluded by saying The Varsity will add to the area and improve the city’s tax base.

Giannola asked whether it would be possible to require a No Left Turn sign – could that be added to the development agreement? Gross said he’d welcome that. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said the city can’t require that a sign be added to the public right-of-way – that’s the purview of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, since Huron is a trunkline. Rampson said the developer could certainly put a sign on his property, but she didn’t recommend altering the development agreement to address traffic engineering issues like this. No amendment was made.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the site plan for The Varsity at Ann Arbor. It will be considered next by city council.

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

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Oct. 18 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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

The proposal would increase the number of allowable employees from 50 to 59 at the bank’s headquarters and add a new parking lot on the site, with a setback of 24 feet from the eastern property line. A continuous six-foot-high wall is proposed along the eastern and southeastern property lines, to screen the parking lot from 2021 Washtenaw Ave. and 2107-2109 Tuomy. The changes require amending the supplemental regulations of the site’s planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, which was originally approved in 1978.

The planning commission tabled a similar proposal at its Oct. 19, 2010 meeting, asking planning staff to work with bank officials to come up with an alternative proposal for locating new parking. At the time, planning staff had recommended denial of the request, stating that the project impacted natural features and didn’t offer an overall benefit to the city. Although a consensus on changes appeared to have been reached by the Sept. 8 meeting – among planning staff, neighbors and bank officials – the commission was reluctant to make a recommendation, because the final site plan had not yet been submitted.

At Tuesday’s meeting, there was some discussion about requiring a minimum of two “No Parking” signs along the property’s driveway – a request made by owners of an adjacent home, who are concerned about possible parking near the entrance to their driveway. Tony Derezinski initially proposed an amendment to the supplemental regulations, requiring that those signs be added. He later withdrew that amendment, saying that it seemed to be quibbling over a small thing.

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]

Walt Hansen, co-owner of Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky, retrieves a copy of the agenda before the start of the Sept. 8 planning commission meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The commission put off a decision on a proposal from University Bank to increase the number of allowable employees from 50 to 59 at its headquarters on Washtenaw Avenue and to add 14 parking spaces to a new lot on the site. The headquarters is located in what’s known as the Hoover Mansion.

In October 2010, the commission had put off a decision on University Bank’s proposal as well, faced with a recommendation against approval from city planning staff and opposition from some neighbors. This time around, a consensus appeared to have been reached – among planning staff, neighbors and bank officials – to accommodate neighbors’ concerns. However, the commission was reluctant to make a recommendation, because the final site plan had not yet been submitted. The consensus had been achieved only a week ago, on Sept. 1. The vote to postpone, likely until the commission’s next meeting on Sept. 20, was unanimous.

The commission did make a recommendation on a proposal from Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle – the owners of Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky – to rezone the property at 1643 and 1645 S. State St., south of Stimson and next to the Produce Station. The parcels currently house the couple’s sausage business as well as an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer. The commission found the proposed rezoning inconsistent with the city’s master plan and recommended against it.

In connection with the property’s annexation into the city from Ann Arbor Township, the Biercamp owners had wanted to rezone the property to C3 (fringe commercial district). That zoning designation would allow their business to sell a wider variety of merchandise, in addition to the sausage and jerky products they make on site. The recommendation against approval will be forwarded to the city council.

Commissioners offered a glimmer of possibility that commercial zoning for the Biercamp parcel could result from a study of the entire State Street corridor and a revision to the city’s master plan.

At the meeting, commissioners also got an update on future planning-connected events, including a Grand Rapids planning conference that commissioners might want to attend, and visitors from Indonesia that the city is hosting through an International City/County Management Association (ICMA) sustainability fellows program.

The commission also received a heads up that on their Sept. 20 agenda would be a proposal for The Varsity at Ann Arbor, a proposed 13-story, 173-unit, 178,380-square-foot apartment building for approximately 418 students. It would include 77 parking spaces, and would replace the two-story office building and parking lot currently on the site.

University Bank Parking Reconfiguration

The commission was asked to consider a University Bank proposal to increase the number of allowable employees from 50 to 59 at its headquarters on Washtenaw Avenue, and to add 14 parking spaces to a new lot on the site. The headquarters is located in what’s known as the Hoover Mansion.

The change requires amending the supplemental regulations of the site’s planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, which was originally approved in 1978.

The commission did not accept a similar proposal at its Oct. 19, 2010 meeting. They instead tabled it and asked planning staff to work with bank officials to come up with an alternative proposal for locating new parking. At the time, planning staff had recommended denial of the request, stating that the project impacted natural features and didn’t offer an overall benefit to the city.

The current request was initially recommended for approval by staff, but that advice was changed to postponement when the final site plan was not submitted in time for the meeting.

The bank has made several changes based on feedback, according to staff. For example, the new parking lot has been shifted an additional seven feet away from the east property line to reduce the disturbance of woodland in that area. The height of a three-foot-tall masonry screening wall around the parking lot will be increased to six feet, to screen the lot from homes to the east. New bicycle parking spaces are proposed for the southeast corner of the bank building, and a new five-foot-wide walkway connecting Washtenaw Avenue to the bank is proposed for the western part of the site.

The University Bank proposal has been discussed for nearly a year since it was last heard by the commission. Although the planning process sometimes moves slowly, city planner Chris Cheng demonstrates in this photo that planners can move quickly when necessary. Cheng is the blur in the left of the frame. Behind Cheng is local attorney Dan Dever. Seated to Cheng's left are planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Diane Giannola.

At the meeting, city planner Chris Cheng gave the staff report on the University Bank request. He reviewed how it was tabled at the Oct. 19, 2010 planning commission meeting. The staff had recommended that the request be denied back then.

