Bob Snyder, with his dog Walter, talks with Gwen Nystuen before the start of the Feb. 7 planning commission meeting. Both Snyder and Nystuen spoke during a public hearing to oppose rezoning of 1320 S. University. (Photos by the writer.)

Currently at the site – on the south side of South University, between Forest and Washtenaw avenues – is the three-story Park Plaza apartment building. It’s owned by Philip Sotiroff, who hoped to construct a mixed-use building  – retail and residential – as tall as 145 feet. That height would allow for a structure between 10-14 stories on the 0.82-acre site. The current zoning is D2 (downtown interface), which does not allow for a structure taller than 60 feet.

Sotiroff is asking the city to rezone the parcel to D1, a zoning district that allows for the greatest density development. Representatives from his development team noted that higher density zoning was allowed prior to 2009, and pointed out that initially the D1 designation had been recommended by the planning commission before the final version of A2D2 was adopted.

The site is adjacent to a D1 parcel to the east, where the Landmark apartment building is being constructed, at 601 S. Forest. But the 1320 S. University property also abuts lower-density residential zoning. Single-family homes are located to the south of the site, and a fraternity is located to the west.

Fifteen people spoke during a public hearing about the rezoning. Most of them were residents and neighborhood leaders who objected to the proposed rezoning, though the request did receive letters of support from owners of the Landmark as well as from the South University Area Association, a merchants’ group.

Planning staff recommended denial. All of the planning commissioners spoke in support of the current zoning, saying that the community had reached a hard-won consensus that was not to be overturned lightly, especially since it was implemented fairly recently. A couple of commissioners noted that the owner could find flexibility within the existing zoning by submitting a planned project – like the 618 S. Main development that planning commission approved at its Jan. 19, 2012 meeting.

Rezoning for 1320 S. University

At the Feb. 7 meeting, city planner Alexis DiLeo delivered the staff report. [.pdf of staff report, excluding maps and other images]

She described the location of the site in the context of the surrounding properties. To the east is the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity – well known as the location for the annual Mud Bowl, at the corner of South University and Washtenaw Avenue. To the west is the Landmark apartment building, formerly known as 601 S. Forest, a development that’s nearing completion. The 1320 S. University site is on the border of the D1 zoning district. The Landmark building is located in D1, as is property on the north side of South University.

From left: City planner Alexis DiLeo and planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

The property also is directly north of Forest Court, a cul-de-sac of owner-occupied and rental houses in a R4C (multi-family residential) zoning district.

In seeking D1 zoning, the owner proposed setting conditions as part of the rezoning approval. Those conditions would: (1) limit the maximum height to 145 feet, which would allow for between 10-14 stories; (2) increase minimum side and rear setback requirements; and (3) limit permitted principal uses to those allowed in D2 districts.

Another condition proposed by the developer would limit the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) to 700%, with premiums. FAR, a measure of density, is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to an FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in an FAR of 200%. The D1 zoning normally allows for up to 900% FAR, with premiums.

DiLeo noted that the owner did not submit a detailed proposal for a building. But she calculated that based on the assumption of residential units on all of the upper floors with an average of 800 square feet per unit, more than 225 apartments would be possible. About 100 off-street parking spaces would also be required.

DiLeo described the long zoning history at the site. Until 2006, it was zoned R4C (multi-family residential). As part of a broader rezoning initiative, in 2006 the planning commission recommended – and the city council ultimately approved – rezoning the site to C2A, which would allow for density up to 400% FAR.

In 2007, the A2D2 rezoning initiative kicked off. Initially, the recommendation put forward in late 2008 called for the 1320 S. University parcel to be rezoned D1. Following that initial recommendation, which the planning commission had supported, there was a lot of back-and-forth, DiLeo said. But ultimately, the downtown master plan adopted by city council designated this site as D2 – and it was on that basis that the A2D2 rezoning was adopted in late 2009. [For a timeline overview of the A2D2 and design guidelines process, with links to previous Chronicle coverage, see "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

DiLeo summarized what she described as the owner’s lengthy rezoning proposal. The owner cited several reasons that rezoning was appropriate, including:

• The D2 zoning “unnecessarily and unfairly restricts” the use of the property, and limits the South University area’s potential for growth and economic vitality.
• The property is better suited for D1 development than are most other D1 parcels in that area, because it can achieve the required density without aggregating multiple parcels.
• The parcel is only partially located in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district, so it would benefit all taxing units.

Planning staff disagreed with the owner’s assessment, and found that the arguments in favor of rezoning weren’t strong enough to support deviating from the A2D2 zoning, DiLeo said. She noted that the A2D2 process had included a public hearing in 2009 specifically for the 1320 S. University parcel, at the owner’s request. The current zoning has been in place for over two years, and changing it would negatively affect expectations for the site, she said. No conditions have changed since the zoning was adopted, DiLeo noted. The owner did provide census information that wasn’t available at the time of the A2D2 process, she said, but the data simply affirmed what planning staff had already believed regarding demographics for that area.

DiLeo also noted that the owner felt an error had been made in assigning D2 zoning to that parcel. Planning staff doesn’t believe that’s the case, she said. It’s possible to disagree with the decision of the planning commission and city council, but the record is clear, she concluded, and all documents accurately reflect that.

The city’s planning staff recommended denial of the rezoning request.

Rezoning for 1320 S. University: Public Hearing

Fifteen people spoke during a public hearing about the rezoning. Most of them were residents and neighborhood leaders who objected to the proposed rezoning. However letters supporting the project were sent to the planning commission from Maggie Ladd, executive director of the South University Area Association, and from Rajen Shastri on behalf of Campus Investors 601 Forest Property Owner LLC, owners of the Landmark apartment building. Neither Ladd nor Shastri attended Tuesday’s meeting.

Bob Snyder, speaking on behalf of the South University Neighborhood Association, began by introducing Walter, his Parkinson’s service dog. It was Walter’s first meeting, Snyder noted, and “he might cut me short.” Snyder asked what had happened to the Ann Arbor that had been a true university town – with a sprawling campus and trees, as typified by the Arboretum and Burton Tower. When and why had the city and university decided it was better to build up? he wondered. But he quipped that UM’s buildings have managed to keep below the low-flying cloud height.

Questions like “How big is too big?” and “How tall is too tall?” keep being redefined, Snyder said. Didn’t the citizens, acting in good faith, reach a conclusion about the D1 and D2 zoning? At that point, everyone said “at least it’s over and done with.” But here we go again, Snyder continued. So now there’s only one question regarding this issue, he said: “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand? Is it the ‘N’ or the ‘O’?” Snyder concluded by thanking the commissioners, adding “Walter thanks you, too.”

From left: Wendy Rampson, head of the city's planning unit, talks with Ann Arbor residents Marc Gerstein and Eleanor Linn, who live in the South University area.

Marc Gerstein told commissioners that he’s lived on Forest Court since 1982 – his property abuts the south end of the 1320 S. University parcel, and any change will affect his home directly, he said. Gerstein urged commissioners to support the staff recommendation of denial. The staff report examines the history, rationale and merits of the request, he said, and repeatedly found that the D2 zoning designation was warranted. To rezone the parcel would take away the buffer between Forest Court and the densest D1 development of South University, he noted.

Saying she was one of the people involved in developing the A2D2 zoning, former city planning commissioner Ethel Potts also voiced opposition to the rezoning request. The staff report accurately reflects the actions that led to the D2 zoning for this parcel, she said. Potts would have preferred if the lot had been rezoned for residential use, but since it was declared to be part of the downtown, then D2 zoning is appropriate. It’s a buffer between D1 districts and the neighborhoods, she said. Potts concluded by saying that everyone relies on zoning to be stable, not changed because of someone’s preference. D2 is what belongs there, she concluded.

John Nystuen read a letter from Anthony Pinnell, a resident and businessman in the South University neighborhood who could not attend the meeting. Pinnell had wanted to express strong opposition to the rezoning request. Pinnell had attended a community forum about the project, and reported that residents had proposed alternative ideas for the site that would comply with the current D2 zoning. In his letter, Pinnell also argued that any attempt to characterize the neighborhood as primarily student housing is wrong.

Steve Kaplan told commissioners that he owned property on nearby Church Street. The property at 1320 S. University is the textbook definition of a buffer area, he said. Not only is the zoning not a mistake, he said it’s the perfect application of D2 zoning. Saying he had no affiliation with the Landmark development, Kaplan noted that those developers made a major investment under terms that the city laid out. To make a change now for the adjacent property would be harmful to Landmark, he said, as well as to any sense of integrity that the city might retain – integrity that a developer would rely on to do business in this town. The zoning should remain D2, Kaplan concluded.

Chris Crockett introduced herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Association. She ventured that perhaps the developer wasn’t involved in the multi-year deliberations in the community regarding the A2D2 zoning, and that’s why he doesn’t realize that D2 isn’t a mistake for their property. As someone who was part of the process to develop A2D2, Crockett said it’s shocking to have the developer come in and describe something as an error when it was so thoroughly deliberated, and approved by the planning commission and city council. The A2D2 zoning expresses the intent of the community, she said. Nobody got everything they wanted, she added – it was a compromise, but one that people can live with. It’s egregious to have someone come in from out of town and say that it’s wrong, she concluded.

Betsy Price, a resident of the South University area, apologized for belaboring the issue, and thanked city staff for their hard work. She noted that the city had achieved a compromise with the D1/D2 zoning, and standards were set. Those decisions weren’t made in haste, and weren’t serendipitous. It’s time to adhere to the rules that were established, she said.

Brad Moore, an architect for the project, characterized the petitioner as a property owner, not a developer. He noted that initially, the planning commission had recommended D1 zoning for the 1320 S. University lot. It wasn’t until the city council asked for a change that the planning commission revised its recommendation. He then described the difficulties of building on the lot within the constraints of the current D2 zoning – because of setback requirements, building code issues related to windows, and mandatory storm sewer easement.

Attorney Susan Friedlaender and Philip Sotiroff, owner of 1320 S. University.

Saying that she represented the owner, Susan Friedlaender – a Farmington Hills attorney – described the history of zoning for the site. She noted that prior to the A2D2 process, the site had been rezoned to C2A, which she said was more liberal than D1 in terms of setbacks. Then the planning commission and planning staff had recommended D1 zoning there, but the city council requested that it be downzoned to D2.

Friedlaender noted that the owners of the adjacent Landmark building sent a letter of support for the rezoning of 1320 S. University. She also said that the city’s master plan is very inconsistent with regard to this site. Page 42 of the land use plan (Chapter 5) has a map of future land use for this area that shows the parcel as “core” downtown, she noted, not interface. [The D2 zoning is considered interface zoning, for buffer areas between neighborhoods and areas zoned for denser development.] And the city’s transportation master plan, she said, shows the parcel as intended for the highest possible density. But the downtown plan shows the site as an interface area.

Friedlaender said the owner and his representatives disagree with the city planning staff’s assessment that the land can be developed in a financially viable way with D2 zoning. She’d like to see what the staff has come up with in that regard, because the owner has reached a conclusion that’s very different, she said.

If the parcel is granted D1 zoning, the owner has offered to restrict uses to those allowed in D2 districts, but would be willing to further limit those uses, Friedlaender said. She also mentioned the issue of the area’s demographics, noting that of the 1,718 people in the same census block group as the 1320 S. University parcel, 1,712 are renters, with a high turnover in residency. She asked that the city not make decisions based on the expectations of a handful of people.

Jim Valenta of Midwestern Consulting identified himself as a member of the development team. He had authored the traffic study for the 1320 S. University project. He also had authored the transportation study for the Landmark development, as well as for The Varsity and both Zaragon projects – all of them recent residential developments in downtown Ann Arbor. All of those projects cater to a non-motorized mode of transportation, he said. Planning staff comments regarding transportation issues can easily be reconciled at the site plan level, he concluded. [If rezoning were approved, the owner would then need to submit a site plan for approval by the planning commission and city council.]

Gwen Nystuen told commissioners that she didn’t want to repeat what’s already been said. She’s lived in near-downtown neighborhoods for almost 50 years, and residents don’t want to live next to Main Street. This is a perfect example of zoning that steps down from commercial to residential, she said. Compatibility with neighborhoods is extremely important, and she urged commissioners to support the planning staff’s recommendation of denial.

Saying that he represented the North Burns Park Association, Peter Nagourney supported the staff recommendation to deny the rezoning request. He regretted that citizens, as taxpayers, are paying for staff time to consider a request that should never have been made. Any change to the D2 zoning would be seen as a precedent that could threaten other D2 districts, like Kerrytown. Why aren’t these zoning decisions respected? he wondered. Why are they being challenged? It must be because developers believe there’s wiggle room and a pro-density sentiment in city hall.

Past successes by some developers might inspire hope that the system can be broken, Nagourney said. As a citizen and president of a neighborhood association, Nagourney hoped he could maintain faith in the integrity of existing rules. If the current request is approved, he’d have to conclude that the city has sold out to developers and the master plan has no meaning. That’s not the preferred outcome, he concluded.

Earl Barr spoke briefly, simply noting that he lived on Forest Court and agreed that the rezoning request should be denied.

Alluding to a previous speaker, Ray Detter joked that he wasn’t going to promise not to repeat comments that had already been made. He said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council, and that the group had spent most of their recent meeting talking about this property. Detter reiterated many of the arguments against the rezoning request. He noted that the 618 S. Main project, which the planning commission approved at their Jan. 19, 2012 meeting, is in a D2 district, as is most of Kerrytown. He observed that several people in Kerrytown who want to develop their property would love to see the 1320 S. University rezoning request approved.

The final speaker was Eleanor Linn, a resident of Forest Court directly to the south of 1320 S. University. It’s been a long slog, she said, with the property owner repeatedly trying to get the site rezoned so that he can put up a tall building behind her two-story house. The apartment building that’s there now already brings him income, she noted, and it could be redeveloped under D2 zoning. Her neighborhood has houses that are well-maintained – it’s a real community, she said. They’ve even created an informal group called Friends of Forest Court, to help people learn about their responsibilities as residents.

The developer tries to characterize it as a transient student neighborhood, Linn said, but “this is far from the truth.” She said she contributes to the vibrancy of the city and expects the city to uphold its master plan and keep neighborhoods liveable. She urged commissioners to deny the request and protect residents from the annoyance of these repeated rezoning efforts.

Rezoning for 1320 S. University: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began the discussion by responding to Friedlaender’s remarks about inconsistencies in the city’s various master plans. There is only one land use plan, Bona said – the downtown plan. Other plans are intended to complement that.

Bona then noted that she had participated in the entire A2D2 process. Her first meeting as a planning commissioner was a retreat to initiate the A2D2 process. Having gone through that – as well as having participated in the rezoning of this particular parcel – Bona said she’s not in the same place now as she was when the process started. She had strong opinions, but completely agreed with where the zoning ended up. The city shouldn’t have knee-jerk reactions to requests, she said. Even if she didn’t entirely agree, the community reached a decision and it would be hard for her to deviate from that.

Bona described the history of the various rezoning decisions for this parcel. When it was rezoned to C2A, it had been a long, complicated process, she said. It has already been developed beyond the density of a residential zoning district, so it was rezoned to C2A because it was viewed as part of the downtown, even though it was an outlier. At the time there was no D2 interface option – the idea of an interface zone was suggested in the master plan, but had not yet been implemented. So while it might not seem obvious why the city upzoned it to C2A, and then downzoned it to D2 during the A2D2 process, there are reasons why it makes sense, she said.

Bona concluded by noting that the option of proposing a planned project allows for greater flexibility within the D2 district, without having to rezone the property.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Tony Derezinski, Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal.

Evan Pratt agreed with Bona, pointing specifically to her statement about planned projects. The A2D2 process was a long one, but everyone agreed at the end. He said he had no interest in undoing all the time and energy it took to reach consensus. Nothing has changed since then, he added. Perhaps in six or seven years, the situation will have changed, he concluded, but that’s not the case now.

