Archive for the ‘Neighborhoods’ category

« Local in Ann Arbor home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

How F.A.R. Should We Go?

September 29, 2009

The Area, Height and Placement (AHP) revisions to Chapters 55 (Zoning) and 59 (Off-Street Parking) of the Ann Arbor city code have been under discussion for over a year.  They were apparently staff-generated (not as result of any public outcry for a change to our zoning ordinances).  Through this last summer, a number of meetings were held around the city where staff attempted to explain what the changes were expected to bring about.   The Ann Arbor Chronicle summarized the intent and provisions in an article that also drew a long comment thread.  As it notes, the revisions are intended to make the commercial and multifamily sections of Ann Arbor more amenable to Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).  The Ann Arbor Transportation Plan Update explains this concept in detail and it can be summarized neatly in one word: density.  The AATPU projects an increase in Ann Arbor’s population by 2030 of up to 20% (to a total of 124,085) and explicitly calls for high-density zoning to accommodate this growth.  (The plan also calls for some very adventurous transportation additions, some of which we are already hearing about now.)

One of the ways density is achieved is by a striking increase of F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) in some zoning districts. F.A.R. is a ratio of how much of the buildable area of a parcel may be occupied with building.  So 100% F.A.R. would mean that a building of one story could occupy the full area within the setbacks.  Or a building of 2 stories may occupy 50% of the lot.  Or a building of 4 stories may occupy 25% of the area, and so forth.  Theoretically, one could legally build a “needle tower” up to the clouds if there is no height limitation in addition to the F.A.R. assigned.  The AHP changes as presented to the public had no height limitations in certain commercial areas (C3, Office [O], Office/Research/Limited Industry [ORL], and Research [R]).  F.A.R. was dramatically increased. For example, C1 (local business) was increased from 40% F.A.R. to 200%.   That would easily lead to 4-story buildings if only half of the lot was taken up with parking lot and lawn.  But C1 does have a height limit of 35′ (increased from 25′) or 50′ for large lots, so apparently had a height limit of approximately 5-6 stories.  Heights for some multifamily districts were increased from 40′ or 60′ to 120′.

Since the areas subject to these changes (see map)  are often near residential areas, one concern expressed at public meetings was the absence of a height limitation, and another one was the possible impact on adjacent areas.  The staff seem to be trying to address those concerns.  Indeed, the staff has kept prodigious records of public comment, including the comment thread on the Chronicle. The effort to obtain real public input appears to be sincere.  At the August meeting of the AHP Advisory Committee (appointed by council to work with staff on the public rollout), it was decided to make an all-out effort to give the populace a true opportunity for serious interaction on the proposal.  Tuesday night is devoted to small-group sessions, with a facilitator at each table.  October 7 will be a chance for each speaker to address the entire audience.  Anyone with a serious interest in the subject can attend both meetings; it should result in a good understanding of the changes at a minimum.

Of course, the larger question is why this? why now?  It appears that we are ramping up to a vision of a much bigger city where redevelopment of commercial and multifamily areas at the edges of the city is eagerly sought.  The market and the economy are going to have to change quite a bit for that to happen.  I propose a test site: let’s redevelop the Georgetown Mall. The recent news about the mall means that we are going to have a concrete and asphalt hole in the fabric of Ann Arbor, right on a major thoroughfare.  It would make an excellent spot for a test of the Utopian vision (borrowed from Seattle in most cases) of a dense mixed-use development with charming shops and coffeehouses below, urban residences above, parking sequestered out of site, tree-lined sidewalks, and easy access to transit with a diminished setback to the street.  Maybe we could even get Kroger to come back.

UPDATE: The public meetings are over.  Now we’ll see what the staff do with all the comments.  The project webpage includes videos and maps that are detailed ward-by-ward.  If any proposed changes are adjacent to your own property, now is the time to look it over.

Categories: Neighborhoods

Comments: Be the first to comment

Crime, Fear and the Neighborhood (II)

September 23, 2009

The “Old Northwest Side” neighborhood meeting that the city hosted on September 22 was really two meetings, hinged on the question of neighborhood concerns about crime.  Each in its own way raised questions about how we perceive vulnerability to crime in our own homes.

For the first hour,  in response to the recent epidemic of break-ins, Police Chief Barnett Jones held forth on crime statistics and advice on how to be safe in one’s home.

Chief Jones provided these figures for crime in Ann Arbor:

  • Jan-June 2008: 1516 major crimes; 1055 breaking and entering
  • Jan-June 2009: 1422 major crimes; 1012 breaking and entering

His conclusions: “Crime has gone down in our community; we have a very safe community.”  As can be seen, these would indicate that the famous “uptick” in crime did not occur in the first half of the year.  It is somewhat difficult to reconcile with FBI crime statistics for 2007-2008, showing an increase in property crime from 2,777 in 2007 to 3121 in 2008.  Part of the answer is that different time frames are involved, and the data are not sufficiently granular to indicate what part of “property crime” is in “major crime” or is “breaking and entering”, etc.  Also, the UM apparently submits its own crime statistics to the FBI and those are presumably included in the FBI data (which were supplied to AnnArbor.com by the county sheriff).

Separately, the chief examined the budgetary allotment for “public safety”, which includes police, fire, and the courts:

  • 1996: 39% of the city budget to police, fire and courts
  • 2008: 54% of the city budget to police, fire and courts.

Note that no fine details were included.  For example, are any amounts related to early retirements charged off against those percentages?  And are expenses relating to the relocation of the 15th District court included?  Certainly the numbers do not give me reassurance that “feet on the street” were getting a high monetary support.  But Jones stressed to the audience that “we’re not overworked”.

