Kirk Westphal, an Ann Arbor planning commissioner, served on the city task force that helped developed design guidelines for downtown development. (Photo by the writer.)

One person, former planning commissioner Ethel Potts, spoke during a public hearing on the topic. Potts said she was glad the design review comes early in the project approval process, but she wondered how the review would be used – that could be a challenge. Commissioners discussed the issue only briefly before the vote.

In the city’s project approval process, the design review would take place before the mandatory citizen participation meeting, so that the design review board’s comments could be incorporated into the project’s design before it’s presented to citizens. However, developers aren’t required to act on the review board’s recommendations. Though the review process is mandatory, implementation of the board’s suggestions is voluntary.

Downtown Design Review Program

The city council had approved a program of design guidelines at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting, and also appointed a temporary design review committee. In addition, they asked the planning staff and planning commission to draft ordinances that would lay out details of a design review program in the city’s code. On Tuesday, planning commissioners got an update from staff on the code changes, held a public hearing on the proposal, and briefly discussed it before voting to recommend approval by the city council.

Downtown Design Review: Staff Report

Wendy Rampson, who leads the city’s planning staff, gave a brief history and overview of the design guidelines process, which is part of the broader A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) initiative. She noted that it’s an issue they’ve been talking about for many years, going back to the 1980s. More recently, in 2007, the city council identified five priorities that emerged from the Calthorpe study, which had been commissioned by the city to plan a strategy for future downtown development. Design guidelines were one of those priorities. [Other aspects of A2D2 include downtown zoning changes; historic preservation updates; changes to the development process; and parking and transportation strategies.]

An advisory committee was formed to work on developing design guidelines with city staff and a consultant, Winter & Co., who had been hired to lead workshops and community discussions. In 2009, a set of design guidelines was presented to the community. Feedback at the time, Rampson said, was that the guidelines were too difficult to understand – that they needed to be simplified, with examples to illustrate the different design concepts. It was also felt that a design guidelines process should be developed too.

In early 2010, the council dissolved the original advisory committee and formed a new design guidelines task force to review the guidelines and develop a review process. Members included city councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), planning commissioner Kirk Westphal, Tamara Burns, Bill Kinley, Dick Mitchell, Peter Pollack and Norm Tyler. That group met 34 times, and came up with recommendations that the city council approved at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting after holding a working session on the topic in January.

Also at that Feb. 7 meeting, council appointed a temporary design review committee, which will become the official design review board (DRB) after changes to the city code are approved. Its members are: Chet Hill (landscape architect); Mary Jukari (landscape architect); Dick Mitchell (architect); Tamara Burns (architect); Paul Fontaine (planner); Bill Kinley (developer); and Geoff Perkins (contractor). [For additional background on the process of developing design guidelines, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

To codify the design review process, two new sections were added to the city code: (1) Section 1:239 “Design Review Board” was added to Title 1, Chapter 8; and (2) Section 5:126 “Design Review Board review for certain downtown properties” was added to Title V, Chapter 57. [.pdf file of proposed city code changes – new additions to the code are underlined; strike-throughs indicate deletions.]

The design review will apply to certain downtown properties:

• projects on land that’s zoned D1 or D2, or rezoned to PUD (planned unit development) within the Downtown Development Authority district;
• projects that result in an increase in usable floor area;
• projects with a site plan that requires planning commission or city council approval, a PUD site plan; a planned project; or an administrative amendment that significantly alters the appearance of the building from the public right of way.

Projects located in a historic district will not go through this design review process, because those properties would be covered by the Historic District Commission design review.

As the first step in a project approval process, developers would submit preliminary project design plans to the DRB, along with an application and fee. The review process would occur before the mandatory citizen participation meeting.

At the DRB meeting, the developer will present the project to board members and discuss whether it meets the intent of the downtown design guidelines. No public commentary will be allowed at the meeting. The DRB will make a report of its finding, which will be forwarded to the planning commission and city council.

If a project goes through the design review process but later changes significantly, the project is allowed – but not required – to reapply to the DRB for another review.