Noting that she hadn’t been on the planning commission at the time of the A2D2 process, Eleanore Adenekan thanked Bona and Pratt for putting the situation in historical context.

Tony Derezinski indicated that the city regularly faces controversial decisions. A2D2 was one of those, he said, as is another one that’s coming before the planning commission later this year: changes to R4C (multi-family) zoning districts. But that’s the process, he said.

Derezinski said he was so glad to hear the planning staff praised – he read aloud several comments that he had written down during public commentary, complimenting the staff. He hoped people who had made those comments would have similar things to say the next time the staff makes a recommendation.

It’s not unheard-of for a property owner to take another bite at the apple, Derezinski said, and that’s fine. The A2D2 process was tough, and not everyone got what they wanted. But the final result is something that should be relied on, he said. Zoning was invented in order to provide certainty, he said, and the zoning for this parcel is reasonable. It’s not wrong to try to change it, he concluded, but the owner should let it rest for a while.

Kirk Westphal observed that everyone shares the excitement of changes happening in the South University area, and over the years they’ve appreciated the input of the merchants’ association and others who’ve advocated for a more active downtown. He said he believes the planning commission and staff are often informed by the economic realities of a situation, and it would be nice to have more development in the South University district.

However, Westphal said he had to concur with other commissioners. They have a track record of working out compromises when a parcel doesn’t fit the zoning, and have unanimously approved several planned unit developments and planned projects. He said it’s unusual that this parcel has been bounced around, from zoning that was too high, to zoning that was too low. But now it’s in the “Goldilocks” area, he said – presumably a reference to the zoning being “just right.”

Wendy Woods teased her colleagues, saying that everyone seemed so reasonable, and she agreed with them. When she first saw this request on the agenda for a February meeting, she thought it seemed appropriate because it was like the movie “Groundhog Day,” when everything is repeated. She said the city got it right the last time, when D2 zoning was approved. It’s also important to see the impact of the Landmark building, which is expected to be completed later this year. Woods concluded by praising the city’s planning staff for their work.

Diane Giannola said she agreed with other commissioners. She hadn’t been on planning commission at the time of the A2D2 process, but she watched deliberations on TV. It had been very intense, and there was a lot of compromise. There is no doubt that the intent was to make this parcel D2. For her, it would have made sense to zone it D1, she said, so that the entire block would have consistent zoning. She’d prefer to have a taller building there, but the will of the public overrides that. The D2 zoning doesn’t rise to the level of bad planning, she said. If it did, she added, the commission would have an obligation to say something about it.

Eric Mahler said he had supported D1 zoning for this parcel, and if it had been zoned D1 he would support keeping it that way. But it was a robust discussion and a compromise was reached for A2D2. “It is what it is,” he said, adding that he doesn’t see any appealable errors. Mahler also noted that it’s not within the planning commission’s purview to consider economic factors when making their decisions.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said she wanted to point out that the petitioner did offer to make additional conditions to the D1 zoning. City planner Alexis DiLeo explained that those conditions would include limiting the uses on the site to those allowed in D2 districts, except there would be no transportation- or industrial-oriented uses allowed. Those types of uses are permitted in D2 districts.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously against recommending the rezoning request for 1320 S. University. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Eleanore Adenekan, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Erica Briggs.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Thursday, Feb. 23 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel. (Photos by the writer)

McDaniel is asking departments to explore a “continuum of opportunities,” from cooperation on one end of the spectrum, to consolidation on the other end. As an example, she noted that the recent 911 dispatch consolidation between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – an agreement at the county board approved at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting – began as cooperation, when county dispatchers co-located with Ann Arbor’s operations.

As an initial step, at the board’s Feb. 15 meeting McDaniel will be asking for approval to restructure support services in administration, finance, information technology and facilities management. The changes entail creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers, and putting two positions – including the job of deputy county administrator – on “hold vacant” status. Another nine positions will be eliminated, while eight jobs will be created. The restructuring will result in a net reduction of three full-time jobs, and estimated annual savings of $326,422.

Commissioners were generally supportive of her proposal, though some cautioned against creating the expectation that the county can provide the same or a better level of services with reduced resources. The county is facing projected deficits of $11.6 million in 2014 and $14.7 million in 2015.

Also at the Feb. 2 working session, board chair Conan Smith gave an update on negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, saying he hopes to bring an agreement for board approval at their Feb. 15 meeting. The contract would cover animal control services for the remainder of 2012, with the intent of working toward a longer-term agreement for the coming years. The county plans to ask local municipalities that have animal control ordinances – including Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township – to help pay for services provided under contract with HSHV.

The board also got a brief update on the $1.3 million in renovations at the downtown county courthouse. The project, which started early last year when Ann Arbor’s 15th District Court vacated the courthouse to move to the city’s new Justice Center, will be wrapping up in mid-March.

The working session included an agenda briefing for the Feb. 15 meeting, but some commissioners expressed discontent at the new format, which had been implemented earlier this year. Wes Prater suggested that if the briefings do not include time for commissioners to ask questions, then the information might as well be emailed to them instead. “I believe all of us can read,” he said.

Humane Society Update

Toward the beginning of the working session, board chair Conan Smith announced that negotiations are continuing with the Humane Society of Huron Valley and that it’s his hope to bring a contract to the board’s Feb. 15 meeting for approval. Representatives from the county and HSHV have another meeting scheduled on Wednesday, Feb. 8, Smith said – he hopes to reach a resolution on outstanding issues at that meeting.

The contract would cover the remainder of 2012. HSHV’s previous contract for mandated animal control services expired at the end of 2011, and since then the county has been paying $29,000 per month for continued services.

Following the Feb. 2 working session, county administrator Verna McDaniel told The Chronicle that the county intends to form a study group with the HSHV and others to discuss a longer-term solution to the issue of countywide mandated animal control. The goal is to bring to the table other municipalities that have animal control ordinances – like the city of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township – but that do not currently make financial contributions to the county’s animal control services.

In the previous two-year contract with HSHV, the county paid $500,000 annually for animal control – for services mandated by the state as well as additional work that did not fall under the mandate. The budget approved by the county board for 2012 cut that funding to $250,000, though commissioners also discussed the possibility of paying an additional $180,000 to HSHV if the nonprofit took over work previously done by the county’s animal control officers. HSHV officials have said that even $500,000 wasn’t sufficient to cover costs for all the work they do.

Plans for Restructuring

County administrator Verna McDaniel gave an overview of restructuring plans that are underway, in response to both dwindling resources as well as a significant number of retirements at the end of 2011. She told commissioners that she wanted to provide the rationale and perspective for the restructuring effort, and to get their input as plans are developed.

McDaniel began by noting that 117 county employees retired last year, including 51 in the health and human services area and 35 in public safety and justice (including the trial court and sheriff’s office). It’s important to look at the areas where retirements occurred, she said, because some positions are supported by the general fund, while others are supported with non-general fund sources, such as grants. Restructuring efforts should consider whether there are savings to the general fund, she noted.

McDaniel then reviewed the current hiring process. The phrase “hiring freeze” is really a misnomer, she said. Human resources staff review all departmental requests to fill vacant jobs. Among other things, departments must submit a business plan and work plan related to the job, and answer a series of questions: (1) What’s the critical nature of the position to the department’s operation? (2) Can the vacant position be consolidated or reclassified with another position? (3) Do vacancies exist that can be put on “hold vacant” status or eliminated? (4) Can a temporary assignment offset the need to fill the position for a defined period?

In addition, support and supervisory positions are reviewed based on their function within a specific building, with an eye toward possible consolidation.

Funding sources are also taken into consideration, McDaniel said. It’s more likely the jobs will be filled if they are completely funded from non-general fund sources, or if the jobs are 100% revenue-generating. Other exceptions include contractual commitments – such as sheriff’s deputies who are paid through police services contracts with municipalities. There are also positions related to public safety or the provision of mandated services that need to be filled. And because the county funds the courts through a lump sum budget, court administrators have total discretion over hiring there, she said.

McDaniel described a “continuum of opportunities” that she wants county departments to explore, from cooperation on one end of the spectrum, to consolidation on the other end. She noted that the 911 dispatch consolidation between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – an agreement at the county board approved at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting – began as cooperation, when county dispatchers co-located with Ann Arbor’s operations in 2010.

Other examples from the previous budget cycle include the merger of three county departments to form the new office of community and economic development, and the relocation of the juvenile court to the downtown courthouse.

On Feb. 10, the “Group of 180″ – the county’s departmental leadership, including managers and union leaders – will meet to start talking about the process of restructuring, McDaniel said. Other elected officials who lead departments will be part of the discussion too: the county clerk, treasurer, prosecuting attorney, water resources commissioner, and sheriff.

McDaniel ended her presentation by reading a mission statement for restructuring:

Through the guidance and review of the Board of Commissioners as part of Working Sessions, all Communities of Interest within Washtenaw County shall strive to further cooperate, collaborate and consolidate services and functions, demonstrate good stewards of community resources, all while seeking to improve service delivery to our customers.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Temp Assignments

Felicia Brabec asked about the process of making a temporary assignment to fill a vacant position. She clarified with McDaniel that the assignment is typically given to another staff member who gets “bumped up,” with an 8% pay increase for taking on additional responsibilities. Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, noted that such assignments are for a defined period of time – it’s not indefinite.

Wes Prater said there seems to be a blur between responsibilities when someone is asked to take on a temporary assignment, in addition to their own job. Heidt explained that union contracts address this situation. The assignment also can enable an employee to learn a new skill set. She gave the example of teachers’ aides in the Head Start program being able to lead classrooms for a period of time, because of temporary vacancies.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Group of 180 Meeting

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked about the Feb. 10 meeting – when would it be held, and where? Is it open to commissioners? He indicated that he wanted to attend.

McDaniel replied that the Group of 180 meets quarterly to discuss leadership and operational issues. The name stems from a time when there were 180 department heads, managers and union leaders – the number is smaller now. Commissioners haven’t been invited because often the meetings focus on operational issues, like training, she said. On Feb. 10, much of the meeting will involve a discussion about internal audit controls, for example, in addition to the talk about restructuring.

Sizemore again asked for the time and location. The meeting begins at 8:30 a.m., McDaniel said, at the Washtenaw Community College’s Morris Lawrence Building.

Conan Smith said what he’s hearing from McDaniel is that she’d prefer commissioners not to attend the meeting. He felt it was inappropriate for commissioners to get involved at that operational level.

Saying she’d never tell commissioners not to attend, McDaniel nevertheless indicated that Smith was correct. The meetings are intended to encourage open dialogue among staff, she said. But although commissioners haven’t been invited in the past, that’s not to say things couldn’t change, she added. McDaniel said she thought the meetings might bore commissioners, but the sessions aren’t secret.

Sizemore said he agreed with Smith that commissioners shouldn’t get involved in operations. But if McDaniel is asking for his support in restructuring, he needs to be informed – the more he learns, the easier it will be for him to support restructuring, Sizemore said. “So I’ll be there.”

Wes Prater cautioned that any commissioner who attends needs to be aware of their role, and only go as an observer. Leah Gunn said she wouldn’t dream of going.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Mission Statement

Gunn praised the restructuring mission statement. The county’s role is to provide services – both mandated and non-mandated – with diminishing resources. It’s the board’s job to set priorities for that, she said.

Alicia Ping noted that for a long time, employees have been asked to do more with less. But there comes a point when you can only do so much with the resources you have, she said. It’s wonderful to say the goal is to “improve service delivery,” Ping said, but she doesn’t want it to seem that the county is able to do more than it actually can. Employees might feel they’re asked to do too much, she added: ”I don’t want anyone to get stressed out because they’re trying to achieve mission impossible.”

Dan Smith said he agreed with Ping. In terms of services, the county would be happy to maintain the status quo, given the financial circumstances.

Yousef Rahbi noted that focusing on customers is key as the county restructures. He appreciated seeing that in the mission statement.

Rob Turner said he loved the mission statement. This kind of focus needs to happen all the time, not just during hard financial times, he said. How the county government delivers services has an impact on how residents view the county, he said. It’s important to do a few things well, he added, rather than to do a lot of things not very well.

Prater asked whether levels of services will examined as part of the restructuring. McDaniel said the staff will be looking at how to make services more efficient, from the front counter to the back office. For example, if a building currently has multiple entry points and a staff person is located at each entry to handle customers, perhaps it makes more sense to have one entry into the building, and one staff person to direct customers to the appropriate office. These kinds of ideas will be put on the table, she said, then the staff can talk about whether operational changes can make it work.

Employees are the best source of information regarding potential changes, Prater said, as long as administration is clear about the outcomes it’s looking for.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Retirements

Felicia Brabec asked for more details about the 51 retirements in health and human services area. McDaniel said that most were in the public health department and the community support & treatment services (CSTS) department. Heidt added that in the public safety and justice area, the bulk of the 35 retirements were in the trial court, though there were also some in the sheriff’s office.

Dan Smith asked for some clarification on how many retirements were in positions funded by the general fund, compared to non-general fund jobs. Heidt replied that most of the 51 retirements in health and human services were non-general fund positions. In contrast, most of the 35 public safety and justice retirements were in general fund jobs.

Smith also asked for an example of a 100% revenue-generating job. Heidt said such jobs could be funded through grants or contracts. For example, 13 dispatch operators will be classified as 100% revenue generating, because the positions are funded through a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. Another example would be the county’s emergency management jobs that are paid for with a state grant. Heidt also gave an example of non-general fund positions: Employees with the county parks and recreation department, who are funded by a dedicated millage.

Plans for Restructuring: Commissioner Discussion – Budget Outcomes

Dan Smith noted that the words “cooperate, collaborate and consolidate” are used a lot, but it should be clear that these actions are the means to an end. The county isn’t consolidating for consolidation’s sake, he said. They’re doing it because of financial circumstances.

Wes Prater asked whether budget outcomes are driving the decisions to restructure. That’s the primary driver, McDaniel replied.

Yousef Rahbi reminded commissioners that at the previous working session, they had discussed the need to start talking about the next two-year budget cycle – for 2014-2015. [The county's fiscal years are based on calendar years, and budgets are developed in two-year periods. The most recent budget, approved in November 2011, covered 2012 and 2013.] Rabhi said it’s productive to think about 2014-2015 as they move through this restructuring process.

Rabhi also asked how McDaniel would be encouraging employees to participate – how would ideas for restructuring be solicited? There’s never any foot-dragging, McDaniel replied. Generally, department heads and managers are always looking for ways to improve services and deliver them more efficiently, she said. In fact, there are usually more suggestions for restructuring than the organization can implement – it’s difficult to do, McDaniel said. So she did not have any additional plans for outreach.

Rabhi praised McDaniel for proposing to restructure her own department, saying that it’s a great way to set an example. McDaniel said she felt it was necessary to practice what she’s preaching.

At the board’s Feb. 15 meeting, McDaniel will be asking for approval to restructure support services in administration, finance, information technology and facilities management. The changes entail creating a new “cross-lateral” team of four current senior managers: Kelly Belknap, director of finance; Greg Dill, infrastructure management director; Curtis Hedger, corporation counsel; and Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations.

The position of deputy county administrator – which has been vacant since April 2011 – and one other position will be put on “hold vacant” status. Another nine positions will be eliminated, while eight jobs will be created. The restructuring will result in a net reduction of three full-time jobs, and estimated annual savings of $326,422.

Rob Turner called the overall restructuring the perfect springboard to launch into the next budget cycle. He asked for more information about the internal audit, saying it would be a pivotal report.

Belknap, who’s currently serving as interim deputy administrator, replied that the Group of 180 meeting on Feb. 10 will be the kickoff for the internal audit process. [At its June 1, 2011 meeting, the board had authorized hiring the professional services firm Experis (formerly known as Jefferson Wells) for $87,500 to perform internal auditing services for the county for one year, with the possibility of extending the contract over additional years.]