Cheng described how the site plan slide he was projecting on the screen was from last year – due to technical difficulties in getting the current revised site plan, it had not been included in the commission’s packet of materials.

Cheng described how a week before, on Sept. 1, city staff had met with a neighbor and the petitioner and reached a consensus on some additional conditions for the request. Among those were shifting the access drive to be nine feet (instead of one foot) off the property line of the neighboring property at 2021 Washtenaw Ave. The access driveway width has been reduced from 22 feet to 20 feet. The height of the screening wall along the driveway and on the eastern edge of the new parking lot was increased from three feet (specified in the city’s ordinance) to six feet.

Cheng described how University Bank had agreed to put up “no parking” signs at the driveway, as also required by the fire department. Cheng also described how a new five-foot walkway from Washtenaw Avenue up to the Hoover Mansion would encourage alternative transportation as a public benefit. The stormwater detention proposed for the site meets the city’s 100-year storm requirements, he said. Cheng stated that he believed all the neighbors’ concerns had been covered. Staff is waiting for the final site plan submittal in order to do calculations on the impact to the woodland area to determine how many trees would be required as mitigation.

Cheng noted that one of the alternatives analyzed previously showed 14 parking spaces along the drive – city planning staff previously felt like that was a possible alternative. However, the need to provide an access easement prohibits parking, and the fire code requires posting signs that a fire lane must be maintained for half the drive. And in talking to neighbors, Cheng said they don’t prefer parking along the drive. He described the neighbors as willing to live with the parking lot as proposed, as long as the proposed additional screening is put in place.

The staff report had originally recommended that the commission vote for approval, Cheng noted, but now they recommended tabling the item, waiting for the final site plan submission.

University Bank Parking/Employee Expansion: Public Participation

Dan Dever, an attorney for one of neighbors of the Hoover Mansion property, told the commission he was strongly in favor of the staff’s recommendation to postpone. Physical signs are needed indicating that no parking will be allowed along the drive, and he would like to see that assurance in writing. Dever allowed that the process had taken a long time, but said it will need to take a little bit longer.

Ken Sprinkles of University Bank offered his thanks to city planner Chris Cheng for his efforts working on the project. He called Cheng’s attention to the fact that the revisions to the supplemental regulations specify 53 spaces for vehicles and 10 Class C bicycle parking spaces. Sprinkles noted that the number of bicycle spaces should be five. Cheng clarified that it’s five hoops, two bikes on each side, for a total of 10 spaces.

Sprinkles noted that the reason the plans were not submitted in time for that evening’s planning commission meeting was that the consensus had been hashed out in a meeting on Thursday just a week before.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, told the commission that he appreciated the fact that it seemed like a consensus had been reached. The bank’s conversations had included 19 neighbors, he said. The decision had been postponed a year ago because three people came forward late, he said, and prior to that time had made no attempt to communicate with the bank. Ranzini observed that yet again the project would be delayed two weeks.

By way of background, at the Oct. 19, 2010 meeting, when the project had been put off, Ranzini had warned that the bank might need to relocate elsewhere as it expanded and grew, if the proposal it sought did not gain eventual approval. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

During a public hearing on the project, bank president Stephen Ranzini told commissioners that if the bank can’t get the additional parking, it could trigger a decision to leave that location and expand elsewhere.

At Thursday’s meeting, Ranzini reiterated the same theme, telling commissioners that there are consequences to delays. He said he hoped that the project could start before the construction season ends. He noted that the reason for the requested parking is because the bank is growing, and currently it cannot house all its divisions at the Hoover Mansion site. Because of the delays up to now, University Islamic Financial [a division of University Bank providing financial services to the Muslim community], had to be relocated out of the Hoover Mansion to Farmington Hills, permanently eliminating seven jobs in Ann Arbor. He told the commissioners that he would not be able to attend their meeting scheduled for Sept. 20, so if they had questions, he asked that they pose them to him that evening.

Gerald Serwer introduced himself as the owner of 2021 Washtenaw Ave., located next to the access road. He described how he’d worked with the bank to eliminate some objections. He said he was grateful for the cooperation. He simply wanted to make sure that the access road has screening of the view so that it doesn’t negatively impact enjoyment of his property – the side yard. That could have a negative impact on the property’s value. To that end, he said, details are important and need to be spelled out before approval. If the details are how he thinks they’ll be, it’ll be okay, he said, but he still wants to see it in writing first. He stressed that there should be no parking along the access road, because it would be an impediment to getting service trucks to his home.

University Bank Parking/Employee Expansion: Commissioner Deliberations

Tony Derezinski, who’s the city council’s representative to the planning commission, began deliberations by saying, “We’re so close.” He characterized the whole process as coming out pretty well. What’s causing the delay, he continued, is the failure of the site plan to be delivered. He said the approval will be accelerated as much as possible, but then cited the old saying: “Trust but verify.” [It's a phrase associated most prominently with Ronald Reagan in connection with treaty negotiations with the Soviet Union on nuclear weapons.] The agreement needs to be written and understood so there’s no ambiguity later on, Derezinski said. He allowed that Ranzini made good points – time is money, especially at the end of the construction season.

Derezinki moved to table the issue until the documents have been submitted and the city planning staff has had a chance to review them. That would be a just outcome, he concluded.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to postpone the issue, likely until the Sept. 20 meeting. Those who attended the meeting were encouraged to leave their contact information, so that they could be notified directly when that timing became more definite.

Biercamp Parcel Rezoning

On the agenda was a rezoning request for the property at 1643 and 1645 S. State St., south of Stimson and next to the Produce Station. The parcels, which are owned by Stefan Hofmann, currently house a new business – Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky – as well as an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer.

Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle want to rezone the property to C3 (fringe commercial district), which would allow their business to sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

The Biercamp parcel is in Site 5 in this map of the city master plan. (Image links to .pdf with higher resolution, complete map.)

The commission first considered this request at its Aug. 16, 2011 meeting, along with a request to annex the land from Ann Arbor Township. The annexation request was approved. However, at that time planning staff recommended postponing the zoning request until Biercamp received a certificate of occupancy from the township, which would grandfather in the business under light industrial zoning that allows it to sell items produced on site. That certificate has been received.

City planner Chris Cheng noted that the background information material would be familiar to commissioners, because they’d considered it three weeks ago. He reminded them that the annexation from Ann Arbor Township to the city of Ann Arbor was approved.

Since that time Biercamp has coordinated with the township and received its certificate of occupancy. The township M1 zoning, under which they would be grandfathered-in, will allow selling for products manufactured on site, Cheng said. The requested C3 or C2B zoning designation would allow for the store to sell products that were not manufactured on site, Cheng said.

Cheng indicated that the city planning staff recommended M1 zoning for the parcel.

The city’s master plan was referenced by several people during the meeting. In relevant part, from the land use section of the city’s master plan, pages 111-113 [emphasis added]:

Site 5. Both sides of State Street to the south end of the U of M Golf Course, and the north end of South Industrial. As sites are annexed into the City, uses consistent with the light industrial district should be encouraged. Residential and commercial uses should be discouraged, except for the parcels adjacent to the Stimson and South Industrial commercial area. This area could serve as a location for a City garage facility since it is zoned or master planned appropriately and is centrally located. Sites on the west side of State Street should be office use. If ORL zoning is desired in this vicinity, the area zoned M1 and M2 south of the proposed deKoning Drive has large parcels and land uses that fit the intent of the district.

Biercamp Parcel Rezoning: Public Participation

David Diephuis introduced himself as a resident with a State Street address near the parcel that Biercamp wants to rezone. He stated that he was opposed to the proposed rezoning for four reasons. First, he said, rezoning to commercial use is contrary to the city’s master plan. That plan only supports commercial zoning “adjacent to” Stimson Street and South Industrial, which in the master plan’s context does not mean simply “nearby.” Second, he said, the commercial C3 or C2B zoning would allow for almost any future use of the land – auto sales, drive-through restaurants or dry cleaners. Auto-centric commercial zoning there could cause crippling congestion in the corridor, he warned. Third, the kind of ad hoc zoning being proposed, without a study, would be contrary to Ann Arbor’s efforts to achieve a sustainable future. Fourth, the light industrial zoning that the parcel would inherit from the township will allow the business to continue as it has for the six weeks since it opened. And that, Diephuis concluded, showed that commercial zoning was not necessary for the business.

Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle introduced themselves as the owners of Biercamp. They said the master plan should be followed. But they noted that commercial uses are encouraged adjacent to Stimson and South Industrial. They allowed they could operate their current business as it is. They suggested that the building at 1645 S. State could have its zoning left as is, and that it would be feasible to have only 1643 S. State rezoned as C2B – no drive-throughs would be possible under that zoning configuration.

They hoped their situation could be treated as a special case because of its annexation to the city from the township. They suggested that if the parcel were rezoned as a commercial designation and another business came after them, that business would need a re-occupancy permit, and the city could deny it, if the city did not think the business would be a good fit.

Responding to the criticism they’d heard that the location was good for them as owners but not for customers, they noted that it’s within biking and walking distance of offices near Eisenhower. They noted that when the neighboring Produce Station’s parcel was rezoned from M1 to C3, it was looked at as that store’s potential to serve the community as opposed to the site’s potential to be a McDonald’s. They stressed that the reason they want to be able to sell products not manufactured on site stems from a desire to sell additional products that are made in Michigan.

Biercamp Parcel Rezoning: Commissioner Deliberations

Diane Giannola said she essentially had to repeat some things she’d said at the planning commission’s last meeting about the request. She had trouble finding justification for C3 or C2B zoning in that area. The real problem is the Biercamp owners had leased a place with the wrong zoning, she said, and they hadn’t done due diligence to find that out. There are many other places they could have leased. Biercamp’s proposed rezoning, she said, just doesn’t fit into the master plan.

Giannola allowed that she would like to see the South State Street corridor studied and possibly rezoned as an outcome to that study, but said the commission is not ready to do that yet. Right now, she said, someone could point to this as a case of favoritism and base a lawsuit on that.

Kirk Westphal said he also had similar comments to those he’d made at the commission’s last meeting. If it were up to him, and the commission could attach the rezoning just to the business, that would be okay. But zoning goes with the land, not the business, he said.

Westphal echoed Giannola’s sentiments about consideration of the entire corridor. It’s good to keep in mind, he said, that it’s a high priority on the commission’s work plan to take a look at the State Street corridor. Maybe it turns out that the corridor gets recommended for up-zoning and other uses, he ventured.

Evan Pratt noted that he was not present at the commission’s previous meeting, but echoed Westphal’s thoughts. There’s a need for change in the entire corridor, he said. He said he was thinking along the lines of what the petitioner would like. But it’s not up to the planning commission to change the city’s master plan. That’s something that’s done with public process. He suggested that maybe Biercamp could wait it out a little bit.

In response to a query from Pratt about the possibility that a PUD could be a device to achieve Biercamp’s goals, city planner Chris Cheng noted the need of a PUD to demonstrate a public benefit. In addition, Cheng said, Biercamp’s owners didn’t indicate they wanted to go down that road.