But regardless of statistics and dollars, one thing we know is that our Sunset/Brooks area (which includes roughly the area bounded by Spring, Newport, Sunset, and Miller) is not as safe as it used to be.  There was 1 report of a break-in in May, 2 in June, 1 in July – and then 11 in August.  So far in September, 4 have been reported.  Jones said that they seem to have stopped, presumably because of all the attention, and that he personally believes that it is someone living in the neighborhood.  (This would seem to be supported by the fact that the individual carries a backpack, takes only easily portable objects like laptops, and walks up to successive doors.)

Then, for the second hour, a group of neighbors from a slightly different area expressed fears and asked questions relating to the density of supportive and affordable housing in their area, and its possible effect on safety.  The immediate impetus was apparently the Near North project, that was approved by Council on Monday.  Originally this group of neighbors had been hoping for the meeting before that approval.  But their concern is that they felt their neighborhood had too high a density of affordable, supportive, and low-income housing, more than most areas of the city are being asked to bear, and that it made them less safe in their neighborhood.

Indeed, as was conceded by representatives of several supportive housing nonprofits (Michael Appel of Avalon Housing served as the chief spokesperson), the area does have a very high density of various kinds of low-income housing (see map).  As explained, the reason that it is there instead of say, Burns Park, is that property values are simply more affordable.  Also, advocates for the homeless and near-homeless have always argued that these groups need to be near downtown so that they can have ready access to services.

It was clarified that one source of concern, Miller Manor, is a federally-funded facility managed by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (i.e., it is public housing).  There have been reports of trouble there in the past, but the new manager, Marge Novak explained that it is well staffed, is not “supportive” housing, and that what few problems exist are usually among residents, not with the rest of the community.

Avalon has until this Near North project focused exclusively on supportive housing, with the possible exception of the units that the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corporation (WAHC) formerly owned.  Avalon took over management of those properties in January 2009.  Supportive housing, as Appel explained, is aimed at very low income people (about $8-15 thousand annual income).  Much of it is also for people who have various disabilities, including mental illness, substance abuse, developmental and physical disabilities.  Many of them are subsisting on SSI (Supplemental Security Income).  They do pay rent to Avalon and they have caseworkers from human service agencies who work with them.  Avalon has always made a point of supervising their tenants closely and evicts troublemakers (Appel estimated that about 5% a year are evicted for behavioral problems).  Other residences in the area are leased by Avalon to Dawn Farm, which runs a number of dry rehabilitation facilities.  The point was made strongly that tenants of these facilities are unlikely to cause trouble, because they are so closely counseled and supervised.

All of this did not entirely satisfy the complaining neighbors, who stated that they loved the diversity of the neighborhood but were concerned that with such a high density of people with acknowledged “issues” might endanger their security in their home turf. But at least they left with more information.

So are there really any safety and security problems for our neighborhood?  The recent rash of break-ins does, actually, look anomalous and maybe the work of only one person, who we hope will be caught now that everyone is so alert.  Despite a recent incident at an Avalon house (a tenant who showed bad judgment about who he took home), they have not and don’t look likely to be a source of crime against our other residents.  The police response has been strong and confident.

But what we have lost is the sense of security that we once enjoyed. The chief’s Crime Prevention talk wasn’t exactly reassuring.  He noted that we should no longer regard ourselves as exempt from what is happening in Michigan.  We are a community of haves, he said, surrounded by have-nots.  Desperate times are making people take desperate measures.  Other communities like Canton and Birmingham are experiencing an increase in crime and we should also be prepared.  Beyond the obvious advice about locking doors and windows, using light timers and letting neighbors know when you will be away, he offered rather frightening suggestions like locking the back door when you are in the back yard, backing into the garage so a perp can’t sneak in past you, and taking out shrubs and vegetation where robbers might lurk.  The picture of Fortress Northwest is not at all appealing.  Chief Jones is also a big proponent of burglar alarms but says that dogs are not an effective deterrent.  So the overall message is: we are safe (good police protection); but be scared, very scared.  And definitely call 911 any time you see anything that “makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck”.

UPDATE: Both this meeting and a second one held on October 27, 2009 are available for viewing here.

Categories: Neighborhoods

Comments: 7 Comments

Crime, Fear and the Neighborhood

September 17, 2009

The home invasions on the West Side have gotten our attention.  As we reported previously, a series of these in the Brooks-Sunset-Summit-Spring area apparently began as early as May 2009 but received little public attention.  They also conflicted with the city’s soothing message that residents shouldn’t be concerned about crime in the face of police cuts.  But after AnnArbor.com quoted A2Politico about contradictions between this message and FBI statistics, and then reported on FBI and sheriff’s crime statistics showing increases in crime between 2007 and 2008, the subject got to be very current, and a second community meeting was scheduled for this coming Saturday at Miller Manor.  It was rumored that both the mayor and the police chief would be there.  Meanwhile, a neighborhood email listserv was set up so that we could exchange observations and warnings about suspicious behavior.

But things got confused.  First, the police notice about the second meeting was sent out only to block captains (from the neighborhood watch system, which does not have consistent coverage).  Fortunately, several people forwarded that to the listserv and to other neighborhood group email lists.  As clamor grew and it became evident that Miller Manor (which has no onsite parking) would not be adequate for another large meeting (the first one, held on September 10 with relatively little notice, had more than 100 people), the meeting was rescheduled to the Ann Arbor Community Center on North Main.  But what’s this?  Suddenly it was about the Summit-Spring area and supportive housing concerns.