The audit’s first step entails a survey of current internal controls, she said. Then Experis will conduct an audit on a limited number of departments. Belknap said she expects a report will be ready for commissioners in the spring or early summer.

Plans for Restructuring: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the working session, Nancy Heine – president of AFSCME Local 3052, which represents about 50 county employees who have supervisory jobs – raised concerns about some of the proposed administrative restructuring changes that commissioners will be voting on at their Feb. 15 meeting. The plan calls for eliminating two senior accounting positions that are part of the union, she said, and creating two non-union jobs in their place with a higher salary range.

Heine noted that this kind of situation has occurred in the past, and the union has restored the positions by filing a complaint with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC). She said the union wants to work with the administration and human resources to resolve this issue, but the union will have to pursue whatever options are necessary.

In response to Heine’s commentary, Yousef Rabhi noted that the proposed restructuring also involves a non-union job being reclassified as a job represented by Local 3052. That position is in the information technology group. Rabhi said it’s a concern to lose the two union jobs, but at least another one is being created.

Diane Heidt, director of human services and labor relations, noted that several jobs are being reclassified, and that commissioners would be given more details about the changes before their vote on Feb. 15.

Trial Court Renovations

Jason Fee with the county facilities unit gave an update on renovations at the county courthouse in downtown Ann Arbor, located at Main and Huron. The courthouse houses the Washtenaw County trial court, an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, juvenile court, probate court and Friend of the Court program.

From left: Greg Dill, county infrastructure management director; Bob Tetens, director of county parks & recreation; trial court administrator Dan Dwyer; and Dave Shirley, county operations and maintenance manager.

There were two main phases, Fee said. The first phase, which cost about $300,000, started in early 2011 after the 15th District Court moved out of the courthouse and into the city’s new Justice Center at Fifth and Huron. The second floor of the county courthouse was remodeled to create a new jury assembly room, and the third floor was renovated for the juvenile court, which was previously located at a Platt Road facility.

The second phase – focusing on first-floor renovations and costing about $1 million – is still underway. The first floor is where the public comes to do its court-related business, Fee said. Renovations included an active file room; offices for the Washtenaw County Bar Association, Legal Resource Center, and court administration; and a new staff lunchroom.

First-floor renovations began in August of 2011 and are scheduled to wrap up by March 16, 2012 – though Fee said the work might be finished sooner. He credited Dan Dwyer, court administrator, for working hand-in-hand on the design and execution of the work, and said the county saved money by keeping much of the labor in-house.

Fee told commissioners that they’d get another update at their March 8 working session, with a tour scheduled for March 22.

Trial Court Renovations: Commissioner Discussion

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked a question he’s voiced at other meetings: Is chief judge Donald Shelton happy with the work? Court administrator Dan Dwyer quipped: “He’s as happy as he gets!”

In response to another question from Sizemore, Fee said that renovations to the exterior of the courthouse aren’t part of this current project. Wes Prater encouraged Fee to look at the outside of the courthouse along the Main Street side, saying there are parts of the wall that look like they’re ready to fall off.

Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, told commissioners that staff planned to look at possible exterior work in the spring.

Rob Turner, the commissioner who has acted as a liaison for this project, described himself as usually a hard-head, but said it had been a pleasure to work with Fee and others on this effort. He noted that last year the project had been behind schedule, but they had managed to pull it back together and finish possibly ahead of schedule and on budget.

Sizemore commended the fact that the county’s facilities department was getting an intern to work with them. He encouraged the IT (information technology) department to do the same thing. Even though there’s not as much new housing construction now, Sizemore said, young people can still learn to work on construction projects like the courthouse renovation. It gives them hope that they’ll be able to find a job in this field, he said.

Agenda Briefings

At the Jan. 4, 2012 board meeting, commissioners had voted to change the start time of working sessions to 6 p.m. and add the administrative briefing as the session’s first agenda item. Previously the administrative briefings – held to review the board’s upcoming agenda – were held at 4 p.m. the week prior to a regular board meeting. It had been a difficult time of day for some commissioners to attend.

At the Feb. 2 working session, Alicia Ping expressed some frustration about the new format. The intent was good, she said, but it’s not working. She indicated that because the briefings are held so far ahead of the next meeting – nearly two weeks in advance – many items on the agenda aren’t finalized, and commissioners can’t get enough information to make the briefings productive.

Leah Gunn noted that the briefings are just that – briefings. They are meant to give commissioners an indication of what will be on the agenda, she said, but they aren’t meant to be detailed.

Wes Prater said that if the briefings are only meant to be informational, he didn’t see the point. Why not just email commissioners the agenda information instead? ”I believe all of us can read,” he said. “If we’re not going to talk about it, I don’t have a problem with that.”

Conan Smith pointed out that the agenda isn’t finalized until the week prior to the next meeting. The Feb. 15 meeting agenda, for example, won’t be set until Wednesday, Feb. 8. It won’t be posted publicly until Friday, Feb. 10. The idea for the briefings is to give commissioners a heads up for the big items that will likely be coming before them, he said.

As for when the briefings are held, and who attends, Smith described it as ”a crazy nightmare” to figure out, adding that they’ve tried scheduling it “seven ways from Sunday.”

In March 2011 the board had voted to eliminate the briefings entirely. That decision was made in the wake of criticisms by commissioner Ronnie Peterson, who did not attend the briefings during that period because of his objections to the format. He had called the briefings “backroom” meetings where deliberations occurred that he believed were too far out of the public eye. [The briefings are posted in accordance with the state's Open Meetings Act and The Chronicle has attended nearly all of the public briefings since late 2008.]

After that March 2011 vote, a weekly agenda-setting meeting took the place of briefings, attended by senior staff and just three commissioners: Smith, as board chair; Rolland Sizemore Jr., chair of the ways & means committee; and Yousef Rabhi, chair of the working sessions. Because the meetings did not involve a quorum of commissioners, they were not be required to be open to the public.

Later in the year, the briefings were re-instituted. The 2012 calendar approved by the board at its Dec. 7, 2011 meeting included administrative briefings scheduled at 4 p.m. on the Tuesday during the week prior to the board’s regular Wednesday meetings. They were changed to the current schedule – as part of the board’s workings sessions – to accommodate the schedules of more commissioners, and to be included as part of a televised meeting. [Working sessions are broadcast by Community Television Network and available on the county's website.]

After the brief discussion on Feb. 2, the consensus appeared to be that the briefings would remain a part of the working sessions.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Ronnie Peterson.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Local attorney Stefani Carter talks with Rolland Sizemore Jr., chair of the county board's ways & means committee, before the Feb. 1, 2012 meeting. Carter will be filling in for the county's corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, who is taking a three-month medical leave. (Photos by the writer.)

Items not on the agenda took up much of the meeting time. As he has in the past, commissioner Wes Prater raised concerns over a countywide transit plan being developed by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. It’s expected that the county board will eventually be asked to authorize a four-party agreement with the AATA and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, but that agreement has not yet been formally presented to the board. [The Ann Arbor city council has postponed its ratification of the four-party agreement twice, and has been asked by the AATA to postpone the issue again at the council's Feb. 6 meeting. That postponement would be until March 5.]

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel introduced local attorney Stefani Carter, who’ll be filling in while corporation counsel Curtis Hedger is on medical leave. Carter has been doing contract work for the county, and previously spent 15 years with the Ann Arbor city attorney’s office.

Speaking at the time for public commentary, Billy Salamey – owner of three towing companies in the county – defended accusations that have been levied against his business during a recent bidding process for towing services with the sheriff’s office. Salamey’s commentary in turn prompted board chair Conan Smith to defend the county’s bidding process, which Smith described as transparent and fair.

Among the formal actions taken during Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners authorized a five-year, $460,000 extension to a project aimed at improving conditions at Whitmore Lake. They also gave final approval to a two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors.

Medical Leave for County Attorney

Toward the beginning of Wednesday’s meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel reported that Curtis Hedger, Washtenaw County’s corporation counsel, was taking medical leave. McDaniel introduced local attorney Stefani Carter, who will be handling Hedger’s responsibilities in his absence.

The three-month, part-time medical leave follows a diagnosis of congestive heart failure in January. Hedger told The Chronicle that he plans to work a limited number of hours per week, and will help Carter transition into her role with the county. Carter has been serving as “of counsel” with the county on a contract basis, and Hedger recommended her for this new role. Early in her career Carter worked in the county prosecuting attorney’s office, and later spent 15 years as an assistant city attorney for Ann Arbor.

At the Feb. 1 meeting, Carter told commissioners that she was happy to be there, but ”I hope my term of service will be short, as we hope Curtis comes back as soon as possible.”

Toward the end of the three-month leave, Hedger said he’ll undergo additional testing that could determine whether he’ll return to his job on a full-time basis, continue part-time work, or retire.

Later in the meeting, commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. said that the situation would be a good time to examine the county’s legal expenses and to make sure there’s a fair distribution of work around the county.

In addition to Hedger’s salary of about $117,000, the county contracts with other attorneys to handle its legal work. Documents provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by The Chronicle in 2011 show that the county spent $4.83 million on outside legal counsel during the five-year period from 2006-2010. [.pdf of 2006-2010 itemized legal expenses]

During that five-year period, the county used 19 firms. But the bulk of the expenses – $4.152 million – were paid to just five firms: Dykema Gossett ($1.45 million), Reach Law Firm ($1.38 million), Miller Johnson ($869,824), Gallagher & Gallagher ($246,645) and Timothy McDaniel ($203,635). (McDaniel is the husband of county administrator Verna McDaniel.)

Much of Dykema’s work related to its role as outside counsel for a lawsuit filed against the county in 2006 by the townships of Ypsilanti, Salem and Augusta over the cost of police services. The county board voted to accept a settlement in mid-2011, but the settlement did not include recovery of the county’s legal expenses. Other legal expenses handled by the 19 law firms relate to real estate, litigation, bond issues and a range of other matters.

The response to a Chronicle FOIA request for 2011 legal expenses, filed last week, will be forthcoming.

Countywide Transit

During one of the opportunities for commissioners to bring up items for current or future discussion, Wes Prater said he wanted to address the issue of a four-party agreement for countywide transit. It’s a topic he has raised at previous meetings as well, most recently at the board’s Jan. 18, 2012 meeting, where he expressed concerns about the county’s role.

WEMU reporter Andy Cluley interviews county commissioner Wes Prater.

On Wednesday, Prater observed that the project seems to be stalled. He then read a statement outlining some of his concerns. [.pdf of Prater's statement] He highlighted the Ann Arbor  Transportation Authority’s cost per passenger ride, which he calculated to be about $5 per rider – based on a $30 million budget and about 6 million riders. Prater also claimed that fewer than 1.25 average passengers are riding per route for each hour of service provided.

By way of explanation, Prater arrives at his artificially low number by starting with the AATA’s systemwide average: 32 passengers per service hour. He then divides that number by the number of routes – 26.

However, the “passengers per service hour” statistic is in concept already finer-grained than an individual route. A “service hour” is an hour of operation for an individual revenue-producing vehicle. And a single route can have more than one vehicle operating on it at the same time. It’s not clear how insight can be gained into route-wise performance by dividing the systemwide average by the number of routes – as Prater has done. That would be akin to trying to learn about household income levels by dividing average personal income by the number of households.

The AATA collects and maintains passenger-per-service-hour data for each route. And those numbers range from a high of nearly 46 passengers per service hour on Route 9 to a low of 11 passengers per service hour on Route 17 in the most recent year.

Prater went on to suggest that AATA discuss these issues with the county board, in light of the four-party agreement that the board will be asked to approve in the near future.

County commissioners were most recently briefed on the AATA’s countywide transit plan at the board’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting. At that meeting, AATA CEO Michael Ford gave a presentation and answered questions, and addressed the county’s role in the process of forming a new countywide transit authority.

The four-party agreement – with the AATA, Washtenaw County, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – has not yet been placed on the agenda for the county board. It is being considered by the Ann Arbor city council, which has postponed action on the agreement two times. At a public hearing on the issue at the council’s Jan. 23 meeting, county commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. spoke in support of the countywide plan. The Ann Arbor city council had planned to discuss the agreement at its Feb. 6 meeting. But in the most recent development, on Friday, Feb. 3, the AATA requested that the city council postpone a decision on the four-party transit agreement until March 5.

Later in the Feb. 1 meeting, Prater said his statement didn’t mean that he doesn’t support public transit. He’s just concerned about the process for forming a countywide transit authority. Prater said he didn’t think AATA had been forthcoming on all items related to the plan. He also said that a financial advisory group, which was expected to release a report on Friday, Jan. 27 with recommendations on funding a countywide transit system, decided against “turning it loose,” he said. “That’s unfortunate.”

The advisory group, co-chaired by former county administrator Bob Guenzel, postponed its Jan. 27 meeting in the wake of state legislation that had been introduced the previous day – on Jan. 26. The 17-bill package, if passed, would provide for the establishment and funding of a regional transit authority that would include Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties.

Whitmore Lake Improvement Project

On the Feb. 1 agenda was a resolution to give initial approval to a five-year, $460,000 project to study and improve conditions at Whitmore Lake. The lake is located in Washtenaw County’s Northfield Township and Livingston County’s Green Oak Township.

The effort – focusing on removal of invasive weeds – is a continuation of a project that began in 2003, and was renewed in 2007. It’s overseen by the county board of public works. The project’s cost will be recovered through special assessments on over 860 parcels near Whitmore Lake.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked for additional details of the project. Jeff Krcmarik, an environmental supervisor with the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, said the project began in 2003 after residents living near Whitmore Lake asked for the county’s help. Invasive weeds was inhibiting recreational activities, he said, and limiting the lake’s biodiversity. The assessments require renewal every five years.

Krcmarik pointed commissioners to the project’s website for more information and historical reports.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the Whitemore Lake project. A final vote is expected at the board’s Feb. 15 meeting.

AFSCME Local 3052 Contract Approved

Without discussion, the board gave final approval to a two-year collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME Local 3052, representing 52 general supervisors. The agreement had been ratified by its membership, and had received initial approval from commissioners at their Jan. 18, 2012 meeting.

AFSCME Local 3052 was one of five bargaining units – out of 17 units representing county employees – that did not reach an agreement with the county by the end of 2011, when its previous contracts expired. Negotiations continue with the other four units – representing the prosecuting attorneys, the prosecuting attorney supervisors, attorneys in the public defenders office, supervisors of attorneys in the public defenders office.

The new agreement, which runs from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013, calls for a 10% retirement contribution from employees, and a 10-year vesting period for new hires. Employees will take 10 unpaid “bank leave” days in 2012 and 2013, with no furlough days imposed. Though bank leave and furlough days are similar – both are unpaid – the bank leave days do not affect calculations toward an employee’s retirement or longevity pay.

The default health care plan will comply with the state’s hard cap on costs. The cap limits the amount that public employers can contribute toward employee healthcare annually: $5,500 for single-person coverage, $11,000 for individual and spouse coverage, and $15,000 for family coverage. Employees have the option to upgrade their plans for additional annual costs of $2,724 or $1,772, based on the plan.

The agreement also eliminates longevity pay for new hires, and reduces longevity pay by 25% for current employees in 2012. Step increases will be frozen for 2013. The collective bargaining agreement stipulates that if county property tax revenues increase by at least 2% on or before Dec. 31, 2012, a 1% wage increase would become effective Jan. 1, 2013.

Outcome: Commissioners gave final approval to a new contract with AFSCME Local 3052.

Workers Comp Contracts Authorized

Commissioners were asked to approve a resolution authorizing two contracts: (1) for the third-party administration of claims services for the workers’ disability compensation program from 2012-2015; and (2) for excess workers’ disability compensation insurance coverage from Feb. 1, 2012 through May 1, 2013.

