Ann Arbor City Council Preview: October 21, 2024

 

Gentle readers, it's #a2Council Night in Ann Arbor. Here's the agenda. 

The evening kicks off with a scant, 6-item consent agenda. Of note, CA-4, a Downtown Development District Liquor License for a new Thai restaurant coming to 332 S. Main St.

There are 5 public hearings on the docket tonight. The first two are routine township island annexations. My only question here is why we are we making these new parcels R1B. The absolute lowest density anything in the city should be is R1D (aside: but really things should be much denser).

PH-3/B-3 is the second reading of the new flag and seal ordinance. PH-4/B-4 is the second reading of the new right to sit ordinance. PH-5/B-5 is the second reading of the energy benchmarking ordinance. And then we have an orphaned B-6 a second reading of changes to the Unified Development Code relating to Height Exceptions, Stormwater Reviews, Development Approvals, Finished Grade. 

There is one ordinance first reading on tonight's agenda. C-1 is changes to fire prevention code. 

Finally we get to the resolutions. DC-1 is a resolution to publish the changes brought on by B-1. DC-2 is a resolution to revise the council calendar. DC-3 is a rare non-consent agenda street closure--William Street between East William Street and East Madison Streets and East Jefferson and Maynard Streets on October 25th for a Umich fundraiser. 

That's it, gentle reader. What items are you most excited for? Hopefully we will see you there. The CTN stream starts at 7 pm. Make sure you follow the action on the #a2Council hashtag or on a2mi.social. 

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: September 16, 2024

Gentle reader, it's #a2Council night in Ann Arbor. Here's the agenda. 

The evening kicks off with a scant, 11-item consent agenda. Of note, CA-1 street closures for the Out of the Darkness Suicide Prevention Walk on October, 6th. 

There are two public hearings on the agenda this evening. PH-1/B-1 is a second reading of an ordinance to amend the Unified Development Code to add rules for Vehicular Use Area Buffers. PH-2/B-2 is on minor amendments to the Leaf Blower Ordinance. 

There are 4 ordinance first readings on the docket tonight. C-1 and C-2 are for routine township island annexations. I'd love to see these be something denser that R1B, which is far too suburban of a zoning for the city. C-3 is for changes to the Home Energy Rating Disclosure, or HERD, ordinance. C-4 is an ordinance to add a new section, right to sit, to the discrimination ordinance. 

On to the resolutions. DC-1 is a resolution in support of C-4. DC-2 is a resolution to recognize Creative Washtenaw as a Civic Nonprofit Organization. DC-3 is a resolution on how to use the County Mental Health and Public Safety Millage Rebate. That's right, the dreaded 40/40/20 resolution is back. 

That's it, gentle reader. What items are you most excited for? Hopefully we will see you there. The CTN stream starts at 7 pm. Make sure you follow the action on the #a2Council hashtag or on a2mi.social. 

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: September 3, 2024

 Gentle readers, tonight is a special Tuesday edition of #a2Council. Here's the agenda. 

The evening kicks off with a respectable, 20-item consent agenda. CA-1 is a street closure for the UM Show Your Love A2 Party on Sunday, September 15. CA-2 is a street closure for the Ann Arbor Marathon on Sunday, October 13. 

There are 2 public hearings on the docket this evening. PH-1/B-1 is on changes to the planning commission ordinance to replace gendered language and also to change "Master Plan" to "Comprehensive Plan. PH-2/B-2 is the second reading of the Washtenaw/E Stadium TC-1 District. Very exciting to see this moving forward. 

There are 3 ordinance first readings tonight. C-1 is some pretty minor changes clarifying the text of the Leaf Blower Ordinance. C-2 is on some modifications to the TC-1 zoning rules. They seem pretty minor, but I'm not sure that I love them. Curious to hear what others think. C-3 is some minor changes to the zoning ordinance to include things like allowing elevators and stairwells to exceed hight limits by 12 feet in mixed use zones.  

On to the resolutions. DC-1 is a resolution to allow more in-home occupations in residential zones. Nice. DC-2 is a resolution to appoint Kimberly Buselmeier as the City of Ann Arbor Interim Controller and Chief Financial Officer. DB-1 is a resolution to accept the new city flag design. DB-2 a resolution to relocate Precinct 2-14 from Palmer Commons, 100 Washtenaw Avenue, to Angell Elementary School, 1608 S. University Avenue, starting with the November 5, 2024 General Election. 




