Carolyn

Mon, Dec 3, 2012 : 1:41 p.m.

Mr. Glen Thompson's observations below are partially correct. As the former Land Development Coordinator (Jerry Hancock's old job) and Park Planner with the city, I agree that moving stormwater out of the floodway might be more appropriate, but given the trend toward more frequent and intensive storm events, the entire watershed needs to be carefully studied to determine what the best approach would be. If nothing else, replacing impervious surface here would help infiltration rates. Unfortunately, this location is not a good site for the skate park as it needs good access and parking, plus additional amenities to serve kids and families, which are already available at Vets. The additional imprevious surface area at Vets should be compensated for with additional stormwater detention on site - if not, then the city is not folowing its own regulations, which is totally inappropriate.

Unusual Suspect

Mon, Dec 3, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.

Will there be giant carp in the ponds?

Seasoned Cit

Mon, Dec 3, 2012 : 5:18 a.m.

I expect all the folks who complain about the UM not paying any property tax, will also complain about this plan for another park which will only require more park maintenance funds as well as dollars to buy property (which is generating tax income) . Hey I like to dream. but I know you're not allowed to say anything bad about parks, after all.. that's what you ask the city to do with property that might be developed in your back yard.

Basic Bob

Mon, Dec 3, 2012 : 4:54 a.m.

The environmental assessment for the property sheds some light on this project. For beginners: 2.1 Previous Property Owners There are no property transfer records for the subject property. As stated in the City Directory, the City of Ann Arbor Fleet Services and city garage has occupied the buildings on the subject property since they were built in the 1920s. From 1932 to 2011 the subject property was listed as the following: - Ann Arbor City Municipal Garage; - City Street Department Fleet Services; - City Department of Public Works; - City Yards for Street Sewer Refuse and Garage; - City Traffic Street Maintenance; and - City Waste Field and Ann Arbor Recycling and Solid Waste. This is not the city cleaning up blight left by previous occupants, and it is not a new park. It is an environmental catastrophe that the city has developed over the last hundred years. While I applaud them cleaning up their own mess, they need to also acknowledge who created it. Cleaning up your own toxic waste is not green.

Vince Caruso

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 10:34 p.m.

Discussed at the various 721 meetings was the fact that the floodplain map for the Allen's Creek watershed is poorly understood. The maps are 'very loosely calibrated' on the 1968 flood (city staff and consultant who did the mapping). Leaving the building that is up against the floodway (the blue lines) is ill advised and should be removed for safety sake. Obstructing the floodway (which the building is most likely in) will needlessly cause more flooding upstream of homes and businesses and unsuspecting occupants of the building could be at great risk. A Greenway for this site makes the most sense and is how many Michigan city's are converting floodplain lands in a environmentally and economically sound planning practice. We have had several cases of very costly mistakes trying to build in and near the floodplain in Ann Arbor, even before Climate Change was considered as is now. Lessons need to be learned or a great price will be paid in life and property damage. At a recent City and UM Climate Change Discussion in March the UM Professor of Planning stated clearly - "don't build in the floodplain!'. The Mayor was also on the panel of speakers. I hope he was listening.

Bozo

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 9:45 p.m.

Looks great! I can hardly wait for this to become a reality.

Eat Local A2

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 9:10 p.m.

So Ryan's posting of his own story from last year talks about the city finally getting serious last year about a ten year old idea, but didn't really ask the tough question, which is how does a city get away with subjecting residents to ongoing flood risks while instead spending taxpayer money on flooding silly sculptures with water? Open spaces, parks, greenway, whatever you want to call it, the PRIMARY reason for configuring this land use is not for that but rather for stormwater management and flood mitigation. Rather than getting serious about a solid plan for the land that handles the water and provides basic open spaces with local dollars, the City of Ann Arbor makes the problem bigger than it needs to be, foments the fake crises, and thus passively insists on some other entity bearing the cost of their core function. That's why the last decade was frittered away on this. One could have bought a lot of regrading for the price of that fickle water sculpture.

shepard145

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 6:53 p.m.