The agreement for third-party administration of claims services was awarded to Broadspire Services Inc., based in Atlanta. It calls for paying Broadspire $36,750 in each of the first and second years, and $37,565 in the third year of the contract. Broadspire is the county’s current vendor for these services.

The contract for excess insurance coverage above $500,000 was awarded to St. Louis-based Safety National. The agreement calls for paying the company $62,297 for the period of February 2012 through May 2013. The resolution approved by the board also authorizes the county administrator to negotiate one-year extensions through May 1, 2015. According to a staff memo, the insurance coverage will be used to protect the county from potential worker’s compensation losses over the next year. Safety National is the county’s current excess insurance vendor.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution related to two contracts for the workers compensation program.

Public Commentary: Towing Contract

One person spoke during the opportunity for public commentary. Billy Salamey introduced himself as a Superior Township resident and owner of three towing companies. [His businesses include Budget Towing, Stadium Towing and Glen Ann Towing.]

Billy Salamey, left, talks with Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith after the Feb. 1 meeting.

Salamey said he was there to talk about allegations that had been made against his company by a competitor. It was frustrating, he said, because he felt that his character had been defamed. He said he conducts his business with integrity and honesty, and he cited several examples of work in the community to make his point.

By way of background, Salamey was referring to a letter sent to the board of commissioners on Jan. 25, 2012 from Ed Lee, towing manager of Aachen Auto in Ypsilanti. Lee objected to the process of choosing companies for towing contracts with the sheriff’s office, alleging that a company had submitted a fraudulent bid. Lee criticized the bidding process, stating that the contract extension process “has historically violated the rights of every towing company within Washtenaw County that didn’t currently have the contract.”

In his letter, Lee requested time at the Feb. 1 meeting to discuss the issue with the board. The letter did not refer to Salamey or his business by name. [.pdf of Lee's letter] However, no presentation on the issue was made at Wednesday’s meeting.

During his time at public commentary, Salamey thanked the county for conducting due diligence in responding to the allegations.

Bob Mossing, business manager for the sheriff’s office, had responded to Lee’s allegations in a Jan. 27 memo to Angela Perry, the county’s purchasing manager – the memo was also cc-ed to the county board. Mossing noted in the memo that “no official action has been taken relative to this RFP or awarding any areas to any tow companies.” [.pdf of memo from Mossing] [.pdf of original RFP, issued in June of 2011]

Public Commentary: Towing Contract – Commissioner Response

Conan Smith, chair of the board, responded to Salamey’s comments by saying that the county prides itself on the transparency of its processes. The bids were vetted by the county’s corporation counsel and sheriff’s office, he said, and the bids were found to be in compliance with the county’s policies. He said he appreciated that Salamey attended the meeting, and that the county has a fair, solid bidding process.

Present: Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Absent: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Baseball field #4 at Veterans Memorial Park will be among fields at three parks that will be renovated, if the Ann Arbor city council approves a recommendation of the park advisory commission. (Photos by the writer.)

PAC unanimously recommended awarding a nearly $1 million contract to RMD Holdings of Chesterfield, Michigan, for renovation of ballfields at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park. If approved by the city council, work would begin after the 2012 summer season. Ann Arbor Rec & Ed – a unit of the Ann Arbor Public Schools – plans to cancel its fall season in light of the project. Teams playing in Rec & Ed programs are the primary users of these fields.

Commissioners also got an update on the status of West Park renovations – specifically, how problems with an underground stormwater system are being addressed. City engineer Nick Hutchinson described plans for repairing the system, saying that legal issues are still being worked out, but the project will likely be completed by July of 2012. A public forum will be held on Feb. 13 at Slauson Middle School to update residents. At a similar meeting held in mid-January, residents raised concerns over whether the situation in West Park has caused flooding in nearby basements.

Also at PAC’s Jan. 24 meeting, commissioner Gwen Nystuen urged the group to consider taking action on the Allen Creek greenway, in light of remarks made by mayor John Hieftje at the city council’s Jan. 23 meeting regarding the city-owned 415 W. Washington property. Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, reported that there’s been discussion about possibly applying for a state grant to help fund the greenway, but the timeline for applying this year is tight. He also suggested that an initial step would be to develop a master plan for the greenway, as recommended in the city’s parks, recreation and open space plan.

Near the beginning of the meeting, commissioner Sam Offen introduced the new executive director for the Leslie Science & Nature Center, Susan Westhoff, who spoke briefly to commissioners. Offen is a board member of the center, a nonprofit that’s located on city property.

Ballfield Renovations

The main action item on the Jan. 24 agenda was a resolution recommending a nearly $1 million contract to renovate softball and baseball fields at three city parks.

If approved by the city council, the $982,333 contract would be awarded to RMD Holdings of Chesterfield, Michigan. That amount includes a $893,030 base bid plus a 10% contingency of $89,303. It was the lowest of four bids received for the project, which will focus on the fenced ballparks at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park. Originally, the city had intended to include fields at Allmendinger Park as well, but bids came in higher than expected, and that work was eliminated from the project.

The renovations have been in the works for more than two years. At PAC’s September 2010 meeting, commissioner David Barrett gave a report on the condition of the city’s ballparks after personally surveying them. [.pdf file of Barrett's ballpark report] According to a staff memo accompanying the Jan. 24 resolution, no major restoration work has been done on the fields in more than 10 years.

Staff from Ann Arbor Rec & Ed, a unit of the public school system, will work with city staff on this project – Rec & Ed programs are the primary users of these fields. Construction will likely begin in mid-August of 2012, with fields ready for use again in early spring of 2013. Rec & Ed plans to cancel its fall season to accommodate the project.

Funding will be drawn from three sources: (1) $250,000 from the approved FY 2012 parks maintenance and capital improvements millage budget; (2) $64,000 from an unobligated remaining fund balance in the expired park repair and restoration millage; and (3) $668,333 from the unobligated fund balance of the existing parks maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Deputy parks manager Jeff Straw and Matt Warba, the city’s supervisor of field operations, briefed PAC on the proposal. Straw noted that in collecting feedback for the 2010 update to the parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan, the city heard loud and clear that people wanted better maintenance of the fields. The fields – used for baseball, softball and kickball – drew more than 5,000 players during the summer and fall seasons in 2011, Straw said.

Warba noted that when the city had a larger parks staff, renovations of the fields occurred every 10 years. Now, that’s no longer possible to do in-house, he said. Describing the current conditions of the fields, Warba said they are poorly graded, with poor drainage that results in water pooling in the infield, which limits play. The material used for the infield makes it dusty in the summer, and doesn’t allow water to drain quickly when it rains.

For the outfields, the playing surfaces are uneven, Warba said, the turf is in poor condition, and the warning tracks are filled with weeds. Fencing is deteriorating and damaged, and many of the backstops don’t have overhangs.

Upgrades will include regrading the infields, removing the infield lip, replacing the existing infield material with red clay, and installing drainage around the infield’s perimeter. Fencing will be replaced, automated irrigation systems will be installed, field turf will be restored, and concrete will be used for floors of the dugouts and bleacher pads.

Warba told commissioners that Stantec had drawn up designs for the project, and that the lowest “responsible” bid came from RMD Holdings, a company with prior experience doing this work.

Ballfield Renovations: Commission Discussion

Karen Levin asked whether other fields in the city’s parks system can be used to play on during the renovations. Warba said there are 24 other neighborhood fields available. The next phase of this project will be upgrading those as well, he said. Straw added that Rec & Ed decided to cancel its fall season in part because lighting would be a challenge – most of the other ballfields don’t have lights.

Colin Smith, the city’s manager of parks and recreation, noted that no matter how the renovations are handled, it will be inconvenient. Rec & Ed staff felt this would be the best approach, he said. Rec & Ed director Sara Aeschbach told commissioners that players had been surveyed about their preferences, and the strong preference was to preserve the summer season. Using the neighborhood ballparks is too difficult in the fall, because it gets dark earlier. She said players are excited that the fields will be improved.

Gwen Nystuen asked about the material that would be used under the team benches. Will it be a pervious surface? Water drainage is important, she noted. Warba replied that the area will be designed with an angle to allow water to flow off the surface. Pervious materials weren’t considered, he said, though there’s still time to make changes.

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor's parks and recreation manager.

Smith noted that the majority of players wear cleats, which would create problems for any pervious surface. He also pointed out that significant stormwater improvements will be made in that section of Veterans Memorial Park, as part of the Dexter-Ann Arbor street repair project.

Nystuen said that in general, whenever they can install pervious surfaces, it will make a difference in helping address stormwater runoff.

Christopher Taylor asked whether the ballpark renovations would coordinate in any way with the possible skatepark construction at Vets. Smith replied that it’s unlikely the skatepark construction will begin by August – it’s more likely that work on the project will start in the spring of 2013. In response to another query from Taylor, Smith indicated that construction equipment used to build the skatepark isn’t expected to damage the work done on the ballfields.

Mike Anglin said he assumed that the parks staff had coordinated this project with the road work being done along Dexter-Ann Arbor. Yes, Smith said. The stretch of Dexter-Ann Arbor along Veterans Memorial Park, east of Maple, will likely be closed from April through November. That’s another good reason for the fall season to be canceled, Smith said, adding that a lot of coordination will be needed.

Julie Grand observed that rates for using the fields at Fuller and Olson parks increased after those fields were renovated. Would rates also be increased at the ballfields after renovations?

Aeschbach said that Rec & Ed charges fees to cover the cost of prepping the fields for play, and those costs won’t change. It’s up to the city, she said, to set the actual rental rates for the fields. Many user groups no longer play on city fields because of the damaged conditions, she said, so demand isn’t high. Perhaps after the fields are renovated, the city can check to see if those groups will return and pay a higher rate.

Smith noted that this project is in line with the philosophy of taking care of and restoring what the city already owns. The ballfields are eyesores, he said, and not good for playing. In addition, Veterans Memorial Park is located at one of the major entry points into town – the corner of Maple and Dexter-Ann Arbor roads. The area needs attention, he said, and the city is undertaking a major effort to do that, in part to respond to feedback from users.

Outcome: Commissioner voted unanimously to recommend approval of the $982,333 contract with RMD Holdings for ballfield renovations at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

West Park Update

Commissioners had received an update on problems at West Park nearly a year ago, when Craig Hupy – head of systems planning for the city – spoke at PAC’s February 2011 meeting. At that time, Hupy had described the situation with the stormwater infrastructure there as a “catastrophic failure.”

PAC got a more detailed briefing at its Jan. 24 meeting. Parks planner Amy Kuras introduced Nick Hutchinson, a civil engineer and one of the project managers in the city’s public services unit, who was on hand to give an update on the status of swirl concentrators at West Park. It was a shortened version of a similar presentation he’d given at a public forum on the topic earlier in January. Kuras reported that forum had been well-attended.

Nick Hutchinson, an engineer and project manager with the city of Ann Arbor, updated PAC on the status of infrastructure renovations at West Park.

Hutchinson began by giving a brief history of stormwater management in West Park. Originally, north and south branches of Allen Creek flowed over the surface through the land that’s now West Park. In the early 20th century, Washtenaw County built drains through the park to collect stormwater, and directed the flow of Allen Creek into underground pipes. There’s also a sanitary sewer main that runs underground through the park. Hutchinson showed a map that indicated the location of the floodway and floodplain running through the park, as well as the location of the sewer main and county drains.

Over the years, conditions worsened. Deteriorating recreational facilities and uncontrolled flooding in the park led to certain areas being underused.

In 2010, the city renovated West Park, including its bandshell, basketball courts and pathways. The project also included upgrades for stormwater management, Hutchinson said. [The total project, supported in part by federal stimulus funds, cost about $4 million.]

The stormwater portion of the project included installation of some water treatment units – swirl concentrators – on the west side of the park, in the north and south branches of the Allen Creek drain. The purpose was to divert some of the water from the stormwater system, treat it, and remove pollutants before reintroducing it into the system to flow eventually into the Huron River.

Another part of the stormwater management was to remove a nominal amount of water from the stormwater pipes by disconnecting the inlets from North Seventh Street and sending some of the water back to the surface, as it had flowed historically. Water was diverted to a series of bioswales that led to wetlands and ponds as it flowed east through the park.

When construction was being completed around November 2010, Hutchinson reported, a sinkhole appeared on the west side of the park near the drain’s north branch, where the swirl concentrators were located. “These are maybe some of the things that didn’t go quite right on the project,” he said, “that we are still trying to address now.”

The contractor investigated and discovered that the lid on a swirl concentrator had caved in. Cameras were sent down into the other units and it was discovered that all four units on the north branch were in some stage of failure.

This photo, part of the meeting packet for the Jan. 24 park advisory commission, shows the installation of a swirl concentrator at West Park in the summer of 2010.

Hutchinson explained how the swirl concentrators are supposed to work. Water is diverted from the main stormwater pipe through a device called a diversion manhole, containing a 3.5-foot “weir wall” that prevents the water from flowing directly into the main stormwater system. Instead, the diverted water flows into a large cylinder, where it swirls around in a vortex. The solids in the water are forced to the center of the unit, where the velocity of the swirling is slower and the solids settle down to the bottom. The water exits into a pipe on the other side of the unit and is reintroduced into the stormwater system.

During normal conditions or a light rain, most of the water is diverted. But in heavy rainfall, only a portion of the water is diverted – the rest flows over the weir wall and continues directly through the stormwater system, without passing through the swirl concentrators.

A total of eight swirl concentrators were installed – four on the north branch, and four on the south branch. Each unit cost about $66,000, including construction. They were initially installed in June of 2010.

In August of 2010, the four units in the south branch were taken offline because of concerns that the weir wall wasn’t operating correctly, Hutchinson said. The wall wasn’t allowing higher flows to pass through the system during heavy rains. Then in November of 2010, after the swirl concentrator collapsed on the north branch, all four of those units were also taken offline. The weir wall was removed from the diversion manhole, and a bulkhead was installed to block the pipe that led to the swirl concentrators. Since then, water has flowed directly through the stormwater pipes – none of it is diverted to the swirl concentrators. The stormwater system is functioning as it did prior to 2010, Hutchinson said.

In late 2010, the city hired Orchard Hiltz & McCliment (OHM) to look into the situation. OHM began by doing a forensic investigation of the swirl concentrator failures, and determined that the lids of those units were too thin, causing the collapse. ”It was essentially a manufacturing flaw,” Hutchinson said.

OHM also reviewed the prior design of the diversion manholes and weir walls, and conducted some site-specific stormwater modeling to get an understanding of how stormwater behaves in the system. They used that information to present some ideas for improving the system, Hutchinson said. [In November 2010, city council authorized an additional $119,000 for OHM to complete these tasks. That brought total payment to OHM for the West Park project to $324,000. An August 2011 city staff memo indicated that the city expects to recover any additional costs due to the failures, either from the manufacturer or the firm that made the initial design, Beckett & Raeder Inc.]

With a failure of this magnitude there are legal issues, Hutchinson said, including disputes regarding who’s at fault – the contractor (Site Development Inc.) or the manufacturer (AquaShield Inc. and L.F. Manufacturing). He said he couldn’t discuss those issues, except to say that the parties seem to be getting very close to reaching a resolution. The legal issues shouldn’t hold up completion of the project, he said.

Next steps include refining the design of the diversion manholes and weir walls. In addition, residents have raised concerns about manhole covers being popped off during heavy rains, because of pressure from excess water in the system. So OHM is looking at redesigning the system to provide some relief options so that pressure will be eased during storms.

Another public meeting will be held on Feb. 13 at Slauson Middle School. At that meeting, city staff will review OHM’s draft design, and discuss the technical issues that led to the design, Hutchinson said.

In May and June of 2012, the manufacturer will make repairs on the units. Following that, the city will hire a contractor to make the changes that OHM proposes to the diversion manholes and weir walls. City staff hope to have that work completed by July of 2012, Hutchinson said.