First Ward Councilmember Sabra Briere, who attended the September 10 meeting and has been communicating with the neighborhood listserv about meeting changes, had an explanation.  It seems the Summit-Spring area (adjacent to Sunset-Brooks) had been asking for a community meeting. From CM Briere’s email:

The meeting that the Summit / Spring neighborhood wanted last August, to address their concerns about affordable / supportive housing and any relationship this might have to any crime in their neighborhood, was initially planned as a small meeting at Miller Manor.  This is clear, because Miller Manor doesn’t have a large meeting room.  The participants invited from an official side — other than the Police Department — included representatives from supportive housing providers, the homeless shelter, and service providers for those who live in either supportive housing or the shelter.

“Supportive housing” is a term of art meaning case-work and various services including mental health and substance abuse assistance are offered to tenants of (usually) group or multifamily housing. (Avalon Housing is a major provider.) By its nature it is expected that the tenants will be very low income and under various stresses.  Evidently the Summit-Spring neighbors had some concerns about the high incidence of such housing (including the homeless shelter) in and near their neighborhood.  Then the home invasion business brought in a whole new set of anxious neighbors with a slightly different concern.

But wait!  The meeting, finally moved to a new location and with the message beginning to filter through, had a flaw: it was scheduled for a major Jewish holiday, Rosh Hashanah.  This was a direct affront and practical difficulty for many neighbors and also for some of the service providers who were supposed to be part of the presentation.  So with lots more legwork from CM Briere, the announcement finally came through today that the meeting is rescheduled.  And it’ll be on CTN!

So this shows what fear will do.  I’ve corresponded with lots of neighbors I never met.  Suddenly we are working cooperatively instead of just nodding politely on walking past.  But it has cast a shadow over our little island.  I’ve been locking my door just to go next door for a couple of minutes.  I’ve wondered whether I’ll be okay to take a shower during the daytime or to go to the garden in back.  (Our home invader rings the doorbell and then tries to get in if no one seems to be home.)  I suspect that our little piece of Ann Arbor will not be the same for quite a while.

Additional note: the Ann Arbor Police have tried creatively to come up with a name to describe our rather amorphous neighborhood.  “Sunset-Brooks” and “Spring-Summit” are only a few streets, after all.  Nothing as snazzy as “the Old West Side”, but “West Side” is not very descriptive.  The meeting as now announced is for “The Old Northwest Side Community Discussion.”

UPDATE:  The rising crime rate story has evidently gotten under the skin of the city authorities and their supporters.  A defense is being seen on blogs denying that there is a problem.  It is interesting in that context to read the opinion piece published September 18 by a retired police officer, in which he says we have a “perfect storm” on crime.

SECOND UPDATE: This story is continued in a second post.

Both the first and second neighborhood meetings held by the city with the police chief speaking were recorded and are available from the city website here.


Categories: Neighborhoods

Comments: 6 Comments

The Westside Marauders and Crime in Ann Arbor

September 9, 2009

This post has been edited and augmented; the original version was published September 9, 2009 and this edited version is published September 11, 2009.

It had to happen – our nice little safe neighborhood finally became the target for crime.  I live in the Sunset-Brooks area and for years have examined the Ann Arbor Observer monthly crime map with more than a little touch of smugness, since our section of the map was always so nice and clean.

But a couple of weeks ago the phone calls started to let us know that people were experiencing break-ins.  Someone is invading houses during the day, usually when they think no one is home.  According to the police memo, this has been going on since May.  Bad enough.  Lock your doors.  But apparently the efforts are becoming more strenuous.  I heard today that last weekend the thieves used an axe to break down a door.  This conjures up some pretty scary pictures.

As I have announced at the top of this post, we are meeting with the police on September 10 to learn what we can.  But this brings up a broader question, one that I have seen discussed in email listserve groups for some months: how are the city budget cuts and reduction in force of our police affecting our safety?

Informal figures overheard at council meetings indicate that between 25-27 officers accepted early retirement packages from the city as part of the budget cuts.  That is a reduction in force of approximately 20% (the force was about 138 officers).  Will this mean we are more vulnerable to crime?  Our mayor says we shouldn’t worry.

Here is his response to a constituent (widely published on a listserv; typos are as delivered):

I discussed your neighborhood this morning with the Police Chief and City Administrator. We went over the most recent crime numbers up to last Saturday and at this time there is no noticable up-tick in the statistacal data. However, our goal will be to insure that it does not get that far.  Perhaps it seems unusual in the way that many of us think about Police Chiefs but our Chief still goes out on patrol himself and often rides along with patrol officers. He was recently in your neighborhood with one of the patrol officers who grew up there.

The Chief will be scheduling a meeting for early September so the PD can communicate directly with you and your neighbors.

In the meantime it would be helpful if you could be as specific as possible in communications with the PD. Calling 911 when you see something suspicous would really help. Someone trying to gain entry to a house they do not own is something that should be reported immediatly.  Observing someone using drugs on the street, in a park, etc., would also qualify as a reason to call with specific information.

The number of officers on Patrol in our City is the same as it has been for several years and they will be paying special attention to your area. As I explained to someone else who wrote earlier today, crime statistics continue on a long term downward trend in our city but that does not mean certain areas don’t need special attention from time to time. The AAPD will do their best to keep your neighborhood safe.

John Hieftje

Somehow the reassurances about “no uptick in statistical data” are not very satisfying.  Do we have enough police officers to investigate and mitigate a crime wave in our little neighborhood?  I’m looking forward to hearing what the officer has to tell us tomorrow.  But I wish we would stop reducing our force at a time when the economy is down.  I’d like to go back to our nice little crime-free zone as soon as possible.

