Ann Arbor making preparations for greenway park at 721 N. Main
The two structures seen off in the distance on the 721 N. Main property owned by the city of Ann Arbor are slated for demolition. The city's North Main task force is expected to issue a formal recommendation next month regarding whether to try to reuse the larger garage facility on the property.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The city has been talking for years about transforming the old maintenance yard behind the Ann Arbor Community Center into a green open space with trails.
"Tonight's resolution is the next step in our community's realization of a greenway," said Bob Galardi, president of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. "It serves as a transition from the city supporting the concept of a greenway to committing to breaking ground."
The concept for a greenway anchor park at 721 N. Main.
City of Ann Arbor
With a contingency built in, the demolition could cost up to $34,779.
The city received grant funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to pay for 75 percent of the cost to demolish two city-owned storage structures.
The city is still seeking grant funding to help cover the larger $1.2 million project to create a greenway park at 721 N. Main. Stormwater features, native plantings and interpretive signage are proposed.
The city has applied for grants from the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission ($150,000), the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund ($300,000), and the Transportation Alternatives Program through the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments/Michigan Department of Transportation ($600,000). Another $150,000 would come from the city's stormwater fund.
To date, the city has been able to secure the Washtenaw County parks grant for $150,000, contingent upon successful receipt of the $300,000 state grant. The city is expected to know later this fall whether it will get the other grants.
The state trust fund grant requires a council-approved resolution indicating the city will fund the project if other grants do not materialize, and so the City Council voted Monday night to appropriate general fund reserves up to $750,000 to meet that requirement.
"For years people have talked about this," said Council Member Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward. "This is the first time the city is willing to commit a good sum of money. Before it was only resolutions."
The two structures being demolished are located in the floodway of the Allen Creek. One measures 50 feet by 116 feet and was once used by the city for road salt storage. The second measures 36 feet by 200.5 feet and was once used for large vehicle storage.
The larger maintenance garage at 721 N. Main is located outside the floodway (but still in the floodplain) and is not part of the demolition work, so it will remain in place.
According to a description provided by Jerry Hancock, the city's stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, the demolition work includes the removal of the two structures and their foundations and the asphalt surface between them, and removal and disconnection of two stormwater inlets and stormwater piping that was intentionally connected to the sanitary system.
Site restoration work will follow. All disturbed areas will be graded out with topsoil applied and then seeded and mulched to establish native prairie vegetation.
Galardi said the 721 N. Main project will benefit the community in many ways. He said it begins to address downtown green space issues, serves as an important component of the North Main entrance to the city and enables the first elements to the Allen Creek Greenway.
"The overall implementation of the Allen Creek Greenway will help address safety issues by separating bicyclists, walkers, joggers and inline skaters from vehicular traffic," he said.
"The greenway will also provide safe connection to the Border-to-Border Trail and access to the Cascades and Argo Pond."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Roger Kuhlman
Fri, Jun 21, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
Yes demolish the buildings and do some reasonable environmental cleanup but we do not need expensive additonal work done here to create a park with artificial native plantings. That is not helping the natural environment only environmental posturing.
The Picker
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : 12:27 p.m.
So are they doing all this work and not addressing the giant puddle of toxic waste floating just below the surface of this area ? Not a word about it in this grand scheme!
Frustrated in A2
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : 4:53 a.m.
Alright another park, that's like number 1,432 for the city!!! I'm just hoping I don't fall into a huge pothole in one of our oh so smooth roads in town before I make it to this new park...
Patricia Lesko
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 4:07 p.m.
"Tonight's resolution is the next step in our community's realization of a greenway." But that this were true. Many of the same people who voted for this have repeatedly argued we can't have a downtown park because there's little money for upkeep and no money for security for new parks. Now we can suddenly afford to "develop" a new park for $!.2M? This project is about picking the public's pocket to prep the parcel for development and to subsidize private development, John Hieftje's favorite way to waste tax dollars. John Hieftje does not support parks or a greenway. Barton Pond, Bird Hills Nature Area, Barton Nature Area, Bandemer Park, Furstenberg Nature Area, Gallup Park, Huron Hills Golf Course, and Forest Park Nature Area all have one thing in common. Can you guess what it is? In 2007, each of the parks was evaluated for potential development and use for transit (http://www.a2politico.com/2011/09/foia-reveals-mayor-and-council-targeted-popular-parks-for-development/). Hieftje voted to rezone our parkland to allow development/transit use. Then he voted to define transit as "train stations, bus station and municipal airports." Imagine a nice little municipal airport at Gallup Park. Hieftje has wasted millions of dollars trying to lease our parkland for parking and transit. He has done so with the support of Council candidate and PAC Chair Julie Grand, and Environmental Commission member and Council candidate Kirk Westphal. Then again, Westphal, a self-proclaimed "progressive" and "pro-environmental" candidate of the Hieftje ilk, recently called for the commercial development of Argo Park. Look at the "future use" zone on the map above, or better yet read the North Main Task Force Report, including Julie Grand and Ward 1 Council member Briere's idea for a Park and Ride at M-14 and Barton: that's Bandemer Park.