That's it, gentle reader. What items are you most excited for? Hopefully we will see you there. The CTN stream starts at 7 pm. Make sure you follow the action on the #a2Council hashtag or on a2mi.social. 

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: August 8, 2024

 

Gentle reader, tonight is a special Thursday edition of #a2Council. Here's the agenda. 

The evening kicks off with a healthy, 22-item consent agenda. CA-1 is a street closure for Game Watch 2024 on September 21 and October 4. 

There are no public hearings of ordinance second readings on the agenda this evening. There is one ordinance first reading. C-1 is the first reading of the E Stadium/Washtenaw TC1 Rezoning. This will rezone portions of Washtenaw and Stadium TC1, Ann Arbor's new-ish transit oriented zoning district. 

The Stadium portion of the TC1 zone.

The Washtenaw portion of the TC1 zone

This is great to see. Hopefully we can see even more areas zoned TC1 in the coming months. 

There are 3 resolutions on the agenda this evening. DC-1 is a resolution to work with DTE to convert streetlights to LED streetlights. DC-2 is a resolution asking the administrator to work with MDOT to negotiate on transferring state-owned trunklines to Ann Arbor. This is good because it MDOT has stymied important street safety improvements. DC-3 is a resolution to accept grant a $1m grant from the EPA to develop a "Model Regional Resilience Network with Resilient Infrastructure in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County." Neat. 

Opinion: Against Ann Arbor's nonpartisan and publicly funded election ballot initiatives

The conservative faction that held a majority on #a2Council until 2020 is circulating two ballot initiatives: one is for non-partisan municipal elections and the other is for publicly funded campaigns. I think both of these are bad and I discourage you from signing them. If they end up on the ballot, I think you should vote against them.

Ann Arbor’s conservatives held a majority on City Council from 2018 until the November 2020 election. Their governance style and core policy positions (stymieing new housing, subsidizing high water users, preventing road safety improvements) were ultimately unpopular with the electorate, who handed this faction resounding defeats in the 2020 and 2022 elections. Instead of trying to broaden their appeal and contest seats in the 2024 council elections, the conservative faction is putting their effort behind these two ballot initiatives to shake up the election process in the hopes that it will make it easier for them to get elected. It is wild to me that they are trying to change the rules of the game, instead of reflecting on why they are so profoundly unpopular with voters.

Nonpartisan elections

The nonpartisan election petition would prohibit partisan labels on Mayoral and Council elections, and it would eliminate the August Primary for these positions. This is profoundly risky. While it might increase the chances that the conservative faction has more electoral success, it also increases the chances that a Republican makes their way onto Council. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where 3 Democrats and 1 Republican run for a council seat and the Republican squeaks by with a narrow victory. We can use the 2020 Presidential Election as a proxy for the proportion of Democrats and Republicans in Ann Arbor. In that election 72% of the votes went to Biden, and 25% went to Trump. In our scenario, our 3 Democratic candidates could end up splitting the 72% and losing to the Republican candidate. The system proposed by the ballot initiative would make it possible for Republicans to gain a foothold on council.

The proponents of nonpartisan elections argue that the vast majority of cities in Michigan have nonpartisan municipal elections. While it’s true that Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti are the only cities that have partisan municipal elections, the vast majority of Michigan’s municipalities are townships, all of which have partisan elections. The proponents also make no argument that governance will actually be better with nonpartisan elections. If their argument is that Ann Arbor should do what most municipalities do, well, Ann Arbor is already doing that. Furthermore, partisan elections and partisan labels are good. It’s an important filter for voters. Ann Arbor should not make it easier for conservatives to hide who they are from voters. If “local issues are nonpartisan issues” as the proponents of nonpartisan elections argue, should we also have nonpartisan county elections? The idea that local issues somehow bypass the major cultural divide between progressives and conservatives is farcical. 