West Park Update: Commission Discussion

John Lawter asked whether there are concerns that the shutdown of the swirl concentrators is affecting water detention capability, making it difficult to control floodwater. No, Hutchinson said – the purpose of the swirl concentrators isn’t water detention, but rather to improve the water quality as it flows through.

Are there problems in terms of how much water the units can handle? Lawter asked. If too much water is sent through the units, Hutchinson replied, the water will simply bypass the units and flow over the weir wall, going directly into the stormwater system. Capacity is not a concern. The redesign of the weirs and diversion manholes will ensure that the right amount of water gets in, he said.

Lawter raised the issue of basements flooding in that area, and wondered whether that problem is related to the situation at West Park. An improperly designed weir structure could cause back-ups upstream, Hutchinson said. Any design that’s installed in the future will be studied to ensure that it doesn’t cause any upstream disturbances, he added.

Sam Offen noted that this concern was raised by residents at the January public meeting on West Park. Offen agreed that the issue either needed to be resolved through the new design, or that information should be provided to residents to explain the situation.

Offen also asked how construction would affect the active areas of the park. The work will happen on the park’s west side, Hutchinson said. Access to the ballfield, bandshell and paths will be undisturbed. Kuras added that there are three entrances to the park off of Seventh Street. The north and south entrances will be closed, but the middle entrance will remain open.

Mike Anglin asked whether there was any data related to water flow through the system that was collected prior to the installation of the swirl concentrators. OHM collected flow data in the spring and summer of 2011, Hutchinson said, by putting monitoring devices in the stormwater pipes.

Anglin asked whether the city was making an effort to talk with residents whose basements have flooded. Hutchinson replied that the current project doesn’t entail working with residents. The project is specific to West Park infrastructure.

Kuras added that at the recent public forum on the West Park situation, some people brought up the issue of basement flooding. City staff knows that they need to address the broader issues related to the entire Allen Creek area upstream from West Park, she said.

Hutchinson noted that some neighborhoods – like Maple Ridge – experienced flooding in 2011. At that time, the pipes had been returned to their pre-2010 condition, he said, so the flooding they experienced wasn’t related to changes at West Park, he said.

Report on Fuller & Olson Athletic Fields

Commissioners received an update on conditions of the city’s Fuller Park and Olson Park athletic fields, which were renovated in 2009-2010. The first post-renovation scheduling of play occurred in 2011, from March through November.

From left: Jeff Straw, Ann Arbor deputy parks and recreation manager; Matt Warba, supervisor of field operations; and Jessica Black, parks and recreation customer service manager.

Jessica Black, parks and recreation customer service manager, described how the six Fuller Park fields were used during the spring, summer and fall playing seasons. [.pdf of Fuller fields layouts in 2011] She noted that the two fields at Olson Park are always used as full fields, but that some Fuller Park fields are split into half fields. There are also seasons when the fields are taken out of play and allowed to “rest.”

Black provided a breakdown of the types of users, noting that “soccer is definitely our No. 1 use.” Teams playing soccer accounted for 65% of the use of fields, 15% were lacrosse teams, and the remaining 20% was split between flag football and ultimate frisbee.

A total of 15 teams used the fields throughout 2011, including eight teams that returned from previous years and seven new teams. There were youth and adult teams, and University of Michigan club sports.

City staff had determined that 35 games per field per season was the maximum number of games that should be allowed, in order to maintain the condition of the fields, Black reported. For the three seasons in 2011, Olson and Fuller fields were used at about 79% capacity, she said. At the six Fuller fields, 679 games were played out of a possible 875. At Olson’s two fields, 175 games were played out of 210 possible games.

Jeff Straw, the city’s deputy manager of parks and recreation, briefed commissioners on revenues from the fields. Rates were set at $60 per hour for most of the full fields at Fuller and for the two Olson fields. Half-field rates at Fuller were $40 per hour. For field #6 at Fuller, the rental fee was $32 an hour for a full field, and $20 an hour for a half field. [Previously, rates ranged from $16 an hour to a high of $31.50 an hour, depending on a variety of factors, including residency (Ann Arbor residents were charged lower rates) and time of day (rates for prime time, between 4-8 p.m., were higher). PAC recommended rate increases at its January 2010 meeting.]

Based on the maximum number of games allowed, the six Fuller fields could have brought in a maximum of $70,280. But because the fields were not used at full capacity, Fuller fields recorded $54,608 in revenues during 2011. Of that, $5,400 was later refunded due to weather cancellations, Straw said.

For Olson’s two fields, $21,000 in revenue was collected, but $1,500 was refunded because of cancellations. Those two fields had the potential to bring in $25,200 in revenues, if played to capacity.

Factoring in refunds, the eight fields at Fuller and Olson had a total of $68,708 in revenues during 2011.

Total estimated expenses were $82,688. Major line items were administration and scheduling costs ($25,000), mowing ($18,368) and fertilizing/aerification/overseeding ($18,800).

Commenting on the financials, Matt Warba – the city’s supervisor of field operations – said he didn’t think it was anyone’s intent to make the fields self-sufficient. But it’s getting close, he added, and that’s encouraging.

Warba also noted that April and May of 2011 were especially rainy months – the city had to cancel play on 25 days out of a 45-day period because of rain. Warba also noted that the irrigation system at Olson failed during the summer, resulting in turf loss. That system has been repaired.

Report on Fuller & Olson Athletic Fields: Commission Discussion

Karen Levin asked how 2012 expenses are expected to compare to 2011. Warba replied that costs generally are expected to remain static.

Sam Offen wondered how revenues compared to previous years. Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, said it would be difficult to compare since the rates were lower in the past, prior to the renovations. He hadn’t asked his staff to bring those figures.

Gwen Nystuen asked how long it would be before the city would need to invest in another major renovation of the fields. Warba replied that it would be possible to maintain the fields without major renovations. They’re taking a cautious approach, he said, by resting fields periodically so that they can be kept in good condition. The city staff has to balance demand for the fields against maintenance.

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

Nystuen noted that because the fields are fenced in, that keeps people off when it’s raining. That was the intent, Warba said. Olson fields aren’t fenced, however, and in some cases players have jumped the fences at Fuller, he said. One field had to be taken out of play for a month because of the damage caused when people played on a field that was supposed to be closed. Warba said the city will likely hire a temporary worker next season to patrol the fields – it would be cheaper than having to repair damage to a field if players jump the fence.

John Lawter asked whether the city is meeting the need for this kind of play, or could they do more? Smith noted that the fields are at 79% capacity, so there’s space available. However, there’s more demand than capacity for prime time slots – between 4-8 p.m. Black reported that the staff has set the maximum number of games at 35 per field per season. If the city were to add more games in order to accommodate more teams, that might not ultimately meet the teams’ needs, because the condition of the fields would deteriorate. “It’s a balancing act,” Black said.

Smith said the city wants to avoid having to make another major investment in renovating the fields. If demand is high, it’s possible to look at adding fields in other parks, he added, or possibly to acquire more land for that purpose.

Julie Grand asked if the city is doing outreach to groups that might have a lower impact on the fields – sports that don’t involve as much running and kicking as soccer, for example. Black said that at this point, there hasn’t been that kind of outreach.

Gwen Nystuen called the overall report encouraging.

Communications: Allen Creek Greenway, Leslie Science Center

Every meeting includes opportunities for public commentary and communications from commissioners and staff. No one spoke during either of the slots for public commentary at the Jan. 24 meeting.

Communications: Allen Creek Greenway

Gwen Nystuen brought up the issue of the Allen Creek Greenway. She noted that mayor John Hieftje had mentioned there might be action taken soon on the city-owned 415 W. Washington property, which has been identified as a potential part of a greenway. He’d made these comments at the Jan. 23 city council meeting. She wondered if there was any additional information about that.

[Hieftje had indicated that talks were continuing with the group that had been formed to look at the city-owned 415 W. Washington lot. The council passed a resolution giving direction for the effort at its Feb. 1, 2010 meeting, nearly two years ago. The resolution calls for the arts and greenway communities to lead fundraising and development of a vision for the parcel’s use. The site, across from the YMCA, is currently providing revenue to the city as a surface parking lot. It was previously the city’s maintenance yard. At the Jan. 23, 2012 council meeting, Hieftje said the group continues to meet – the biggest challenge remains the building. He said a report on the status of the project would be given at the end of February.]

Christopher Taylor, an ex-officio member of PAC who also serves on city council, said he didn’t have any further information at all. Nystuen then reminded commissioners that the greenway is one of PAC’s priorities. The City Apartments project at First and Washington, by the developer Village Green, is moving ahead, she said. That residential development will include parking spaces, she added, which will free up the need for spaces at the city-owned First and William surface lot that’s located in a floodway. That lot could become part of a greenway, she observed.

Park commissioner Gwen Nystuen and city councilmember Mike Anglin, an ex-officio member of the commission.

The time has come for PAC to actively pursue the greenway, Nystuen said, adding that the city council passed a resolution recently in support of a greenway.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that a council resolution was passed on Aug. 4, 2011 expressing general support for the idea of a greenway. There have been conversations, he said, about applying for a grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, to turn the 415 W. Washington site into a park. The city staff is looking into that. The process would be similar to the way that the trust fund application for the skatepark had been handled, Smith explained. Staff would first come to PAC for a recommendation to apply. That recommendation would be forwarded to city council, which would need to approve the application.

Smith noted that one issue for the 415 W. Washington property is that it’s located in a historic district – the Old West Side. So in addition to PAC, the city would need a recommendation from the historic district commission too, he said.

Finally, Smith reminded commissioners that the parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan, which PAC approved, recommends that the first action should be development of a master plan to guide the creation of a greenway. That point bears consideration, he said.

Nystuen responded by asking what PAC could do to move this process along. This year her term on the commission ends, she said, and the greenway has been a priority for her for both of her terms on PAC. That’s why she feels some urgency about this issue, she added.

What PAC decides as a body is up to commissioners, Smith replied. They can give direction to develop a greenway master plan, or tell staff to move ahead on the grant application before a master plan is developed. Nystuen asked how other commissioners felt – should they put forward a resolution?

Mike Anglin, a city councilmember who’s a non-voting ex-officio member of PAC, noted that the city’s environmental commission – on which he also serves has previously served – sometimes deals with issues related to parks. Perhaps a subcommittee of the two commissions could be formed to discuss the greenway, he said. There’s federal funding available for water management, he said, which might be one aspect of the greenway. Anglin also noted that the arts community has been interested in that site – they should be included in the dialogue, too.

There are several interested parties, Smith said – parks, the county drain commissioner, the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, the railroad owners, the Arts Alliance and others. That’s why having a master plan would be useful.

Julie Grand asked about a timeline for the grant application. It’s due April 2, Smith said. That means it would be necessary to secure a PAC recommendation in February, and city council approval in March. It’s also unclear how the historic district commission would fit into this process.

No doubt there’s strong interest in the community, Smith said. But it’s uncertain how to manage the project at this point. He noted that a task force had been formed in 2007 to evaluate development of a greenway that might incorporate the 415 W. Washington site as well as city property at 721 N. Main and First & William. The group couldn’t come to a consensus for the best use of 415 W. Washington, he said, so no decision was made. It seems like a public dialogue is needed to figure out the best option, he said.

Nystuen said she wanted to point out that the near-downtown area on the city’s west side has a shortage of green space. New residential developments will be bringing hundreds of young people downtown, so there will be an increased interest in recreational areas, she said. It makes sense to move forward with a greenway adjacent to downtown. Nystuen said it sounded like the best approach would be to put together a resolution for PAC’s February meeting.

Smith said he’s still waiting on direction regarding whether to apply for the grant. If he gets that direction, then of course the staff would bring a resolution to PAC, he said. Separately, PAC can do what it wants regarding the greenway – that’s not for him to say, Smith told commissioners.

Communications: Leslie Science & Nature Center

At the beginning of the Jan. 24 meeting, commissioner Sam Offen introduced the new executive director for the Leslie Science & Nature Center, Susan Westhoff. [Offen is a board member of the center.]

Sam Offen, an Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner, and Susan Westhoff, executive director of the Leslie Science & Nature Center. Offen also serves on the center's board.

Offen said that Westhoff started about a month ago and is already doing an excellent job. He noted there had been a recent public meeting at the center to discuss a master plan for pedestrian access there. [The center was previously part of the city's parks system, but was spun off as a separate nonprofit in 2007. The city continues to own the center’s property and buildings.]

Westhoff spoke briefly to commissioners, noting that the center and the city had a long history. She said she’s been working in nonprofit administration for about 15 years. She grew up in Canton and graduated from the University of Michigan. Her first nonprofit experience was at the University Musical Society, and she said she’s glad to be back in Ann Arbor.

Westhoff said she’d be happy to share the plans for the pedestrian pathway improvements that are being developed. Among other things, it will make paths to the center’s raptor enclosures ADA compliant. She also noted that the center has many great public programs, and highlighted the Feb. 12 “Hoo’s Your Valentine?” event that features the center’s barn owl.

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, thanked Westhoff for coming and said she looked forward to collaborating.

Present: Doug Chapman, Julie Grand, Karen Levin, Gwen Nystuen, John Lawter, Sam Offen, councilmember Mike Anglin (ex-officio), councilmember Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks manager.

Absent: David Barrett, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle.

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Wiltrud Simbuerger, showing other commission members some proposals from artists for a mural at Allmendinger Park. A local artist, Mary Thiefels, has been selected for that project. (Photos by the writer.)

The group unanimously recommended selecting Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon for a $150,000 art project in the lobby of the city’s Justice Center, located at the corner of East Huron and Fifth Avenue. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists. It’s a sculpture called “Radius”.

Carpenter plans to create a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. Among the reasons for recommending Radius, the task force cited the sculpture’s metaphor: That the activities in the Justice Center have a “rippling” effect throughout the community, which echos the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl that’s located in the plaza outside the building.

The Justice Center, a new building next to city hall, houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

In other action, the art commission voted to select Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels for a mural project to be located on pillars at a building in Allmendinger Park. A task force had recommended her selection from among four finalists. Her proposal entails asking neighborhood residents for artifacts to create mosaics at the top and bottom of the pillars. The task force recommended that they continue to work with Thiefels on designing the remainder of the mural in the middle sections of the pillars.

Commissioners liked the concept of “found object” mosaics, but questioned whether the $10,000 budget was sufficient. They ultimately voted to approve selecting Thiefels for the project, contingent on her submission of a revised proposal and budget, with additional input from the task force. This project is the first one in a pilot mural program started last year by former commissioner Jeff Meyers.

AAPAC also discussed possible artwork for four sites connected to the East Stadium bridges, which are being reconstructed. The two commissioners who serve on a task force for that project – Wiltrud Simbuerger and Bob Miller – indicated that the budget recommendation will likely be at least $250,000 for artwork there. The task force is currently developing a request for proposals to be issued in the coming weeks.

In the context of developing their annual art plan for fiscal 2013, which by ordinance must be delivered to the city council by April 1, commissioners decided to hold a retreat next month. In addition to shaping the annual plan, the aim of the retreat is to develop a master plan that would provide a broader conceptual framework to guide AAPAC’s decisions. Input from an online survey of the public will also be used – the survey remains open until Feb. 20, and has garnered more than 400 responses so far.

Commissioner Appointments

Marsha Chamberlin, the commission’s chair, began the Jan. 25 meeting by welcoming two new commissioners: Bob Miller and John Kotarski. Kotarski had been appointed by the city council at its Jan. 9, 2012 meeting to replace outgoing commissioner Margaret Parker. He has been a media consultant who previously worked for the Mount Clemens Schools. His three-year term expires Jan. 9, 2015.

At the city council’s Jan. 23, 2012 meeting, Bob Miller was appointed to replace Cheryl Zuellig, and Chamberlin was reappointed for a second term. The terms for Miller and Chamberlin run through December 2015. Chamberlin is president of the Ann Arbor Art Center. Miller has worked as a real estate agent and homebuilder, and has a fine arts degree from The School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Both Miller and Kotarski have attended AAPAC meetings over the past few months as observers.