Remind us Ryan - what is a "green way" and why does Ann Arbor need one?

Tom Joad

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 6:34 p.m.

How about placing a pedestrian bridge over the railroad track from Main to the Argo Dam. As it is now you have to walk further down to get on the paved trail in order to avoid trespassing on railroad property to cross the railroad tracks.

Eat Local A2

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 6:20 p.m.

It is interesting to note Ryan's unique use of the word blighted within the article, which is not supported by other comments or statements within the plans. This puts a false veneer on the story in support of a larger government project, without supportive facts. I'm not seeing anything here to suggest this is a Superfund site! Seems to me the overspenders in government have the dog whistles and the lapdog press take their cues well. Thankfully the people are smarter than that.

Eat Local A2

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 6:11 p.m.

The real issues here are those of any property owner: what does the owner need from the property, and how do they deal with their responsibility regarding drainage. Apparently whatever business and operations functions are happening now on the property are not critical, since there is no talk of any reconstruction except hypothetically in the future. So the sole present issue is the responsibility for drainage. Having some open space for public use would be a plus on top of that, but note the ACTIVE 'development' (development by government, their use of the term) which does not provide the least costly solution to get the basic job done in these economically challenging times. Moreover, as another commenter noted, where is the consideration of this particular issue of stormwater drainage within the larger context of those needs throughout the city. The fact is, that by chunking these projects into small pieces, with the trails/greenway dream held out as the ultimate long-term goal, it allows the city to divert attention from getting the basic job done on their own budget and skirt any debate on their overall stewardship of taxpayer dollars and the scope of city government. And since the greenway couldn't possibly be finished on the city's budget in a few years, of course there is the need to go out seeking grants--which again gets us away from the basic question of what the city is doing to meet their responsibility for providing the core services of local government in a cost-effective manner. In some ways this is no different from the framing of the Stadium bridge issue as a special project of sorts, when in fact it slowly fell apart on the city's watch. That way of looking at it diverted the narrative away from their steadfast refusal to accept and plan for its maintenance and ultimate replacement as a core function of why they exist.

Ryan J. Stanton

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 5:19 p.m.

In case anyone wants a closer look at what was presented at Wednesday night's community meeting on 721 N. Main, here's a link to the presentation: http://www.annarbor.com/721NorthMain_112812.pdf

eastA2

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 4:25 p.m.

I am not familiar with this site, but would have concerns with a dog park located either near a floodplain or adjacent to a major water body (Huron River or tributary). Fecal coliform contamination is a huge issue in waterways passing through urban areas. Since not all dog owners pick up their pet waste, this can be a significant source of contamination. Will this pose a problem at this site? - if so, I hope they can find another dog-friendly place in town that wouldn't potentially impact river water quality.

glenn thompson

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.

This demonstrates some of the problems when our city management considers individual parcels and does not have the foresight to consider the city as a system. The 721 design seems to show a depression in the center of the floodway portion, but this is not a logical location to attempt to store stormwater. The floodway, especially near the river should be design to enhance flow to the river to reduce upstream flooding. Stormwater storage should occur upstream where, if the water is retained, the flood can be prevented or reduced. Yet our Parks department proposes exactly the opposite. More land is being made impervious in Vet's Park with the expansion of the ball fields and the proposed skate park. This is the western area of the Allen Creek watershed and will exacerbate future flooding. A preferred solution is obvious. Put the skate park at 721 and design some of the features to act as a channel to increase floodwater flow to the river. Stop over developing Vet's Park and use it as an engineer stormwater control system where acre feet of water could be retained.

Susan Montgomery

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.

Nice! I appreciate the task force's vision and efforts.

observer

Sun, Dec 2, 2012 : 12:21 p.m.

oh good, another park.....can't have enough of those.....