Downtown Design Review: Public Hearing

Ethel “Eppie” Potts was the only speaker during the public hearing on Tuesday. “This has indeed been a long process,” she began, adding that it seems this is the end of the years-long A2D2 process. She said she wished that the different elements of A2D2 had been better coordinated, so that they could be more effective as a whole. Potts wondered what planning commissioners expected out of the design guidelines and review board. She said she asked some people she knew what they thought the design guidelines would accomplish. Their expectation is that the guidelines will result in a much better quality of architecture, suitability, scale, context of buildings downtown, she reported. But many of these results stem from zoning, not design guidelines, she observed.

Potts wondered what the legal force of the design guidelines would be. She thought the process was good, since the design review comes at the beginning of the approval process – even before the mandatory citizen participation meeting. The review board will provide a report on each project, but what will planning commissioners do with that feedback? It will be a challenge for them to decide how much weight to give the review board’s input, Potts said, and how that will fit in with all the legal requirements they have to consider. “We are all going to be learning to what degree we can make this all fit together,” she concluded.

Downtown Design Review: Commissioner Discussion

Bonnie Bona said it was exciting to see these design guidelines finally ready to be implemented. Responding to Potts’ comments, Bona said it’s important to have a document that tells developers what the community wants, rather than having to ask for changes later in the process. Giving developers a better idea of what the city wants to see in a building will make a significant improvement in the projects that are brought forward, she said. It was important to get this process started, she added – but they need to be willing to make changes to it in the future, if necessary.

Eric Mahler pointed to one of the review board’s duties as stated in the revised code:

1:239 (3) c: To report periodically to City Council regarding the effectiveness of the design review process and make recommendations for any changes to the Downtown Design Guidelines.

What’s meant by effectiveness, he asked, and how will it be measured?

Kirk Westphal, who served on the design guidelines task force, said his understanding is that for each project, the board will track what kind of information and feedback is most helpful to the developer. The hope is that there will be communication between the board and the city council, and that the process can be tweaked if needed. The language in the code is to ensure that there’s an expectation of feedback, he said.

Tony Derezinski, who serves on the planning commission as well as city council, said that if certain design guidelines prove particularly useful or popular, there’s the possibility that the council could enact them into the city’s zoning ordinances.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of amendments to Ann Arbor’s city code that establish a design review board and design review procedures. The item needs city council approval before taking effect.

Communications from Staff

Wendy Rampson – head of the city’s planning staff – gave several updates during her report to the commission. She noted that the city’s budget for fiscal 2012 would be presented at the April 11 city council work session, followed by an April 13 town hall meeting, where city administrator Roger Fraser will answer questions from the public. [The meeting will be held from 7-9 p.m. at the studios of Community Television Network (CTN), 2805 S. Industrial Highway.] The council will formally receive the budget at its April 19 meeting, and is expected to give final approval in May.

Rampson reported that a farewell open house for Fraser – who’s leaving the city at the end of April to take a job as deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan – will be held from 1-4 p.m. on Friday, April 29 at city hall, 301 E. Huron St.

At the planning commission’s April 12 work session, they’ll be discussing details of their April 26 retreat, Rampson said. They’ll also talk about possibly moving ahead on a request for proposals (RFP) to seek a consultant for the State Street area corridor planning process.

Finally, Rampson noted that at their April 19 meeting, the city council is expected to take a final vote on both licensing and zoning regulations for medical marijuana facilities. City staff is preparing to implement these new regulations, in case they are in fact approved on April 19. Several different areas are involved in addition to planning staff, she said, including representatives from the city attorney’s office, the police department, and the clerk’s office. She said she’d keep the commission updated on that progress.

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

Absent: Erica Briggs.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission has canceled its April 21 meeting because no projects are ready to come forward. Its next regular meeting will be on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 N. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) confirms with an Ann Arbor resident at the city council's Sunday caucus that the map she's sketched reflects accurately the block bounded by Huron, State, Washington, and Division streets. In the background, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). (Photo by the writer.)

The downtown zoning ordinance package – known as A2D2, which the council has approved on two prior occasions at a “first reading” – will be given a public hearing, with a vote also scheduled for Monday night. In addition, the downtown design guidelines will have its public hearing continued, which started on Oct. 5. No vote on design guidelines is scheduled for Monday.

Also receiving discussion at caucus were the six projects that were submitted before last Friday’s Nov. 13 deadline, in response to the city’s request for proposals to use the space on top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage.