Chamberlin reported that mayor John Hieftje has identified another candidate that he intends to nominate for approval by the city council, but she didn’t want to identify that person publicly until the nomination was made. The person would replace Elaine Sims, whose term expired at the end of 2011.

Justice Center Artwork

On the Jan. 25 agenda was an item to consider approval of artwork proposed for the lobby of the city’s Justice Center, located at the corner of East Huron and Fifth Avenue.

A rendering of Ed Carpenter's proposed "Radius" sculpture in the southwest corner of Ann Arbor's Justice Center lobby. This image was revised from earlier drawings by the artist to include more glass, at the request of a selection task force. (Links to larger image)

A task force had recommended the selection of Ed Carpenter’s proposal – a sculpture called “Radius” – from three finalists for the $150,000 project. Members of the task force who recommended Carpenter are Elaine Sims, Margaret Parker, Spring Tremaine, Karl Daubmann, Maureen Devine, Laura Rubin, Ray Detter, Margie Teal, Homayoon Pirooz, and Aaron Seagraves.

It will be the second major installation funded with money from Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program, which captures 1% of each city capital project – capped at $250,000 per project – for public art. The first major installation is located in the plaza outside of the Justice Center and in front of city hall: A bronze water sculpture by the German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, that cost more than $750,000.

Carpenter’s proposal calls for creating a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. The intent of the artwork is to reflect how the work of the courts and police radiate out into the community. The Justice Center houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department.

The task force cited several reasons for their choice. Among them:

• The artwork uses a great deal of the space in the lobby and makes the best use of the site.
• The reflective nature of the glass used in the design will incorporate direct lighting and reflective light, which will be visible from both indoors and outdoors, during the day and at night.
• The colored glass and moving reflections will add a mediating softness and color to the architecture of the lobby.
• The art’s metaphor that work within the Justice Center has a rippling effect throughout the community; the “ripple” metaphor is consistent with the Dreiseitl sculpture.

In his proposal, Carpenter wrote:

Like ripples from a stone tossed into a pond, “Radius” emanates outward through the Justice Center lobby, a reminder of the interconnectedness of the public with the agencies serving them, and suggesting a network of cause and effect in the public realm.

“Radius” is designed to involve as much of the lobby as possible, radiating from the southeast corner, visible from inside and outside, day and night. [Editor's note: The sculpture will be located in the lobby's southwest corner.] Lighting contained in its hollow center will illuminate gleaming glass and anodized aluminum details, creating elegant views of its expansive forms.

When sun strikes, dichroic glass elements will project and reflect colored light deep into the space in luminous compositions, slowly moving through the lobby in response to the arc of the sun and the passing of clouds.

Justice Center Artwork: Commission Discussion

John Kotarski noted that the task force had cited some issues they wanted the artist to address. Had the artist responded? Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said Carpenter had submitted new renderings showing additional glass in the sculpture, which the task force had requested.

John Kotarski at his first meeting as a public art commissioner on Jan. 25.

Marsha Chamberlin asked whether the budget reflects those changes. [The budget of $150,000 includes a $9,000 line item for dichroic glass elements. Other major line items are for fabricated anodized aluminum elements ($35,000), installation ($20,000), lighting/electrical ($12,000), structural site work and ceiling refinishing ($12,000) and artist's wages/overhead ($25,700).] Seagraves said the artist had indicated that extra glass could be accommodated within the original budget.

Wiltrud Simbuerger wondered how quickly the work would be completed. There would be a six-month timeline, starting from the point of approval by the city council, Seagraves said.

Chamberlin noted that after the council approves the project, it typically takes an additional two months for the city attorney’s office to draw up a contract. She speculated that the six-month period would start sometime this summer, after a contract with the artist is signed. Kotarski asked whether it really takes two months for legal staff to prepare a contract. That’s been the commission’s experience, Chamberlin replied.

Chamberlin said she liked the project, and found it intriguing. Kotarski agreed, saying he especially liked the theme of the work. It puts the police and justice system at the center of the community, “as it should be,” he said. The ever-changing color and light reflects the community’s diversity, he added. It’s elegant, and light – it won’t disrupt the area at all. He also liked the fact that people can sit under it. Visitors are part of the center, and radiate out, he said – the artist ties this all together.

Connie Brown thanked the task force members for their work.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of Carpenter’s Radius sculpture for the Justice Center lobby. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for a vote.

Mural Project at Allmendinger Park

The art commission was asked to vote on selecting Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels for a mural project to be located on pillars at a building in Allmendinger Park.

A task force had recommended her selection from among four finalists. Members of the task force include Wiltrud Simbuerger, Connie Pulcipher, Aaron Seagraves, Mariah Cherem and Hannah Smotrich.

This is the first project in a mural pilot program originally proposed by former AAPAC commissioner Jeff Meyers. Following Meyers’ resignation in mid-2011, Simbuerger has taken the lead on this project. At the Jan. 25 meeting, she briefly outlined the proposals for four finalists chosen by the task force. In addition to Thiefels, other finalists were (1) Robert Delgado of Los Angeles, Calif.; (2) Bethany Kalk of Moorehead, Kentucky; and (3) Jefferson Nelson of Liberty Center, Ohio.

The task force decided to recommend Thiefels not because hers was the best artistic treatment, but because of her proposal’s involvement of the community, Simbuerger said. Thiefels’ proposal entails asking neighborhood residents for artifacts to create mosaics at the top and bottom of the pillars. In a sense, it would create a “library” of the neighborhood, Simbuerger told commissioners, and the task force really liked this concept. They also liked the fact that Thiefels has a concrete plan for how to execute the community involvement aspect of her project. [.pdf of narrative portion from Thiefels' proposal]

However, task force members had some issues about the imagery that Thiefels proposed for the middle of the columns, Simbuerger said. In her proposal, Thiefels described it this way:

My timeless design for the Allmendinger park will inspire all who encounter it year round. Each of the 12 pillars represent a month of the year, 3 pillars to a season. Seasonal activities illustrate the diversity and popularity of the park.

In the spring, lilac bushes blossom, children come out of hibernation to play hide and go seek, birds nest again in the oak and hickory trees, the playground comes alive with activity and laughter. On the summer pillars kites fly and sports abound, like basketball, volleyball, tennis, baseball, and soccer. On the fall pillars you see, colors changing, tree climbing, dog walking and frisbee tossing, sunny day picnics, and morning martial arts. Winter offers cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and snow angels.

I will paint these illustrations onto a third of each pillar space. The remaining area will be made up of tile or glass mosaic and a section of collected and found materials.

I intend to use striking and strong imagery, illustrating the activities with visual confidence. The figures, birds, and trees, could be painted in Kara Walker style silhouettes (to see visuals of Kara Walker’s work, visit: http://learn.walkerart.org/karawalker). They can be heavily modeled and detailed or played down (painted more like a wood block, stencil or silhouette). Grays and earth tones can be used instead of blacks to better harmonize with the surroundings.

Right now, those images might work if you’re close to them, but not necessarily if you’re driving by or looking at them from a house across the street, Simbuerger said. So the task force recommended that they continue to work with Thiefels on designing the remainder of the mural on the middle sections of the pillars. Thiefels is willing to do that, but her new proposal isn’t yet completed, Simbuerger said.

Mural Project at Allmendinger Park: Commission Discussion

John Kotarski began by saying he really liked the proposal, especially because it involves the neighborhood and because Thiefels is a local artist. It’s important to build a sustainable community of local artists, he said. Kotarski agreed that the task force should continue to work with her on developing the project.

Image depicting Mary Thiefels' mural proposal at Allmendinger Park.

Connie Brown liked the collaboration between the task force and Thiefels – that’s a good process, she said, and will result in a richer design.

Tony Derezinski also liked the concept, and noted that members of the Allmendinger family still live in this area. He reported that his wife used to work in the Allmendinger building at First and Washington. [The historic brick building contains offices now, but was originally the Allmendinger piano and organ factory.]

Commissioners discussed other projects that Thiefels had completed, including murals in Hillsdale, Dexter and downtown Ann Arbor – a mural depicting Michigan veterans, located in the alley on West Liberty between Ashley and Main. AAPAC had selected Thiefels for a 2011 Golden Paintbrush award from the city for that mural.

Marsha Chamberlin questioned whether the $10,000 budget was sufficient, considering the time and effort that would be required. Simbuerger agreed that it wasn’t much, but noted that it’s an amount low enough so that it doesn’t require the city council’s approval. Connie Brown clarified that the mural pilot program – approved by AAPAC in November 2010 – had designated a maximum $10,000 per project with the idea that multiple projects could be completed relatively quickly.

Simbuerger noted that the funding limit puts constraints on the types of materials that might be used, essentially limiting it to paint because of the cost. Bob Miller wondered whether there was any flexibility to add to the budget for materials.

Derezinski asked whether Thiefels is experienced at making bids on projects like this. Chamberlin reported that Thiefels has a company – TreeTown Murals – and has completed several projects. Chamberlin said she trusted that Thiefels could finish the project as proposed, within the amount budgeted. But it felt like AAPAC was setting up the program to encourage artists to cut corners, she added.

Chamberlin recalled that when Susan Skarsgard did the Imagine/Align project – a linear planting of daffodils at The Arb – it had been a major undertaking. Among other things, Thiefels’ project would entail cataloguing all of the contributed items to be used in the mosaic. It would be lovely to eventually have a story on the building’s wall to document the items, Chamberlin said.

Brown noted that this is a pilot program, so AAPAC could change it if they needed to.

Miller suggested that the commission ask Thiefels to submit a revised budget, one that would realistically reflect her work. At that point, the commission could discuss whether other funding might be available. After further discussion, Malverne Winborne made a friendly amendment to accept Thiefels as the artist for this project, contingent on her working with the task force to submit a revised proposal and budget.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to select Mary Thiefels for the Allmendinger mural project, contingent on asking her submission of a revised proposal and budget, with additional input from the task force. Work on the mural is expected to begin this summer.

Artwork for East Stadium Bridges

Wiltrud Simuerger gave an update on artwork for the East Stadium bridges project. The task force, which she leads, now includes Dave Huntoon, Joss Kiely, Nancy Leff, Jim Kosteva, Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves.

The group met and talked about possible locations for artwork, Simbuerger said, within AAPAC’s framework of making it a high visibility project for a range of users – motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. They identified four locations: (1) on the East Stadium bridge itself; (2) on a fence in Rose White Park; (3) at the terminus of White Street, north of the bridge; and (4) on the stairs and underpass at South State Street. Artwork at any of these sites could be seen differently by various users, she said, depending on their velocity.

From left: Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller and Malverne Winborne.

The task force is developing a request for proposals (RFP) that will incorporate one or more of these locations. The proposal should also introduce an overarching theme, ensure the artwork’s high visibility, and address the diverse nature of the site, she said.

After the draft RFP is approved by the task force, it will be presented to AAPAC for consideration. Simbuerger said the task force is inclined to suggest a budget of $250,000 because it will be a high-visibility project: “That’s why we really recommend putting in some money.” Miller added that the amount suggested might be even higher.

Malverne Winborne clarified with Aaron Seagraves that $100,000 in funding was available directly from the bridge reconstruction budget, as the Percent for Art earmark. Other Percent for Art funds could be tapped, as long as the artwork relates directly to the original funding source. For example, artwork for the bridge could be funded with some of the $529,251 that’s available for public art from street millage projects.

Connie Brown said it’s difficult to allocate money for these kinds of public art projects without having a sense of how the projects fit into a broader plan. Marsha Chamberlin replied that the commission’s annual art plan is designed to provide that kind of guidance. [.pdf of current annual art plan, for fiscal year 2012]

The annual plan gives a list of projects and potential sites for public art, Brown said. It doesn’t provide an overall framework, one that answers the question of what the public art program hopes to accomplish more broadly for residents, she said.

John Kotarski agreed. Without a “conceptual narrative,” it’s hard to say whether a project is worth investing $100,000 or $400,000, he said. It’s challenging to evaluate sites by location, without a broader narrative or theme. Without that framework, he said, people might ask whether the Percent for Art program is just decorating the city.

Brown described it as the difference between being reactive or proactive. The commission needs an upper-level vision, she said.

Winborne noted that a budget for the East Stadium bridges artwork didn’t need to be set that night. Even after the task force makes a recommendation, a draft RFP would need to be reviewed by the city attorney’s office, he said. So the commission has time to discuss these issues further.

Strategic Planning

The discussion of the East Stadium bridges project – and the need for a broader conceptual framework to guide AAPAC’s decisions – led to talk of developing a master plan, in addition to the commission’s annual art plan.

Marsha Chamberlin pointed out that the commission’s approach has been from the bottom up, but they need to also look at it from the top down. They could look at what they’d generally like to achieve in the next three years, for example, then evaluate how specific projects would fit those goals.

Chamberlin initially suggested using part of AAPAC’s Feb. 22 meeting to talk about a master plan. But after further discussion, commissioners reached a consensus that a half-day retreat would be a better approach. Chamberlin proposed asking the mayor to expedite his nomination of the new commissioner, so that person could participate in the retreat. Connie Pulcipher of the city’s systems planning unit will be asked to facilitate. She has led AAPAC through similar exercises in the past, most recently in October 2011 to help commissioners prep for a Nov. 14 working session with city council.

No date has yet been announced for the upcoming retreat.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, informed commissioners that he’ll be making a presentation at a March 12 city council working session to give an update on the Percent for Art program. He noted that AAPAC needs to pass its next annual plan – for FY 2013 – in March, so that it can be presented to the city council by April 1, as required by the Percent for Art ordinance.

At AAPAC’s Dec. 13, 2011 meeting, Seagraves had led a discussion regarding the next annual plan. As a follow-up to that meeting, he’d subsequently surveyed commissioners via email about their priorities for the coming year. At the Jan. 25 meeting, he presented results of that survey, which five of the eight commissioners had completed.

Based on the survey input, Seagraves identified priorities in several categories for the city’s 2013 fiscal year, which runs from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013:

• Streets: (1) the southeast corner of Main & William; (2) the intersection of Main & Huron; and (3) the median at Washtenaw & Stadium.
• Water & Sewer: (1) dams – Barton, Superior; (2) manhole covers; (3) interpretive signs regarding sewer “lead throughs” in parks.
• Programs: (1) crosswalk designs; (2) banners; (3) bus stops.
• Other: (1) roofs at the farmer’s market; (2) Douglas Park on Washtenaw Avenue; and (3) Miller’s Creek streambank.

Seagraves noted that in addition to priorities from commissioners, results from a public online survey could be used to guide the annual plan. The online survey, which launched earlier this month, will run through Feb. 20. So far, about 400 responses have been received, Seagraves said.

John Kotarski said he didn’t complete the survey because he’d had trouble figuring out what kind of responses were being sought. Connie Brown said she didn’t complete it either – she’d been frustrated that the questions didn’t fit into a broader framework.

Wiltrude Simbuerger suggested using this for the basis of discussion at the retreat, but not relying on the survey results exclusively to develop the annual art plan.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Malverne Winborne. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Cathy Gendron.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

U.S. president Barack Obama, speaking at the University of Michigan's Al Glick Fieldhouse on Friday morning, Jan. 27. His remarks focused on the issue of education and college affordability. (Photos by Mary Morgan.)

Also not wanting to miss Barack Obama’s appearance at the University of Michigan – a return visit after delivering the commencement address in May of 2010 – were dozens of other national, state and local media. Attention is heightened even more during this election year, and Friday morning’s speech was just one of many stops as Obama hit the road following Tuesday’s State of the Union address.

There will be countless reports and opinions offered on the Jan. 27 speech at UM, but we’d encourage you to approach it unfiltered, at least initially. You can watch the roughly 40-minute speech in its entirety online, or read a transcript of it here.

For Obama’s remarks almost two years ago at the 2010 UM commencement, we provided a bit of our own analysis, along with photos by Myra Klarman.