UPDATE: A neighborhood meeting was held on September 10 at the Free Methodist Church on Newport.  The sanctuary was overflowing (we counted over 100 people attending).  Sergeant  Matthew Lige spoke in general terms about how investigations are conducted.  He advised homeowners who detect entry to call 911 immediately (or perhaps Detective Michael Lencioni, who has been assigned to the case) and avoid handling items in the house (including a door or window that might have been used to gain entry, or places where there might be footprints).  He stressed the importance of keeping evidence intact (but joked that they rarely get “CSI moments” where a single piece of evidence solves the case).  In describing cases of burglary in our neighborhood* since May, a very common pattern emerged and a single suspect seems to be involved in at least many of them. (*roughly the area circumscribed by  Spring, Miller, Newport and Sunset)  Several members of the audience related their own experience with this man.  He is a young (18-25) African-American, thin, light-skinned, with a little bit of chin hair and sometimes wearing a gold cross.  He typically rings doorbells, and if the door is answered, engages in conversation in which he asks for help in  looking for a relative, sometimes named “Veronica”.  (A couple of people have described trying very hard to help, even getting out the phone book.)  One woman said that he was nicely dressed and spoke well, “very Ann Arbor”.  He carries a bag or backpack, and although this was not said explicitly, seems to be on foot.  Evidently if no one is home, he goes to the back of the house and enters either by cutting screens, breaking windows, climbing to the second story window, or in one case, using the homeowner’s own hatchet to break down a door.  Jewelry, electronics, and other easy portable items are taken.  At least 19 of these break-ins have been reported.  (Annarbor.com’s story says 20.)

The sergeant asked people to watch the neighborhood and to call if  “anyone suspicious” was seen.  But he cautioned that the police can not take a person into custody just for looking suspicious.  When asked about increased police patrols for the area, the sergeant shuffled his feet and said that “we are working as diligently as we can though we don’t have the numbers we had”.

About those numbers: in the last budget, police officers were offered an early retirement option.  The city budgeted $6.7 million to pay for it.  It was anticipated that about 12 sworn officers would take the offer.  As a result of a flood of early retirements, at least double that number have left.  (No official count has been released, to my knowledge.)  I’ll note that my experience with the county sworn officers is that they are often young enough when they retire to take another similar job with another law enforcement agency.

SECOND UPDATE: Thanks to the FBI data picked up by A2Politico and then by AnnArbor.com, a full article on crime in Ann Arbor now reveals that we have had increased crime citywide as well as in our northwest neighborhood.  A meeting with the police chief and the mayor is scheduled at Miller Manor The Community Center at 625 N. Main St. on Saturday, September 19, 9 a.m.

Categories: Neighborhoods, Uncategorized

Comments: 11 Comments

Legislative Legerdemain (and City Place)

August 7, 2009

Making law – i.e., legislation – is often compared to making sausage.  But Thursday’s council meeting (August 6) was more like watching a troupe of magician/jugglers.  You know, the ones who start with a single person juggling little red balls.  Another strolls up with some green balls and pretty soon they are juggling each others’ balls – until another one brings in juggling clubs.  A fourth runs in and starts juggling knives, which then get mixed in with the balls and clubs until suddenly they all clap their hands and a flock of doves flies up into the rafters.

A number of things happened at the meeting, but it was really City Place that took center stage (and all the balls).  Councilmember Anglin started the action with his motion at the last meeting to institute a moratorium on development requiring site plans in the R4C and R2A zoning districts.  It was postponed to this meeting. As CM Anglin made clear, the moratorium was intended to protect the Germantown neighborhood against the immediate threat of a City Place development, though it would apply to all such zoning districts throughout the city.  (See the Zoning Activity Map.) Body language among the other CM was not immediately negative, and CM Christopher Taylor suggested a number of amendments, clearly not anticipated by CM Anglin.  The first two appeared to strengthen the moratorium, by extending its length to a full year (from 180 days), and by restricting it to the neighborhoods around the downtown core (thus eliminating possible unforeseen problems with outlying districts not involved in the Central Area Plan issue).  Anglin accepted those as friendly.  But the next was more problematical.  It excluded PUD projects from the moratorium.   Now, this would undo the practical effect of the moratorium with regard to City Place, since last meeting’s action was to shelve the “by right”, or, as councilmembers are now referring to it, “by law” R4C-based site plan in favor of resurrecting a PUD (a public meeting is scheduled on August 12). The Germantown Neighborhood had argued in various email discussions against permitting such an exception to a moratorium, given that a PUD is proposed in regard to the underlying zoning.  But councilmembers argued to the contrary, saying that changes to R4C zoning districts that may be suggested by a study committee (appointed by council later in this same meeting) would not affect a future PUD.  Though CM Anglin argued strenuously against exempting PUDs on the basis that they can radically and negatively change a neighborhood, CM Rapundalo spoke sharply in response, stating that the council would not be doing its job if it allowed a site plan with such negative effects to pass.  CM Briere, speaking sympathetically of the frustrations of the neighborhood, nevertheless stated that the council does have the prerogative to examine PUD proposals carefully and make decisions on the basis of evidence presented.  CM Hohnke, whose history has not been in opposition to the City Place project, stated that including PUDs in the moratorium could have a downside  in weakening the general use of PUDs to provide a benefit to the community.  Finally, the Mayor pointed out that exactly the same PUD could be passed the day after the zoning was changed, so no real effect would be attained by holding a PUD till after the committee’s review. The amendment passed, with only CM Anglin voting against it.