Also the council’s agenda, but not receiving discussion among councilmembers who attended the caucus, is the council’s formal acceptance of the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) from the city’s environmental commission – but not the plan’s recommendations related to Argo Dam.

And a consent agenda item that requests funds to purchase additional electronic parking meter equipment contains in its description a plan to install meters in new areas that have not been previously identified.

Finally, there’s a whole new category of item on Monday’s agenda – a category that raises questions.

Councilmembers attending the caucus were Mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Design Guidelines

Prior community-wide discussion on proposed design guidelines for Ann Arbor’s downtown has focused on the lack of a mandatory process into which the guidelines would be integrated. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Design Guides: Must vs. Should" and "Mandatory Process Likely for Design Guides"]

At Sunday’s caucus, the councilmembers who were present heard from representatives of a citizen volunteer group that has been meeting and going through the proposed design guidelines. Overall, their message was that more time was needed to get the guidelines right: “There’s no reason to hurry this. It’s too important to hurry,” one resident said.

Among the specific areas needing focus, they said, were the following:

• Coordination between new zoning codes, design guidelines and the Downtown Plan.
• Specification of a design review process; the city’s new public participation ordinance helps define a “schedule” for a project approval process – where does the design review process fit into this schedule?
• Elimination of the checklist, because “checking all the boxes doesn’t mean good design.”
• Context of new construction in terms of respecting surrounding buildings.
• Use of example projects on which to test-run the guidelines before they’re formally adopted.
• Use of premiums for additional floor area ratios (i.e., taller buildings) only when a project is approved by a design review panel; this would be a way to leverage compliance.
• Improvement of photographs and graphics in the design guidelines document.
• Sustainability should be included in the design guidelines document not just in the context of new buildings, but also in the context of rehabbing older buildings.
• Character districts are not completely articulated and in some cases seem rather “open ended.”

Another area of concern was the need to clarify language so that the the meaning would be clear to three distinct groups of readers of the document: the general public, developers, and members of the design guideline panel.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was intrigued by the idea of using compliance with design guidelines as a condition on granting premiums – but had questions about how the ordinance language would be crafted to achieve that goal. She also wondered, as a  practical matter, how a developer might deal with the need to provide a design that assumed premiums, when the developer could not know in advance that the design would meet with the approval of a design guidelines review panel.

The composition of such a design review panel was suggested by one representative of the volunteer group to have five members: one member of the public, an architect, an urban planner, a specialist in historic preservation, and a real estate developer. The number of people on the review panel was not an area of complete consensus among the volunteer group, with one alternative having two representatives from each professional category, for a total of 10 or more people.

There was, however, a consensus that the members of such a design review panel should not also be members of other development-related boards and commissions in the city, e.g., the planning commission or the Downtown Development Authority.

Mayor John Hieftje raised the question of whether sufficient numbers of such professionals could be found who’d be willing to serve on a design review panel, and if so, whether they would find themselves with frequent conflicts of interest when projects they were working on came before the panel for review.

A2D2 Zoning

During discussion at the Sunday caucus, much of the history of the A2D2 was drawn out.

The A2D2 rezoning initiative was meant to simplify Ann Arbor’s downtown zoning code by reducing multiple zoning districts into something easier for city staff, developers, and the public to grasp. In broad strokes, the outcome of the A2D2 process was the establishment of two zoning districts for the downtown: D1 (core) and D2 (interface). One key defining feature of D1 is its 180-foot height limit, as contrasted with a maximum of 60 feet in D2. That D1 height limit applies across all D1 areas except for a swatch along East Huron and in the South University area, where the height limit for D1 is 150 feet.

For the South University area, the planning commission had originally envisioned all of South University as a D1 area and passed along that recommendation to the city council. The city council saw things differently, and carved out roughly half the South University area as D2. That meant that the council could not accept the planning commission’s proposed Downtown Plan, which specified all of South University as “core.”

But unlike zoning code, over which the city council has the final decision, the Downtown Plan requires agreement between the planning commission and the city council – on master planning documents, the planning commission has equal standing with the council.

