Arbor UpdateAnn Arbor Area Community News | ||
Planning Commission preview, 19 AprilTomorrow night’s Ann Arbor City Planning Commission meeting (7pm, City Council chambers) has an extensive agenda (pdf), with 14 public hearings. Most are tame: single lot annexations that probably won’t have any public comment or Commission discussion. Others merit mention: i. Action on Glen Ann Affordable Housing Recommendation – Staff Recommendation: Approval The “action” in question is to approve on-site provision of affordable units (15% of total units); the project was approved two weeks ago with the affordable issue outstanding. j. Public Hearing and Action on North Sky Site Plan, 26.82 acres, west side of Pontiac Trail, south of Dhu Varren Road. A proposal to construct, in six phases, 182 residential units in single-family, duplex and townhome buildings – Staff Recommendation: Approval The site plan uses the label “Traditional Neighborhood Development” (complete with a note at the entrance reading, “proposed AATA bus stop to promote a healthy walkable community with a decreased dependency on automobiles”), and the developer, Blue Hill, has included a number of features to back this label up. The project has a density of about 7 units/acre, with a mix of detached, duplex, and townhome structures, clustered densely around two central “community open spaces”, with a few multi-acre natural areas along two sides of the site, including a “trail easement” for a regional pedestrian trail called for in the city’s Draft Non-Motorized Transportation plan. The developer has also applied for variances to provide narrower street right-of-ways than required by code. The main criticism in the Staff Recommendation is that “private community open space tends to discourage anyone but residents of North Sky from using them.” l. Public Hearing and Action on Upland Green Annexation, Zoning and Site Plan, 2.64 acres, 1771 Plymouth Road. A request to annex this site into the City, zone it C3 (Fringe Commercial District), and a proposal to construct a 6,142-square foot, one-story building for restaurant use and a 23,844-square foot, two-story building for office and retail uses and 146 parking spaces (some underground) – Staff Recommendation: Annexation – Approval, Zoning and Site Plan – Table This one is almost In My BackYard, across Plymouth from the west end of Northwood Family Housing, and just west of Willowtree Apartments. My reaction: “Not!” The proposed development appears to reinforce the ex-urban character of Plymouth Road, with the single-story restaurants (between the BP station and Willowtree) set back 124’ from Plymouth, and the office and retail uses 89’ from Upland Drive, in the furthest corner from the road. The retail uses proposed will have zero visibility from the street, and almost no visibility from the sidewalk. The development is completely auto-dependant, with even the parking lots set 40’ to 50’ back from the sidewalk. The Staff Recommendation recommends tabling the site plan until outstanding issues are resolved, but completely fails to act on the proposal’s obvious disregard for the Northeast Area Plan, which the petition cites at length. On this site, the NEAP recommends ground-floor retail, with office uses above, close to the Plymouth Road lot line and sidewalk accessible, states that parking should not front Plymouth, and recommends a neighborhood-oriented commercial zoning and not an “auto-oriented C3 zone”. The petition claims that it “attempts to address a number of the goals and objectives of the plan,” yet it appears to have been transplanted from Canton Township into northeast Ann Arbor. Expect me to speak against it, on the grounds of being not dense enough and too pedestrian-hostile. The proposed uses could easily be combined into one 2-3 story building close to the Plymouth Road lot line, with parking accessible from Upland behind the buildings. This would both better meet the NEAP and leave the developer with the back 80% of the site open (parking or unused) for future development. « Previous Article Giant Jail Lite: half the expansion, none of the services? Next Article 'Baghdad Bulletin' in Stores » |
||
New Comments(twitter feed)
Arbor Update Topics
Site Library
|
Local Information
U-M Links
Local Blogs
Movie Showtimes
License![]() |
—Kat Apr. 18 '05 - 08:36PM #
The “affordable” bit means that 85% of the units will be sold at “market rate”, which means “whatever the seller can get.” An “affordable” unit must be sold/rented for no more than a certain price (set by HUD), and buyers/tenants must prove that their income is at or below 80% of the area mean income. If you want exact numbers (on allowed rent, allowed sale price, income restrictions), I can dig them up.
The alternative to providing affordable units “on site”, as part of the development, is a “cash in lieu of units” contribution. For that, the developer pays into the City’s affordable housing fund an amount based on the difference in price between the “affordable” cutoff and the price the units are being sold for, and the City then uses that money (theoretically – none has been used yet, but this buy-out system has only been around for six months) to subsidize affordable units elsewhere.
The 15% affordable requirement is only in place on PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) with 6 or more residential units. A PUD is what a developer asks for if they want to build something not allowable within the existing zoning; while most zoning requires the developer to follow certain guidelines, the PUD involves the developer and planning staff working out an agreement that lets the developer build what they want to build and allows the City a chance to impose some exactions in exchange.
—Murph Apr. 18 '05 - 09:11PM #
Tell ‘em at the planning meeting that we’ve got enough housing back here, but if they could put in a couple small stores inside of that development, and make sure that the public has access to those open spaces/businesses, it’ll be better for the area in the long run. Even just a convenience store (or better, a restaurant) or something inside of the dense development will make that a) more of a public area, as people from outside will want to come in, and b) discourage more car use. This side of town should start encouraging autonomous development, so that real neighborhoods can develop, and ones that can be sustainable too…
—js Apr. 18 '05 - 09:36PM #
—Murph Apr. 19 '05 - 12:30PM #
what i’ve heard is this: that for those units, one-time, the city (or the developer, not sure) eats the difference between market and ‘affordable’ price. but as soon as the people living in that unit leave, they get to sell it at market rates. thus evaporating the affordability.
i’d really like to believe that this affordable housing gambit isn’t just politics, designed to buy off a potential obstacle to getting these projects done. i’d like to believe that the affordable housing requirements, and the way the city implements them, actually changes the scene a bit, but i don’t really (pun intended) buy it.
anyone?
—bob kuehne Apr. 19 '05 - 12:47PM #
—Juliew Apr. 19 '05 - 01:23PM #
“I’d support it a little more if it weren’t going in on top of an open area already, one that’s undeveloped and open for people to walk through (which I prefer to the landscaped park across the street).
Tell ‘em at the planning meeting that we’ve got enough housing back here…”
It sounds a bit like the neighbors of “Dicken Woods.” The Northeast Area is currently the least-dense part of town as well as the area with the last few large remaining open parcels. Shouldn’t we be increasing density in the city, even over the wishes of immediate neighbors? Even if it’s not the perfect design?
—Brandon Apr. 19 '05 - 04:36PM #
And yes Julie, the affordable units do tend to have fewer amenities and be of more simple construction. It generally has to be that way in order to be affordable to everyone, the people buying it as well as building it.
—KGS Apr. 19 '05 - 04:41PM #
—Murph Apr. 19 '05 - 05:52PM #
I love how Ann Arbor’s approval process encourages outright bribery in the name of social good.
—Murph Apr. 19 '05 - 05:55PM #
—Juliew Apr. 19 '05 - 07:52PM #
It looks like you’re on top of the Upland Green retail issue, but I have a question for you and others who might know the answers, about zoning for the ‘North Sky’ proposal. It doesn’t seem to have any provision for retail. A small space zoned for grocery shopping would help make this development ACTUALLY look like a ‘traditional neighborhood development’. My question is this – I know our zoning didn’t used to be very friendly to this sort of mixed use development, and I was wondering if that had changed. A neighborhood where your 9 year old child can walk over to the neighborhood store to get a pint of milk instead of the whole family piling in the car to get it, would be where I would like to see Ann Arbor headed.
I’d also like to see the retail space be zoned for some other uses such as coffee and food, up to a certain time of night. Places like Jefferson Market are invaluable to creating a sense of community, but seem to run afoul of many of our current zoning laws.
—Lisa Apr. 19 '05 - 08:45PM #
—js Apr. 20 '05 - 01:02AM #
js, North Sky was recommended unanimously after over an hour of discussion – no mention of retail; mostly commissioners debating over the affordable housing contribution (Required: $0. Offered: $182k. Commissioner Blake requests: 15% affordable units on site. Developer’s quick calculation: $50k/unit = $1.25 million to do that = no development. Hall, Carlberg, Bona say, “It’s a pretty good development and they’re making a voluntary aff-housing fund contribution. We oughta take what we can get.” Carlberg’s follow-up: “I don’t know that there are enough votes to get that amendment.” Blake withdraws. 20 min discussion of playground equipment.
Bus,.
—Murph Apr. 20 '05 - 03:01AM #
—Juliew Apr. 20 '05 - 03:18AM #
I’d love for the city to radically overhaul the zoning code to allow for traditional development, but with the budget cuts in the planning staff I just don’t see it happening. Too much focus on other issues (like the greenway) and the staff is barely getting by as is.
—KGS Apr. 20 '05 - 01:55PM #
—Brandon Apr. 20 '05 - 02:20PM #
Lisa, the Jefferson Market is what we planners lovingly call a “non-conforming use.” It couldn’t be built today, and if it closed for too long, it wouldn’t be allowed to reopen. Zoning code = nuts. Every neighborhood ought to have a Jefferson Market-type place. I’m not sure, though, whether a commercial space that far out would do well? Seems like not a whole lot of traffic. I think JM does well by its proximity to the school over there; js, is there any similar traffic magnet up there?
The Upland Green development, near me, was tabled, after getting more and more open during discussion. The site is, obviously, contaminated. As is, they can’t build housing on it, and can’t build anything at all on parts of the site – just cap them with parking lots to prevent leaching. (Which is why there’s a parking lot in front of the building, towards Plymouth). They’re seeking a brownfield designation, which would allow them access to funds to scrape off four feet of soil and haul it away – they’ve done borings to show that the soil is clean below that point. That would allow them to do much more with the site.
I stood up and called myself a NIMBY, saying I didn’t want what the City’s regulations would allow in my backyard. (I was a little overly pleased with myself.)
One of my housemates followed, and also asked for denser, more walkable use of the site, but is not accustomed to the tone of Commission meetings and didn’t quite understand the jokes around the table previously about, “Hey, do you think you could fit a ten-story building on the back of [the North Sky] site?” “If you want to approve it, I suppose we wouldn’t mind building it!” The other Upland neighbors, sitting behind us, didn’t see the humor in suggesting a ten-story building for that site. I’m not sure if, by suggesting ten, he’s made three or four sound reasonable by comparison, or if the neighbors will react far enough in the other direction to demand nothing taller than a parking lot.
Commissioners asked whether Conlin (also responsible for the Washtenaw Whole Foods and the planned private dorm off North Campus) had considered going up to three or four stories rather than building flat. His response was that he, “didn’t want to spend money planning anything if it was just going to get shot down in Commission.” He’d rather present single-story restaurants surrounded by asphalt and get them built than a three-story, pedestrian-scaled development that will get rejected. Ah, the fine state of development approvals.
After discussion by the Commission, though, the general feeling was that the rezoning and site plan approval should be tabled (though the annexation was approved), Conlin should discuss further with neighbors and staff and see whether brownfield designation could be achieved, and perhaps come back with something more. Conlin & staff and neighbors adjourned to the hallway to take names and numbers. (One would think the city could encourage that sort of thing at the beginning of the process, rather than using the Commission meeting as an, “Oh, you’re the developer?” meet-and-greet.)
Conlin’s got my e-mail addr; if I hear from him, I’ll take along anybody who wants to talk Plymouth Road development.
—Murph Apr. 20 '05 - 02:35PM #
It’s a problem with the way Commission’s powers and processes are defined by the City. Maybe this could be used as an opportunity to say, “Hey, City, the existing public processes are totally inadequate,” though I won’t say I’m optimistic.
—Murph Apr. 20 '05 - 02:50PM #
—Juliew Apr. 20 '05 - 04:00PM #
—Scott Apr. 20 '05 - 04:13PM #
IF there’s the infrastructure to support it. I remember looking at the site plan a while back but I haven’t seen the current version and whether that matches what was before the PC. Personally, I find this scatter-shot approach to density to be misguided. Sure, there has to be a first project. But shoehorning dense projects into areas of relatively low density development just seems to be a recipe for driving up City expenses without much in return. Focus density in areas where it already exists and then work your way out.
—John Q Apr. 20 '05 - 06:05PM #
—js Apr. 20 '05 - 07:44PM #
You might also call up Blue Hill Dev. and ask them about including some neighborhood retail in an adjacent site. Tell ‘em you live up there, and that’s what the neighborhood needs – from a marketing standpoint, say.
—Murph Apr. 20 '05 - 09:30PM #
I haven’t heard from you in e-mail yet. Did you lose the piece of paper I wrote my e-mail on? Let me know and I’ll get my address to you another way. Thanks.
—Bob Dascola Apr. 21 '05 - 02:32AM #
—Bob Dascola Apr. 21 '05 - 02:37AM #
—Brandon Apr. 21 '05 - 04:02AM #
Well, yes. Exactly. That’s the point. The current scale of Plymouth blows, and I’d like to see something a little better one of these days. “Fits into the existing context of Plymouth” is a major strike against a development to me. Basically what I asked Commission for was form-based zoning on Plymouth. “I don’t care what it is; I want it to be at the sidewalk, 2-4 stories, with parking behind.” I suppose the other neighbors had form-based zoning in mind too, in the opposite direction – “form-based” implies that you’ve agreed on a form.
—Murph Apr. 21 '05 - 05:16AM #
Why, why, why the fear of THREE STORY buildings?
Murph—after the Greenway issue’s settled, we should start a public education/lobbying/activist organization supporting urbanism and ultimately zoning overhaul in Ann Arbor. Apparently even the Sierra Club wouldn’t be opposed to that…
—Brandon Apr. 21 '05 - 06:19AM #
—Brandon Apr. 21 '05 - 06:21AM #
Ah well.
Murph, if you wanna come on up, just lemme know.
—js Apr. 21 '05 - 02:24PM #
There was, actually, some element of this in the hallway outside the Commission meeting, when one of the neighbors suddenly had the horrified thought, “Restaurant – wait a minute, is there going to be alcohol served in the neighborhood?” Not that there’s a liquor store kitty-corner across the intersection, or anything, but we’ve got to be ever vigilant for people who want to have a glass of wine with their dinner.
* My ancestors didn’t claw their way out of the tenements at all. The first North American Murphy in my line was a farmer outside of Windsor.
—Murph Apr. 21 '05 - 02:39PM #
—Brandon Apr. 21 '05 - 04:03PM #
Well, I can’t resist the opportunity to say I told you so.
Until you can get these citizens input upstream in the process (Master Plan), you will never ever get true density in Ann Arbor, and we will continue this slide into chains and covenant-style neighborhoods.
All the Urban Planning in the world won’t help until you can remove citizen’s input from individual projects. Move their input to the Master Plan.
You should put that last paragraph on your walll so that you don’t forget it. :)
—Todd Leopold Apr. 21 '05 - 04:19PM #
The NEAP addresses the junkyard specifically, saying, “neighborhood-oriented commercial, rather than auto-oriented”, “retail should be close to the Plymouth sidewalk”, “no parking on Plymouth – parking should be behind the commercial uses with access from Upland.” This proposal includes retail at the far corner from the street, large setbacks from both streets, commercial-in-sea-of-parking style buildings, parking fronting the Plymouth sidewalk, and parking access off of Plymouth.
The staff review (by Coy Vaught and Mark Pratt), reads, “This project significantly advances the goals of the NEAP with regards to providing neighborhood-oriented commercial uses.” Bull-oney. Times like this, we need citizen input on individual projects in order to make sure the Plan is actually followed.
(quotes paraphrased since I don’t have the staff recommendations within reach at the moment.)
—Murph Apr. 21 '05 - 05:19PM #
I can’t speak to perceived incompetence, and you’ll get no argument from me that our disperate “Plans” are a complete mess. The citizens who are doing the complaining need to get to work on the Master Plan, and remove themselves from specific issues. Until this happens, all the planning or zoning changes in the world won’t do a bit of good.
—Todd Leopold Apr. 21 '05 - 06:02PM #
As to why people fight so hard against commercial uses near their houses, it really is beyond me. Personally I love having a corner store that I can buy milk at within walking distance. And FYI, Gretchen’s House is a commercial use too, and that was fought hard too. shakes head in disbelief
—KGS Apr. 21 '05 - 06:30PM #
What I do know is that citizens always manage to find the time to protest development in their neighborhood each and every time it comes up. I’d like to move this input further upstream is all…..Maybe we will find out things like we found from the Greene St. protesters….that they actually enjoy diversity (read: students, diverse income) in their neighborhoods, and that the size of the building wasn’t the issue at all. In other words, the building could have been taller if it was designed well. What a missed opportunity!
Citizens in Ann Arbor will never give over their ability to block specific projects (they’d call if facism or something like that), so this is a bit of a moot point on my part.
—Todd Leopold Apr. 21 '05 - 07:29PM #
(I think that the Planning Commission is a poor representation of citizen participation. How many of them are youth or students? 0. How many of them are minorities? 0. How many of them are below median income, or rent their homes? I’ll bet 0. They’re a poor cross-section of the population, and therefore are ill-equipped to handle certain discussions of welfare. They also don’t know every area of the city first-hand – to their credit, many of them do seem to visit proposal sites before discussing them in meetings, to get some idea of the context, but that still doesn’t necessarily equate to “local knowledge.”)
—Murph Apr. 21 '05 - 08:10PM #
I was hoping that the planning students here at ArborUpdate would be able to answer your question as to how to encourage early participation. I don’t have an answer. Internet? Polls as to what people want in town? Have citizens define the phrase “dense development? Ya got me. I just make beer and booze. All I know is that all this after-the-fact criticism of development is killing this town, and it needs to stop.
I will say that I disagree with your assertion that sometimes we need citizen intervention to avoid bad projects. There has to be a better way to avoid bad projects. Hell, an grad student advisory commitee from UMich U Planning would be a better solution than that.
—Todd Leopold Apr. 21 '05 - 09:12PM #
—Scott Apr. 21 '05 - 09:21PM #
That said, the Planning Commission and City Council do need to have a Master Plan, ordinances, requirements, zoning (or not), and a process that work for the city and will stand up in court. They don’t have this now and some developments get approved, but shouldn’t, while other developments don’t get approved that should.
Murph, weren’t you talking about getting a group together to try to come up with recommendations for the process?
—Juliew Apr. 21 '05 - 09:55PM #
If the local perception of a proposal is of a 7-Eleven style convenience store, selling beer, cigs, and junk food, their input is likely to be defensive.
—Steve Bean Apr. 22 '05 - 01:00AM #
The general idea I was thinking was for a neighborhood master planning – something closer to the 2000-5000 person level, rather than the current area master planning process, which handles a quarter of the city at a time (~27000 people). This would have to be a neighborhood-run process, since it’s not something that the City would probably run until it had been shown a good idea.
This would allow for more fine-grained planning; for higher-level, more in-depth participation (rather than everybody in the Northeast Area getting three minutes to talk at a few public hearings); &c. Some constraints would need to be considered, such as “must accommodate at least x% growth”.
Scott, the problem with benevolent dictator planners is that that’s basically how the USA ended up with urban renewal, and the interstate highway system, and then the second round of urban renewal, and all sorts of other bad ideas.
—Murph Apr. 22 '05 - 02:40AM #
—Brandon Apr. 22 '05 - 03:20AM #
—John Q. Apr. 22 '05 - 12:50PM #
—Dale Apr. 22 '05 - 01:38PM #
Oh, and not widening streets is a good thing, not a foolish act on the part of the neighborhood. Maybe impose a “no cul-de-sacs and no curving streets” rule on the process, though.
—Murph Apr. 22 '05 - 01:59PM #
—Juliew Apr. 22 '05 - 02:10PM #
—js Apr. 22 '05 - 02:44PM #
No, you see, those dictators weren’t benevolent. Well, and neither was Napolean, really, except in a planning sense. (And really, I was joking. But sometimes I sympathize with the dictatorial desires of planners).
John Q: ”... no streets could ever be widened unless it wasn’t my street and then it would be OK”
That’s fine. Mostly, we don’t need wider streets. They kill ped-friendliness, usually. Fighting street widening is one thing neighborhood associations and nimbys are good for.
—Scott Apr. 22 '05 - 03:18PM #
Amen, Julie. Now how in the heck to we get citizens to get involved in neighborhood planning so that we get out of this cat-and-mouse game of “I want density, just not here, and not this specific design”? How can we get citizens to meet with developers/DDA/whomever so that they can take their share of the density burden? How can we avoid having citizen input at the point where the building is already designed, and the architect is sitting in front of the Planning Commission?
—Todd Leopold Apr. 22 '05 - 03:25PM #
* Developers need to proactively seek out neighbors and neighbors’ opinions. A good developer will root out stakeholders, figure out what their concerns are, and design with those concerns in mind, rather than either submitting a lousy design in order to avoid coming under fire (Upland Green) or submitting a lousy design that fits the zoning and ignoring the neighbors, knowing that it can be rammed through legally (828 Greene).
* The City should require statements of intent from developers, maybe a month before anything is submitted to the review process, so that neighbors can be notified: “This developer is planning to develop retail and residential on this site; here’s his contact info.” Proposals need to be posted on the Planning website as they are received. Staff Recommendations on proposals need to be posted. All of this should be archived and cross-referenced to the Commission and Council minutes at which the proposals were discussed, so that people can go back and see just what the heck has gone on in the past. The City should undertake fine-grained master planning that meets city- and region-level goals, but does so with a solid understanding of neighborhood-level context.
* Neighborhoods should have designated contact people so that developers and city planners can easily and quickly contact them, and need to be willing to come out at the beginning of a project, or at the beginning of a planning process. The contact info piece is currently the case (looking at the City’s website) across only about a third of the City’s geography. The “willingness to come out at the beginning of the process” is something that’s pretty generally absent from American culture.
* The UM urban planning, architecture, and SNRE departments should provide an easy mechanism for converting “students helping out with neighborhood planning processes” into 1-credit independant studies. Currently, getting involved in local issues is a drain on our mental resources; I trade off grades for involvement; most students aren’t so interested in making that choice with their time investment. It’s only those of us who can justify it to ourselves as “I want a job around here, so this is professional development,” who can afford to get involved.
* The AAPS should include civic engagement in the curriculum from an early level. Perhaps start at 4th grade, since that’s the general “local history” year. If you want to create walkable communities, though, 10-year-olds are the experts you should be turning to. If you want to create “cool cities” that people will stay in, angsty high schoolers will be happy to give you frank analyses of absolutely everything that sucks about their town and why they’re planning on leaving the second they graduate. This is useful input. The schools have an active role to play in planning.
* Guys who own brewpubs need to host community gatherings. You got a date set yet?
—Murph Apr. 22 '05 - 04:23PM #
I actually got a great third party….Kiwanis club wants to turn parts of the area in front of their building into a park. More later, but they’ve got some neat plans that don’t really conflict with either the DDA or the Friends/Sierra.
This has been difficult to pull together, to say the least.
—Todd Leopold Apr. 22 '05 - 04:41PM #
I don’t understand what you said about the Kiwanis. Are you referring to their building at 1st and Washington? Given that that building is bounded by 1st on the east, Washington on the north, the railroad on the west, and the Pig on the south, what do they plan to do?
(I enjoyed the hefeweizen the other day, btw.)
—tom Apr. 22 '05 - 05:19PM #
Glad you enjoyed the beer. Thank you.
—Todd Leopold Apr. 22 '05 - 05:23PM #