So far, the effect was that a future City Place PUD could be entertained by the council, but a development based on the City Place site plan (postponed but with permission to the developer to bring it back at any time with 35 days notice) would be barred during the period of the moratorium.  But now CM Taylor brought a second amendment: to exclude from the moratorium all current plans for the area under review, including the Moravian PUD, the Casa Dominicks’ PUD, and the City Place R4C site plan.  CM Anglin was clearly stunned at this complete evisceration of his original motion.  CM Hohnke allowed as how this (moratorium) was not the appropriate tool to protect the area, since it did not include protection against demolition. CM Rapundalo summed up the argument for the amendment, saying that there were property rights and constitutional issues with a moratorium clearly designed to stop development.  “We have sworn to uphold the law.”  He noted that the moratorium as originally designed could send a chilling message as to whether Ann Arbor is open even to development of a “reasonable” kind.  “Stopping good development is not what we want to do.”  The amendment passed, again with all but CM Anglin voting for it.

So now – on to the main motion, which at this point would impose a moratorium on new site plans only in the near-downtown area, but exclude all the currently proposed projects and any future PUD proposals. CM Smith and CM Derezinski, who seem to be auditioning for the role of the Development Duo, both argued strenuously against even the idea of any moratorium.  CM Derezinski, noting that he had been “querulous” about the idea in the past, called the very notion “dangerous”, raising the issues of a “taking” (the concept that government strips property or its fair value or use from a citizen without due process or reimbursement), and also the issue of liability for the city, arguing that the question of a moratorium’s validity could be settled in court.  He concluded that the amendments were putting “lipstick on a pig – but it’s still a pig”.  CM Smith stated that the moratorium meant the city was “not interested in new ideas coming forward”.  CM Anglin stated that as amended, he didn’t support the thing (not his word) either.  CM Taylor argued that there were still benefits to holding future development until the R4C committee revised the zoning district.  But the motion failed, with Taylor the only yes vote.  The R4C moratorium is finally dead, with numerous wounds to its heart.  The balls appear poised to fall to the ground.

But Tuesday’s electoral results seem to have had some effect. The Council Party can evidently read a troublesome mood abroad in the land.  A new item has appeared on the council agenda. Suddenly,  a study committee for a historic district in the Germantown area is proposed by CM Hohnke and CM Higgins. Hohnke rather disingenuously stated that “we began a process some months ago” (it was, as CM Anglin rather sourly noted, on December 15, 2008, at which time Hohnke voted against a study committee) and that he wanted to support the neighborhood’s concern about historic preservation.  Discussion revealed that the district described in the resolution is extremely small and limited to parts of  South Fourth and South Fifth Avenues:

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

In public comment prior to the meeting, a protest was lodged that this area (which coincidentally just encompasses the City Place area, with a little margin to spare) was too small, and should extend to Madison (which would, notably, take in the Moravian PUD proposal).  However, it was noted by councilmembers that a study committee would have the authority to recommend an expansion of the district. (Final decision is up to the Council.)  Also, the strong point was that within this smaller area, demolition will be prohibited:

“City Council declares an emergency moratorium on any demolition in the proposed South Fourth and Fifth Avenues historic district, consistent with Chapter 103, Section 8:411 of Ann Arbor City Code, for six months from the date of this resolution”

As was pointed out in discussion, without this provision and even had the R4C moratorium passed in its original form, the developer of City Place could at any time have taken out a demolition permit (process time is about two weeks) and razed the historic buildings in question.

Rather ingenuously, CM Hohnke spoke to his resolution as being necessary in light of the moratorium resolution and apparently felt it necessary to defend himself against any anti-development taint from bringing it. He noted many other opportunities to increase density in the downtown, including the Library Lot, the old Y lot, the Palio lot, but now stated that south of William Street density is not required or perhaps desirable.  CM Derezinski, stating that he had not had time to look at this proposal (CM Greden said he had first seen it at 7:15, after the meeting had started; apparently he was looking at his laptop), moved to postpone till the next meeting, August 17.  But in discussion, it was apparent that demolition could occur within the two-week interval (Assistant City Attorney Kevin McDonald verified that no site permit, etc. is required to demolish buildings).  The postponement failed, with only CM Smith, CM Derezinski, CM Rapundalo and CM Greden voting for it.

Now the Development Duo tried hard to defeat this upstart resolution.  CM Smith argued that it was punitive for this one project.  She said it wasn’t fair to change rules in midstream.  If this developer is to ever build another project in the City of Ann Arbor, the next one will be less affordable, less sustainable.  CM Derezinski echoed her points, saying that it was a bad message that wreaked havoc on the predictability of the law.  Expanding her discussion, CM Smith erroneously said that Planning Commission had approved the City Place site plan (staff and several councilmembers immediately corrected her; it was defeated in Planning Commission) and that staff had “approved” it (she was again corrected; staff recommended against it).  The main argument for both was that this was using the law as a bludgeon, unfairly coercing the developer and violating due process and property rights, and also sends a message that Ann Arbor is unfriendly to developers by making the process arbitrary and unpredictable.

But CM Taylor, speaking with the authoritative voice of a practicing attorney, stated that this decision (the historic district study committee) was “in congruence with”  powers and authority of the Council; “this is within our arsenal of options” and thus was “congruent with predictability”.  On questioning, Assistant City Attorney McDonald reaffirmed that all plan review (for a PUD, for example) can proceed unimpeded during this six-month moratorium, though demolition could not occur.

Finally, Mayor Hieftje (who really should have been wearing the costume of Sarastro near the end of the Magic Flute) made a remarkable speech.  The following is a shortened paraphrase based on my inadequate speed-writing skills.