The outcome of that interplay between the city council and the planning commission was a greatly reduced D2 area in South University, compared to what the city council had wanted. Council’s amendment to its originally passed A2D2 zoning – with its large D2 area in South University – was substantial enough that the ordinance had to be brought back again for a “first reading.” [All ordinances are heard by the city council at a "first reading" and a "second reading," before a vote is taken.] Here’s a more detailed chronology:

• April 4, 2009: City council passes A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version with South University larger D2.
• April 20, 2009: City council refers Downtown Plan back to the planning commission [Useful backround in previous Chronicle coverage: "What's Your Downtown Plan?"]
• May 19, 2009: Planning  commission revised slightly different Downtown Plan with smaller D2 in South University.
• June 15, 2009: City council accepts revised Downtown Plan with smaller D2 in South University.
• July 6, 2009: City council postpones A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.
• July 20, 2009: City council again postpones A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.
• Sept 9, 2009: City council passes A2D2 Zoning “first reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.
• Nov. 16, 2009: City council’s agenda includes A2D2 Zoning “second reading” – version accepting smaller D2 in South University.

Some of the discussion at caucus centered on the question of how rezoning affected property values. Hieftje allowed that it was important to remember when rezoning, the city is rezoning property that is owned by people.

One resident focused on the block that includes the First Methodist and First Baptist churches downtown – bounded by Huron, State, Washington, and Division streets. She observed that the new construction at the corner of Washington and Division [411 Lofts] would already violate D2 zoning if it were to be zoned that way, but wondered if it was possible “to grandfather it in.” Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) explained that it was possible, and that it would simply be a “non-conforming use.”

Another resident wondered why it was not possible to “down-zone” when it was clearly possible to “up-zone.” Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that from a legal point of view, it was always easier to give than to take.

That led to a discussion of the fact that by up-zoning a parcel, there could be a kind of “taking” from the owners of smaller residential properties adjacent to the up-zoned parcels.

Underground Parking Garage: What Goes on Top?

A topic on several residents’ minds was the request for proposals the city had made for use of the area on top of the underground parking garage currently beginning constructed on the lot along Fifth Avenue, next to the library. The deadline for submission of proposals was last Friday, Nov. 13. The city has received six different proposals.

One sentiment expressed at Sunday’s caucus was that all six should receive interviews, given that it was a relatively small number. It falls to the selection committee to determine which proposals are to advance to the interview stage, but on Sunday, Mayor John Hieftje stressed that the city council could determine to hear whatever proposals it wanted.

The selection committee consists of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Eric Mahler (planning commission), John Splitt (DDA board), and Scott Rosencrans (Park Advisory Commission).

At caucus, there was support for inclusion of a proposal for a community commons, which was one of the six submitted. In response to the suggestion that there was not adequate open space downtown, Hieftje pointed to the University of Michigan Diag, West Park, the Arboretum, and Liberty Plaza, which he said needed to be redesigned to be all on one level.

Hieftje also pointed out that the city was planning to build a greenway, and that the surface parking lot at First & William had been designated for future use as a park in that greenway corridor. What had been common to the majority of parkland additions to the city’s park system in the time he’d been in office, said Hieftje, was that they were natural areas.  Natural areas, he continued, posed lower costs for security and for maintenance than urban parks.

Referencing the development of the top of the underground parking garage, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) cautioned against speculative development, saying that there’d been two examples of less-than-successful attempts: Tally Hall and William Street Station. The former developer of William Street Station, which would have been located on the site of the old YMCA at the northwest corner of Fifth and William, has filed a lawsuit against the city over the city’s cancellation of the project.

Kunselman suggested exploring public-public partnerships, saying it made more sense to think of putting the new library on top of the parking structure, then simply selling the old library parcel and the old YMCA lot. [The library board had planned to build a new library on the site of its current downtown building at the northeast corner of Fifth and William, but called off the project late last year, citing the poor economy.]

After caucus, Kunselman pointed out to The Chronicle that the public-public involved with putting a new library on top of the parking structure would be a four-way partnership: the city of Ann Arbor, the DDA, the Ann Arbor District Library, and the Ann Arbor Public Schools. AAPS still holds its board meetings at the library, and there’s a historical relationship between the library and the school system, dating back to when the library system was actually a part of the school system.

A possible different approach to the RFP process the city had undertaken with the top of the underground parking garage, suggested Kunselman, would be to sell the air rights to a developer, with that developer then able to bring a project forward in a standard site-plan review process. In order to get the open space the city wanted, deed restrictions could be placed on the sale of such air rights.