Pratt concluded that he was left with M1 zoning as the best option to allow the business to continue. He ventured that maybe there won’t be labels on every product sold in the Biercamp store. [Pratt meant this apparently in a humorful way, inasmuch as Biercamp could contemplate selling products manufactured elsewhere but not labeled as such, which would be contrary to their zoning.] Pratt noted that the study of the corridor can’t be done quickly. He encouraged Biercamp’s owners to talk to their elected officials. [The site is located in Ward 4, represented by councilmembers Marcia Higgins and Margie Teall.]

Wendy Woods said she agreed with the comments from other commissioners. Responding to the talk of a PUD, she said that if there’s a public benefit, it’s important to come forward with that. She noted there are folks out there who are not crazy about PUDs in general. Regardless of the age of the master plan, Woods said, it serves a purpose. Having the master plan in place means that neighbors don’t have to guess about what’s going to happen next. She said she hoped that funding would be available to look at the State Street corridor.

Tony Derezinski said it boiled down to the source of things being sold. Once a decision is made to rezone, he cautioned, you can’t “un-ring the bell.” The staff recommendation is to deny the rezoning request, but be open to change as the city studies the corridor, he noted. Derezinski allowed that he’s eaten some Biercamp product, and it’s a great business. He suggested that if the State Street corridor study is delayed, the planning commission should think about revisiting the rezoning request. He said that he would encourage his city council colleagues to study the State Street corridor.

Planning commission chair Eric Mahler said he had the same concerns with the “spot zoning” that others had voiced. He noted that the commission has been talking about the State Street corridor for a while. He said that his own vision would be to up-zone the entire corridor.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously not to recommend the requested commercial zoning for the parcel. On a separate vote, the commission agreed unanimously to waive the requirement that Biercamp submit an area plan, because they are using the property “as is” with no additional improvements. Those recommendations will be forwarded to city council.

Commission Updates

Planning commission meetings typically include a variety of updates from staff and planning commissioners.

Comm/Comm: Near North, Washtenaw Non-Motorized Path

As part of his summary of city council activity, Tony Derezinski, the council’s representative to the planning commission, noted that Avalon Housing‘s Near North project appeared to be moving ahead. [The previous day, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority renewed a $500,000 grant to the nonprofit for that affordable housing project, to be located on North Main Street.]

Derezinski also noted that the Washtenaw Avenue non-motorized path had enjoyed its grand opening on a day when it had been raining cats and dogs. He noted the old expression that people can “vote with their feet,” which people had been doing by using the path already – it’s been substantively complete for a month and a half.

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Also as a part of Derezinski’s update to the planning commission from the city council, he noted that the city’s medical marijuana ordinance had been discussed at that week’s meeting, on Sept. 6. He said that dispensaries in the city are now all closed in the wake of a court of appeals ruling. The council’s specific issue at the Sept. 6 meeting was whether to go ahead with appointing members to the city’s medical marijuana licensing board – the council had decided to go ahead with that.

Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, noted that from a staff standpoint, they continue to get questions about whether people should go ahead and apply for one of the medical marijuana licenses specified in the recently enacted city ordinance. Rampson said that staff are not currently going to continue making any determinations about compliance with zoning or not. However, they’ll accept information if people want to bring it in. Right now, however, the city staff are not acting on any medical marijuana licensing requirements.

Comm/Comm: Public Art

Derezinski also told his fellow commissioners that an issue discussed at the last meeting was the city’s public art program, which sets aside one percent of all capital project budgets for public art. Derezinski indicated that the city attorney’s office “initial review” of the public art ordinance [enacted in 2007] showed that from a legal point of view it was fine. Derezinski said that one of the councilmembers at the last meeting had given his own opinion that the public art program was illegal. [That councilmember was Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), though Derezinski did not name him.] Derezinski reported that he himself had been appointed to replace Jeff Meyers on the Ann Arbor public art commission and had attended just one meeting so far. [The commission has met just once since Derezinski's appointment.]

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

Absent: Erica Briggs.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 N. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Although a consensus appeared to have been reached – among planning staff, neighbors and bank officials – the commission was reluctant to make a recommendation, because the final site plan had not yet been submitted. The consensus had been achieved only a week ago, last Thursday, Sept. 1. The vote to postpone, likely until the commission’s next meeting on Sept. 20, was unanimous.

The change requires amending the supplemental regulations of the site’s planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, which was originally approved in 1978.

The commission had rejected did not accept a similar proposal at its Oct. 19, 2010 meeting, tabling it and asking planning staff to work with bank officials to come up with an alternative proposal for locating new parking. At the time, planning staff had recommended denial of the request, stating that the project impacted natural features and didn’t offer an overall benefit to the city.

The current request was initially recommended for approval by staff, but that advice was changed to postponement when the final site plan was not submitted.

The bank has made several changes based on feedback, according to staff. For example, the new parking lot has been shifted an additional seven feet away from the east property line to reduce the disturbance of woodland in that area. The height of a three-foot-tall masonry screening wall around the parking lot will be increased to six feet, to screen the lot from homes to the east. New bicycle parking spaces are proposed for the southeast corner of the bank building, and a new five-foot-wide walkway connecting Washtenaw Avenue to the bank is proposed for the western part of the site.

During public participation time, president of University Bank, Stephen Ranzini, cautioned the commission against further delays. He told them that the bank had already needed to move some of its operations out of the Ann Arbor location, meaning a permanent loss of those jobs for the city of Ann Arbor.

When it’s voted on, the planning commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for final approval.