This time, we went with an eye for recording the community connections we could see at the event. And there were many – not surprisingly for a Democratic stronghold like Ann Arbor. Politicians were easy to spot, of course, but there were also educators, business owners, government workers and many others.

Over 3,000 people attended Friday morning’s speech. Here are a few of those we encountered there.

Eugene Kang, left, lost a close race for a spot on the Ann Arbor city council several years ago – and now has to content himself as the president's special projects coordinator and assistant. State Rep. Jeff Irwin of Ann Arbor, top left, had worked on Kang's council campaign. In the foreground is state Sen. Rebekah Warren and her husband Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Susan Pollay, director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Deborah Ball, dean of UM's School of Education, gets camera instructions from Brit Satchwell, president of the Ann Arbor Education Association, before the president's speech. Satchwell is standing with Tracey Van Dusen, a Pioneer High School government teacher who was a 2010 Classroom Teaching Ambassador Fellow with the U. S. Department of Education.

Washtenaw County commissioner Yousef Rabhi (in light blue cap and scarf, with beard) and Andy LaBarre (back right), a candidate for commissioner and former aide to Congressman John Dingell.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers had a height advantage over some of the other spectators at the Jan. 27 event.

Jim Kosteva, UM's director of community relations, glides down the risers.

Jason Brooks, a management analyst in the Washtenaw County administrator's office and a 2011 Ann Arbor Chronicle Bezonki Award winner, got a prime spot next to the stage.

Many people in the crowd were taking photos and texting on their iPhones or other mobile devices and sending the information to the Internet in realtime. But one man passed the minutes waiting for the president by reading an account of the previous day's news printed off on multiple sheets of paper – a so-called "news paper."

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, leaning over in the center of the huddle, prompted a brief media scrum before the start of Obama's speech.

Media photographers stood on risers for a clear view of the speaker's podium. Photographers in the crowd had to rely on other techniques to get their shots.

Jo Mathis, left, takes a "Hail Mary" shot. The former Ann Arbor News columnist is now editor of the Washtenaw Legal News.

University of Michigan quarterback Denard Robinson poses for a photo with U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow. The crowd's cheer for Robinson, who arrived several minutes before the president, nearly rivaled its enthusiasm for Obama. Robinson fielded dozens of autograph and photo requests, including one from a member of the event's security detail.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman, who's employed by UM as an energy management liaison.

Among the spectators in this crowd shot are Ann Arbor Public Schools superintendent Patricia Green and AAPS trustee Andy Thomas, and Ann Arbor city councilmembers Christopher Taylor, Tony Derezinski and Carsten Hohnke.

From left: University of Michigan regents Kathy White and Denise Ilitch, chair of the board of regents.

From left: Eastern Michigan University president Susan Martin and Rose Bellanca, president of Washtenaw Community College.

Barack Obama during his speech. Trust us: Among the people in the background risers are Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere and her husband, local attorney David Cahill; Democratic activist Doug Kelley; Ann Arbor Art Center president Marsha Chamberlin and her husband John Chamberlin, a UM professor of public policy.

UM president Mary Sue Coleman, at right, listened to Obama's speech on a platform behind the speaker's podium. She did not address the crowd.

After his speech, Barack Obama worked the crowd. He offers a high five to Mark Bernstein's kid – Bernstein is a candidate for UM regent.

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sandi Smith, center, gets ready to greet the president. Behind her, slightly to the right, is Ann Arbor Public Schools trustee Glenn Nelson.

Following Obama's speech, anti-fracking protesters were keeping a cold vigil in the parking lot outside of the Al Glick Fieldhouse. To the right, a man holds an "I Vote Pro-Life First" sign. Volunteers were also passing out Obama re-election campaign literature and collecting signatures for repeal of the state's emergency financial manager law.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs – and the occasional photo essay. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Looking north from Mosley at the site of the proposed 618 S. Main apartment complex. The former Fox Tent & Awning building will be demolished. Ashley Street runs to the left of this photo, and borders the Old West Side historic district. (Photos by the writer.)

The 618 S. Main project is an apartment complex geared toward young professionals, according to developer Dan Ketelaar. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles.

The project borders the Old West Side historic district – the board of the Old West Side Association submitted a letter of support for the development. Parking and traffic concerns were raised by some commissioners, but the project received praise for its design and its potential to enliven that part of the city. The planning staff had recommended approval.

Two other projects gained approval from commissioners at their Jan. 19 meeting. Rezoning and a site plan for a small addition to the Habe Mills Pine Lodge – owned by the Society of Les Voyageurs – will move forward to the city council with a recommendation of approval. The lodge is adjacent to city parkland near Argo Pond, and had been erroneously zoned as public land.

The commission also signed off on a special exception use at 3645 Waldenwood, which would allow an accessory apartment to be added to the single-family house there. It’s located in the Earhart Estates neighborhood, west of Earhart and south of Glazier Way, in the city’s northwest side.

Several commissioners expressed support of this project and for accessory units in general.” Accessory dwelling units can be an asset to our community and I hope we see more in the future,” said commissioner Erica Briggs.

618 S. Main Apartments

The main item on the Jan. 19 agenda was a resolution to approve the site plan and development agreement for 618 S. Main – a major new residential project near downtown Ann Arbor.

The planned project is located at the site of the former Fox Tent & Awning building, north of Mosley between Main and Ashley. It borders properties in the Old West Side historic district, but is not in the district itself. The proposal calls for demolishing two existing structures and erecting a 7-story, 153,133-square-foot apartment building with 190 units for 231 bedrooms.

The building would contain 70 studio apartments, 70 one-bedroom units, 42 two-bedroom units, and 7 duplex units with 1 bedroom each. The proposal is slightly modified from details discussed at a Nov. 11, 2011 neighborhood meeting about the project, hosted by the developer, Dan Ketelaar, and his design team – one of several public forums regarding the project.

618 South Main facade, facing west from Main Street. (Links to larger image)

Underground parking would include 121 vehicle spaces – including two spaces for a car-sharing service like Zipcar – and 89 bicycle parking spaces. Other proposed features include solar panels installed on the roof to help heat water for the building, and a private open space on the west side of the building with an outdoor pool and pool deck, a pool house/rental room, two fire pits, three rain garden/bio-retention areas, landscaping areas and patio areas made of porous pavement. The developer has agreed to make a $117,800 contribution to the city’s parks system, in lieu of providing dedicated parkland on the site.

The building as proposed would be 85-feet tall – 25 feet higher than permitted in the D2 zoning district in which the site is located. Planned projects allow for some flexibility in height or setbacks, in exchange for public benefits. They don’t allow as much flexibility, however, as a planned unit development (PUD).

The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board. According to a staff report, the board found that the design generally adhered to the downtown design guidelines. Some modifications were made to the design in response to the board’s suggestions – for example, the portion of the building along South Main Street was stepped back five feet above the third floor and 10 feet above the sixth floor, to enhance the pedestrian experience along the west side of South Main.

618 S. Main Apartments: Public Hearing

Six people spoke during a public hearing on the project, including developer Dan Ketelaar and two representatives from his design team. Another speaker weighed in on the project at the meeting’s final public commentary slot.

Andrew Lineberry said he lived nearby on Hoover and walked by the 618 S. Main site frequently. He told commissioners that he’d originally planned to go to a talk that night at the Gerald R. Ford Library, but instead decided to attend this meeting to express his dismay over yet another tall building being constructed downtown. It will cast shadows and block the sky for others in the neighborhood, he said. Lineberry said he doesn’t believe people want more tall buildings. He hasn’t spoken out against other projects, because they haven’t been in his neighborhood, he said. But now, he felt he needed to let people know that it bothered him.

Barbara Murphy introduced herself as vice president of the board for the Old West Side Association. She referred to a letter that had been sent to the commission, signed by all board members. Their opinion is quite positive, she said. It’s a project that will bring life to the neighborhood by adding residents. It will clean up a brownfield area, and install rain gardens to deal with stormwater runoff. The increased density in that area is a good thing, Murphy said, and could lead to more retail. The association is also pleased at the amount of parking that will be part of the development, so that residents of 618 S. Main won’t be parking along the streets.

The association regretted that the project would displace existing businesses at that location. [Three businesses – Delux Drapery, Overture Audio and Ivory Photo – are located in buildings that will be demolished.] Murphy strongly encouraged the city to come up with a plan for the Main Street corridor between this site and Ashley Mews, at Main and Packard. The 618 S. Main project would provide an anchor, she said, and there’s potential to work with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on streetscape improvements. A large tech company is moving into the former Leopold Brothers location that’s nearby, she noted, and this new apartment complex could help lead to a revitalization the entire South Main corridor.

This is a case in which the city’s development process worked, Murphy said. The developer held more than the required number of citizen participation meetings, including one for the Old West Side Association that was attended by about 40 people, she said. There have been a few negative comments, Murphy concluded, but overall the feeling is that the project will be good for the neighborhood.

Ray Detter said he represented the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council and a coalition of eight neighborhood groups in the city. He said he’d attended four public meetings about the project, and had watched it take shape based on feedback from the public and from the design review board. It’s a well-designed gateway building that will replace a blighted site, Detter said, giving 20- to 30-year-olds a place to live downtown. Detter pointed to a range of other benefits, including more open space, parking, and stormwater treatment. He noted that the project’s design team added a major entryway to reinforce the urban corner at Mosley and Main. The Main Street corridor along that stretch could be improved using a portion of the tax increment financing (TIF) funds that will be collected by the DDA, he suggested. Overall, the community will benefit from this development, Detter said.

Detter also reflected on the city’s design review process. When the Varsity project was going through the city’s planning approval process, he said, planning commissioners seemed uncertain about whether they could comment on the building’s design. “We feel strongly that you can,” Detter said. Otherwise, he added, what’s the point? [The Varsity is another planned project, which was approved by city council in November 2011 despite criticism by Detter and others regarding its design. It consists of a 13-story apartment building with 181 units at 425 E. Washington, between 411 Lofts and the First Baptist Church.]

The process for 618. S. Main was better than it was for the Varsity, Detter said, and he hoped the process would continue to get better. He also hoped the commission and then city council would approve 618 S. Main.

Three representatives of the 618 S. Main project also addressed the commission. Developer Dan Ketelaar said his office has been located on South Ashley for more than 20 years. This development is literally two blocks from downtown – that has allowed his team to create something that’s difficult to do elsewhere, he said. On the east side of the site is commercial, on the west is a residential historic district. Washtenaw Dairy, which is well known and loved, is just down the street, he noted. Ketelaar described how the project’s original design – which conformed to the site’s D2 zoning – didn’t fit within this context. It overwhelmed the area.

Ketelaar went on to describe some of the attributes of the proposed design, and how the building’s features – such as a large common “living room” area on the main level – are designed with the young professional in mind. He and his team have been working on the project for over a year, Ketelaar said, and have gotten input from many people, including neighbors. It was an elaborate design process with several public forums, in addition to the design review board. They tried to be as sensitive as they could, he said.

Ketelaar also highlighted aspects of sustainability on the site, such as the proposed rain gardens. He noted that sustainable design is no longer just an add-on. Overall, he said he’s asking to do a planned project for only one reason – the height limit.

From left: Matt Kowalski and Alexis DiLeo of the city's planning staff; planning commissioners Bonnie Bona and Eleanore Adenekan; Ann Arbor resident Andrew Lineberry, who spoke during public commentary at the Jan. 19 meeting.

Mike Siegel of VOA Associates – the Chicago-based architecture firm that’s working on this project – described several key differences between the original design and the current proposal. [For details, see previous Chronicle coverage: "Public Gets View of 618 S. Main Proposal"] He talked about the public benefit that the project brings, citing the large open space courtyard off of Ashley, the wide landscape buffer on the Main Street side, and almost double the amount of required parking. Siegel also noted that the design was changed in response to feedback from the design review board. An entry tower was added on Main Street, and the corner of the building at Main and Mosley was strengthened. The changes reflect how the design evolved through collaboration with the review board, the community and planning staff, he said.

Shannan Gibb-Randall – a landscape architect with Insite Design Studio, the Ann Arbor firm that also built the new rain garden in front of city hall – reviewed details of the site’s landscaping and stormwater treatment. The open space off of Ashley will have fire pits, a place for raised vegetable beds and other amenities, she said: “This is going to be the backyard for people who live here.” She noted that the site is designed to take 100% of the runoff water from the site and direct it into the ground – that’s 990,000 gallons of water that won’t be flowing into the Allen Creek drain and on toward the Huron River, she said.

In the public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Don Wortman of Carlisle/Wortman Associates – which is co-owner of South Main Market across the street from the proposed project – said he welcomed the development but had concerns over its height, as well as traffic and parking issues. He noted that his office is located across the street from the project, in the South Main Market complex. In the context of the neighborhood, the development is too tall, he said. The next tallest building in that area is only three stories high – you have to go all the way to Ashley Mews, at Main and Packard, to find a similarly tall structure, he said.

Regarding traffic, Wortman said he observes numerous accidents along that part of Main Street. A left turn from northbound Main into the building’s underground parking would be a problem, and he hoped the traffic engineers examined that. It becomes a real choke point, and cars travel fast along that stretch.

The final issue Wortman raised was parking. There are problems with parking at South Main Market, he said – some University of Michigan employees use the lot instead of paying for parking, and there’s insufficient parking for the market’s tenants and customers. They’ve had to lease parking spaces at a nearby Fingerle Lumber lot, he said. Wortman said he’s worried that students living at 618 S. Main will park at South Main Market – it’s a serious issue, he said, and he hoped that the city council would address it.

Dan Ketelaar responded to Wortman’s commentary. Regarding the issue of turning off of Main Street, he noted that the same concern could be stated for southbound vehicles turning into South Main Market. As for parking, people generally just need to be told that they can’t park there, and they won’t do it, he said. Ketelaar told commissioners that his team would work with South Main Market to make sure that parking isn’t a problem.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion

Questions from commissioners covered a range of topics, with many of their comments focused on design, parking and traffic issues. This report organizes their discussion thematically.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – Design

Bonnie Bona began the discussion by responding to Ray Detter’s concerns over the planning commission’s stance on design review. Having a public conversation about a project’s design is important, she said. The commission absolutely should talk about design, Bona said. But she was confident that the commission has no authority to deny a project based on its design.

Bona said she was glad that the architect had shown drawings of the original design, which conformed to D2 zoning. When considering whether to approve a planned project with a building taller than zoning allows, the question is whether the design fits the site better. The project is at the southern edge of the D2 zoning district, but most of the building height is along the northern and northeast part of the site. So the height doesn’t bother her from that perspective, Bona said.

Bona asked about the streetwall along Ashley. In some of the drawings it looks like a gated community, she observed, adding that she didn’t think that was the intent of the design.

Shannan Gibb-Randall, the project’s landscape architect, said that Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff had raised the same concern, so they’ll revisit that design. She described the grade change there as strange – it rises very quickly, and the level of the courtyard is quite a bit higher than the sidewalk. When they designed the streetwall, they were thinking of it from the perspective of the residents, not the pedestrians, she said. They can change it, though there are certain height requirements necessary to contain the rainwater, Gibb-Randall noted.

Evan Pratt said he still wasn’t sure he understood what the streetwall would look like, saying it sounds goofy. But that’s good for Ann Arbor, he added – the city needs more goofy things.

Kirk Westphal asked what the distance is between the building’s Main Street tower entrance and the building’s northern edge. The entire side that fronts Main Street is about 290 feet, said Mike Siegel, the project’s architect. The tower is located at about the midpoint on that facade. Westphal pointed out that D2 zoning requires articulation every 60 feet. This proposed design includes a section with more than 100 feet that’s non-articulated, he said. There are worse examples in downtown buildings, Westphal noted, but he wondered how this design passed muster in that regard.