Nonpartisan elections would ensure that the November election is the only election for Ann Arbor’s Mayor and Council. This is a laudable goal, but this ballot initiative does so by eliminating primaries altogether. As stated above, removing primaries is very risky. In addition to increasing the risk of electing unpopular candidates. Only Democrats have run in the two most recent council elections, but Ann Arbor being a single party town is a recent phenomenon. Ex-Republican, CM Lumm held her ward 2 seat as an independent just 4 years ago. Throwing out the current electoral system so quickly seems pretty hasty. If Ann Arbor wants to ensure the November Election is the most important one there are safer ways to do so. Either through ranked choice voting, or through an at large/jungle primary. This is what California does for some state offices. In a jungle primary, all candidates compete against each other, regardless of party affiliation and the two with the highest vote totals go to the general election. Both of these election changes would require changes to state law, but would also ensure that the winning candidate actually got a majority of the votes.

Other assorted thoughts about why nonpartisan elections are bad:

1. If someone speaks regularly at council arguing against housing, you can bet they are one of the petition circulators.

2. Lots of people skip the nonpartisan portion of the election in November.

3. Ex-Ward 4 Councilmember, Elizabeth Nelson is one of the driving forces behind these petitions. When the Ann Arbor Observer pointed this out in their article, she accused the Observer and the Mayor of “doxxing” her in this TikTok. Read the article, then watch the video, it’s just weird. Here’s what the Observer said: “Nelson didn’t respond to emailed questions. However, in May, an amended filing by the ballot committee “Voters Not Money” listed its physical address as 1319 Ardmoor—which the city assessor’s website identifies as Nelson’s home.” This is not doxxing. The public has a right to know who is behind ballot initiatives. The Observer identifying how they deduced Nelson was affiliated with the campaigns was germain to their reporting.  

4. Campaign finance documents just dropped. A full 30% of the money behind these petition drives came from out of town landlords. This is a good enough reason not to support these petitions. 

Switching to nonpartisan elections would be a mistake for Ann Arbor. It would dramatically increase the chance of electing a candidate representing only a minority of voters to council, even if most voters agree that candidate is not who they want representing them. If the conservative faction would like to hold seats on Council again, they should focus on appealing to voters, instead of throwing the electoral system into chaos in the vain hope that this gets them elected. I encourage you to not sign these petitions, and if they end up on the ballot, please do not vote for them. 

Publicly funded election

At first the idea of publicly funded elections seems like a good way to even the playing field. Why not take money out of the equation when running for office? Here’s the thing, this would likely put more money into local elections, not take it out.? This proposal would give Council Candidates a 9:1 donation match at a huge cost to the general fund. It would be expensive, open the door to tremendous risk of grift, and would ensure a field full of unserious candidates. If you can get 100 signatures on a nominating petition, you could get your friends to each donate $50 to you. Then the city would “match” that with $450 per 50$ donation. Then you can pay your friends back as “campaign consultants.”

Denver has a similar program. In their 2023 mayoral election, the city wasted $1.7 million on candidates who earned less than 5% of the total vote. Beyond the direct cost of giving money to candidates, the city would incur additional costs from having to administer this new program. 

This issue has been a bugbear of ex-councilmember Nelson, who blamed her loss to CM Akmon on being out fundraised in the Aug 2022 election. Indeed Nelson only raised $21k to Akmon’s $42k. However Akmon’s money came from 247 total donations, while Nelson only had 142 donations. Money correlates with successful candidates, but I think that it is because the total amount of money donated is highly correlated with the total number of donors. 

The combined effect of the ballot initiatives

When combined, these proposals will ensure that mayoral and council elections will happen in a field of unserious and difficult to parse candidates, their campaigns funded by the public. This down ballot race will ask the electorate to choose between several candidates, and prove difficult for the good candidates to stand out from the bad. These elections and funding mechanisms will also likely cost the city enormous amounts of taxpayer money to manage. This will dramatically increase the chance that the winning candidate does not have the support of the majority of voters. What does this do to improve governance in Ann Arbor? I encourage you not to sign these, and if they end up on the ballot, I encourage you to vote against them. 

Also, make sure you check out Scott Trudeau’s article on this topic.  Update, 2024-10-01: There are now web pages against Prop C and against Prop D.

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: July 15, 2024

 

Gentle readers, it's #a2Council night in Ann Arbor. Here's the agenda. 

The meeting kicks off with a scant, 11-item consent agenda. CA-1 and CA-2 are street closures for Ann Arbor Pride and the Go Blue Mix, respectively. CA-7 is a resolution for a professional services agreement with Sam Schwartz Consulting for a Safe Streets for All Grant Coordination. 