Cell Phones

One resident at caucus wanted to know what happened to a proposed cell phone ordinance that had been mentioned at a previous council meeting. Mayor John Hieftje said that Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) was still working on it. [At the council's Aug. 6 meeting, Rapundalo indicated that he and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) had asked the city attorney's office to draft an ordinance to prohibit cell phone usage and texting while driving, and they expected it to come before council at its Aug. 17 meeting. It didn't come forward then.]

Single Stream Recycling

A question was raised about the investment being made in single-stream recycling infrastructure: Was a $0.5 million investment worth it during this economic time, when the payback period could be seven years? Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that there was more being invested than $.05 $0.5 million. Discussion of the dollar amounts clarified that in any case it was not general fund money being invested. [At its Nov. 5 meeting, council approved roughly $3.35 million related to the program. See previous Chronicle coverage: "Council OKs Recycling, Transit, Shelter"]

HRIMP: Dam-in/Dam-out

Also on the council’s agenda is its formal acceptance of the Huron River Impoundment and Managment Plan. That report contains 32 recommendations – the resolution to be considered by council will accept 30. The two recommendations that the resolution leaves out are those that say the dam should be removed or kept in place. The HRIMP committee could not reach a consensus on the dam-in/dam-out question, and included both recommendations in its final report, which was completed in the spring of 2009.

Acceptance of the HRIMP could set the stage for the city council to contemplate making a dam-in/dam-out decision, or if not, then at least to consider a previous resolution to repair the toe drains in the earthen embankment along the headrace. That resolution had been tabled at the council’s Oct. 19, 2009 meeting. [Chronicle coverage of that meeting: "Still No Dam Decision"]

Parking Meters

An item on council’s consent agenda for Monday will appropriate up to $87,000 for purchase of electronic parking meters for the Wall Street area. This is an area that was identified as a place where additional parking meters could be installed to generate additional revenue, and which the city council approved as a part of the FY 2010 budget.

The supporting memo on the agenda item indicates that city staff overestimated the number of meters that could be installed in the area, which means that revenue projections associated with the FY 2010 budget would not be met. The memo indicates that other areas have been identified for meter installation to make up for the shortfall [emphasis added]:

On June 15, 2009, City Council approved the installation of parking meter equipment in various locations within the city via Resolution #R-09-233. Wall Street was one of the areas identified for installation of equipment for 115 spaces. As staff began the field work for the installation, it was noted that the original count of 115 spaces did not account sufficiently for drive approaches and no-parking areas. The space count for Wall Street has been updated to 71 spaces for metering. This decrease in metered spaces will decrease our projected meter revenue by approximately $80,000.00. Staff has identified an additional area for meter installation that will be presented to council during discussions about potential budget adjustments for the current fiscal year.

Kunselman’s Questions

In reviewing the council’s agenda online, The Chronicle noticed a novel kind of item – attachment of a communication from a councilmember with questions about agenda items asked of the city administrator and city attorney. In this case, the questions were from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3):

PH-1 A2D2 Design Guidelines

What is the state enabling legislation that allows for a community to enforce mandatory compliance with community-adopted design guidelines (also known as “design standards”)?

What is the case history for legal challenges to mandatory compliance with community-adopted design guidelines? Specifically, has a community legally defended in a Michigan Court withholding a certificate of occupancy for violating a community-adopted design guideline for a building permitted, constructed, and compliant under the State Building code enforced by the municipality?

DS-6 Contracts for West Park Improvements

Are funds from the voter approved Park Millage being used for this project? If so:

Are any funds from the Park Millage being directed to the 1% for Art Fund? If so:

Please provide the voter approved Park Millage language that authorizes said funds to be directed to public art. If such language is not explicit, then, please provide a written legal opinion that substantiates the Administration’s position that voter approved Park Millage funds can be directed to other uses such as public art by Council majority approval.

If such is the opinion, is it legally defensible for the City to adopt a 1% for the Homeless program using the same rationale?

Are funds from the Stormwater Fund, a utility enterprise fund, being directed to the 1% for Art Fund? If so:

Please provide a written legal opinion that substantiates the Administration’s position that utility enterprise funds, including loans from the State, can be directed to public art by Council majority approval. If such is the opinion, is it legally defensible for the City to adopt a 1% for the Homeless program using the same rationale?

