Local in Ann Arbor

If persistence is the key to success, Alex de Parry is certainly entitled to some. He has exasperated, astonished and at times enraged the Germantown neighborhood with his efforts to develop his properties there. Looked at from one perspective, he has accomplished a lot. The South Fifth Avenue area didn’t have a neighborhood association before he began submitting plans for a massive development there, and they didn’t have a historic district either. Now the neighborhood seems to have discovered itself and become cohesive, there is a historic study committee, and the area is definitely on the map with a name that it didn’t have before (Germantown).  But after nearly two years of trying, de Parry still doesn’t have a project.  Last night (October 12) he tried once again to reconcile the neighborhood to a plan for redevelopment.  Trouble was, most of the neighborhood and historic preservation advocates who have been tracking this process were boycotting the meeting.  When I arrived at Conor O’Neill’s Celtic Room on Main Street for the 5:30 meeting, de Parry’s attorney Scott Munzel was trying to get the reporter for AnnArbor.com (Ryan Stanton) to leave because it wasn’t a public meeting.  But Munzel shortly left, which was a good thing since reporters (Stanton, AnnArbor.com’s business reporter Paula Gardner, and I) were most of the audience.   There were two “observers” from the Germantown association who declined to answer questions or to participate much.  Otherwise, it was a golden opportunity for journalists to ask the questions.

There really was new information and a new vision.  A new architect who specializes in historic preservation and re-use has just been recruited.  John Dziurman did his best to present himself and his (only very new and preliminary) thoughts about the project to this odd audience.  I found Dziurman to be very credible.  He said a lot of the right things that supported his claim to be interested in true preservation of the existing houses as historic structures.  Dziurman is on the historic district study committee for his own community (Rochester Hills) and said that the first thing he looked at was what steps would be needed to satisfy National Register rules; he has already consulted with state officials.  His intent, he said, was to work toward the time when the study committee does succeed in establishing a historic district.  In other words, he is trying to anticipate the requirements that a historic district would place on the renovation and reuse of the existing houses at 407, 411, 415, 419, 424, 433 and 437 South Fifth. (See photos from the Ann Arbor Chronicle’s article that also describes the houses.)

Earlier PUD idea with façadectomized buildings

Unlike an earlier version of the PUD that would have involved “façadectomies” of the historic houses that would be pasted onto a new building, Dziurman’s concept would keep all the existing structures intact and integral, with renovation that is respectful of their historic nature.  He spoke of looking at each building’s history to find its “time of significance” and determine what its footprint was at that time.  (Presumably there have been various additions and modifications over time.)  He also mentioned choosing the exterior color according to the appropriate time when the building was most “alive” (my term).  I think that he was hinting that he will avoid theme-park colors. “I want you to see the homes just as they were.”

So if the houses are to be preserved in their entirety, how do we get a project with multiple housing units?  First, some of them will have to be moved up to the 19′ setback that one or two already have.  (Dziurman has already inquired about this at the state office – difficult for a historic building, but doable.)  Then two large multifamily buildings would be erected behind the houses.  The architect emphasized use of appropriate window geometry, etc. to make these compatible.  Also each of the houses will contain several units (as they do now), plus some “garden apartments”, meaning apartments set into the lower level (aka basement) of at least some houses.  All this is very much under development, since Dziurman only just came onto the job.  But de Parry says that there will be a total of thirty to fifty units, with lots of efficiencies, and some one, two, and three-bedroom units.  He is aiming for rental “workforce” housing and says there is a lot of demand for efficiency apartments right now.  At the meeting and in subsequent emails, he has indicated that his picture of future tenants is a mix of young professionals and older empty-nesters who will appreciate being near downtown, but not the more affluent people who are more likely to purchase condominiums downtown.  He has also ruled out six-bedroom apartments aimed primarily at students, as were mentioned in some earlier plans, saying that he heard too many objections to those.  “I’m not aiming to change the demographics of the area.”  All this plus underground parking, stormwater reservoirs and LEED-certified buildings (but geothermal may not be in the picture any more).

There are a couple of questions that bear on the success of this new reborn concept.  First, can de Parry regain the trust of the Germantown neighborhood?  It has been a rocky ride. The trajectory of the many different projects all called City Place is pretty tough to follow.  As helpfully listed recently by the Ann Arbor Chronicle, the story began with a request for “conditional zoning”, rejected by the Planning Commission on January 15, 2008.  This was followed by the first Planned Unit Development proposal on May 20, 2008, also rejected by the PC.

The early high-density version of the PUD (image courtesy of the Ann Arbor Chronicle)

As most know, PUD proposals are popular development tools for making the most of a parcel, and that early one was  huge.  As explained by the Chronicle, it would have had 90 units with 164 bedrooms.  This was considered by the nearby residents to be doing violence to the very fabric of their neighborhood, and as we reported some months ago, a neighborhood organization was formalized in January 2009, after an early failure to get council to approve a historic district study committee,  and just as council voted down de Parry’s second attempt at a PUD.  But de Parry came back with an (apparently deliberately) obnoxious so-called “by right” development based on the existing R4C zoning.   This ball got kicked around for a while till council postponed action on it in July at de Parry’s request, though that resolution gave him the right to bring it back with a month’s notice.  The idea was that he could continue negotiations on a PUD (clearly his true wish).  Weary of the need for constant vigilance, neighborhood activists proposed (via CM Mike Anglin) a moratorium on any development in R4C zoning districts.  But in a surprise, council instead approved a historic study committee with a limited area.  This came with a moratorium on demolition in the 5th Avenue block under contention.  Suddenly, de Parry responded by bringing back the “by right” site plan which council approved grudgingly on September 21.  This move elicited a remarkably critical editorial from AnnArbor .com and exasperated head-shakes from everyone else.

So – shoosh.  Can we talk?  Here’s hoping that de Parry’s latest volley of historic preservation is for real. Obviously he still doesn’t really want to build that ugly R4C-based site plan.  Sometime he and his sincere new architect are going to have to make connection with the neighbors again, and figure out how to coordinate their planning with the historic district processes now underway.  When asked a pointed question about how he would fit his timeline into those processes, he was not really able to answer.  But he says that he hopes to have a new proposal by the end of the month (October??? I’m glad I’m not the architect).

Another question is simply the economic viability of the project.  Will the reduced number of bedrooms and meticulous preservation of historic structures, for which rents modest enough to qualify as “workforce housing” will be charged, be sufficiently profitable?  The actual rental amounts have not been stated,  but if young professionals like the Google employee recently profiled in Concentrate are going to rent those nice units, there will be an affordability problem.   According to HUD income figures and guidelines, the annual median income for single people in Ann Arbor (2008) is about $56,000; “workforce” is often defined as about 80% of the AMI, which is about $43,000.  Total housing expense of $1,076 is thought to be affordable at that income level.  Concentrate’s blogger, Kate Rose, is looking for something under $1000.  If everything works, de Parry’s new concept should fit her just fine.  I hope that they can afford each other.

UPDATE: Tom Whitaker helpfully pointed out that I should have said the standards to which renovation will be done are the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation.  Mr. Dziurman did in fact reference these but I wasn’t familiar with them and didn’t want to take time to find supporting information, so conflated them with the National Register, which he also mentioned.  Thanks, Tom!

SECOND UPDATE: Alex DeParry sent out a press release announcing a new community meeting to display the revised designs.  Here is its text:

A neighborhood meeting will be held at 6:30 PM on December 14, 2009 at the Ann Arbor Public Library in the second floor meeting room. Preservation architect John Dziurman will present our “Heritage Row” plan that has incorporated community input and comments received at our previous neighborhood meetings and one that also meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

All seven of the existing houses will be rehabilitated and the existing streetscape will be preserved.  Our design for the rear of the site consists of three separate, free standing 3.5 story buildings similar in  scale to the “Washtenaw” apartment building located one block east on East William. Underground parking will be located on the rear of the site underneath the three new buildings. A plaza area will be  located behind the existing houses in the center of the site.

THIRD UPDATE: The project is now called “Heritage Row”.  They have a website.

FOURTH UPDATE: The Chronicle’s report on the roll-out of Heritage Row is here.

FIFTH UPDATE:  The study committee has now recommended a historic district and set projected boundaries.  See the AnnArbor.com account here.

NOTE:  An updated post (2011) is here.

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.

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.

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.