Notes from Presentation to the Planning Commission, February 4, 2003
James Boyd
Rezoning
Zoning is the pre-eminent question in this proposal. Crosswinds
words don't match their own figures. They claim they can't build R1C
because the extent of natural features was not known in 1995. Yet,
their own assessment agrees with that from the 1995 Master Plan: 50% of
the property is natural features. Their original R3 plan, designed to
preserve as much of these natural features as possible, would have left
only 15% woodlands and 16% wetlands. The current proposal will be even
worse, and will include such untenable patches as the 543 sq ft. of
woodlands on the SE corner.
Zoning matters. It is a commitment by the city to everyone who lives
in Ann Arbor. Changes to the zoning should be compelling, and clearly
benefit the city. It should not be left to the whim of developers.
Comments regarding the desirability of mid to high level density are out
of context. No one would propose R3 for all the remaining undeveloped
lots in the city. Pauline and the natural features of this lot would
make for an excellent transition from the numerous condos and apartments
north of Pauline to the single-family detached homes to its south.
This plan would waste that natural transition and push the R3 zoning on
top of our homes. The Master Plan was created to provide a rational
framework for the development of Ann Arbor. Any casual or laborious
analysis of the zoning map shows that R1C is rational, R3 is not.
Footing Drain Disconnects
The Planning Department report claims that the FDD program will not
be affected in "any way." Yet in the same paragraph they caution "It
may be that additional footing drains, above and beyond those in the FDD
program, will be disconnected as a result of this proposal."
The Planning Department agrees that the lot is indeed part of the
Allen Creek headwaters. Do we have any information regarding how much
of the headwaters are still open?
"There is no underground spring or any other single source of surface
water originating from this site." We would be anxious to see the data
that categorically negated these possibilities. The water is claimed
to be runoff. I'd like to know, from where?
Traffic
The traffic analysis is only half complete. Traffic leaving the
development must eventually use either Scio Church or Stadium. The Scio
Church/South Maple intersection was studied and has significant delays.
No analysis of the heavy Stadium traffic is included.
Track Record
One comment from the last public hearing referred to the history of
quality of construction by Crosswinds. So far I only have commentary
regarding Brentwood Square, and two of the buildings in that development
have significant problems with water welling up between garage floors
and driveways, causing wet garages. The condo association suspects that
there are ground water sources that were not clearly identified at the
time of construction. Crosswinds has made recent efforts at
remediation, but until the Spring thaws and rains it won't be clear if
the problem has been rectified.
Site Plan
Streets
The Planning Department appears bent on opening the stub streets
from our neighborhood without regard for neighborhood input. The local
residents do know what they want, and they want those stubs to remain
deadends. Everyone on the PC knows what reaction to expect from
residents at the prospect of opening any such dead end street in Ann
Arbor. It will be loud and antagonistic. Has anyone here ever even
heard of a petition from residents asking that their dead end street be
open to through traffic? Opening the streets does exactly what you'd
expect: it allows cars to cut through the neighborhood. I've never met a
neighbor or made a friend by driving past someone's house.
I admit to being dismayed by the comment at the end of the Planning
Department staff report, that following rezoning, the department would
actually encourage the developer to return to their original plans,
which were so heavily criticized back in November. For most of us
neighborhood residents, this zoning and area plan business is entirely
new. I did not at first actually believe that if rezoning were
approved, we would have significant worries about changes to the
approved area plan. I naively thought I could trust the city to hold
the developer, within reason, to the area plan. Now, I feel blind-sided
by city's own Planning Department, which is recommending major changes
once rezoning is approved.