Given the phrasing of at least some of the questions, which request an opinion from the city attorney, their answers could be expected to be filed with the city clerk’s office as required by the city’s charter, which reads in relevant part:

The Attorney shall:

(1) Advise the heads of administrative units in matters relating to their official duties, when so requested, and shall file with the Clerk a copy of all the Attorney’s written opinions

From the public notices published in the Oct. 1, 2009 edition of the Washtenaw Legal News: "Ann Arbor City Notice, Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed A2D2 Downtown Design Guidelines."

Ann Arbor City Council Sunday night caucus (Oct. 4, 2009): At its Sunday night meeting attended by only three councilmembers – Mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – downtown zoning was again center stage.

A dozen or so residents attended the caucus and many of them addressed the changes that can be traced in the draft documents for A2D2 downtown building design guidelines from Oct. 15, 2007 to April 30, 2008, to Aug. 28, 2009, and most recently in the Sept. 30, 2009 version of the document.

The council will open a public hearing on the proposed guidelines on Oct. 5, but is not scheduled to vote on the matter until at least Oct. 19. At caucus, Hieftje said that the public hearing might be left open until Oct. 19 and that it was possible that no vote would be taken then – there was “no rush,” he said.

The complaint of many of those who addressed caucus was this: A commitment to the design guidelines as a compulsory part of project review had been gradually written out of the various drafts.

The challenge in following the changes to the draft was made more difficult, some speakers contended, by the fact that the city had altered its strategy for publicizing public hearings. That’s a strategic necessity driven by the fact that the closing of The Ann Arbor News leaves The Washtenaw Legal News as the only local “newspaper of general circulation.” Other issues that came up at caucus included an item on Monday’s agenda to spend $122,480 to have the consulting firm Clarion Associates to review the city’s zoning code – as well as master plans, and other documents related to development – for inconsistencies. Clarion has offices in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Although an ordinance addressing toy guns returns to Monday’s agenda, it will likely be put off again – this time to be tabled instead of postponed to a date certain. Caucus also previewed an extension of a moratorium on the installation of parking meters in residential neighborhoods.

Design Guidelines Draft: A Work in Progress

The latest draft of the design guidelines document, which is a part of the A2D2 rezoning process, was released by the city on Sept. 30. The specific guidelines themselves seem to be materially the same as those in the Aug. 28 draft, which underpinned the city council’s mid-September joint work session with planning commission and the Downtown Development Authority board. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Design Guides: Must vs. Should."] However, the role that those guidelines play in the project review process has changed in the Sept. 30 version as compared to the Aug. 28 draft. To get a clearer picture of how the guidelines’ role has changed since the earliest draft, we’ve excerpted the language in relevant part, dating back two years.

[Oct. 17, 2007 Draft] The Design Review System …
Design Advisory Resource Panel A special panel will be established to provide advice to staff in making design review decisions. The majority of this group shall be design professionals, but it should also include some downtown property owners and community advocates. The panel will meet on an as-needed basis. Since their actions will only be advisory, no formal hearing will be required. All meetings will be open to the public and advance notice will be given in order to give the public an opportunity to attend their meetings. The panel will provide their advice to staff on the interpretation of the design guidelines as needed/requested …

Six months later, the “system” had become a “process.” But the notion of a panel or a board of some kind was retained.

[April 30, 2008 Draft] Design Review Process …
Design Advisory Panel. A special design advisory panel will be established as a resource for the decision-making process. Their role will be advisory only. Staff may draw upon the expertise of this panel for interpreting the design guidelines. Applicants may also request the assistance of the panel as part of the review.

More than a year after that, the “process” had become a discussion of “application” of the guidelines. No notion of a review panel is included in the Aug. 28 draft. But there is a specific requirement that a submitted project include a statement by  developers explaining how their projects meet the goals of the guidelines :

[Aug. 28, 2009 Draft] Application of the Design Guidelines …
Compliance with the design guidelines is voluntary but applications for site plan approval in the D1 and D2 zoning districts must include a Design Guidelines Statement describing how the proposed project relates to the priority guidelines in Chapter 2: General Design Guidelines and any priority guidelines for the relevant character district in Chapter 3: Design Guidelines for Character Districts. Refer to the Land Development regulations within Chapter 57 of the City Code for specific requirements.

