Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ann Arbor residents and council clash over draft comprehensive plan; critics cite density, trees and engagement
Summary
Public commenters and several council members debated the draft comprehensive plan at the meeting. Speakers raised concerns about eliminating single‑family zoning, building heights, tree loss and the quality of community engagement; council members outlined next steps including open houses and zoning to follow the plan.
Multiple residents used public‑comment time to urge changes to the draft comprehensive plan, and council members responded during the meeting’s communications and discussion period.
Chuck Ream, who said he is running for the Third Ward seat, called the draft plan “gross absurdity” and argued it would allow four‑story buildings in neighborhoods that are currently single‑family, eliminate single‑ and two‑family zoning, and lead to tree loss. “This tree was dropped in my neighborhood while I was on my morning walk,” Ream said, using the example to warn of widespread canopy loss if setbacks and lot assembly rules change.
Mary Henderson, a 50‑year homeowner, also spoke in opposition. She warned the plan would permit four‑story apartment blocks and allow lot assembly that “would allow developers to combine lots to build large complexes up to 4 stories, 4 stories high or 48 feet high with no restrictions on the number of apartment units,” and she cited rents at a recent Packard Road complex as an example of market rates that the plan would not lower (one‑bedroom rents cited between $2,100 and $2,340; two‑bedroom rents cited between $2,740 and $3,050).
Other speakers urged more rigorous community engagement and protections for long‑term affordability and tree canopy. Barbara Ledewski, a longtime homeowner and researcher, recommended the plan include explicit infrastructure and guardrails to avoid privatization of housing and to protect long‑term sustainability. Alan Haber, a long‑time civic advocate, said the council’s recent moves on the library and center‑of‑the‑city process diverged from earlier community agreements and urged a compromise timetable tied to the November 2026 election.
Council members described the plan as an early, policy‑level document that will be followed by zoning changes and more detailed code revisions. Council Member Disch said the plan anticipates limits on parcel assembly, stepped building forms rather than “boxes,” and that specific standards will be set in the zoning code rather than in the comprehensive plan. Council Member Briggs noted the council has received both strong concerns and strong support; she highlighted planned open houses and outreach (scheduled April 24, April 30 and May 7) and urged residents to attend.
Ending: Council members said the comprehensive plan is one step in a longer process; zoning and form‑based code decisions remain to be made, and the administration and Planning Commission will continue community engagement.