gofigure
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:47 p.m.
Just what we need..... ANOTHER park
Brad
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:36 p.m.
As many "visions" as we're constantly hearing about you'd think they're treating our water with peyote or something. Seriously though, it would be a great data point to know how much they expect the annual upkeep costs to be for this particular "vision".
Townspeak
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.
NO NO NO NO new parks without closing old ones or getting the money appropriated from some other cuts in the budget. We have too many parks, many are vacant and rarely used. It is unsustainable and negligent use of tax payer money. This park seems like no one will be using it but bums and street people, due to its location. Also, there are like 5 parks within a couple of miles. Represent us, not the Mayor and your/his small cadre of supporters.
nickcarraweigh
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.
The park and its' associated landscaping looks like it will provide a safe haven of cul-de-sacs and decorative greenery that will provide outstanding camouflage for the drug dealing now rife in that area.
Arboriginal
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:10 p.m.
Is that where you go to score? I'm speaking of the Summit Party Store for some craft beer of course!
Plubius
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:04 p.m.
Two comments: First, why was the map drawn with north not pointing up? This makes understanding the placement/location challenging. Also, why is there a blue overlay, which implies water, when there is none int he vicinity? Note also that the map misrepresents the size of the park - the western edge of the park is shown as encompassing an active rail line and the 'existing building', according to google maps, is owned by DTE. Second, and far more importantly: The article never mentions the size of the park. The most generous estimate I can come up with is less than five acres, so this park will cost around $250k per acre to develop. To call this highway robbery would be kind. It is an utterly disgraceful waste of money. As with most city projects, this one is designed to line someone's pocket at the expense of the taxpayers. I am all for parks - we visit them regularly. But the costs for this one outweigh any possible benefits.
ThinkingOne
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 6:27 p.m.
"The larger maintenance garage at 721 N. Main is located outside the floodway (but still in the floodplain) and is not part of the demolition work, so it will remain in place." I don't know what Google maps says about it, but the article seems to imply the third building is also city owned.
Gill
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.
"$250k per acre to develop": Hauling away 5 acres of asphalt, gravel base, and soil to make the pond areas is not cheap, especially if there is contamination to deal with. $250k seems like a fair price to me. If there was a way to load it onto train cars instead of hundreds of semi-trucks, there might be a cost savings.
foobar417
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.
Half of the proposed funds are coming out of taxpayer-approved funds dedicated to the development of parks. If awarded, the Washtenaw County money comes from a dedicated, taxpayer-approved, county-wide parks millage. If awarded, the state money comes from the sale of oil and mineral rights in the state of Michigan which our state constitution guarantees goes into the development of parks and recreation opportunities. The other half of the proposed funds are coming out of the tiny fraction of federal funds approved for non-motorized transportation.
Usual Suspect
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:28 p.m.
I went to go compare the map in this article to current satellite imagery (which is tough since this map is twisted 90 degrees), but it seems to me it only it borders the railroad. There is a spur coming off there, which gradually separates from the railroad as it travels south to what once was a coal-dumping trestle, but perhaps the railroad doesn't own that property anymore.
Usual Suspect
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.
"First, why was the map drawn with north not pointing up?" +1
wendy
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:12 p.m.
Blue overlay references the flood plain.
JGA2trueblue
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:59 p.m.
Maybe we can ask if 1.2 million can be diverted from the 213 million we gave to Egypt, who BTW considers America and Isreal the enemy. And last I recall, Ann Arbor is still part of America.
Dirty Mouth
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:59 p.m.
Kudos to the City! I can't wait to take my kids there to play.
Usual Suspect
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:48 p.m.
I can almost read the writing in that picture.
Brad
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:44 p.m.
"Spring Hill Greenway" would be the perfect name.