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

The headquarters of University Bank, in the building known as the Hoover Mansion on Washtenaw Avenue. A request to increase parking on the site was postponed by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its Oct. 19 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

One of those projects – related to an expansion of Arbor Dog Daycare – has already appeared before the commission multiple times. Most recently, the proposal was rejected by commissioners in September, primarily due to concerns about noise generated by dogs using the outdoor dog run. Owners Jon and Margaret Svoboda had asked that their request be reconsidered, and commissioners agreed to the reconsideration. But after an hour of discussion on Tuesday evening, commissioners voted to postpone again, asking staff to explore possible conditions – such as an annual review or written policy requirement – that could be added to the special exception use to address the problem of continuously barking dogs.

Also postponed was a request to add more parking to the site of the University Bank headquarters in the building known as the Hoover Mansion on Washtenaw Avenue, and to allow up to 10 additional employees to work at that location. The planning staff had recommended denial of the request, stating that the project impacts natural features and doesn’t offer an overall benefit to the city. However, commissioners asked planning staff to work with bank officials to come up with an alternative proposal for locating new parking.

During a public hearing on the project, bank president Stephen Ranzini told commissioners that if the bank can’t get the additional parking, it could trigger a decision to leave that location and expand elsewhere. He noted that the building, which he said sat vacant for nearly three years before being acquired by the bank, is extremely expensive to maintain, and described himself as a good steward for the property.

A third proposal considered by the planning commission on Oct. 19 – adding parking spots to the Briar Cove Apartments complex on the city’s southwest side – was approved unanimously.

University Bank Request Postponed

University Bank requested approval to revise a planned unit development (PUD), allowing an increase in the total number of employees and parking spaces permitted at the bank’s headquarters at 2015 Washtenaw Ave. – the site known as the Hoover Mansion. The proposal included a request to build 14 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 53 spaces on the site.

Planning staff recommended denial, stating that the project impacts natural features and doesn’t offer an overall benefit to the city, as required by a PUD.

University Bank: Public Hearing

Seven people spoke during the public hearing – four residents of the neighborhood, and three people affiliated with the bank project.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, began by describing various awards and recognitions that the bank has received. He said they’re trying to be as good a custodian for this landmark building as they possibly can. The major asset of the site is its beautiful front lawn, he said, and putting cars on the driveway in front would destroy the aesthetics. The small woods behind the building that they’ve proposed to remove hasn’t been there very long, he said. They have photos of when the mansion was built in 1917, and it shows a field there with sheep grazing. Most of the proposed parking would be put in what’s now a grassy area.

In working with planning staff over the past 20 months, they’ve made three major revisions to the plan, he said, and have held three meetings with neighbors, plus phone conversations and email exchanges. They compromised on the number of spaces they wanted, and had expected to get staff approval, he said. As far as he knows, the only remaining issue is about a few trees located in the area of a proposed driveway, leading to the parking in back.

Ranzini said that if the site weren’t zoned as a PUD, they’d be entitled to more parking than they’re asking for. Parking is critical to the long-term sustainability of that building. He noted that the building had sat vacant for almost three years, and that the cost of maintaining it is extremely high. By expanding the amount of parking, they would increase the size and type of businesses that could ultimately operate there in the future, he said. But if they don’t get approval, it might trigger a decision to leave the site and expand the bank elsewhere. They are currently at capacity, with 50 employees and 35 parking spaces. Ranzini concluded by saying that it would be hard to find a better steward for the building than the bank and himself, but “everyone’s mortal.”

Gerald and Sheryl Serwer, a couple who live next to the bank on Washtenaw Avenue, both spoke during the public hearing. Gerald Serwer discussed two primary concerns: aesthetics and drainage. The property line of their house would abut the access drive to the new parking lot, and several trees and shrubs would be removed, eliminating a natural screen for their home. He also reported that the sump pump in their home’s basement recently broke, and they had standing water in their basement within 12 hours. A proposed drainage basin on the bank property that’s part of the project would be at a higher elevation than their house, he said, potentially adding to their drainage problems.

Sheryl Serwer also raised concerns about eliminating the natural buffer of trees in her side yard, noting that it would eliminate screening to an area that’s used by employees to take smoking breaks and to talk on their cell phones. She said she works at home and notices that existing parking spots are rarely all filled.

Michael Sarosi said he lives on Tuomy Road, directly behind the Hoover Mansion. The bank’s parking lot would essentially be in his back yard, he said. He reported that he recently walked around to houses that are adjacent to the bank property, and asked people who were home whether they wanted a parking lot in their back yard. Everyone he talked to signed a petition against it. He said he was no zoning expert, but he looked at the city’s zoning codes recently for the first time in his life. He said that the parking lot – which comes within 15 feet of their back yards – doesn’t seem to fit with the goals of the zoning in that area. A parking lot isn’t in keeping with anyone’s neighborhood, he said.

Tom Johengen, who also lives on Tuomy, told commissioners that the proposal would essentially put a parking lot in his back yard. He’s concerned about the change to aesthetics of the neighborhood. He was also concerned about drainage issues, noting that the soil in that area is 100% clay, and they’ve already had problems with it.

Matt Kuehn of KEM-TEC Engineering, the contract engineering firm that’s handling the project, briefly described some of the work they’d do, such as installing a European paver system and an underground drainage system, which would bring the entire site up to stormwater compliance, he said. It will actually improve drainage in the surrounding area, he said.

Ken Sprinkles told commissioners that he takes care of the building and facilities for the bank, and that they’ve held numerous public meetings with neighbors about the project. He said the bank is opened limited hours, and headlights from cars wouldn’t be a problem. Their new drainage system would better contain the water on the site, he said, improving drainage in the area. They’ve also offered neighbors to the south some monetary assistance and help with landscaping.