Kahan noted that Chapter 55 of the city code now includes design provisions related to articulation. [Table 5:20:10 in Chapter 55 addresses this issue – it's a chart of building "massing standards" in the downtown character overlay zoning districts.] The maximum “modular length” for an non-articulated facade is 66 feet, he said, but the code is less clear about what “modular” means.

Chapter 55 describes three ways to create distinct spaces on a facade – that is, to provide articulation: (1) by altering the surface plane – with setbacks, for example; (2) by changing materials; and (3) by changing textures. When staff looked at the 618 S. Main design, Kahan said, they determined that the building included materials to delineate spaces – windows between columns on the building served that purpose, and broke up the facade. Regardless of this project, he added, the code needs to be clearer.

Westphal said he personally enjoys the building’s industrial aesthetic, but it seems that the city is giving the developer a pass simply because bricks are being used. He was concerned about setting a precedent.

Pratt felt that the building’s inset along that Main Street facade provided variation, as did the large windows. If the windows had been small, he added, he wouldn’t have felt the same way. He agreed that they should clarify the city code.

In general regarding the project’s design aesthetics, Pratt said he was glad to see the changes between the original design and the proposed project. The process that the design had been through was appropriate, he said. Pratt noted that not many people were attending the meeting that night, “and that’s a good sign” – a reference to the fact that if a project is controversial, people turn up to speak during public commentary. If the city had 10 projects that worked this well, it might be possible to say that mandatory compliance isn’t needed, he said. [Currently, it's mandatory for projects to go through a design review process, but compliance with suggested design changes is voluntary.]

Wendy Woods asked if the entrance off of Ashley would be open to the public. She also questioned whether the pool in the courtyard would be accessible, indicating some concern for the safety of children in the neighborhood. Ketelaar replied that the courtyard will serve as a backyard for the building’s residents – it’s not open to the public. The area will be walled off, which will act as a deterrent to keep people out who don’t live there, he said. But for residents, the Ashley entrance will be a main one. He said he wasn’t sure how the entrance would be accessed – perhaps by a swipeable key card.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – Parking

Kirk Westphal noted that some people have cited the amount of parking – about double the number of required spaces – as a public benefit. He indicated that he and others might not share that view. Will a parking space be included in the rent for each unit? he asked. Mike Siegel, the project’s architect, said there would be an additional charge for parking.

Westphal asked Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff whether that parking rental arrangement has ever been written into the development agreement. Not to his knowledge, Kahan replied.

Developer Dan Ketelaar weighed in, saying that if it were up to the design team, there wouldn’t be any parking in the project. But there’s demand for parking, and it’s what the neighbors want too, he said. The plan calls for including spaces for a couple of Zipcars, he said. It’s very expensive to build underground parking, he added. Surface parking could have been designed in place of the courtyard, he said, but that wouldn’t be the best design.

Westphal acknowledged that it’s always a struggle between providing parking, especially underground, or having lower rents and no parking. Parking is being subsidized, one way or another, he said, and that’s legal.

Wendy Woods noted that sometimes when residents of an apartment building are charged for parking, they look for free parking in the neighborhood. Are there any restrictions on that? Kahan replied that there are some restrictions, but residents of the neighborhood can get residential parking permits. He wasn’t sure if residents of 618 S. Main would be able to purchase such permits, however – he said he’d look into that.

Diane Giannola said she was concerned about guest parking. Is there any accommodation for that – if someone has weekend guests, for example? No, Ketelaar said. That’s something the design team didn’t consider.

Giannola cautioned that if the rental of parking for the building is too high, residents will buy residential parking permits instead – if the city allows that. It will force people into parking in the neighborhoods, especially for younger residents of the building, she said.

Ketelaar replied that this will be a learning experience for everyone. There’s always a concern about charging too much or too little for parking, he said. The cost of owning a car is about $5,000 to $7,000 a year, he said, so it’s much cheaper to just walk downtown, or use a Zipcar or public transportation. Ketelaar said he hopes to encourage that.

Giannola wondered if one of the parking levels could be converted into something else, if the demand for parking doesn’t materialize. Ketelaar noted that the parking spaces will be available for community members to lease too – the spaces are not just for residents of the building.

Evan Pratt noted that if this were a by-right project, no parking would be required at all. In this case, it’s included as a premium as part of the planned project. Because there are far fewer parking spaces than one per unit, he noted, in some ways the developer is taking a risk, in light of market forces. Pratt said the developer is trying to respond to community concerns, and Pratt hoped it would work out.

Bonnie Bona said she hoped that residents of 618 S. Main would not be allowed to purchase residential parking permits. The building is located in a D2 zoning district, not a residential district, she said.

Woods disagreed with Bona. When you move into a neighborhood, you become part of its fabric, she said. Referring to the letter of support from the Old West Side Association, Woods noted that the association is viewing this project as an anchor to the neighborhood. She didn’t think the city should make a distinction based on the zoning district.

Responding to a question from Woods, Ketelaar explained that there will be two entrances to the parking levels – one entrance off of Main, another off of Ashley, going to an underground level. The two garages aren’t connected, he said.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Dan Ketelaar clarified for Wendy Woods that vehicles exiting onto Main Street won’t be able to turn left onto Main – the vehicles will only be allowed to make righthand turns onto southbound Main. Woods asked Jeff Kahan if a traffic study had been completed.

Returning from president Barack Obama's speech on the morning of Jan. 27, The Chronicle encountered the aftermath of a two-car auto accident on South Main at the intersection with Mosley – one car has rear-ended the other. The site for the 618 S. Main project is in the background. Concerns were raised at the Jan. 19 planning commission meeting about possible traffic problems in this area.

It had, Kahan said. The only proposed modification would be to change slightly  the traffic signal timing at the intersection of Madison and Main, north of the apartment building. Woods said she could imagine traffic backing up there. Backups could also be an issue along northbound Main, as people wait to turn left into the building’s parking entrance.

Eric Mahler echoed Woods’ concerns. He asked Kahan for more information about the traffic study.

Kahan noted that it’s not the planning staff who evaluated traffic issues – the city’s traffic engineers did that. The traffic engineers looked at the major corridors and intersections that are near this development. There will only be about 60 vehicles on each parking level, he said – so only 60 vehicles using the Main Street entrance, and 60 vehicles going in and out of the Ashley entrance.

The traffic study determined that even at peak hours, the volume could be accommodated – assuming that only righthand turns are allowed onto Main Street. All along the Main Street corridor people are making lefthand turns from northbound Main, he noted. The engineers didn’t feel the additional 60 vehicles would make a significant impact.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – Stormwater, Brownfield

Evan Pratt clarified with Shannan Gibb-Randall that there was capacity on the site to absorb the stormwater through infiltration into the ground. Not having runoff is a great public benefit, Pratt said. In general, the public benefits with this project are strong, he said, adding that it hasn’t always been so clear with other projects.

Kirk Westphal said the water runoff is being handled “elegantly,” and that it could also be of educational value for residents.

Tony Derezinski noted that the site includes contaminated soil and that there’s the potential for getting a brownfield designation. Is the project contingent on that?

Dan Ketelaar said that getting the site declared a brownfield – making it eligible for certain tax credits or TIF financing – is an important component of the financing. Armen Cleaners, located across the street at the northwest corner of Ashley & Mosley, is one of the most contaminated sites in the city, Ketelaar said. City staff have asked that Ketelaar look at possibly including the Armen Cleaners site as part of a brownfield plan for 618 S. Main – that’s why he hasn’t yet submitted a brownfield plan, Ketelaar said. His team is working on it with Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – Streetscape Improvements

Bonnie Bona raised the issue of the developer’s $117,800 contribution to the parks system, in lieu of providing dedicated public parkland. Dan Ketelaar has requested that the funds be used for street improvements on Main Street, between Mosley and William. Noting that the pedestrian experience along that stretch isn’t pleasant, Bona said she’d like to stipulate that the funds would be used for streetscape improvements, and she wondered if that could be written into the development agreement.

Jeff Kahan said that staff has been discussing the possible use of this type of contribution for purposes other than parks. The argument is that recreation in urban settings is different – recreation might involve going to cafes more than tennis courts. But no decision has been made yet regarding how to handle Ketelaar’s request, he said.

Bona endorsed spending the money on streetscape improvements, or putting it toward the proposed Allen Creek greenway. She asked that her comments be forwarded to city council.

Erica Briggs supported Bona’s suggestion. For downtown developments, the city needs to get creative about how the parks contributions are used. Ideas might include pedestrian improvements or public art, she said. It would go a long way toward improving the downtown.

Evan Pratt also agreed with Bona, but said he’d feel more comfortable consulting with the parks staff before making a recommendation. The attitude should be “Let’s make Main Street more park-like,” he said, but the parks system might have other needs.

Eric Mahler said he supports streetscape improvements, but cautioned that there might be unintended consequences. For example, if more pedestrians start using that stretch of Main Street, there will be more conflicts with vehicles going in and out of the parking garage. He hoped there would be sufficient warnings and signals to alert pedestrians – when people are in a hurry, it could be a dangerous situation.

618 S. Main Apartments: Commission Discussion – General Comments

Several commissioners praised the development. Tony Derezinski said it’s unusual to have near unanimity on a proposal like this. The design is creative, he said, and he thanked the developer and staff for their work. Kirk Westphal described the planned project as nearly ideal for this site, and he commended the developer for it.

Directing her comments toward Ray Detter, who was sitting in the audience, Wendy Woods said his statement during the public hearing had been refreshing. It was the first time she could recall him supporting a project.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement for 618 S. Main. The project now will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning for Society of Les Voyageurs

The commission was asked to consider rezoning of property and a site plan for an addition to the Habe Mills Pine Lodge, owned by the Society of Les Voyageurs. The property owned by the society, at 411 Longshore Drive near Argo Pond, is zoned public land, even though it’s owned by a private entity. The society is asking that the land be rezoned as a planned unit development (PUD), which would allow the group to build a a 220-square-foot, one-story addition to the rear of the existing lodge, on its east side.

Lodge for the Society of Les Voyageurs on Longshore Drive. The lodge faces Argo Pond.

The nonprofit society is a University of Michigan student and alumni club, focused on nature and the outdoors. Named for French-Canadian voyageurs of the Great Lakes fur trade, it was founded in 1907 and is one of the university’s oldest fraternal student groups.

The lodge was built in 1925 – about the same time as the city’s first zoning ordinance and zoning map. Five student members live at the lodge, and society alumni gather there for potluck Sunday dinners from September to April.

Three members of the society spoke briefly during the proposal’s public hearing in support of the changes. The city’s planning staff had recommended approval of the zoning change and site plan.

Rezoning for Society of Les Voyageurs: Public Hearing

Three people spoke during the public hearing for the project. Jim McNair and Mark Doman introduced themselves as members of the society. They both thanked the city planning staff – specifically citing Alexis DiLeo – for walking them through this complicated process and helping to resolve the issues that arose. McNair said it had been helpful to meet with commissioners last year at a working session to informally discuss the project – that’s a great process, he said.

John Russell also identified himself as a member of Les Voyageurs, and said he had purchased his home on Longshore Drive so that he could be close to the lodge. He fully supported the proposed changes.

Rezoning for Society of Les Voyageurs: Commission Discussion

Evan Pratt pointed to a section of the draft development agreement that specifically stated the permitted principal uses of the site: “The headquarters of the Society of Les Voyageurs, an organization of men and women who share a love of nature and the outdoors, and a dwelling for up to six occupants.” Citing a specific organization didn’t seem like the best long-term approach, he said, because the way this document reads now, no one else could buy or use the property.

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff said that if the society wanted to sell the property, a zoning amendment to the PUD would be required.

Erica Briggs apologized for missing the working session when this project had been discussed. She said it makes sense to find a way to allow Les Voyageurs to remodel, but she wasn’t sure why a PUD was the best option. She understood the desire to keep the society at that location. But to say that the project provided a benefit to the city – one of the requirements of a PUD – seemed to undermine the purpose of this type of zoning, she said.

DiLeo said she had prepared a memo for the society describing the requirements of two or three different zoning options that they might pursue, both residential and office. Variances and other modifications would have been required, she said – it was like trying to shoehorn a square peg into a round hole. Ultimately, it seemed that custom zoning would make the most sense.

Tony Derezinski noted that the addition is quite small, and that it gets too complicated to apply other types of zoning to a project this size. He described it as a creative use of the PUD. Derezinski also noted that over 1,000 invitations were sent out for a public meeting on this project, and only one person showed up. “That’s kind of convincing,” he said.

Kirk Westphal said that to him, it was an issue of fairness. It was the city’s “goof” that this site wasn’t zoned properly, he said. So to ask the owners to go through the expensive process of developing a site plan seems onerous, especially since it’s a use that doesn’t offend the neighbors.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of rezoning and a site plan for Les Voyageurs. The project will now be forwarded to the city council for its consideration. 

Accessory Apartment on Waldenwood

On the Jan. 19 agenda was a resolution to approve a special exception use at 3645 Waldenwood, which would allow an accessory apartment to be added to the single-family house there. It’s located in the Earhart Estates neighborhood, west of Earhart and south of Glazier Way, in the city’s northwest side.

According to planning staff, this is only the second time a special exception use has been requested for an accessory unit since the accessory dwelling ordinance was crafted in the early 1980s.

The apartment would be used by parents of the home’s owner, Laura Damschroder. No rent would be charged. The addition would include a one-car garage and a 596-square-foot one-bedroom apartment with a kitchen, living room and bathroom. It would attach to the existing 3,608-square-foot house.

Planning staff recommended approval.

Accessory Apartment on Waldenwood: Public Hearing

Only two people spoke briefly at the public hearing: the owner, Laura Damschroder, and the project’s architect, Mike Nicklowitz of Adrian Design Group. Damschroder said the motivation for the project is so that her parents can live at the home. Nicklowitz indicated he was there to answer any questions.

Accessory Apartment on Waldenwood: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked whether the accessory unit would have its own utilities – a furnace and separate water source. Mike Nicklowitz of Adrian Design Group said the water supply will be pulled from the main house, and the apartment will be hooked up to the same gas line. However, it will have a separate furnace, as well as an electric subpanel.

Eleanore Adenekan confirmed with planning staff that the main house was about 3,000 square feet, and the addition would add roughly 600 square feet of floor space. She wondered if this size was in line with other houses in that neighborhood. City planner Matt Kowalski replied that it was a comparable size, even with the addition.

Kirk Westphal asked when the ordinance was crafted that allowed accessory units. That happened around 1983, explained Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff. This would be only the second application the city has processed since then, she said.

Westphal wondered how many accessory units have been built without seeking a special exception use from the city. Kowalski ventured that there weren’t many, but Rampson disagreed. When she worked on revisions to the ordinance about 10 years ago – changes that ultimately did not get enacted – city staff discovered quite a few unauthorized accessory dwellings, especially in older neighborhoods.

Westphal indicated that this was simply a long way for him to say that he appreciated the homeowner going through this process – though he said he wasn’t sure this type of project should require a separate process.

Erica Briggs also expressed appreciation. ”Accessory dwelling units can be an asset to our community and I hope we see more in the future,” she said.

Woods asked what would happen when the property changes ownership. Kowalski said a note about the accessory unit would be added to the city’s property tracking database. But the city’s planning staff doesn’t monitor property sales closely, he said, so enforcement would likely depend on neighbors reporting any problems. He said he felt confident that it wouldn’t turn into a rental unit, and that it would remain occupied by someone closely connected to owners of the main house – even if ownership changed hands.

Bonnie Bona asked Kowalski to clarify for the general public the differences between a duplex and an accessory apartment. The main difference, he said, is that you can’t charge rent for an accessory unit. It also has to be occupied by someone related to the owner, he said.

That’s a key difference, Bona said, and it might make people feel more comfortable with having this type of unit in their neighborhood.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously approved the special exception use for an accessory apartment at 3645 Waldenwood.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Eleanore Adenekan, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Feb. 7 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.