We should recognize some things and speak frankly.  This project has been before us for many months, with (a couple of ) PUD proposals refused approval by the Planning Commission and this body.  We then considered a “by-right” or “by-law” proposal that has been described by many as a plan the developer doesn’t want to build but was designed as a lever to obtain approval of the original plan…  The developer is using every available legal tool in his chest of tools to do what the city doesn’t want – what the neighborhood doesn’t want.  It’s logical that we would use the tools that are available to us.

The proposal passed, with only CM Smith and CM Derezinski voting against it.

Cue the doves.

UPDATE: As reported by the Ann Arbor Chronicle, Council amended the moratorium resolution at its August 17 meeting.  New language was added to clarify:

“RESOLVED, That the City Council declares an emergency moratorium on all construction, addition, alteration, repair, moving, excavation or demolition in the proposed South Fourth and Fifth Avenue Historic District, consistent with Chapter 103 Section 8:411 of Ann Arbor City Code for six months from August 6, 2009.”

The new language passed with CM Smith and CM Derezinski dissenting.

Categories: Neighborhoods, politics

Comments: 4 Comments

City Council and City Place

July 21, 2009

Two items appeared on Monday’s Council agenda that related in some way to City Place.  One was the resolution to approve the site plan.  The other was the moratorium on site plans under the current R4C zoning. (See the two previous posts for more discussion.)  Neither one passed.  Neither was defeated.  The story continues.

As expected, consideration of the City Place “by right” site plan was postponed, as requested by the developer.  Council retired into a closed session for attorney-client communications immediately after public comment.  When the City Place resolution came up on the agenda, CM Derezinski was prepared.  He moved to postpone until the second meeting in January (2010).  His postponement motion included a direction to staff to assist with delivery of yet another PUD application by the developer, Alex de Parry.

The actual text of the amendment:

“Based on a written request from the developer, dated July 17, 2009, I move that Council postpone consideration of the City Place site plan until the 2nd meeting in January, 2010, that Council direct Planning and Development Services to accept and process a PUD application for this site following its established procedures, and that if the developer wishes to withdraw the PUD application, that the City Place site plan be scheduled for public hearing and consideration within 35 days of receipt of a written request of the withdrawal from the developer.”

He also stated that there seemed to be a way open to satisfy both the needs of the petitioner and of the city (the neighborhood association was not mentioned).  CM Smith commented further that it must be a good compromise if no one is happy at the end.  That must have been an interesting closed session.  There was also discussion of appearance of the project on the agenda at any time with 35 days notice.

The moratorium in R4C/R2A zoned areas was postponed to August 6.  CM Derezinski made a strong pre-emptive statement that appeared to be laying out an argument that a moratorium was too difficult, too perilous to consider.  He called it “the nuclear option” – “don’t drop the bomb without serious consideration”.  Though CM Anglin’s comments in support of his motion were mostly directed toward the City Place development (somewhat moot at this point because of the expected postponement and possible withdrawal altogether of the “by right” R4C-based site plan), others made points about the broader impact of a moratorium.  But they don’t seem to have read the resolution very carefully. CM Taylor, CM Rapundalo, and CM Derezinski all emphasized the notion that it affected 1300 separate properties, and they were pursuing an argument that this would affect the owners of each property equally, with obligations for notification and other complications requiring much more staff work.  CM Hohnke even compared this moratorium to the proposals for the Library Lot in a need for public input.  Yet the moratorium resolution clearly and specifically excludes most development proposals on these parcels:

RESOLVED, That City Council hereby imposes a moratorium on all new development that requires site plan approval, expansion of existing development that requires site plan approval, zoning changes, special exception uses, or other comparable zoning items, in the R4C and R2A zoning districts, and that any petitions or permits for such items be deferred for a period of 180 days from the date of this resolution in conjunction with the study and revision of the zoning ordinances pertaining to these districts, with the following exceptions:

· Approval of development, redevelopment, or the issuance of building permits for projects that do not require an approved site plan, including but not limited to construction of or addition to one single or two-family dwelling or accessory structure on a parcel

· Applications or permits which involve routine repair and maintenance for an existing permitted use

Clearly the only parcels that would be affected would be those for which a major development was proposed, and most of those parcel owners would not have a concern.  (Recall that the moratorium is proposed for only 180 days, and that there is also an appeals process.)  CM Briere very nicely stated that she personally favored the resolution, but that the constituents of the First Ward needed to have a chance to weigh in.  With some support from the Mayor, she was able to pull back the reconsideration date to August 6 (from August 17).

You had to be there department: Political theater may be one of the most underappreciated art forms.  I admit it, I’m a political junkie and love nothing more than a long meeting crackling with suspense over the amendment to the amendment.  But this meeting included lots of mixed media.  In addition to cleverly designed models designed to show how roofline relates to height, a speech with picket signs that somehow combined a boycott against Israel, support for Iranian democracy, and outrage over the demolition of historic houses,  public comment included Libby Hunter’s lovely soprano voice in a song to the tune of “Battle Hymn of the Republic” (I include only one of three verses):

Developers are coming to your neighborhood real soon

They will tear down all the houses and build apartments cheap and huge

More sewer backups, traffic jams and LEDs real cool

Development goes marching on

Council sat patiently until the audience then joined in (text had been passed out):

Glory, Glory Hallelujah

Density is coming to ya

You have no voice, council’s made the choice

Your neighborhood will succumb

Development goes marching on.

At this point the Mayor bestirred himself and protested that “only one person may speak at a time”, but the song went on to its conclusion without a gavel strike.

Update: Per request, I’ve attached the complete text of the song here.  I’ll fill in details about authorship as I am able to obtain them.

Second Update: I’ve pasted in the actual text of CM Derezinski’s amendment, which our city clerk, Jacqueline Beaudry, graciously provided.