Those regulations in Chapter 57 would need to be enacted – there’s nothing currently in the code requiring such a statement.

Considered as a whole document, the  latest version of the guidelines includes some superficial differences – mainly the symbol used to designate high-priority guidelines. It’s been changed from the “Texaco Star” symbol to a tree – which to The Chronicle’s eye appears to be the same tree that appears in the city of Ann Arbor’s seal.

By way of material differences between the Aug. 28 and the Sept. 30 drafts, there is no reference to specific requirements in Chapter 57 of a statement that’s required from a developer:

[Sept. 30, 2009 Draft] Application of the Design Guidelines …
The design guidelines in this document apply to development on all properties within the Downtown Core (D1) and Downtown Interface (D2) zoning districts. For properties that are in a designated historic district, refer to the separate Design Guidelines for Historic Districts. When considering a project downtown, property owners, developers and architects are encouraged to refer to the downtown design guidelines. Compliance with the design guidelines is voluntary.

There is also a checklist included in the appendix to the Sept. 30 draft, but there is no role in the project review process specified for it. So in terms of the scale of voluntary-to-compulsory described at the council’s joint work session by the consultant on the project, the changes in the draft documents correspond to a change from (3) to (1).

1. Completely voluntary: Design guidelines exist as a resource for developers. Developers are free to look at the guidelines or not. They’re free to incorporate the guidelines into their downtown projects or not.
2. Obligatory process, voluntary compliance – a checklist: As a part of the site plan approval process, developers must submit a statement evaluating their project against a checklist of design guidelines. The statement would explain how a project does and does not meet the intent of the design guidelines. Regardless of how the project stacks up based on the developer’s self-evaluation or planning staff’s evaluation and feedback, the developer would not be legally compelled to change the project based on the design guidelines alone.
3. Obligatory process, voluntary compliance – a design review board/panel: As part of the site plan approval process, a design review panel/board reviews the proposal independently of city planning staff with respect to meeting the intent of relevant design guidelines. The panel/board would issue a written opinion of their evaluation, but the developer would not be legally compelled to change the project based on that opinion.
4. Obligatory process, obligatory compliance: As part of the site plan approval process, a design review panel/board reviews the proposal independently of city planning staff with respect to meeting the intent of relevant design guidelines. The panel/board would issue a written opinion of their evaluation and that opinion would be legally binding. Otherwise put, a project could be denied based on a design review board’s assessment.

As previously reported, the direction to the consultant, Winter & Company, to craft the document in a way that presented the guidelines as voluntary came from the A2D2 oversight committee this past summer. The three-member committee consists of Marcia Higgins (city council, Ward 4), Evan Pratt (planning commission), and Roger Hewitt (DDA board).

Residents at caucus pointed out that the Sept. 30 draft had come just a day before the public notice had been published – and the publication of that notice had been in a newspaper some of them didn’t know existed: The Washtnaw Legal News.

Publication of Public Notices

The closing of The Ann Arbor News has had an impact on the city of Ann Arbor’s ability to cost-effectively meet its legal obligations to publish notices, as well as to adequately disseminate the information. The topic has come up recently with great frequency, most recently at the last regular meeting of the city council.

From The Chronicle’s Sept. 21 city council meeting report:

During public commentary on the need to adopt a sense of “diminished astonishment” when trying to follow public events, Jim Mogensen mentioned the fact that the public hearing on City Place had been published in the Detroit Free Press, but not in AnnArbor.com’s print edition.

It’s worth noting that the state statute requires that a newspaper be in publication for a year before it meets the legal requirement for publication of legal notices – so AnnArbor.com, which started publishing in July 2009, doesn’t qualify.

During a break in council’s meeting, city clerk Jackie Beaudry clarified for The Chronicle that from the point of view of cost, the Washtenaw Legal News is the city’s preferred choice, but that sometimes the timing of the once-a-week Legal News publication schedule forces the city to resort to the more expensive Detroit Free Press. Compared to the old Ann Arbor News, Beaudry said, the Free Press notices cost 10 times as much.

It was the Washtenaw Legal News (Oct. 1, 2009 edition) that the city used to publicize the Oct. 5 public hearing on the design guidelines. The Legal News is a weekly publication that comes out on Thursdays. Subscribers, who currently pay $5 per year, receive their copy of the paper in the mail.