University Bank: Commission Deliberations

Jean Carlberg began by saying she wanted to decrease the impact of parking on the back yard. She asked Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff whether the extra parking is necessary for the additional employees that the bank wants to bring onto the site.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, urged planning commissioners to approve the additional parking at the bank's headquarters, located in the Hoover Mansion.

Cheng said he’d been out to the site twice, and that both times he saw parking spaces that weren’t being used. He said they’ve been having a debate with the bank about whether the current use is more of a bank branch or an office. If it were more like a traditional bank, with a drive-thru and ATM, then it would definitely need more parking, he said – there are only four customer spaces. But planning staff believes it’s more like an office use, and that additional parking spaces can be added without building a new lot in the back of the building, he said. For example, Cheng said they could add at least 10 new spots along the existing 30-foot-wide driveway. The staff thinks it’s possible to create the parking without taking out the woodland area, he said.

However, the bank contends that putting parking spaces along the driveway, which winds around to the front of the property, would impact the aesthetics of the historic building, Cheng said. Bank officials believe that not having parking in front is a public benefit, he said.

Carlberg said she could live with having cars parked along the front during the day. She said she doesn’t feel strongly about the “urban woodland,” noting that much of it is buckthorn, an invasive species. It’s the bank’s responsibility to screen the business from the neighboring residences, she said, and it’s not clear that they’ve adequately addressed that issue. They do appear to have addressed the drainage issue, she added.

Carlberg noted that this particular building is a challenge – it’s difficult for businesses to operate in, and the city needs to plan carefully for its future. She said it’s important for businesses to expand, and in particular she’d love the local bank to stay in this community.

Erica Briggs said she was concerned that the discussion had become focused on the bank not being able to expand without additional parking. She noted that it was located along a strong transit corridor, and if the bank – in this economic climate – couldn’t find employees who’d be willing to take a short bus ride to get to their job, that’s surprising, she said. Briggs also said she shared the kind of concerns that the neighbors had expressed during public commentary.

Tony Derezinski noted that the property is located in his ward – he serves on the city council representing Ward 2, and is the council’s representative to the planning commission. He said he has walked the property with Ranzini, and also talked with neighbors. He had two questions for staff: 1) Had other alternatives been explored to locate parking? and 2) Could additional public meetings be held? The most recent neighborhood meeting held by the bank was in May of 2009, he noted, citing concern about the extent of public involvement.

Cheng said he had strongly encouraged bank officials to hold another neighborhood meeting about the project. He also had suggested alternative places to put the parking, but said he believed the bank was only interested in putting the parking behind the building.

Bonnie Bona echoed Carlberg’s comments, saying the site historically has been difficult to occupy and own, and that she appreciates the struggle. Regarding parking on the curving driveway, she said she’d be more comfortable putting parking there if the drive were straight – it’s hard to park on a curve. She also agreed with Carlberg about the trees, saying that the city’s mitigation requirements are strong when trees are removed.

However, Bona didn’t see any public benefits in the project – the benefits listed by the bank are actually things that are required, she said. The building, which she characterized as underutilized, does need more parking, but the project needed to include benefits. Bona suggested adding a sidewalk and additional landscaping.

Evan Pratt began his comments by saying that the good news is that PUD zoning is discretionary. He also wants the business to grow, but doesn’t want the neighbors to be upset. Referring to the width of the driveway, he noted that 30 feet is a tremendous amount of space. To demonstrate, Pratt got out of his seat and strode across the front of the council chambers, noting that it was roughly 30 feet between the two brick columns there. If you parked a car on one side, there was still plenty of room to pass.

Pratt agreed with his colleagues that having cars parked in front of the property wouldn’t affect the aesthetics, and he said he felt that Carlberg had proposed some reasonable alternatives for parking that didn’t require putting spaces behind the building.

Kirk Westphal clarified the type of business that the bank does at that location – staff considers it to be more like an office use than a retail operation, though it does function as a bank branch. He was concerned that it would become more retail-oriented – “more branchy than officey,” he quipped. He added that the “viewshed” of the mansion is important, but that cars won’t block that view. It’s worth exploring the option of putting parking in front.

Wendy Woods agreed with her colleagues, with the exception that she wanted to say something positive about urban forests. She said she’d be in favor of putting parking somewhere so that natural features aren’t removed.

Derezinski said it seemed like more work needed to be done on the project. “There’s still room for some compromise here,” he said. He loved that the historic building was being used, and noted that “you really worry about something that beautiful going to hell.” Moving to postpone, he urged staff and the bank to come up with some creative alternatives.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone the proposal from University Bank, and asked planning staff to work with bank officials to come up with an alternative proposal for locating new parking spaces.

Arbor Dog Daycare Expansion Postponed Again

The owners of Arbor Dog Daycare, Jon and Margaret Svoboda, have come before the planning commission several times, hoping to get approval for an amendment to their existing special exception use that would allow the business to expand. The business – located at 2856 S. Main St., near the corner of Eisenhower – is surrounded by residential areas. The request was initial considered by the commission at their Dec. 5, 2009 meeting, when they postponed action to allow the owners to address several concerns, including noise issues associated with barking dogs.

The project came before the commission most recently at its Sept. 21 meeting, when commissioners ultimately rejected the request by a 5-4 vote due to concerns about noise generated by dogs using the outdoor dog run. Then at the commission’s Oct. 5 meeting, the Svobodas returned to ask that their request be reconsidered, and commissioners voted unanimously to take up the proposal again at the Oct. 19 meeting.

The major change between the original request and the reconsideration is that the Svobodas offered to keep only 15 dogs outside at any one time, a decrease from the 25 dogs that are allowed currently. They also offered to cut the number of hours that dogs would be permitted outside – on weekdays, for example, it would be limited to 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Arbor Dog Daycare: Public Hearing

Jon Svoboda said he wanted to address some misconceptions about their project. They’ve been in business at that location for four years. They aren’t a kennel, he said. They have staff on site 24/7, and it’s a cage-free environment, which eliminates the vast majority of separation issues that dogs experience, he said. Their staff is trained in canine CPR, and they’ve been recognized by the American Red Cross, the Humane Society of Huron Valley, and Michigan Tails magazine. He said his wife has gone door-to-door at the neighboring Balmoral Park condo complex, handing out her business card with her cell phone number and trying to address residents’ concerns. He noted that the latest issue raised by one neighbor was a concern that the business might lower property values – he said he didn’t know how to address that issue.

He reported that following the Sept. 21 commission meeting – when commissioner Jean Carlberg had stated that she went out to the area and heard continuous barking over an extended period – the dog daycare had held an emergency staff meeting to review their policies. The policy for a dog that’s barking outside is to bring the dog back indoors, he said. They’ve received a lot of support from the community, Svoboda said, and they’re in this business because they love dogs. They adopted their daughter three months ago, he said, but that hasn’t reduced the importance of dogs in their lives. He urged commissioners to approve their request.

Greg Urda spoke briefly, saying he supported Arbor Dog Daycare’s petition. Linda Coon, who has spoken at previous meetings in support of the project, read aloud a letter from the president of the Balmoral Park condo association, who also supported the business.

Margaret Svoboda, co-owner of Arbor Dog Daycare, spoke to commissioners at their Oct. 19 meeting.

Margaret Svoboda told commissioners that on three different occasions, she’s gone door-to-door at Balmoral Park, talking to residents and giving out her personal cell phone number. “We don’t want to be bad neighbors,” she said, and leaving barking dogs outside is unacceptable. Svoboda also read a letter from another supporter of the project, who wasn’t able to attend the Oct. 19 meeting.

The final speaker during the public hearing was Tim Thieme, who lives in the Balmoral Park condo complex at the edge of the property nearest to the outdoor dog run. It bothered him to talk against a good business, Thieme said, especially in this economy. But he had two major concerns: 1) the effect of the business on property values, and 2) the noise factor of barking dogs. He said he applauds the business for trying to come up with a solution – lowering the number of dogs that would be outside at any given time – but noise will still be a factor. He wondered if they could move the dog run, or add some more sound barriers. He also wondered why the business had been granted a special exception use in the first place, given that it is located so near a residential area. Thieme said he’d love to see the business expand and be successful, but it would be more appropriate to do that in a rural area.

Arbor Dog Daycare: Commission Deliberations

Diane Giannola began by saying she had been willing to reconsider the proposal because she thought that there’d be new information presented – the owners had said they’d made a video showing that the noise from the dogs wasn’t a problem. [link to video on YouTube] But on the video, she noted, you could only see six dogs outside, not the 20 dogs that are currently allowed. In addition, in the video you could hear dogs barking inside the building – if that’s the case, why would they stop barking when brought outside, she wondered. The third issue for Giannola is that the video made it clear that the dog run is closer to the condos than it seemed on the map. And since there’s really no recourse for residents if the noise ordinance is violated, Giannola said she would still vote against the project.

Kirk Westphal said he had similar concerns. Though he went over to Balmoral Park during his lunch hour and couldn’t hear dogs barking, he noted that commissioner Jean Carlberg had a different experience, when she heard incessant barking. The owners have tried to address this, but his charge is to look at the standards for special exception uses. One of the standards, he said, is that it “will not be detrimental to the use, peaceful enjoyment, economic value or development of neighboring property, or the neighborhood area in general.” [link to full description of special exceptions in Chapter 5 of the Ann Arbor city code] This request doesn’t satisfy that standard, he said.

Evan Pratt asked what would happen if the business changed ownership – would the special exception use still apply? Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff explained that unless the type of business changes, it would still be valid for new owners. Wendy Rampson, head of the planning staff, said that the commission could put conditions on the special exception use – for example, they would state that a change in ownership would require the new owners to reapply.

Erica Briggs expressed her support for the request. The owners are working hard to address all the concerns, she said, adding that many of the concerns seemed to be fear-based, anticipating things that might happen, but that weren’t necessarily a problem now.

Tony Derezinski agreed with Briggs, and said the only other business that had worked so hard to accommodate its neighbors was Zingerman’s Deli. [See Chronicle coverage: "Zingerman's Expansion Moves Ahead"] It’s also a question of who you decide to listen to, he said – the many supporters, or the few people who have complaints.

Bonnie Bona agreed with Giannola and Westphal. The neighbor at Balmoral Park could hear the dogs now, she said – it wasn’t a speculative concern. She said it was a wonderful business and the owners are clearly doing everything they can, but what if the ownership changes? If there were fewer than 125 dogs, she might feel differently about it, Bona said.

Carlberg said it is indisputable that if there are dogs barking, the people at Balmoral Park will be able to hear them. It’s a nuisance, and it doesn’t matter if it’s one person or five who are bothered. It’s not a situation in which the majority rules, she said. Regarding the policy to remove dogs from the outside dog run if they are barking, Carlberg said it was impossible for employees on the inside – where dogs are also barking – to hear what’s happening outside. It’s an unenforceable policy, she said. She proposed tabling action for another month, to see if the business could operate without complaints from neighbors.

Briggs asked the owners to clarify that there would be two employees outside with the dogs at all times, and that there’d been a change in policy to give any employee the authority to remove a dog from the outside if it were barking.

In response to additional questions from Briggs, Jon Svoboda said he could try to add additional soundproofing to the fence surrounding the dog run, but he was somewhat reluctant to invest because he wasn’t sure it would solve the problem. He said he’d be willing to limit the number of dogs that would go outside at any one time to 11. If he went lower than that, there wouldn’t be enough time for all of the dogs to go outside to use the bathroom, he said. Svoboda also volunteered to lower the total number of dogs in the business from 125 to 100, if that would help gain approval.

Wendy Woods said she appreciated the efforts of the owners, and certainly understood the importance of taking the rights of the minority into consideration. But in this case, as long as there’s one person who says they can hear barking, the business can’t move forward. She was concerned that whatever profit they hoped to gain by expanding was slowly evaporating, because of this delay. And after a while, applying additional conditions becomes onerous. She was in favor of allowing them to proceed.

Several commissioners discussed the difference between the decibel level and the continuous nature of the barking. Woods wondered whether they’d have the same concerns if they were talking about kids crying at a daycare center. The noise ordinance addresses decibel level, but not the continuous nature of the barking – that’s considered a nuisance. Carlberg noted that a nuisance isn’t well-defined,  but contended that a dog barking continuously for an hour would fit anyone’s definition.

Tony Derezinski said the discussion was beginning to sound like Heritage Row, referring to the much-discussed residential project proposed by developer Alex de Parry that was ultimately rejected by city council. You can conjure up a lot of reasons to vote against something, he said, if you don’t want to approve it.

The planning staff has recommended approval of the Arbor Dog Daycare request, Derezinski noted. They probably had discussed it 10 times longer than the commission, he said – at some point, that means something. The owners have shown great goodwill, he said, and the fact that one person complaining is enough to bring the project down gives him pause.

Eric Mahler said he’d been in favor of the project before, and he was in favor of it now. The commission is not in the business of property valuation, he said, and they can’t ignore the fact that the vast number of people who’ve responded to the project have supported it. He said he thought they’d talked themselves into an impossible standard for the Svobodas to meet.

Westhphal wondered whether the planning staff would know if neighbors had registered complaints in the past – would community standards officers relay that information? Not necessarily, Cheng said. Westphal then asked whether they could require that the owners renew this request every year. That way, the situation could be monitored – if people complained, they’d have recourse. Cheng wondered what the trigger would be to indicate that the business was out of compliance. Westphal said that was his point – there’s no mechanism for tracking complaints. And for every person who shows up to complain, Westphal said he could guarantee there were others that they just didn’t know about.

Regarding the question of an annual renewal, Rampson said she’d need to check with the city attorney’s office to see if that were appropriate.

Bona said she was more concerned with the issue of a change in ownership. She moved to postpone, to allow planning staff to see how to address that. Carlberg seconded the motion.

Woods said she wasn’t in favor of postponing, but Bona countered that she wouldn’t support the proposal if they voted that night. She asked the Svobodas if they preferred for the commission to vote now, or to wait a month while the city’s planning staff looks at these other issues. Jon Svoboda said they’d waited 13 months already – one more month wouldn’t matter. Margaret Svoboda pointed out that their hands appeared to be tied. If they said they wanted a vote that night, then their proposal would be rejected.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to postpone again, asking staff to explore possible conditions – such as an annual review or written policy requirement – that could be added to the special exception use to address the problem of continuously barking dogs.

Parking at Briar Cove Apartments Approved

The commission approved a request by Briar Cove Apartments to add 23 parking spaces throughout the existing apartment complex, to address resident demand for more parking. The complex of 272 apartments in 18 buildings is located on 20 acres at 650 Waymarket Drive, near the Colonade Shopping Center off of Eisenhower Parkway.

The parking would be added in phases, as needed – though the site plan approval covers all phases. The first phase would add on-street parking on Waymarket Drive, and would add another 14 new spaces in a parking area in the northeastern part of the site, including 10 spots that will be covered by a carport. In addition, 28 bike lockers will be installed throughout the complex. The owner will also make landscape improvements, adding 29 oak and maple trees and 33 shrubs.

If later phases are completed, the complex eventually would have a total of 436 parking spaces, including 243 in carports. Planning staff recommended approval of the project.

Briar Cove: Public Hearing

Only one person spoke during the project’s public hearing. Mark Highlen said he represented the apartment complex’s owner, Bella Costa Associates of Farmington Hills. Because of the economy, he said, a lot of people are being pushed into apartment living. The complex is at 96% occupancy, he said. In addition to more units being rented, more people are living in each apartment, he said. The staff gets four to five calls each day related to parking issues – that’s the impetus behind the petition. He said they realized they might not always have such high occupancy, but they needed to address the issue.

Briar Cove: Commission Deliberations

Bonnie Bona said that the request seemed reasonable. She asked where the nearest AATA bus stop was located. Highlen told her that there’s not a bus stop on Waymarket, but there’s one nearby on Eisenhower.

Kirk Westphal clarified that the only assigned parking spots are those under carports. Highlen said that license plate numbers are on file for all tenants, but they don’t check cars unless there’s a problem.

Eric Mahler asked if there wouldn’t be economies of scale to do all the phases at once. Highlen acknowledged that there would be, but noted that they’re trying to balance issues of stormwater management, and also hoping not to disrupt the complex with more construction than is necessary. He said he wouldn’t want to be the one fielding calls from angry tenants, if there was too much disruption.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to approve the site plan, subject to additional approval by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. The plan does not require approval by the city council.

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

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Wednesday, Nov. 3 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]