Third Update: The Ann Arbor Chronicle’s account of the meeting includes a useful chronology of the City Place project.

Fourth Update: The Development Hymn now on YouTube for your listening enjoyment.

Categories: Neighborhoods
Tags: ,

Comments: 6 Comments

City Place and the R4C Zoning Classification

July 18, 2009

As was discussed here earlier, an enduring issue in the background of the debate over the City Place proposed development has been the role of the Central Area Plan in determining how the Germantown area – and all the city’s neighborhoods near the downtown core – should be developed.  Sadly, the zoning map was never revised to reflect the goals of the CAP.  Specifically, the predominant zoning, R4C, allows for much greater density than that indicated by a reading of the CAP.  Worse, in combination with a rather labored definition of a “household” in our code, R4C allows a peculiar configuration into a “housing unit” designed solely for student occupants, with individual locked bedrooms adjoining a central living area.  It is not a form of apartment design that is likely to be used by other demographics at any time in the future, and provides for a very high income from one “housing unit”.  So the R4C, when applied to a neighborhood of homeowners, will create high-density buildings that will not support long-term tenants or families.

City Council passed a resolution to form a committee to study possible changes to the zoning ordinance for R4C and R2A categories on July 6. But while these admittedly defective (for today’s purposes) zoning classifications remain on the books, developments are still being considered for sensitive areas. The Germantown Neighborhood Association has been lobbying for a moratorium on development under the old zoning definitions. Tom Whitaker, the president of the association, posted a number of discussions of this issue on their blog. You might suppose that since the R4C version of City Place has been temporarily set aside by the developer in favor of seeking approval for a new PUD proposal, the GNA’s urgency on a moratorium might be scaled back  Not so.  Here’s what Whitaker said in a recent email (quoted with permission; emphasis mine):

“Yet another twist to the on-going saga of City Place.  Yesterday, Alex de Parry’s attorney, Scott Munzel, sent a letter to the City requesting that they table the City Place vote until early November in order to allow time for Mr. de Parry to submit yet another PUD proposal…This proposal is the same one we were discussing with Mr. de Parry in February/March, but called off our talks when he submitted the “R4C” project, often called his “by right” project.  This alternative proposal, as Mr. de Parry would like to see it, would be much larger in terms of density – as much as 180+ occupants.  The design calls for complete demolition of one of the seven historic homes, with the rear portions of the other six demolished and the front portions dismantled and stored off-site.  Then, an underground parking structure would be built, almost to the lot lines, and a large, long gable-roofed structure built along the length of the combined parcels.  The pieces of the dismantled houses would then be brought back and attached to this new structure.  They would be spaced and ordered differently from their current configuration and nothing would remain of the original foundations or interiors.”

“The Germantown Neighborhood Association objected to some of the key elements of this plan including the destruction of the houses and the overall size of the project (both density and physical size).  Our preference has always been to see the houses restored and then supplemented with well-designed additions or perhaps carriage-house structures with additional units.  With State and Federal historic tax credits available for approved work on historically-designated buildings, we think a project could be created that would enhance the neighborhood rather than destroy it, and still provide for a reasonable profit for Mr. de Parry.  First, we would all need to work together to get our neighborhood established as an historic district.”

“We were not surprised by this last-minute maneuver on City Place.  Many of us have always felt that the “R4C” project was simply a threat being used to “encourage” the neighbors and the City to approve a much larger PUD.  In fact, it was first drawn up specifically to show at a planning commission meeting last year, when the “brownstone” PUD version of City Place was being considered.  Even while the R4C project was working its way through the approval process, Mr. de Parry’s team was calling, emailing and meeting with anyone who would give them the time of day to try and promote his newer “alternative PUD”.”

“Folks, we are all concerned about the historic character and integrity of Germantown, but this all boils down to zoning ordinances that are too weak and subject to broad interpretation.  Council knows this, which is why they voted to study the zoning in R4C/R2A in order to correct it and bring it into compliance with the Central Area Plan.  We need your continued support for the moratorium, regardless of what happens with City Place.  This issue is bigger than any single project.  The City and the neighborhood will not be off this merry-go-round until City Council calls a moratorium and proceeds rapidly with the study and correction of the zoning.  We can’t tell Mr. de Parry what to build, but if the City had its zoning in shape and compliant with the Central Area Plan, it would be clear to all what he could NOT build.”

On Monday, July 20, the Council will be considering a resolution calling for a moratorium on developments requiring a site plan in areas currently zoned R4C and R2A, while the city awaits the findings of the study committee. It does not prevent construction of projects not needing a site plan, is for up to 180 days, and has an appeal process.  Here’s hoping that Council will approve it without regard to political faction issues (Mike Anglin is its sponsor), because it is needed if we are to make our planning procedures rational, predictable, and in accordance with public will, as expressed in the Central Area Plan.

Categories: Neighborhoods
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

Another Reprieve on City Place

July 17, 2009

As explained in an earlier post,  the last configuration of City Place – a “by right” development purporting to be consistent with the current zoning of the site – was sent back to Planning Commission for technical reasons.  Council directed that the PC should review it immediately and return the proposal to Council on July 20.   Accordingly, the item appeared on next week’s agenda after an inconclusive review by PC (the vote was 5-1 to approve but 6 votes were required for approval).

Now, in yet another change of course, the developer, Alex de Parry has requested another postponement through a letter from his lawyer.    The letter states that de Parry requests that the item be postponed till the first Council meeting in November.  By then, however, he is hoping that a new PUD application will have moved through the planning process.

Many have speculated that a new PUD was de Parry’s true aim all along.  He has already seen two such proposals rejected by Council and talks with the Germantown neighbors broke down some time ago.  But apparently he is willing to believe that the third time can be the charm.