The Picker
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : 12:22 p.m.
I second the motion!
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.
@Mike: "Watch your wallets fellow taxpayers; someone has to pay for these grants. This money is coming from governmental agencies like the federal government" Returning our tax dollars to our community is better than sending our tax dollars to Alabama.
SonnyDog09
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
I would rather that the Federal Government not borrow the money from the Chinese, in the first place. Then they could not send that borrowed money to any community. Then we would not have to pay the borrowed money plus interest back. That's what I would like.
Arboriginal
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:16 p.m.
This park looks pretty dang nice to me folks. Let's hope the almighty DDA is kind enough to "give" some money to the city so we can hire more police to patrol our growing parks system.
Citizen
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:37 p.m.
We are going to need to hire some full time park rangers instead. Maybe Smokey the Bear can help us out.
15crown00
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : noon
how about putting 1.2m into police and fire departments?
The Picker
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : 12:21 p.m.
No need! The fire dept.and council have decided to extort commercial building owners and their tenants with a new tax/fee to inspect business's in the city. Like rental property, a never ending inspection regiment, that they will never be able to keep up with. Next they will be issuing badges for your building so they will know if you paid when they arrive to extinguish your fire. Tax and Spend, Tax and Spend, Tax and Spend
foobar417
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:33 p.m.
Half of the proposed funds are coming out of taxpayer-approved funds dedicated to the development of parks. If awarded, the Washtenaw County money comes from a dedicated, taxpayer-approved, county-wide parks millage. If awarded, the state money comes from the sale of oil and mineral rights in the state of Michigan which our state constitution guarantees goes into the development of parks and recreation opportunities. The other half of the proposed funds are coming out of the tiny fraction of federal funds approved for non-motorized transportation.
Jim Osborn
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:39 a.m.
This is the same mayor and city that couldn't afford to water the many, many newly planted trees that were dying due to last year's drought. So, we see dead trees in our parks and along side our roads in the medians. The same city that cannot afford to mow its parks completely so when we play softball in a city league in a city park, part of the field is mowed, the part used for soccer, and the rest, the outfield that we use, is not. I just wish that they would budget and maintain what we have before getting more land
Usual Suspect
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:51 p.m.
ordmad, I think they were talking about mowing (the lack of) in regular parks, currently, not in this future park. I think.
Townspeak
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.
Ordmad, so we are paying 1.2 million toward what again? you have just proven the point you are trying to contradict.
ordmad
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:17 p.m.
This is a zero mow, very, very low maintenance natural area. Not really a park.
Usual Suspect
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:29 p.m.
Stop complaining about the mowing. It's more important that we have public "art."
shine16
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:04 p.m.
I have noticed that partial mowing even in some small parks near where I live. Is it really a cost cutting measure? I couldn't figure out WHY it was like that.
Mike
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:27 a.m.
"The city received grant funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to pay for 75 percent of the cost to demolish two city-owned storage structures The city is still seeking grant funding to help cover the larger $1.2 million project to create a greenway park at 721 N. Main. Stormwater features, native plantings and interpretive signage are proposed." Watch your wallets fellow taxpayers; someone has to pay for these grants. This money is coming from governmental agencies like the federal government that are 17 trillion in debt and printing money out of thin air. I see roads and bridges crumbling everywhere and this seems like a project that wouldn't have that high of a priority relatively speaking, but that has never stopped a bureaucrat from spending money..................we'll use the higher license fees and gas taxes to pay for it.
foobar417
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.
Half of the proposed funds are coming out of taxpayer-approved funds dedicated to the development of parks. If awarded, the Washtenaw County money comes from a dedicated, taxpayer-approved, county-wide parks millage. If awarded, the state money comes from the sale of oil and mineral rights in the state of Michigan which our state constitution guarantees goes into the development of parks and recreation opportunities. The other half of the proposed funds are coming out of the tiny fraction of federal funds approved for non-motorized transportation.
StrongFire
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:04 p.m.
Are you proposing to leave those buildings there? If so, for how long? If you want local funds to pay for the project, how long should we wait to amass those funds? I haven't seen the grant, but I'm guessing that the FEMA grant is to take buildings out of the floodway.
amlive
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 10:35 a.m.
I do wish that this would indeed help provide "access to the Cascades and Argo Pond", but I fail to see how this project could affect this at all. The railroad tracks still cut off all 'legal' access of the public to our river from Bandemer to Broadway.