There are 4 public hearings on the docket this evening. PH-1/B-1 is for an amendment to the Southtown rezoning. PH-2/DB-1 and PH-3/DB-3 are for routine township island annexations on Stone School. PH-4/DS-1 is on the formation of a South State Business Improvement Zone (BIZ). 

The South State BIZ would be centered around intersection of State and Eisenhower, which was just rezoned TC1. Thirty percent of the property owners in the are have signed a petition to ask council to make the BIZ. I'm not super familiar with how these work, but I think the city would levy a special assessment which would then be used to improve the area. Seems like a lot is happening in this area. Pretty exciting. 

There is one ordinance first reading this evening. C-1 is to rezone of 28 acres at 3380 Nixon from R4A to R4D, a somewhat denser multi-family zone.

Finally, we get to DC-1 a resolution to enhance AAPD training on hater crime prevention and investigation. 

That's it, gentle reader. What items are you most excited for? Hopefully we will see you there. The CTN stream starts at 7 pm. Make sure you follow the action on the #a2Council hashtag or on a2mi.social. 

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: July 1, 2024

 

Gentle readers, it's #a2Council night in Ann Arbor. Here's the agenda. 

The meeting kicks off with a respectable, 19-item consent agenda. CA-1, CA-2, CA-3, and CA-4 are all street closures for Firefighter Spray Park in the District, Sonic Lunches, Student Move-In, and UM Football Games. 

There are also a 4 conservation easements in items CA-15, CA-16, CA-17, and CA-18. 

There are no public hearings on the docket this evening so on to the resolutions. DC-1 is a resolution to appoint Bentley Johnson to the Geenbelt Advisory Commission. DC-2 is a resolution to endorse the use of a broker for the sale of the Kline's Lot. DC-3 is a resolution to reallocate the ARPA funding that was going to fund the unarmed response program. This is kind of disappointing. The money will go to:

• The Barton Dam Embankment Project ($2m)
• Emergency Operations Center ($500k)
• Ambulance Acquisition ($395K) 
• Bicentennial Park Improvements ($400k)
• Support for Safe House ($100k)

That's it, gentle reader. What items are you most excited for? Hopefully we will see you there. The CTN stream starts at 7 pm. Make sure you follow the action on the #a2Council hashtag or on a2mi.social. 

Endorsement: vote for the progressive choice, Desiraé Simmons, in Ypsilanti's Ward 3 Recall.

 

There is an election in Ward 3 tomorrow. Click here for more information on voting in the City of Ypsilanti. 

There is a recall election tomorrow in Ypsilanti's Ward 3. I strongly endorse the incumbent candidate, Democrat Desiraé Simmons. In her time on council, Simmons has been a strong advocate for new housing, and making Ypsilanti a more equitable community. 

The recall against Simmons, and her opponent Rod Johnson, have largely been funded by landlords, out of town business interests, in town business interests, and a dark-money PAC. Please read Ruth Cassidy's well researched article on the finances behind Johnson and the recall. Here's an exerpt:

Newly-posted paperwork of “Ypsilanti Forward” reveals its donors. The recall campaign group is funded almost entirely by landlords who do not reside in the city of Ypsilanti. 92% of the recall campaign dollars came from donors who do not reside in Ward 3. 89% of the recall campaign donors are landlords and 79% of recall campaign dollars came from landlords. The only recall-funder who appears to be registered in Ward 3 is Linda French, who owns Sidetracks and other properties in Ypsilanti. 

Linda French’s nephew and owner of Aubree’s, Andrew French, is another notable donor to the recall. He is also a donor to Republican causes; his donor contributions reveal donations to WINRED, Republican Nikki Haley, and the conservative-leaning Michigan Restaurant & Lodging Association, of which he serves as president and director. He resides in Ann Arbor.

Other Republican donors who also donated to the recall campaign include Mitch Jerden of Plymouth, Rick Fischer Jr. of Brighton, and Bob Barnes of Ann Arbor. Despite landlords Barnes of Barnes & Barnes and Fischer Jr. using their business addresses on their donation receipts, their registered home addresses are actually in Ann Arbor and Brighton, respectively. Fischer owns a Honda dealership in Ypsilanti and was the business owner who inflated the cost of a property the city sought to purchase in order to connect the Border to Border trail.

Johnson seems like a nice guy, by all accounts. He has a long history in Ypsilanti. That said, I just don't think it is wise to elect someone who represents the will of the landlord class. In this election, there is clearly a progressive choice (Simmons) and a conservative choice (Johnson). Here I mean conservative in the sense of supporting established hierarchies. 

To reiterate, if you are in Ypsi's Ward 3, I think you should vote for Councilmember Simmons. She is clearly the progressive choice. You should also make sure your friends and neighbors vote. Remember, we have same-day voter registration now. If you want to, you can stop reading here. 

This next section is going to get a little speculative. You've been warned. 

Some may say that race between Simmons and Johnson represent a clash between two competing visions for Ypsilanti. They might suggest that Johnson represents the vision of ex-mayor Farmer, the architect of the Water Street debacle. Indeed, Farmer is one of Johnsons donors and one of his fiercest supporters online. This article from Mark Maynard in 2006, as well as the comments give a decent glimpse of ex-Mayor Farmer's philosophy. 1996-2006 was Farmer's term as mayor; beyond Water Street, her signature initiatives were the West Cross neighborhood plan (circa 2003 or 04?)This resulted in the downzoning of everything between the river and campus. It covered something like 800 parcels, including a few hundred that it rendered non-conforming by unit count, and that was the point. Some might say ex-Mayor Farmer and her faction are dedicated to (a) reducing rental properties, (b) increasing property values, and (c) decreasing tax rates. All of that helps the bigger landlords who see their monopoly position strengthening as smaller landlords exit, while increasing the value of their assets (which they can refi to acquire more property) and decreasing their operating costs. Wins all around. The Simmons faction wants (a) more housing, (b) strong renter protections, and (c) increased tax base going to fund strong public services (vs) tax cuts. And the landlords and business owners are less excited about this. 

Indeed, you can see many of the complaints against Simmons are centered around her support for two housing developments (one of which, 220 N Park, she was not even on council when it was approved). It is unsurprising that landlords are against competition, the benefit from housing scarcity. I think the city is much better though when we make sure that anyone who wants to can live here with dignity. 

Ann Arbor City Council Preview: May 6, 2024

 

Gentle readers, it's #a2Council night in Ann Arbor. Here's the agenda, and who boy, it's a big one. 

The evening kicks off with a stacked, 26-item consent agenda. The first 4 items are all street closures. CA-1 is for the Bicentennial Birthday Celebration. CA-2 is for Top of the Park. CA-3 is for the YMCA Community Block Party. And CA-4 is for Sonic Lunch. There is also CA-12 which is a special assessment for closing the Stone School sidewalk gap. 

There are nine (9) public hearings on the docket this evening! PH-1/B-1 is the second reading of changing the way the city assess traffic associated with large building projects. This change will replace standard traffic studies (which, tend to favor automobile traffic over all other modes of transportation) with more holistic multimodal transportation impact analyses. This is good. 

PH-2/B-2 along with DS-1, later in the agenda, are for the 711 Church Street PUD and development agreement. This is for a 17 story apartment building across the street from a Umich dorm and the Forest Street Parking Structure. It's kitty-corner from a block of high-rise apartment buildings. 

A rendering of the proposed 711 Church Street

This area should clearly be D1, unfortunately it is not yet so this project has to come up as a PUD. This proposal was also turned down by Planning Commission. I still think council should pass it. Ann Arbor is in the midst of a housing crisis, and in need of tens of thousands of new units. This project will provide much needed housing. It will also make a sizable (~$6M) contribution to the affordable hosing fund. If you are so inclined, I'd recommend calling into this public hearing and sharing your thoughts with council. 

PH-4/B-3, PH-5/B-4, PH-6/B-5, PH-7, and PH-8 are all on changes to fees. Specifically, they are on water rates, stormwater rates, sewer rates, public services area fees, and community service area fees, respectively. Incase someone calls in to complain about the 4-tiered water rate system, send them this article from the Damn Arbor Vault. 

Finally we get to PH-9, a hearing on the resolution to adopt the city budget and property tax millage rates for the 2025 fiscal year. 

There is one ordinance first reading tonight. C-1 is for the 732 Packard PUD. This is for a 14-story apartment between Packard and State. I think this project is good too, under the assumption that housing abundance is good. I am disappointed that the owner of the Domino's building on that corner held out and is preventing the construction of a Flatiron building here. 

A rendering of 732 Packard

On to the resolutions. DS-2 is a resolution authorize a summary publication of the Multimodal Transportation Impact Analysis. DC-1 is a resolution to determine a ballot question for a charter amendment for the creation of a sustainable energy utility (SEU). This is pretty exciting. 

That's it, gentle reader. What items are you most excited for? Hopefully we will see you there. The CTN stream starts at 7 pm. Make sure you follow the action on the #a2Council hashtag or on a2mi.social. 

Legalize Cottage Courts

 

2 and 4 Marshall Court are located on lots that are 26' by 66' or 1,716 sqft. 

Last year, U of M purchased the properties on Marshall Court to build a new dorm. People lamented the loss of this quaint cottage court and rightfully so. Cottage courts are a good use of Ann Arbor's precious urban land. 

Ann Arbor has several notable cottage courts: Beakes,  Bucholz, and Braun, to name a few. They feature cute houses on small lots. You would be hard pressed to find someone who objects to these, unfortunately, under Ann Arbor's current zoning, cottage courts are illegal to build. The smallest residential lot size permitted is 4,000 sqft in R1E. Most of Ann Arbor's single family residential area is zoned R1B or R1C with 10,000 sqft and 7,200 sqft minimum lot sizes, respectively. And don't even get me started on the obscene R1A where lots have to be at least 20,000 sqft. To put that in perspective, you could fit approximately 1.25 Bran Courts on the smallest legal R1A lot. That's room for 10 homes where you can legally only build one!

Braun Court is about 16,000 sqft. You could fit Braun Court and 2 more similar lots on the smallest legal R1A lot. 

Ann Arbor should legalize Cottage Courts. Specifically, Ann Arbor should make a text change to its residential zoning ordinance to make the minimum lot size for all R1 (and R2) lots 1,400 sqft. Furthermore the city should get rid of lot width minima, set minimum front setback to 6 ft. Side setbacks should be 3 ft or 0 ft if the adjoining property owner agrees. Rear setbacks should be a minimum of 10 ft. Finally, maximum lot height should be set to 45 ft for all of these lots. Why 45 ft? Because you get the lowest cost per sqft with three story buildings. Here's my proposal in chart form: 

Proposals for new R1 lot size requirements. Original table here. 

The great thing about making this as a text change, is that it would not require any revision of the comprehensive land use plan. The city can (and should) do this quickly. The city could do this quickly, in as few as 2 city council meetings, spaced 6 weeks apart. 

Why should the city do this? Ann Arbor is in a housing crisis. The city is short tends of thousands of homes. Allowing people to split residential lots to build new homes is one way the city can allow people to build more housing. Allowing the changes I'm proposing in the chart above will also help reduce the cost of new housing. First, this will help reduce the cost of building new housing by decreasing the amount of land one needs to own in order to own a house. Gyourko and McCulloch (2023) found that on average, allowing smaller residential lots reduced home costs by about $30,000. Also, allowing 3 story houses in all R1 zones, by right, will also help decrease the cost of building new homes. 3 story homes are a sweet spot with construction costs being lower than both 2 and 4 story homes per square footage (Eriksen 2021). Finally by allowing gentle urban density, we can allow more people to live in Ann Arbor as opposed to new greenfield developments in the hinterlands, which benefits the environment. 

The great thing about these changes is that if you currently own a large lot and like it, you can keep your large lot. Nobody is requiring you to change anything. This will just allow people who want to the ability to build on smaller lots. The current residential zoning essentially requires people to have huge lawns, which is fine for people who want that, but not everyone does. Ann Arbor should not force people to have large lots against their will. Requiring large lots has real negative consequences to Ann Arbor residents. For example, at the March 27 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, a resident who lives in a 19,937 sqft R1B zoned property asked for a variance so that he could split his lot. He had to come to the ZBA because his lot is 63 sqft too small to allow a lot split for R1B. Shockingly, the ZBA denied this variance. If Ann Arbor allowed smaller lots, splits would be by right and not subject to the whim of ZBA committee members. 

In conclusion, I just think we should allow people to build handsome three-flats on small lots in any residential part of Ann Arbor. 

Hyde Park Three Flat by Phil at Wonder City Studio. 

Addendum: Ann Arbor should do something similar for setbacks in the R4X districts. This would allow things like City Place to be replaced with better projects. 

Addendum 2: Ypsi City should do something similar with setback reform, etc. But I think Ypsi is already better w/r/t allowing small residential lots than Ann Arbor.