Need To Alter Three-year-old Zoning Law Debated

Editor's note: This is the first in a series of articles concerning various recommendations regarding zoning questions, height limitations, parking requirements and other matters that have evolved from a central area high-rise and parking report. Repeated criticism of recommendations contained in the central area high-rise and parking report has been that the changes are not necessary because the city's current zoning ordinance is less than three years old. The most frequent official reply to this criticism has been that Ann Arbor has changed drastically in the past two years and, therefore, zoning changes are justified. The most frequent "unofficial" reply from city officials to this criticism has been that perhaps the City Council, in adopting the new ordinance, did not take into consideration all the implications and that changes are now justified. Planning Department Director Raymond D. Martin said a zoning ordinance may be viewed as an "impermanent constitution" and as such, "the legislation should be viewed as dynamic, stable, yet flexible enough to accommodate and recognize needed change as it is dictated by community growth, development and experience. "Any legislation, it is suggested, should be viewed as the best that can be made possible consistent with what is known today and not be viewed in the light of being prophetic of the future . . . Thus, a zoning ordinance . . . should provide security for today but not allow that security to assume the nature of absolutism and thereby dictate a form and fashion of tomorrow," Martin said. Most frequently cited as an example of the changing Ann Arbor has been the sudden move to high-rise apartment buildings. When the new zoning ordinance was approved in 1963 the tallest building in the city wasn't much higher than 10 stories. And when the ordinance was adopted there were few on the council who could foresee that the provisions of the ordinance would permit buildings as high as the 26-story structure proposed at the corner of William and Maynard. (The City Council gave the go-ahead for this high-rise at Monday night's meeting.) To understand the recommendations for zoning and other now facing the council, it must be understood what the current zoning will permit. As Martin pointed out to the Planning Commission last week, when the framers of the zoning ordinance instituted a 1,000 per cent floor area ratio (F.A.R.) in the Central Business District they contemplated developers would erect buildings 10 stories in height, each of the floors covering 100 per cent of the lot area. At the time of the adoption of the ordinance, with the 1,000 per cent floor area ratio, the Maynard House was being constructed with a floor area ratio of about 950 per cent. The building height was "only" 10 stories and perhaps councilmen believed this was the "worst" that could happen under the 1,000 per cent provision. It is worth noting that the Planning Department had recommended originally to the council a 400 per cent F.A.R. and finally lo the 1.000 per cent figure by the council. The proposed 26-story building at William and Maynard will be constructed to contain a 1,000 per cent floor area ratio while the 18-story University Towers at S. Forest and S. University reportedly contains a floor area ratio of about 800 per cent. The floor area ratio is the amount of the total of area which can be used in constructing a building on that lot. Thus, under the 1,000 per cent F.A.R. now in effect in the CBD, a developer could build a structure containing 100.000 square feet on a lot measuring 100 feet on each side. This is arrived at by multiplying the square footage of the lot (10,000 square feet) by 1,000 per cent (or by 10). If the developer chose to construct a building 100-by-100 on all floors, he could go up 10 stories, having a total floor area of 100,000 square feet. However, if he chose to use only one-half of the lot for the building, and have floors measuring 50-by-100, he could build up (o 20 stories with each of the floors containing 5,000 square feet. And if he chose to have each of the floors measure only 50-by-50 he could build a structure 40 stories high with each of the floors containing 2,500 square feet. The usable floor area 'can also be split up. For example, on a 100 by 100 lot the first floor could be used for commercial buildings and be constructed to the lot lines, using 10,000 square feet of the available 100,000 square feet. The developer could then choose to build an apartment tower 50-by-100 to a height of 18 more stories . Or he could use the first floors for commercial or office purposes and build a 50-by-100 foot tower to a height of another 16 stories. Perhaps the council, in adopting the zoning ordinance, realized the 1,000 per cent F.A.R. did not have a built-in height limitation (the maximum height being controlled only to the size of the parcel) but it is significant to note that height limitations were placed in all other zones except the C2A commercial district which comprises the Central Business District in large part. The maximum height in the other zones ranged from 30 feet in single-family district to 10 stories in the R4D multiple-family district. ; Although the council was warned on numerous occasions that this 1,000 per cent F.A.R. coupled with the lack of parking requirements in the CBD could lead to severe traffic problems, the council did not take any steps to make changes until an 18-s t o r y apartment building started to go up at S. Forest and S. University. Martin said the Planning Department and the Planning Commission had recommended that residential uses not be permitted in the C2A district. However the council apparently did not wish to create non-conforming structures and uses in the C2A and thus inserted all types of residential uses as permitted But it did not place parking restrictions or height restrictions in the C2A for these residences. The central area high-rise and parking report contains recommendations to reduce the present floor area ratio and to establish setback requirements in the Central Business District. How these recommendations would affect the height and shape of buildings will be covered in the next article.