Categories: Neighborhoods
Tags:

Comments: 1 Comment

City Place and Council Connections

June 19, 2009

With all the changes and contortions that City Place has gone through since 2007 when it was first mentioned, you would expect some pretty heavy politics.  The most affected councilmembers would naturally be those who represent the residents. During my council campaign in 2008 (I opposed Carsten Hohnke for the Fifth Ward seat on the City Council), I do not remember that it was much of an issue, though I stated whenever possible that I was in favor of retaining the historic buildings on South Fifth.

I recall that later that year, Mike Anglin spent many hours meeting with “the neighbors” who live in the area, now being called Germantown.  He was joined by Hohnke after he was elected, though I don’t know details of those meetings.  However, on December 15, 2008, a proposal to form a historic district study committee was defeated on Council, with only three votes (Councilmembers Anglin, Briere, and Teall) in favor of it.  The other newly minted Fifth Ward councilmember, Hohnke, voted against it.  Establishment of a historic study district would not in itself have prohibited the development, but would have been the first step in recognizing the value of the buildings in the area and their history.

After the failure of the second version of the PUD at Council on January 5 (the only votes in favor of the plan were Councilmembers Rapundalo, Taylor, and Greden), there seems to have been an acceleration of activity, with many hours of meetings. The new neighborhood association, the Germantown Neighborhood Association, began to exert much more influence and to bring more facts and arguments to the table.

Since the second postponement of consideration of the site plan (see the previous post in this series), negotiations have reportedly picked up all round.  The political winds have brought the news that Hohnke has been actively promoting the passage of the site plan when it comes back to the council agenda, with the thought that further negotiations with neighbors and other interested parties could continue after that.  An interesting tidbit was brought forth in the discussion at the June 15 Council meeting, when, as reported by the Ann Arbor Chronicle, “Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began deliberations on the City Place site plan approval by indicating to his colleagues that he had brought information to the city attorney’s office concerning a possible conflict of interest on his part with respect to the City Place project. He stated that councilmembers had the analysis provided by the city attorney’s office and indicated he was prepared to accept their recommendation, if any, on the topic.”

Clearly, considering Hohnke’s key role at this point, any conflict of interest is worth examining.  From what I have been able to glean, the information given to council members was merely that the city attorney did not consider the circumstances to be sufficient to cause concern.  I wondered whether the information that I learned last summer connecting Hohnke with Daniel Pampreen might be involved, so I took some trouble to substantiate it. I have attached several documents indicating that the business (Kinetic Energy, Inc., under the assumed name of Vie Fit) operated by Hohnke’s wife, Heather Dupuis, is either owned by Pampreen or he has a substantial share in it. His (Pampreen’s ) is the only name appearing in the assumed name application , where he names himself as “owner/director”.  In the 2005 report , he is the President, Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President and Director (with two other directors).  Heather Dupuis is not yet listed.  In 2007, Heather Dupuis is now the registered agent, but Pampreen is still the President and only Director. (The box indicating “no changes” is checked in 2008, not attached.)  Finally, in 2009, Dupuis is shown as the President, Pampreen is the Secretary and Carsten Hohnke is the Treasurer.  All three are directors, together with the two others first listed in 2005.

So why is this connection with Daniel Pampreen of relevance to City Place?  For one thing, he owns 437 S. Fifth, a property included in the proposed City Place project.  For another, he is a well-known property owner,  student landlord (Dan’s Houses) and developer.  According to one account, he owns at least 50 properties.  He has recently (again according to the cited account) become interested in development of student housing and was involved in the deal that replaced the lamented Anberay Apartments with the high-rise, high-cost Zaragon Place.  Whether Pampreen is involved at any level in the City Place project other than as the owner of an included property, I don’t know.  But he clearly has an interest.

Categories: Neighborhoods
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

City Place and the Vision Thing

June 18, 2009

Good news for those of us who care about the Germantown neighborhood, historic preservation, and neighborhoods in general.  The City Place site plan for a significant part of South Fifth Avenue that was on Council’s June 15 agenda has been sent back to the Planning Commission for re-review.  According to the Ann Arbor News report, the reconsideration by the commission will be on July 7, and there will also be a new public hearing at that time.  The City Council could receive the new recommendation as early as July 20, and again according to the News, a fresh public hearing will be held.  That is an important detail, because when the vote at council was postponed previously, the public hearing was held over, so that speakers would not be able to appear a second time.

This project has been around in some form for a couple of years now and was rejected by Council as a Planned Unit Development for the second time in January (2009).  The developer was unable to carry the day on convincing Council that the public benefit from the plan met the requirements for rezoning to a PUD.  At the time, the developer, Alex de Parry,  displayed an overtly unattractive conceptual sketch for a “by right” alternative plan – one that would supposedly meet the standards for its current zoning of R4C. The implication was “here is what you’ll get if you don’t approve the PUD”.

A by-right site plan was indeed promptly produced and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on April 21 as reported earlier.  It was consideration of that site plan that has been postponed once by Council, then sent back to the Planning Commission.

The City Place project in all its configurations has proved to be a capsule lesson in the development issues facing Ann Arbor.  So many of the technical details, legal considerations, and most of all, the hopes and aspirations of different members of our community are embodied in this one project.  Of course, there are several other pressing projects and policy decisions in process, including a couple of major plan revisions and zoning changes.  But City Place draws the thumbnail.

Future posts will explore the rapidly moving history of this project further, and the underlying issues and perceptions that it embodies.

Categories: Neighborhoods
Tags:

Comments: 3 Comments

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »