Renee Wolf, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, spoke against the proposed medical marijuana moratorium: "Please don't take away my medicine – that's all I ask." (Photos by the writer.)

The measure as initially drafted by city attorney Stephen Postema would have halted all dispensing and growing of medical marijuana in the city. The moratorium came in response to the operation of some dispensaries and cultivation of marijuana in the city after the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act of 2008 was approved by Michigan voters.

In 2004, Postema had argued that the city’s charter amendment, which allows medical uses of marijuana and was approved by voters that year, was not enforceable, and said that people would continue to be prosecuted as before.

Several of the attendees addressed the council during public commentary, all opposing the moratorium. During deliberations, councilmembers made significant amendments to Postema’s proposal that took off some of its harsher edges. Amendments to Postema’s moratorium included a specific exemption for patients and caregivers, a grandfathering-in of existing facilities in the city and a reduction in the length of moratorium from 180 to 120 days. The milder version of the measure, when unanimously approved, was met with applause from the audience.

In other significant business, the council: approved the site plan for a new downtown residential development, Zaragon Place 2; authorized an extension on Village Green’s purchase option agreement for the First and Washington parcel where the City Apartments PUD is planned; gave initial first-reading approval to a ban on placement of couches on porches and other outdoor environments; and approved a change to the site plan approval process that replaces definite deadlines with a standard of “reasonable time.”

Mayor John Hieftje also placed recently-retired county administrator Bob Guenzel’s name before the council as a nomination to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. He clarified that Guenzel would be replacing Jennifer S. Hall, whose term expired on July 31.

Council typically meets on Mondays, but moved its meeting to Thursday to accommodate the Aug. 3 primary election. All council incumbents who were running for reelection won their races.

Historical Reflection on Couches and Medical Marijuana

As a prelude to this meeting report, we pause to reflect on what kind of business the Ann Arbor city council handled six years ago. The look back into recent history is prompted in part by the remarks of Bob Snyder during public commentary at Thursday’s council meeting. Snyder spoke in favor of the “couch ban” ordinance considered by the council.

As Snyder pointed out, the council had considered a similar ordinance back in August 2004. But they’d tabled it, which meant that after six months, with no councilmember willing to take it up off the table for action, the measure died. Snyder had also spoken in favor of the ordinance at the city council’s Aug. 16, 2004 meeting. At that meeting, he was joined in his support by Lou Glorie, who lost the Ward 5 Democratic primary last Tuesday to incumbent Carsten Hohnke.

The Aug. 16, 2004 tabling had come after a postponement of the measure from the July 19, 2004 meeting. At the earlier July meeting, when the council postponed the “couch ban” ordinance, the council had also considered and approved some language for the Nov. 2, 2004 ballot. That ballot language was for the city charter amendment on medical marijuana:

Shall Section 16.2 of the Charter be amended to require waiver of fines and costs upon proof that the defendant has a recommendation of a physician, practitioner or other qualified health professional to use or provide marijuana or cannabis for medical treatment; to prohibit Ann Arbor police officers from complaining, and the city attorney from referring any complaint, of the possession, use, giving away, sale or cultivation of marijuana upon proof of such recommendation; to prohibit other punitive or rehabilitative measures; to establish an affirmative defense; and to set the fine for third and subsequent such offenses at $100.00?

That ballot proposal amending the city charter to include the medical marijuana provision passed three months later with 74% of the vote.

On Thursday, the topics of porch couches and medical marijuana were juxtaposed in the same meeting just as they’d been six years earlier.

Medical Marijuana Moratorium

Added on Aug. 4, 2010 to the council’s Thursday, Aug. 5 agenda was a resolution drafted by city attorney Stephen Postema, which called for a citywide moratorium on the use of facilities in the city for growing or dispensing medical marijuana.

The council usually meets on Mondays, but due to the Tuesday primary, the meeting had been shifted to Thursday. The measure was sponsored by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Marijuana: Brief Ann Arbor Overview

In September 1972, the Ann Arbor city council enacted an ordinance that reduced the penalty for possession of less than two ounces of marijuana to a $5 fine. The ensuing controversy ultimately resulted in the repeal of the ordinance by the city council in  June 1973.

But voters then passed a charter amendment in April 1974 that restored the $5 fine. In addition, the new section 16.2 of the city charter stipulated that no city police officer “shall complain of the possession, control, use, giving away, or sale of marijuana or cannabis to any other authority except the Ann Arbor city attorney; and the city attorney shall not refer any said complaint to any other authority for prosecution.”

In 1983, voters rejected an attempted repeal of the charter section. However, in 1990 voters approved an increase in the fine amount from $5 to $25 for a first offense, $50 for a second offense, and $100 for more offenses.

Then in 2004, a city charter amendment – added to section 16.2 – was approved by a 74% margin that allowed growing and use of marijuana for medical purposes.

In August 2010, the city’s charter section 16.2 reads as follows:

Restrictions of Marijuana
SECTION 16.2.
(a) No person shall possess, control, use, give away, or sell marijuana or cannabis, which is defined as all parts of the plant cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; its seeds or resin; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the above, unless such possession, control, use, or sale is pursuant to a license or prescription as provided in Public Act 196 of 1971, as amended. This definition does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compounds, manufacture, sale, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

(b) Violations of this section shall be civil infractions. Persons convicted of violating this section shall be fined $25.00 for the first offense, $50.00 for the second offense, $100.00 for the third or subsequent offense and no incarceration, probation, nor any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed. Fines and all other costs shall be waived upon proof that the defendant is recommended by a physician, practitioner or other qualified health professional to use or provide the marijuana or cannabis for medical treatment. The court may waive all or part of the fine upon proof that the defendant attended a substance abuse program. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the use or intended use of the marijuana or cannabis relieves, or has the potential to relieve, the pain, disability, discomfort or other adverse symptoms of illness or medical treatment, or restores, maintains or improves, or has the potential to restore, maintain or improve, the health or medical quality of life of the user or intended user or users of the marijuana or cannabis. Requirements of this subjection shall not be construed to exclude the assertion of other defenses. (Amended by election of April 2, 1990 and November 2, 2004)

(c) In all arrests and prosecutions for violations of this section, appearance tickets and the relevant procedures set forth in Public Act 147 of 1968, as amended, shall be used.

(d) No Ann Arbor police officer, or his or her agent, shall complain of the possession, control, use, giving away, or sale of marijuana or cannabis to any other authority except the Ann Arbor city attorney; and the city attorney shall not refer any said complaint to any other authority for prosecution.

(e) No Ann Arbor police officer, or his or her agent, shall complain and the city attorney shall not refer for prosecution any complaint, of the possession, control, use, giving away, sale or cultivation of marijuana or cannabis upon proof that the defendant is recommended by a physician, practitioner or other qualified health professional to use or provide the marijuana or cannabis for medical treatment. (Amended by election of November 2, 2004)

(f) Should the State of Michigan enact lesser penalties than that set forth in subsection (b) above, or entirely repeal penalties for the possession, control, use, giving away, or sale of marijuana or cannabis, then this section, or the relevant portions thereof, shall be null and void. (Amended by election of November 2, 2004)

(g) The people of the City of Ann Arbor specifically determine that the provisions herein contained concerning marijuana or cannabis are necessary to serve the local purposes of providing just and equitable legal treatment of the citizens of this community, and in particular of the youth of this community present as university students or otherwise; and to provide for the public peace and safety by preserving the respect of such citizens for the law and law enforcement agencies of the City. (Amended by election of November 2, 2004)
(Section 16.2 added by election of April 2, 1974)

Marijuana: City Attorney Postema’s Anti-Pot Stance (2004)

In 2004, when the city’s voters approved the medical marijuana charter provision, Ann Arbor city attorney Stephen Postema was vocal about his view that the provision approved by the voters was not valid. In a Nov. 4 2004 Ann Arbor News article, Tracy Davis reported:

Although the initiative was legally and appropriately placed on the ballot after a petition drive, [Stephen] Postema said 27-year-old case law dictates that city officials can refer complaints for prosecution under state law even though it would be contrary to the city’s new charter language.

In a 1977 decision involving a case in Ypsilanti, the state appeals court ruled that city officials weren’t prohibited from referring marijuana cases for prosecution under state law, despite a city ordinance that said they couldn’t refer such cases to the Washtenaw County prosecutor.

Based on that case, Postema said, his office and police can’t be bound by charter amendment prohibitions that conflict with state and federal law. Those laws, he said, will continue to govern marijuana arrests in Ann Arbor.

Postema’s stance resulted in a dispute with one of the initiators of the ballot measure, Chuck Ream, who was then also Scio Township trustee. The dispute was resolved when Postema acknowledged in writing that the attorney’s office understood the compassionate concerns underlying the voter-approved charter amendment. Wrote Davis in a April 1, 2005 News article:

Chuck Ream, a Scio Township trustee, was angered by Postema ‘s comments after the amendment to decriminalize marijuana use when recommended by a physician passed with 74 percent of the vote, but said he was happy with the outcome of a January meeting with Postema and other city officials.

“My quarrel with him is over,” said Ream this week.

After the election, Postema said 27-year-old case law dictates that city officials can refer complaints for prosecution under state law even though it would be contrary to the city’s new charter language. Police Chief Dan Oates also said in a written statement he had directed his officers to continue enforcement of all marijuana sale and possession offenses as they did before the vote.

Ream praised what he called compromise language written by Postema after the January meeting about the city’s stance on medical marijuana.

The language, which was in a letter to a reporter for a local publication, said that city police and the city attorney’s office retain some discretion in prosecuting marijuana cases.

“The very nature of this discretion is that each case is decided on its own facts,” wrote Postema. “However, the compassionate concerns underlying the charter amendment are concerns that are certainly understood by the police and the city attorney’s office as this discretion is exercised.”

Marijuana: Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (2008)

In 2008, Michigan voters approved the Michigan Medical Marijuana Initiative with 63% of the vote. In Ann Arbor, support was significantly higher, at 71%. The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) provides for a registry system for patients and caregivers for the cultivation and possession of medical marijuana.

In February 2010, Chuck Ream – who’d disputed city attorney Stephen Postema’s view of the 2004 city charter amendment – appeared before the city council to suggest that they take a proactive approach to regulating marijuana dispensaries in the city, which would emerge, he cautioned, as a consequence of the MMMA. From The Chronicle’s report of the city council’s Feb. 1, 2010 meeting:

Chuck Ream: Ream spoke to the council about therapeutic cannabis. He reminded them that in 2004, more than 74% of Ann Arbor voters had voted for medical marijuana. He described it not as a victory or a mandate but as “clear marching orders.” He suggested that six centers be established as dispensaries and noted that the city charter already enabled it. He said that he had a formal legal opinion written by a lawyer that stated it was legal. He had a draft law that they could adopt, he said. Ream suggested that establishing six large centers that would be well run was a better alternative to dispensaries showing up on every street corner.

Marijuana: Public Commentary

The public commentary session at Thursday’s meeting was one of the more animated in The Chronicle’s memory. Speakers’ remarks were met with long and enthusiastic applause – tolerated by the council during public commentary, but not during public hearings.

Just before The Chronicle clicked the shutter, Chuck Ream folded up his sign indicating in red the number 74, which is the percentage of Ann Arbor voters who supported the medical marijuana city charter amendment.

Chuck Ream was also on hand Thursday night to address the city council on Postema’s proposed moratorium, which came after several facilities for growing and dispensing marijuana had appeared in the city. Ream alluded to his previous appearance before the council several months earlier, when he’d made a specific suggestion that would have regulated dispensaries. He characterized the proposed moratorium as a “direct assault on democracy.”

Gershom Avery asked who the city attorney was, then said, “Do you get elected?” When the indication was no, city attorney Postema is not elected to his post, Avery told the council, “He’s not your friend.” Avery explained that Postema was setting the councilmembers up to be the “fall guys” – they would be the ones who would suffer the consequences of voter discontent with their actions. He called the decision to consider the moratorium a violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act and said that the measure violated the Right to Farm Act. The only way a moratorium could exist, he said, was in a context of fraud. He alluded to a possible lawsuit against the federal government by Americans for Safe Access.

Kirk Reid declared that he wished he could say it was an honor to address the council, but it was not. He ticked through a number of different statistics on deaths attributable to alcohol, cigarettes and other pharmaceuticals. Marijuana, he contended, has not killed anyone. He noted that there are 102 bars in Ann Arbor and 24 pharmacies – CVS, RiteAid, Kroger and the like. There are 24 places in Ann Arbor to buy OxyContin, he said, and he wants 24 places where he can buy medical marijuana. He stressed that they were patients: “We’re not dirty hippies – we’re the community that voted you in; we’ll vote you out.”

Reid also pointed out the positive economic impact of marijuana dispensaries, addressing his remarks to Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), and giving the Ward 2 councilmember’s name a novel pronunciation – with apology: /rap-a-dun-del/.

Anthony Fried began by alluding to the boisterous applause that had met the previous speaker’s remarks, saying “Wow. I bet you guys feel like you opened a can of worms.” He said he’d helped many people open dispensaries, and warned that lawsuits would come as a result of the moratorium. He told the council that they would all get sick sometime, too, and that he hoped they never had to see a sick child suffer. He concluded by saying, “Shame on every single one of you. This is not the way this country works, and it’s not the way the city works.”

Renee Wolf, who told the council she’d had multiple sclerosis for 32 years, was helped to the microphone by several others. But she stood unassisted at the podium. She said she’d been told she’d need to rely on a wheelchair, but she was not in a wheelchair – because she used medical marijuana. She said she’d had to fight for her life and said that life was too short to sweat the small stuff. “Please don’t take away my medicine – that’s all I ask. And god bless all of you.”

At the podium is Brandy Zink, who spoke in opposition to the moratorium on medical marijuana growing and dispensing. Around 75 people filled the council chambers on Thursday.

Brandy Zink identified herself as a legal medical marijuana patient – she’s an epilepsy patient and an ovarian cancer survivor. Her doctor recommends medical marijuana, she said, and that’s the therapy that works for her. She suggested that instead of enacting a moratorium, the council should establish legislation to permit and license medical cannabis dispensing collectives. She also identified herself as an ambassador of Americans for Safe Access.

She noted Ann Arbor’s long history of tolerance towards marijuana use and suggested that there was surely not some new threat to health, safety and welfare. It places undue burden on the sick, she said. She argued against enacting stricter legislation on medical marijuana than regulations on gun vendors, adult entertainment vendors, or pharmacies. She pointed to the economic benefit of marijuana dispensaries, and asked why the council would enact a moratorium in the midst of a recession.

Although Matthew Abel was signed up to speak, a colleague of his attempted to address the council in his place, but that is not permitted under the council’s rules. The mayor then invited the first alternate on the list, who was Michael Mcleod, a medical marijuana patient holding a master’s degree from the University of Michigan School of Public Health. He said he is one of the founders of the Ann Arbor Medical Marijuana Patients Collective – they hold public meetings once a month. He said they had approached the city on numerous occasions, but the city had not responded or worked with them. He said he was embarrassed to be a resident of a city that would pass a moratorium that would deny patients their right to obtain or grow their medicine. On behalf of the collective, he asked that the council reject the moratorium as an attack against patients.

Marijuana: Theme of Council Deliberations – Lack of Notice, Open Meetings

Some of the speakers alluded explicitly or implicitly to the lack of prior public notification that the council would be considering the moratorium. For example, Chuck Ream stated that there were city councilmembers who didn’t know it was going to be on the agenda until a few days ago. Gershom Avery went as far as to contend that there had been an Open Meetings Act violation.

During deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) confirmed Ream’s contention, by saying that he’d not been aware the measure would be coming forward. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) responded to Hohnke’s statement by saying that at a council meeting, the city attorney had been given a clear directive to develop the moratorium language and that everyone had been in the room and heard it. Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated some awareness that something would be coming forward, but said that she’d not been aware it would be that soon.

The late addition to the agenda was the basis of an attempt by Sabra Briere (Ward 2) to get the measure postponed, citing a council rule that stipulates that councilmembers may add agenda items at any time, but “will use best efforts to do so prior to the Friday before the next Council meeting.” The item appeared on Wednesday – four business days, or six calendar days, later than the council rules contemplate as reflecting best efforts.

With no recollection of any discussion by councilmembers at any of their regular meetings, work sessions, or caucus gatherings, The Chronicle asked Rapundalo after the moratorium vote, during a break in the meeting, which meeting he had meant when he indicated the city attorney had been given direction on the matter. He indicated that the direction had come during the council’s closed session during the July 19, 2010 meeting.

The Chronicle has learned that the justification for that closed session was not based on discussion of a legislative strategy for handling marijuana dispensaries, but rather on settlement strategies for pending litigation on an entirely separate matter. [Note: While The Chronicle reported the basis for the closed session in good faith based on a credible source inside city hall, that source subsequently has indicated uncertainty about the veracity of the claim.]

Closed sessions under the Michigan Open Meeting Act are allowed only in very narrow circumstances. Based on preliminary Chronicle analysis of relevant case law on closed sessions, it appears that the council’s deliberations on a course of action for legislative action on the medical marijuana question should have taken place in an open session of the council, lending credence to Avery’s claim of an OMA violation. Had that discussion taken place during the open session of the meeting, the public at large would have had more than one day’s notice that the council was contemplating action on the subject.

In his remarks on the lack of public notice and timing, Postema contended that the resolution served the purpose of kicking off the discussion. He contended that he had spent a lot of time sitting down and talking with people, in particular the legal representatives of some of the people in the room. Therefore, Postema claimed, there had been no “end around” the public.

He contended that the attorneys he’d spoken with, naming John Shea specifically, recognized the legal issues that were the basis of the moratorium.

Marijuana: Theme of Council Deliberations – Zoning/Safety as Legal Basis

The resolution outlining the moratorium cites the city’s zoning code as a basis for contemplating the regulation of marijuana dispensing and cultivation facilities. The city’s zoning code generally prohibits uses of land that are not listed out explicitly in a particular zoning classification [emphasis added]:

Chapter 55 Article 2
5:6.  Establishment of use regulations.
(1)   No structure or land shall be used or occupied and no structure shall be erected, constructed, moved or altered, except in conformity with the regulations specified for the zoning district in which it is located. Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited.

Postema’s position, as reflected in the “Whereas” clauses of the resolution he authored, is first that marijuana cultivation and dispensing is a specific land use, and second that this land use was not contemplated when the zoning classifications were developed. If these activities are, in fact, a separate land use, then by dint of not being expressly permitted anywhere in the zoning code, they are not permitted anywhere in the city. But if these otherwise legal activities are not permitted anywhere in the city due to zoning restrictions, then the city would violate the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act 110 of 2006 [emphasis added].

125.3207 Zoning ordinance or decision; effect as prohibiting establishment of land use.
Sec. 207. A zoning ordinance or zoning decision shall not have the effect of totally prohibiting the establishment of a land use within a local unit of government in the presence of a demonstrated need for that land use within either that local unit of government or the surrounding area within the state, unless a location within the local unit of government does not exist where the use may be appropriately located or the use is unlawful.

The moratorium proposed by Postema includes a direction to city planning staff to address the activity of dispensing and cultivating marijuana with appropriate zoning regulations, including how far apart dispensing facilities can be located [emphasis added]:

RESOLVED, That City Council directs City staff and the Planning Commission to study and make specific recommendations for ordinance amendments that restrict facilities for dispensing marihuana to appropriate zoning districts along with spacing requirements, and to also regulate such use in residential districts;

Spacing requirements on land use in urban settings are typically associated with adult entertainment facilities – strip clubs and the like. For example, the city of Ann Arbor’s regulation prohibits the clustering of adult entertainment businesses as follows:

(2) Locations of adult entertainment businesses.  An adult entertainment business may be located in the City only in accordance with the following restrictions:

[...]

(c) No such business shall be established within 700 feet of another adult entertainment business.

This clustering of medical marijuana was mentioned by Postema in the context of threats to health, safety and welfare. When asked point blank by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) what the specific concern was with health, safety and welfare that motivated the moratorium, Postema offered only the issue of dispensaries – as opposed to patients and caregivers – with their potential to cluster in a single location. Postema identified the issue as involving a determination about where such businesses should be located.

In light of Postema’s response, which did not identify a specific threat to the public’s health, safety and welfare, Hohnke asked one of the resolution’s sponsors to respond to his question. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that the question was this: Do we want these facilities in single-family neighborhoods? Margie Teall (Ward 4) also confirmed that this was her concern as well, saying that the impetus for getting the discussion going was activity in the Packard/Iroquois area, near a residential neighborhood.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Hohnke drew out the fact that dispensaries are commercial activities and are therefore subject to commercial zoning. As far as their operation in residential neighborhoods, they would be regulated by the same zoning regulations that govern home businesses. For example, Ann Arbor’s residential zoning provides for restrictions on home businesses:

[...] 5.   The nature of the home occupation shall not generate more than 10 business-related vehicle trips in any 1 day in the vicinity of the home occupation, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be provided offstreet in accordance with the offstreet parking requirements.

6.   No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, dust, vibration, glare, fumes, odors or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses beyond the property boundary.

7.   The following are typical examples of uses which often can be conducted within the limits of these restrictions and thereby qualify as home occupations. Uses which may qualify as “home occupations” are not limited to those named in this paragraph (nor does the listing of a use in this paragraph automatically qualify it as a home occupation); accountant, architect, artist, author, consultant, dressmaking, individual stringed instrument instruction, individual tutoring, millinery, preserving and home cooking.

8.   The following uses are not permitted as home occupations if conducted as a person’s principal occupation and the person’s dwelling is used as the principal place of business: vehicle repair or painting, dental office and medical office.

At one point, chief of police Barnett Jones was called to the podium to comment on safety concerns. He indicated that there had been no complaints reported to his department.

Marijuana: Council Deliberations – 120-day Amendment

The initial moratorium had a duration of 180 days. During deliberations, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the MMA had been passed in 2008, and that the city had had the opportunity to consider how how to proceed. She indicated that she was troubled that the city was using a moratorium, when Traverse City had been able to go further and faster. She suggested moving to a 90-day time frame.

City attorney Stephen Postema objected to that short a period, contending that a full discussion takes more than 90 days. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) focused on the practical consideration of who would be doing the work and wondered if the city’s planning staff could do the job in 90 days. Smith responded by saying that there were a number of different models the city could use, so it was not as if the staff would be starting with a blank slate. She said she felt that 90 days was doable.

Asked by mayor John Hieftje to comment as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that currently the commission is working on the R4C study as well as the Washtenaw Avenue corridor study.

When Rapundalo asked his question about planning staff work load, city administrator Roger Fraser left the table to confer with planning staff seated in the audience – Jill Thacher and Alexis DiLeo, as well as community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl. Their assessment, based on the fact that a specific procedure is used to handle projects like this – which includes the ordinance review committee – was that 90 days was not doable, but that 120 days would be. The 120-day change was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Jill Thacher will head up the effort on a staff level.

Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment Excluding Patients/Caregivers

An amendment offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) made clear that the moratorium would allow individual patients and caregivers to continue to use and provide medical marijuana:

RESOLVED, That this moratorium does not apply to the following:

A dwelling unit (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance) where a qualifying patient under the Act resides and is cultivating up to the maximum number of marihuana plants permitted by the Act for personal use or possesses up to the maximum amount of marihuana permitted by the Act for personal use.

A building or structure (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance) other than a dwelling unit where no more than one qualifying patient under the Act is cultivating up to the maximum number of marihuana plants permitted by the Act for personal use or possesses up to the maximum amount of marihuana permitted by the Act for personal use.

A dwelling unit or other building or structure where no more than one primary caregiver under the Act is cultivating up to the maximum number of marihuana plants permitted by the Act for assisting a qualifying patient or possesses up to the maximum amount of marihuana permitted by the Act for assisting a qualifying patient.

The amendment was accepted as friendly to the original resolution.

Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment Grandfathering-In

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) focused throughout the deliberations on who would be affected by the moratorium. She noted that moratoria did not typically look backward at businesses already established. She was concerned, she said, that patients that had come to rely on dispensaries would be able to continue. Her remarks were met with applause from the audience.

City attorney Stephen Postema objected to the idea that existing businesses should be excluded from the moratorium, saying that they could be argued to be non-conforming with existing zoning – the city council needs to provide direction, he said.

Briere stated that it’s “not about druggies or stoners” but rather about medical care. Putting people in limbo is not acceptable, she said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that he felt the larger conversation about zoning that would take place during the moratorium might put facilities that are currently in place in peril, because they would no longer be authorized to continue at their present location.

The amendment that the council eventually approved inserted language that for the purposes of the moratorium allows existing facilities to continue [added language in italics]:

RESOLVED, That City Council hereby imposes a temporary moratorium prohibiting the initiation or expansion of the use of any property in the City as a facility for dispensing marihuana for medical and any other purpose and for cultivating marihuana plants, …

Taylor cautioned against the expectation that there is going to be a grandfathering-in of existing operations once the moratorium is over and the city has settled on an approach to the issue.

Outcome: The amendment was approved, with dissent from Rapundalo

Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment Striking Council Hearings

One of the clauses in the resolution established a process by which the city council would hear grievances from parties who felt that they were economically harmed by the moratorium. The council could grant such parties relief from the moratorium.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) feared that the process held a danger of getting bogged down. After the existing facilities were amended out of the resolution, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) suggested that it made sense to remove the clause, as it no longer served any purpose. Stephen Postema, the city attorney, argued against its removal, saying that one could not anticipate the range of various grievances that people might have.

Mayor John Hieftje agreed that there were no standards included by which the council was supposed to judge those cases. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) agreed that it could place an undue burden on the council. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he liked the clause as a “catch-all contingency.”

The stricken clause was as follows:

RESOLVED, That any aggrieved person shall be entitled to receive a hearing by the City Council to show that the temporary moratorium pronounced in this resolution will result in the preclusion of any viable economic use of their property, or will otherwise violate applicable provisions of State or Federal law, and if the City Council finds that an aggrieved petitioner or applicant makes such a showing, the City Council may grant relief from the moratorium to the degree necessary to cure the violation; and

Outcome: The amendment was approved, with dissent from Derezinski.

Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Postponement

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated he wanted to postpone the resolution because of the late agenda addition. He rejected the idea that the process had been nefarious, but that there had been little awareness that the item would be coming before the council. He said that while he was aware of the discussion among staff, he didn’t think the item would appear on the agenda one day before.

By way of explaining why the item had appeared late on the agenda, city attorney Stephen Postema shifted responsibility to the sponsoring councilmembers, saying that after it was drafted, they had wanted it to appear on the agenda as soon as possible.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) agreed with Hohnke’s sentiments, saying that she’d thought about moving for a postponement herself. She said she did not think it would be appearing on the agenda that late. Now that it had been discussed, she said, she didn’t feel like she wanted to push it beyond 120 days – she wanted to get through the 120 days as soon as possible. She said, however, that she was on the fence about a postponement.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) agreed with the sentiments of one of the speakers, saying that the council had opened up a can of worms and she’d prefer to finish the matter that night. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) argued against a postponement, saying that it might have utility if the moratorium affected individuals. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) characterized a postponement as “kicking the can down the road.” Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated that it had been discussed at the last council meeting and that everyone should have known it was coming. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that by rights, according to council’s rules on agenda additions, it should be postponed.

Outcome: The council voted against postponement. Those in favor of postponement were Hohnke, Anglin, Hieftje, Briere. Voting against postponement were Teall, Smith, Derezinski, Rapundalo and Taylor.

Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Merits of Main Motion

The council’s discussion ranged over a variety of concerns, some reflected in the deliberations on specific amendments. Other concerns were of a more general nature.

In trying to explain concerns he had about the way that medical marijuana facilities might evolve in the city, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) suggested a scenario where a collective purchased a property with a lot next door and established that as their growing field. [Note: The state law requires growing facilities to be closed and locked.] Though he seemed to recognize that the scenario he’d sketched was unlikely, Taylor contended that the city regulates a great number of things as a community and they need an appropriate structure to regulate medical marijuana.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) cautioned that a moratorium was a significant action to take. He said that his sense was that it was simply a matter of people not wanting to see this activity in their neighborhood, an activity that is permitted by state law.

At that, Taylor claimed that it’s not clear that the activity is permitted by state law. Larger commercial enterprises are not contemplated by the state law, Taylor said, and that is our problem, he concluded. “Where is that our problem?” Hohnke shot back.

Taylor tried to respond by saying that the question is whether the city provides some structure to the activity, as it does with pharmacies and bars, which are regulated. We organize our community, he said, with a great mix of values and we have to somehow live together.

City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that he’d been advised of a 20,000-square-foot facility that might begin operations in the city.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that there were a whole host of unknowns. She said she could understand someone setting up grow lights in a bedroom. But she said she doesn’t know what a facility is. She doesn’t know what business model they follow.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that she understood the concerns that people had and that the community would get answers to those concerns through the process that the resolution mandated. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he agreed with Teall. The point of the moratorium, he said, is that they don’t have answers, and they should take the time to do due diligence.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered if going through the planning commission and the planning staff was the right process to follow. Postema indicated that the zoning aspect of the problem would go through planning commission, but said that zoning might not be enough.

Mayor John Hieftje raised the specter of reverting to previous federal policies two years from now. Postema indicated that that could well happen and that might make people unhappy. But he said that he was not there to enforce federal law. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that at a recent meeting of the State Bar Association, the medical marijuana issue was among four or five subjects that were pressing matters in the state.

One member of the local press produced this doodle late in the discussion of the medical marijuana moratorium. Quiz: Does this depict (a) a cloud of equine flatulence, (b) a lit marijuana cigarette easing a pony's pain, (c) disapproval of The Chronicle's overuse of a draft horse metaphor, (d) the idea that city council deliberations were like beating a dead horse?

Sabra Briere tried calling the question, a procedural move to end the discussion, which had already enjoyed a suspension of council rules on a limit of two speaking turns. Her bid to wrap things up failed, however, when only Teall, Smith, Derezinski, and Rapundalo supported it.

Hieftje wrapped up things up shortly after that, however, with some remarks about the history of marijuana laws in Ann Arbor, saying he thought that 120 days was a reasonable amount of time to work things out. [.pdf of moratorium language as approved]

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the modified moratorium on marijuana dispensing and cultivation of medical marijuana.

Couch Ban

Before the council for its first reading on Thursday was a revision to Chapter 106 of the city code, which handles nuisances. The ordinance had initially appeared on the council’s July 19 agenda, but was stricken from the agenda before the meeting. The proposed new ordinance reads in relevant part:

[Proposed Aug. 5, 2010] Chapter 106 9:7. Outdoor Storage. No responsible person [a property owner, tenant, occupant, lessee] shall place, or permit to remain, furniture which is not intended or designed for outdoor use on exterior balconies, porches, decks, landings, or other areas exposed to the weather.

The council considered an ordinance revision in 2004 intended to have a similar effect, but approached the topic from a fire-prevention perspective. The modification to the code had been proposed as an amendment to Chapter 111, which handles fire prevention.

[Proposed but tabled Aug. 16, 2004] Chapter 111 of Title IX of the Ann Arbor City Code

9:119 UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE PROHIBITED

Upholstered or other furniture designed or manufactured primarily for indoor use shall not be used or left:

1. On residential unenclosed, exterior porches or balconies
2. In an exposed open area of private property

Exceptions:

1. Wood, metal or plastic furniture.
2. Outdoor patio furniture with weather resistant cushions
3. Upholstered furniture designated for pre-paid special pick-up by public or private haulers complying with sections 2:7 and 2:12 of Chapter 26 of this Code.

Couch Ban: Public Commentary

Appearing before the council during public commentary reserved time to speak in support of the proposed ban on the outdoor use of indoor furniture was Bob Snyder. Snyder spoke on behalf of the South University Neighborhood Association, lending his “whole-hearted” support of the proposed ordinance revision.

Snyder lamented the fact that the council had not taken action back in 2004, which he said could have prevented the death earlier this year of Renden LeMasters, who died in a fire on South State Street. [Based on the fire marshal's preliminary report, the fire apparently began in a waste container on a porch in the early morning hours of April 3, spread to a couch and then to the house. Though some occupants were able to flee the house, LeMasters was difficult to awaken and suffered burns which caused his death.] Snyder was reiterating comments he made at the April 5, 2010 city council meeting, and the April 18, 2010 city council caucus.

Kim LeMasters, mother of Renden, also appeared on Thursday before the council to ask for their support of the proposed ordinance. She had also addressed the council at its June 7, 2010 meeting asking for consideration of a ban on porch couches. She said she realized that the student population would likely not be in favor of the ordinance, but said that does not absolve the council of its responsibility to make the city as safe as possible.

[Editor's note: The assumption that the student population would universally oppose a porch couch ordinance might not be warranted. At the April 5, 2010 council meeting, Michael Benson, a representative to the Michigan Student Assembly and as well as a member of the council-student relations committee, had addressed the council saying he thought it was perhaps time to revisit the issue of a couch ordinance.]

Couch Ban: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the resolution, led off deliberations by saying that it was a change whose time is largely overdue. He said there would be a presentation made at the second reading of the ordinance on the safety merits of the proposal. He asked that the second reading of the ordinance, with its public hearing, not be scheduled until the council’s first meeting in September, which falls on Sept. 6.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked that in the presentation on the safety merits, statistics be included on the number of fires caused by upholstered furniture indoors versus outdoors. She also wanted to know what the language “other areas exposed to the weather” contributed to the issue. Fire chief Dominick Lanza deferred to the fire marshal, Kathleen Chamberlain. She indicated that the specific statistics requested by Smith would need to be assembled.

In addressing Smith’s question about “weather,” Chamberlain first contrasted typical indoor furniture with outdoor furniture in terms of the volume of the upholstered material. Smith indicated that she meant to be asking what the significance of the term “weather” was in the ordinance.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked Chamberlain simply to share her thoughts on the issue. She said that in her opinion, based on her personal experience, large pieces of furniture represented a lot of fuel with a lot of oxygen available. That meant that a fire in a large piece of furniture would quickly build up a lot of heat and escalate rapidly in outdoor areas where there are no early warning devices. That meant there were perfect conditions for a fire to spread to a structure, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he did not want to regulate people’s choice in porch furniture, but wanted to know at the second reading presentation on Sept. 6 how the ordinance would be enforced, whose job it would be, and how long it would take.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the couch ban ordinance at its first reading. To be enacted, the ordinance would need to be approved at its second reading.

Zaragon Place 2

Zaragon Place 2 is a proposed 14-story, 96,685-square-foot residential building located on the southwest corner of Thompson and William – now an empty lot next to Cottage Inn restaurant. The building meets the site’s D1 zoning, and is therefore a “by-right” project – no rezoning is required. It is the first project to move forward under the city’s new A2D2 zoning regulations, and would include 99 units, 40 parking spaces on levels two and three, 40 spots for bike storage, and ground floor retail space facing William Street. Chronicle coverage: “Zaragon, Heritage Row and The Moravian” and “Moving Ahead on Zaragon Place 2.”

Zaragon: Public Commentary

During the public hearing on Zaragon Place 2, Thomas Partridge addressed the council, noting that he was a former university student himself. He called for the property owner to provide a significant number of affordable leases for units in the project.

Jim Mogensen asked the council to reflect on two issues that hadn’t been discussed: (i) What happens when someone buys Cottage Inn and decides to redevelop the property? Issues like the blocking of windows and access to the property need to be thought through, he said; and (ii) What about parking for tenants? He noted that at the sister project on East University, Zaragon Place, there was a waiting list for onsite parking spots.

Scott Bonney, the designer of the Zaragon Place 2 project, handed around some drawings to councilmembers.

Scott Bonney introduced himself as the “project designer of this caper.” He gave a description of the project, highlighting the fact that the building would use almost all the same materials as the sister project, Zaragon Place, on East University. Some differences include the use of clear as opposed to opaque glass on the ground floor retail. He also noted that all the bedrooms for the project would have operable windows in the bedrooms. [The sister project, Zaragon Place, was criticized during its approval process for including bedrooms that did not have windows to the outside.]

Tom Heywood of the State Street Area Association said that three previously blighted properties had been identified that were now being redeveloped – Olga’s, McDonald’s and now the site where Zaragon Place 2 was proposed. He said he supported the project.

Roger Hewitt introduced himself as a local business owner. [He is also a board member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.] He stated that it was obvious 10 years ago that if the downtown area was going to be viable, it needs more people living downtown. The Zaragon Place 2 project increases residential density, he said. It was needed 10 years ago – during the last decade, the area as lost a lot of independent retail operations, he said.

Brad Mikus said he supported the project, but wanted to point out that the incremental increase in property taxes would not go to the city’s general fund, but rather to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which had an agenda that is not necessarily identical with the city’s.

Zaragon: Council Deliberations

Leading off council deliberations on Zaragon Place 2 was Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). He said he was really excited by the project. He pointed out that the council had approved 100 stories of development in the last five years. He said that the project demonstrated what can be done in the D1 zoning district.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the council had experienced a lot of drama with other projects, but there’d been no drama with this one, because it “exactly fits” the zoning.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked for some clarity about a blank space on the drawing. Bonney clarified that it had resulted from a cut-away view of some kind.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked the fire marshal, Kathleen Chamberlain, to comment on the similarity of the names of the original Zaragon Place and Zaragon Place 2. Chamberlain indicated that the fire marshal’s responsibility was to review the name and the addresses of new developments to ensure that there was no duplication. It’s important that first responders not go the wrong location, she said. There should not be a significant delay in response given the similarity of the two names, she said, but that even a few seconds could make a large difference, given the number of people who would be living in the building.

Mayor John Hieftje asked what the difference was between having multiple McDonald’s or Stucchi’s and two buildings with the Zaragon name. Chamberlain said the key difference was in the fact that those establishments are not residential. Those are different types of occupancies, she said. People don’t sleep at McDonald’s or Stucchi’s.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked if the project team was absolutely wedded to the name. Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting approached the podium and declared, “Yeah, we are! We’re quite fond of the name.” He went on to explain that the first project had been successful and that they had now developed a certain brand awareness around the name. He concluded by saying that they were respectfully requesting to use the name.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the council’s representative to the city planning commission, said that there’d been discussion about the naming issue at the planning commission’s meeting, but that they’d concluded it was not a big enough deal to require a change.

Hieftje said he felt there was a community consensus in support of the project, noting that no one had come to speak against it.

Outcome: The city council unanimously approved the site plan for Zaragon Place 2.

Site Plan Timing Changes

At its June 1, 2010 meeting, the city planning commission had considered and recommended a change to time parameters in the site plan approval process as well as other projects. By way of example, for site plans, language that’s deleted is indicated with a strike-through. Language proposed to be added is in italics.

Chapter 57 – 5:122. Site plans.
(3) Site plans for City Council approval. Except as otherwise provided in this section, City Council shall review and approve or reject a site plan after receiving a report and recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall submit its report and recommendation to the City Council within 60 days of receiving a report and recommendation from the planning and development services manager or designee. The City Council shall approve or reject the site plan within 30 days of the recommendation by the Planning Commission. Within a reasonable time following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council to approve or deny the planned project. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council shall approve or reject the planned project within a reasonable time following the close of the public hearing. If approval is conditioned on changes to the site plan, the petitioner shall submit revised drawings with the necessary changes to the planning and development services manager or designee within 30 days of approval by the City Council or the site plan approval shall lapse. Any changes to a condition placed on the site plan by City Council shall require City Council approval.

The planning commission’s June meeting featured ample public commentary and thorough discussion by planning commissioners. A lone dissent on the planning commission for the change had come from Evan Pratt.

Outcome: Without discussion, the city council unanimously approved the timing change.

Village Green Purchase Option Agreement

Before the council was another extension of a $3 million purchase option agreement with Village Green for the city-owned property at First and Washington. The parcel is currently used as a surface parking lot, following demolition of an aging parking structure. Village Green has an approved PUD (planned unit development) site plan on the parcel for a project called City Apartments – a combined residential building that includes 156 dwelling units and 244 public parking spaces. The council-approved extension includes a requirement that the closing on the deal take place by June 1, 2011.

The initial extension was granted through Dec. 31, 2009, with the city administrator having discretion to extend two times for three-month periods, which he did, bringing the option forward to June 30, 2010. The council granted another short extension at its June 21, 2010 meeting to provide some additional time to develop specific project milestones.

Outcome: Without discussion, the  council unanimously approved the Village Green purchase option extension.

DDA Board Nomination

Mayor John Hieftje nominated Bob Guenzel to serve on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. Guenzel retired as Washtenaw County administrator in May 2010. Hieftje inidicated that Guenzel would replace Jennifer S. Hall on the board, whose term expired July 31, and he thanked Hall for her services. Hieftje did not indicate at the council meeting if he would be re-appointing John Splitt, whose term on the DDA board also expired.  Guenzel’s nomination will need to be confirmed by the city council at its Aug. 16 meeting.

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

Absent: Marcia Higgins, Stephen Kunselman.

Next council meeting: Aug. 16, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Bonnie Bona, chair of Ann Arbor's city planning commission, listens to a presentation about Zaragon Place 2. A rendering of the proposed project is on the screen in the background, viewed from the William Street perspective. (Photos by the writer.)

The project – to be located at the southeast corner of William and Thompson, next to Cottage Inn restaurant – drew support from two representatives of neighboring businesses, who said they were eager for new residents to arrive as potential customers. The site has been vacant and considered blighted for more than a decade.

Unlike recent proposals for two other residential developments – Heritage Row and The Moravian – Zaragon Place 2 does not require special zoning and has not faced opposition from neighborhood groups.

Some of the discussion by commissioners centered on the 40 parking spaces to be provided within the structure, as well as 40 spaces for bikes in a secured storage room. The ground level will include retail space fronting William. Also as part of the project, the city’s parks unit is asking the developer for $48,000 to help pay for new parks in the area, or to enhance existing parks.

In other business, the commission approved a special exemption use for Big Shot Fireworks to set up a tent in front of the Quarter Bistro, in the Westgate Shopping Center. Commissioners were schooled in fireworks-related legislation – anything that spins, explodes or leaves the ground can’t be sold in Michigan to the general public.

And a rezoning of a previously unzoned parcel on Jackson Avenue – site of the former Barnard Plating factory, next to Hillside Terrace Retirement Center – passed without discussion.

Finally, the commission discussed and passed a resolution that more formally outlines their plan to work with the city’s environmental and energy commissions toward the goal of building a sustainable Ann Arbor. It’s the outgrowth of a joint meeting the three commissions held in April, and was characterized by planning commission chair Bonnie Bona as the beginning of a community conversation about sustainability.

Zaragon Place 2:

Rick Perlman, the Chicago-based developer of Zaragon Place – a 10-story apartment building on East University – is proposing a second structure on the west side of campus, dubbed Zaragon Place 2. The new 96,685-square-foot residential building would be 14 stories tall, located on the southwest corner of Thompson and William – now an empty lot next to Cottage Inn restaurant.

The building meets the site’s D1 zoning, and is therefore a “by-right” project – no rezoning is required. It is the first project to move forward under the city’s new A2D2 zoning regulations, and would include 99 units, 40 parking spaces on levels two and three, 40 spots for bike storage in a secured room on the third level, and ground floor retail space facing William Street. The apartment entrance, along with an entrance to the parking levels, would be on the Thompson Street side. Each of the floors from levels four through 14 would include nine apartments: one 4-bedroom unit, six 2-bedroom units, and two 1-bedroom units.

According to the staff report, the city’s parks and recreation unit is asking developers to contribute $48,000 toward acquiring or enhancing parkland near the development.

In describing the project to commissioners, Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff mentioned some outstanding issues: A traffic impact statement that’s under review; the possible need to relocate the building’s fire hydrant; and additional modeling being done to look at the project’s impact on the sanitary sewer system.

During their deliberations, commissioners praised the project, with only relatively minor criticisms and suggestions. Several commented on the lack of opposition to the development – in contrast to two other recent controversial projects that have come before the commission and the city council: Heritage Row and The Moravian. General support for Zaragon Place 2 was also evident at a public meeting in April held by the project team and attended by several residents who have strongly opposed Heritage Row and The Moravian – in contrast, they said they supported Zaragon Place 2, citing the appropriateness of its location. [See Chronicle coverage: "Zaragon, Heritage Row and The Moravian"]

Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, speaks in favor of Zaragon Place 2.

Zaragon Place 2: Public Commentary

Five people spoke during the public hearing on Zaragon Place 2 – all of them in favor of the project.

Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, said that when he came to town 15 years ago, there were three blighted properties in that area: An abandoned Olga’s restaurant at the southeast corner of State and Washington, a former McDonald’s building on Maynard, and an empty bank at the southeast corner of Thompson and William. The first two properties have since been developed – Zaragon Place 2 would complete the redevelopment of those three sites. In March, the association’s board unanimously voted to support the project, he reported. While he couldn’t speak for all his members, Heywood said that the vast majority of them are overjoyed, to say the least. The association is looking forward to having them as members.

Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, the Southfield firm that’s designing this project, reviewed several of the building’s design features. He described it as a sister building to Zaragon Place on East University, and noted that they planned to use essentially the same materials as they did for Zaragon Place. He pointed out some design differences between ZP2 and the original Zaragon – all the bedrooms in the new building would have at least one window, for example, and they’ll use clear glass for the street level retail space. The structure will be fully compliant with the city’s new D1-D2 zoning, he said, as well as with the draft design guidelines that the city is developing.

Roger Hewitt said he’s been operating businesses in the State Street area for 25 years or so. [He owns the Red Hawk restaurant on State Street, as well as a café and market called revive + replenish in the ground floor of Zaragon Place, on East University. He is also a board member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.] Hewitt said he strongly supports this project. There used to be a wonderful mix of retail in that area, but strip malls have pulled away business and it’s been clear that they need denser housing to have a vibrant urban area. He said he’s been pushing for that over the past several years, as a member of the A2D2 steering committee. He could not be happier that a quality building like this is being proposed. It will be a boon to the area, he said, and everyone is looking forward to having the new residents as customers.

Reporting from the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, Ray Detter said the group had seen a presentation of the project at their May meeting, and strongly supported it. By complying with D1 zoning, the building meets the community’s expectations for downtown density, he said. It requires no zoning variances, and meets the design guidelines that are being drafted. They recognize that these units don’t qualify as affordable housing, but the city will just have to satisfy its commitment to affordable housing on other sites, he said. For all of these reasons, the DACAC supports the project.

Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting, the project’s civil engineer, described several elements of the site plan. An easement on the south and east sides will provide access for the neighboring Cottage Inn restaurant. The project meets all D1 zoning requirements. It will include streetscape improvements per Downtown Development Authority standards, he said, including light fixtures in excess of what’s required. If the retail space becomes a café, they anticipate sidewalk dining, he said. They are installing a stormwater management system that’s already been approved by the county’s water resources commissioner, and it should help address issues in the Allen Creek watershed. There’s no open space, he said, but the developer is including a fitness center in lieu of that. Betzoldt said the issues that staff has raised are very small problems, and they don’t anticipate any difficulty in addressing them.

Zaragon Place 2: Commissioner Deliberations

Tony Derezinski began by calling Zaragon Place 2 an impressive project. It’s the first one done under the new zoning ordinance, he noted, and tests how a by-right project meets those new requirements. Based on staff reports, it’s clear that’s been done, he said. There’s also a model of success, he said – Zaragon Place 1 – both in the building’s design and the fact that there’s a high occupancy rate. He joked that in the drawings for Zaragon Place 2, it shows people crossing the street to the church, so it will be good for that “business” as well. He said he was particularly happy to see the report about a public meeting held by the developer – it showed that there was strong support by people who attended, including some who have opposed other developments in the past.

Jean Carlberg asked about noise complaints that the city had received from residents of other buildings, such as the Lofts on State Street. How were those issues being addressed in this new project? Bonney said there had been complaints at Zaragon Place, too. He described a variety of retrofits that they’d done on Zaragon Place, including door sweeps and the addition of insulation between the walls. For Zaragon Place 2, they’ll be doing those things and more, he said. They’ll use more solid materials between the units – solid concrete, rather than concrete block, for example – and they’ll install baffles in the air ducts to buffer noise.

Carlberg said she was glad to hear this, and asked that they outline these measures before the plan goes to city council. It would be good to have this information on hand so that city staff can use it the next time a similar project comes along.

She then asked about the problem of melting ice dripping from the roof on Zaragon Place. Bonney said they are modifying the design of the cornice for the new building so that water would be diverted into a gutter system. The cornice is made of fiberglass, which is slicker than stone and makes it easier for ice to form.

Carlberg asked why Zaragon Place has been successful in getting full tenancy, and what makes them think that Zaragon Place 2 will be successful. She also asked where the students’ cars end up – or don’t the student tenants have cars? she asked.

Bonney said Zaragon Place offers an alternative to other housing – dorms, or older apartments. Zaragon uses higher-quality materials, fully furnished units with Italian cabinetry, granite countertops and other amenities. Students are tired of older apartments, he said – they want to feel that this is their first home away from home, that it’s a special place. Plus, the location is superb, he said.

Regarding cars, he said the building’s parking meets D1 requirements. There are a lot of public parking structures nearby, but most of the tenants don’t own cars – that’s the beauty of living in a walkable town, he said. Students and young professionals want that type of location. Carlberg asked how many tenants in Zaragon Place use public parking structures.

The building manager for Zaragon Place, Liza Lax, came to the podium to answer the question. The 40 parking spaces in the building are all filled, she reported, and there were about 10 more people who wanted spots. They were referred to Republic Parking, which manages the city’s municipal lots. Lax said she also pointed people to the university’s off-campus housing website, which provides information on parking spots for sale in the area. It hasn’t been a big issue, she said.

Carlberg noted that the site plan shows trees on the north side of the building. When the DDA puts in trees, it doesn’t put them on the north sides of streets, she said, because there’s not enough sunlight. She wondered if they’d discussed whether trees can actually grow there. Betzoldt said the trees selected for that location are hornbeams, and don’t require a lot of light.

Eric Mahler asked for further explanation about the stormwater system planned for the site. Betzoldt said since the building footprint covered almost the entire site, they were mainly detaining roof drainage, which would be routed down through the building into underground storage tanks. From there it would discharge into a public storm sewer – meeting all county water resources guidelines.

Mahler then asked about the parking ramp – how wide is it, and what’s the grade? Betzoldt said the ramp had a 9% grade, similar to Zaragon Place, and the lane is about 16 feet wide.

Mahler said his concern is that the floor-to-area ratio (FAR) – at 681.5% – is very high, but his concerns are far outweighed by the parking arrangement, which is highly desirable, and the density it adds, which the city is always clamoring for. He said it doesn’t go unnoticed that there’s no significant opposition to the project, which is “no mean feat.” He liked the fact that they wrote LEED certification, to some extent, into the development agreement, which he finds commendable.

Wendy Woods wondered how they’ll address concerns raised by the fire department about the names of the two buildings, which could be easily confused. She said she’s done ride-alongs with the fire department, and you wouldn’t want there to be confusion when they make a run. Betzoldt agreed that it could be confusing, though the names are different, he noted – the new building is Zaragon Place 2. They’re relying on a brand and banking on the success of Zaragon Place, he said. He noted that when he looks in the phone book, he can find a dozen McDonald’s, eight to 10 Cottage Inns, four Krogers – in all of those cases, people have to be clear about the location when they call for help.

Woods said that because it’s a high-rise, there will be more people possibly at risk, which increases the need for clarity. She noted that within the past year, there was a fire that resulted in someone’s death – in part, because there was confusion about the address. It wouldn’t stop her from supporting the project, but she wanted to raise those concerns. “It works until it doesn’t work,” she said. Betzoldt said they might want to do some education with the building manager and residents, to ensure that people are specific about the address.

Woods also asked about the bicycle room. Bonney clarified that there would be a secured storage room for 40 bicycles on the third floor parking level. Originally they had tried to find a location on the ground floor, he said, but it’s a tight site. At Zaragon Place, they’ve found that students will either park on the street or they’ll use the elevators to take bikes to their apartments. [The bike storage room there is in an underground parking level.] Bonney said they believe at the new building, students will use the oversized elevators to go to the third floor storage area.

Woods clarified that the parking levels are open to the air. The bicycle room, however, is enclosed, with glass windows.

Evan Pratt said he liked the high amount of glass on the building’s facade, and its contemporary look. He wondered if any of the windows opened. All living rooms and bedrooms have windows that open, Bonney said.

Pratt then pointed out that the retail space on the street level is recessed – what’s the reason for that? He noted that there’s a lot at 1 Huron Street lot that is recessed, and doesn’t seem to work well, from the pedestrian’s perspective. Bonney said the city’s draft design guidelines state that if a sidewalk is 12 feet wide, they can widen 80% of the building’s facade by 4 feet. They wanted the option for outdoor dining, he said, and a bit of a protected area at the entrance. At the corner, it’s pulled back a little more, Bonney said, to 8 feet – that’s so the design can meet the guidelines for creating architectural interest by modulating the facades.

Kirk Westphal picked up on Pratt’s comments, saying he appreciated that the draft design guidelines were taken into account. He noted the cornice on the building’s west side, and wondered why they didn’t put a continuing cornice along the north, east and south facades. Bonney said the cornice wraps slightly around the north and south sides, but that the intent was to visually orient the building to the west side, facing Thompson Street. He said that since it’s a corner lot, the design also serves to distinguish the Maynard side from the Thompson side.

Westphal said it certainly is different, but that in his experience working on the design guidelines, there still should be a defining element that goes all the way around the top of the building. He said he appreciated the transparency on the major first-floor facades. However, he noted in the area that might be used for outdoor dining, people would be staring at a solid wall. He asked if the wall needs to be solid. Yes, Bonney said – structurally, it needs to be load-bearing.

Finally, Westphal commented that the aesthetic of the recessed area “doesn’t remind me of the strongest retail or restaurant areas in our town.” Bonney said it’s possible that the area might be enhanced with a canopy, depending on the tenant. He clarified that no one has committed to leasing the space yet. Westphal expressed his personal hope that it wouldn’t become a bank. He described it as a great project and a real enhancement to the neighborhood.

Erica Briggs echoed other commissioners’ comments about it being a wonderful project. She asked whether they would have put in 40 parking spaces if they hadn’t been required to do so, or if they would have preferred to use that space for additional residences. Bonney said they think it’s the right amount, especially with nearby parking in the underground structure being built next to the library.

Briggs also asked about bike parking – is the same amount provided in the original Zaragon Place? Bonney said it’s the same amount, but perhaps because the Zaragon Place bike storage is in the lower level parking, people are more reluctant to use it. People like to take their expensive bikes to their residences. Briggs said she suspected the convenience or security isn’t there – even secured bike rooms might have problems with theft, and she encouraged them to think of ways to make it as secure as possible.

She said it looked like they were doing just the minimum amount of bike parking, and with about 200 residents, more than 40 bike spaces would be a benefit. Bonney noted that there are also 10 spaces in front of the building – Briggs clarified that she was referring to secured spaces. Was there room for more in the storage room? Bonney said the room is spacious and the spaces aren’t crammed, so in theory there would be room for more wall storage. There are also little nooks and crannies elsewhere in the garage, where spaces could be added.

Briggs said she didn’t know how much the spaces were used, so it was hard to know what the demand would be like. Bonney then noted that in the north campus apartment complex that they designed, called The Courtyards – there are 900 units and spaces for 40 bikes. Only two bikes are stored there, he said – “way less than we thought it would be.”

“All right,” Briggs quipped, “I’ll stop talking.”

Diane Giannola spoke next, saying she thought it was a wonderful project, and agreeing with other commissioners’ comments. She asked for a view and description of the building’s east side, which Bonney provided.

Bonnie Bona wrapped up the discussion. She mentioned the issue that Woods had raised about clarifying the address, and said that as a planning issue, she wanted to encourage them to use an address that matched the entrance to the apartments. She pointed to the Lofts on State Street as an example of something that didn’t work – the door on the building’s State Street side has a sign saying that residents should use the Washington Street entrance, which she described as “the dumbest, ugliest door.”

She said she noticed that the alley behind the building toward Cottage Inn is an easement. Giving alley access to the backs of other buildings would be good – she thanked them for making that an easement. She said she appreciated her fellow commissioners’ concerns about the sidewalk width, but noted that in that neighborhood, sidewalks tend to be a bit too-narrow – she’s more okay with it at that location than she would be in other parts of the city.

Regarding design issues, Bona said that the intent of the design guidelines – to have a “top” design element around most of the building – hasn’t been met in Zaragon Place 2. It looks like half of the building doesn’t have a top, she said. When she looks at the drawings, it reminds her of Ashley Terrace, which has a heavy bottom and looks like they didn’t finish building it. It won’t make any difference in the planning commission’s vote, she said, but she encouraged them to address that design issue before bringing the project to city council.

Derezinski then asked when the project would come before city council. DiLeo said it depends on how quickly the developers can address the few outstanding issues that staff had identified. It would be Aug. 5 at the earliest, she said, but possibly not until September.

Derezinski then asked what the timetable would be for construction. Bonney said they’d start as soon as possible, applying for a building permit not long after getting final approval. They’d hope to start in the fall, and it’s about an 18-24-month construction period, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the site plan for Zaragon Place 2. The city council will consider the proposal at an upcoming meeting, likely in August.

Big Shot Fireworks

Earlier in the meeting, commissioners considered a special exemption use request for Big Shot Fireworks to set up a tent in front of the Quarter Bistro, in the Westgate Shopping Center. This is the second recent special exemption use request at the shopping center – at its May 18, 2010 meeting, the planning commission approved a request for the Westside Farmers Market, which operates on Thursday afternoons next to Zingerman’s Roadhouse.

The owner of Big Shot Fireworks wants to set up a 30-foot by 50-foot tent in the parking lot, facing South Maple Road, to sell Class C fireworks and other items. The business would be open from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, with longer hours – until midnight – during the week before July 4.

The permit would be valid for one calendar year. Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff said that the business has operated there since 2006, and the city has received no complaints about it. No one spoke during the public hearing for the request.

Fireworks: Commissioner Deliberations

Jean Carlberg asked how signs would be handled. Rudy Rodriguez, Jr. of Big Shot Fireworks said there would be temporary banners along the bottom of the tent and near the curb area. Carlberg said she didn’t like fireworks, but had learned that these are legal. She found it reassuring to know that there hadn’t been complaints in previous years.

Bonnie Bona asked for clarification of the differences between Class A, B and C fireworks. Rodriguez explained that in Michigan, you need permits to use Class A and B fireworks – anything that spins, explodes or leaves the ground can’t be sold in the state to the general public. There’s the possibility that state law governing fireworks will be changed, he said – if it does, then they would no longer be able to sell in a tent, and would need to find a permanent, indoor facility. He later noted that the tent they use is made of fire retardant material, and that they have a million-dollar insurance policy for the location.

Wendy Woods asked if they would sell apparel as well – Rodriguez said they would. He added that they would likely return to the location for special events – if a sports team wins a championship, for example – to sell specialty items. Each time they put up the tent anew, they are required to have new inspections by the fire marshal, he noted.

Woods asked if there are age restrictions regarding their customers for fireworks. Rodriguez said that it was funny – you have to be 18 years old to sell fireworks, but there are no age requirements to buy them.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the special exemption use request, which will now be forwarded to the city council.

Rezoning Jackson Road Property

A 1.2-acre parcel at 1943 Jackson Avenue, west of Hillside Terrace Retirement Center, is unzoned. The city’s planning staff recommended that it be rezoned to R4C (multi-family dwelling), compatible with the surrounding residential area and recommended in the city’s West Area plan. The site – the former location for the Barnard Plating factory – includes a single-family home and a brick building. According to the staff report, the property owner has indicated that the proposed rezoning is acceptable.

No one spoke at the public hearing, and there was no discussion among commissioners about the item.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved a recommendation that 1943 Jackson Road be rezoned from an unzoned property to R4C (multi-family dwelling). The rezoning request will be forwarded to the city council for approval at an upcoming meeting.

Resolution on Sustainability

Following the vote on Zaragon Place 2, the commission considered a resolution that was an outgrowth of efforts by leaders of three city commissions: planning, environmental and energy. The three commissions held a joint working session on sustainability in April, discussing ways that the groups can work together. [See Chronicle coverage: "Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor"]

Bonnie Bona, who chairs the planning commission, drafted a resolution that commissioners initially discussed at their June 8 working session. The intent is to outline how the three commissions will coordinate toward the goal of incorporating sustainability into their work, and possibly broadening that scope to include other city commissions and the University of Michigan. [.pdf of sustainability resolution]

There are five resolved clauses:

Resolved, the City Planning Commission will seek input from the Environmental Commission and Energy Commission regarding policy recommendations for Master Plan updates, planning studies and zoning ordinance revisions, at the discretion of the Planning Commission chair, which promote a broader view of sustainability.

Resolved, the City Planning Commission will request participation by a representative from the Environmental Commission and the Energy Commission in the Citizen Outreach Committee’s efforts to broaden the community-wide discussion of planning.

Resolved, the City Planning Commission Chair will be available to meet periodically, as deemed necessary, with the Chair of the Environmental Commission and the Chair of the Energy Commission to discuss progress on joint commission coordination toward a sustainable Ann Arbor and to consider this coordination with other City commissions, the University of Michigan’s sustainability representatives and other regional representatives.

Resolved, the City Planning Commission representative on the Environmental Commission will keep each commission updated on policy recommendations being considered by the other commission.

Resolved, the City Planning Commission requests a supporting resolution for joint coordination toward a sustainable Ann Arbor by the Environmental Commission and Energy Commission.

Tony Derezinski began by saying he still had the same concerns he had originally voiced at the June 8 working session – namely, that the resolution added steps to the commission’s process that, if not met, could leave the city vulnerable. He specifically objected to the first resolved clause, and said he thought they had agreed not to include the reference to zoning ordinance revisions.

He said it’s not that he’s against the concept of sustainability – though he thought there had been discussion that it should be defined. But given the language of the resolution, it wasn’t one he could support.

Jean Carlberg said it didn’t seem to her that the resolution made it a mandatory process – it doesn’t set timeframes or require a response. She didn’t see it as creating new strictures, so she wasn’t troubled by it.

Eric Mahler agreed with Derezinski that adding any process that isn’t mandated by law, especially related to a legally binding thing like an ordinance, is a little troubling. But the phrase “at the discretion of the chair” adds some leeway, he said. The commission could just seek input from other commissions – they didn’t have to wait for it. He was okay with the language, saying that there was enough “clever drafting” to make him comfortable with it.

Kirk Westphal congratulated Bona on her work, and said it was a big step that a lot of folks had been meaning to take, but no one else had. He said he shared some of the concerns of the attorneys on the commission – Derezinski and Mahler – and asked whether the resolution could be brought to bear in any legal process.

Wendy Rampson, head of the planning staff, started off by saying that she was not providing legal advice. She said the resolution simply directed staff to seek input from the two other commissions. If it becomes a concern, she added, then future commissions can simply vote it out. She said she didn’t know if someone could fault them for not following the process, from a legal standpoint.

Westphal said he was comfortable with it as is.

Wendy Woods asked whether the citizen outreach committee had met yet, and whether they saw a role for the other two commissions in their work. Erica Briggs, who’s on that committee, replied that it’s great to have the energy and environmental commissions as part of the community-wide discussion of planning, and since the resolution doesn’t tie it directly to sustainability, they would just be part of the broader discussion. Perhaps even more commissions can be involved, she said, talking about how to do outreach well and how to reach a broader segment of the community.

Woods pointed out that the resolution is related to sustainability. She asked for examples of previous decisions that the planning commission made that would have benefited from input from the other commissions.

Evan Pratt cited the flood plain ordinance, which they ran past the environmental commission. Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, took the flood plain ordinance to that commission, to get their feedback.

Rampson said when they were working on the A2D2 zoning, looking at “green” premiums, the planning staff was trying to get a sense of the best metrics to use – LEED certification or some other method. They approached both the environmental and energy commissions for input on that, she said. This resolution would just formalize that approach.

Westphal, who also serves on the environmental commission, brought up another example. That group had recently been briefed on the city’s area, height & placement project, and they raised concerns over how building height might affect shading over houses that have solar panels on their roofs.

Briggs said she didn’t have concerns with the wording, and she appreciated the intent of the resolution, to reach out to the other commissions and think more broadly about these issues. They’re just at the beginning of this discussion about sustainability, she said, and it was important to formalize it.

Bona spoke next, saying she had some things to add “without being defensive.” She said she’s been reading books by professionals who are having trouble defining sustainability, so if the commissioners tried to do that first, she felt they’d get nowhere. She hoped they’d be having the conversation more and more about what sustainability means for this city.

She reminded commissioners of the generic example she’d mentioned at the working session, when they face a planned unit development (PUD) or planned project that wants to build higher than zoning allows. For a variety of reasons, she said, she tends to be pro-density in developed areas, “but I never know when to stop.” When someone comes to them with a 10-story building, her first response is, “Why only 10 stories?” Is that just the political spot – the height that would allow it to get through the city council without neighborhood opposition?

The chair of the energy commission, Wayne Appleyard, had shared with Bona an article that stated a sustainable building in the Midwest would be five stories – that’s because you could generate the renewable energy from the roof and the ground that would be sufficient for the building. A bigger building would require outside renewable energy sources, she said.

“I don’t know if five stories is it,” she said, “but I’d like to have a more intelligent conversation than just watching the political winds.”

Bona also said that she thinks the conversations with the public will be much more fulfilling when it’s not just planning – it’s about planning based on smart energy and smart environmental thinking.

Outcome: The resolution passed, with dissent from Derezinski.

Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen spoke during the two times available for general public commentary, at the beginning and end of the meeting. His theme was transportation.

On June 15, 2006, he said, the mayor sent out a press release announcing the new transportation approach – mobility in the 21st century. So what was mobility in the 20th century? In 1953 when the Michigan constitution had just been passed, it included Act 55 – that was the act under which the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority was created. In 1968, Ann Arbor was having trouble paying a private bus company, Mogensen said, so they decided to create a transportation authority.

In 1969, a local state senator helped change state law to allow a local municipality to operate its transportation authority 10 miles outside the city, he said – the reason was so that Ypsilanti could be included in the AATA service area. Then in 1973 a millage was passed, and in 1974 the area was enlarged. People were already thinking about regional coverage then – several communities, including Ypsilanti and several surrounding townships, had purchase of service agreements to get service from AATA.

Things have pretty much stayed the same since then, he said, but now we’re starting to see cracks. Most people who use the system are lower-income people – that’s the reality of it, he said.

During his second turn, Mogensen recapped his initial comments, saying he was there – first, because he’s always there – but also because it was the fourth anniversary of the mayor unveiling his Model for Mobility. When the model for mobility had been developed in the 20th century, he said, there were transportation planners involved in that process – some of the details of that are not well known. AATA was not initially thought to be a regional system, but it became one a few years later – a fixed route bus service in the urban area. And mostly low-income people are using the bus.

The barriers to middle class people using the bus are time, money and convenience. Most people say it takes too long to use the bus, he said, and they don’t have time. Fares for the middle class are subsidized through various programs – he calls it “association” versus “application.” If you’re associated with the downtown through an employer, your fare is subsidized through the getDowntown program. If you’re associated with the university, it’s free – federal funding subsidizes the MRide program. If you’re a low-income person, you can apply for assistance, but only to get your fare cut in half. So there are these discontinuities in the system, Mogensen said.

The newest mobility system is essentially for middle class people who live in sprawl. But you can’t pay for both these approaches, he said. So what’s happening is that the city is converting the old system, which is for people in the urban area, to incentivize people who live in sprawl. What concerns him is that people in the urban areas will have to buy cars if they’re not affiliated with the university.

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

Next meeting: The planning commission next meets on Thursday, July 8 at 6 p.m. in fourth floor boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

Zaragon Place 2 – Preliminary Design

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday’s Citizen Participation Meeting: Who Showed Up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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