One resident at caucus described her frustration visiting the Legal News website, discovering that she needed a subscription to see the content, then having difficulty finding the notices after she subscribed.

Mayor Hieftje acknowledged the challenge now faced by the city in meeting its legal obligations for publication, and suggested that the charter amendments to appear on November’s ballot would address part of that challenge. However, as Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out, the amendments to the charter do not address printing. [The proposed amendments would allow the city to satisfy its legal obligations for publication of ordinances by posting them on its own website.]

One idea floated by a resident at caucus was to recruit the University of Michigan Record and/or the Michigan Daily, which both have printed editions, in the effort to publicize public hearings and the like. The idea involved expanding the distribution area beyond campus.

In the course of the discussion among councilmembers and residents, an important distinction crystallized: Legal obligation versus effective dissemination. Part of the challenge in using the Legal News for effective dissemination of information is related to its weekly publication schedule. City council rules allow changes to its agenda up until the last minute, with recent revisions to those rules only requiring members to use “best efforts” to make such changes by the Friday before a Monday meeting.

Asked at caucus why the council had not enforced more discipline on itself with respect to these rules, Briere said that in her service on the rules committee, for late agenda changes she’d weighed in for language like “emergency” or “rare occurence,” but that she’d been talked out of it. There were, she said, occasions on which the council needed to be able to respond quickly to a situation. The response from the resident who raised the question: The council always has the option of suspending the rules. Briere summed up by saying, “It’s difficult to change people’s mind when life has been convenient.”

For reference, here’s how the State of Michigan defines “newspaper,” which is the source of the city of Ann Arbor’s challenge in meeting its legal obligations as well as serving the public interest.

Michigan Compiled Laws 691.1051: Newspaper; definition; publication of notices.

Sec. 1. The term “newspaper” as used in any statute of this state, except the revised judicature act of 1961 relative to the publication of a notice of any kind, shall be construed to refer only to a newspaper published in the English language for the dissemination of local or transmitted news and intelligence of a general character or for the dissemination of legal news, which

(a) has a bona fide list of paying subscribers or has been published at not less than weekly intervals in the same community without interruption for at least 2 years, and

(b) has been published and of general circulation at not less than weekly intervals without interruption for at least 1 year in the county, township, city, village or district where the notice is required to be published. A newspaper shall not lose eligibility for interruption of continuous publication because of acts of God, labor disputes or because of military service of the publisher for a period of not to exceed 2 years and provided publication is resumed within 6 months following the termination of such military service,

(c) annually averages at least 25% news and editorial content per issue. The term “news and editorial content” for the purpose of this section means any printed matter other than advertising.

If no newspaper so qualifies in the county where the court is situated, the term “newspaper” shall include any newspaper in an adjoining county which by this act is qualified to publish notice of actions commenced therein.

Zoning Code Overhaul

Residents asked the caucusing councilmembers to provide some clarity on a resolution to approve $122,480 for a contract with the consulting firm Clarion Associates to review the city’s zoning code. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) explained that there was money in the city attorney’s budget to reorganize the city’s zoning ordinances to make them more compatible with each other.

After caucus, Briere cited for The Chronicle as an example of problems with compatibility various wetlands regulations, which had arisen during the contentious approval process for the 42 North development. [Briere voted against the project when it was brought forward as a matter of right proposal, based in part on the interpretation of wetlands rules.]

Briere clarified that the work to be done by Clarion is not the A2D2 process and does not involve the substance of the code. She said that for her, given the cost, the question about the need to resolve conflicting language was this: Is this the year to do it?

Here’s the rationale for the legal work to be done by Clarion, taken from the administrative memo accompanying the resolution:

The current zoning and development ordinances have many issues that make it difficult to use. The issues can be summarized as: 1) the overall organization structure is cumbersome and it can be challenging to find code sections; 2) related standards are often contained in different code sections and can be difficult to navigate; 3) a lack of clarity in code language makes the code difficult to interpret; 4) there are some ordinance gaps and provisions that are out-of-date or may have minor inconsistencies with state law, and 5) the use of terms is inconsistent.

The professional services agreement with Clarion Associates is for consulting services to reorganize eleven different chapters of the Ann Arbor City Code and to address the identified issues to produce an integrated, internally consistent and user-friendly version that is: 1) comprehensive – to eliminate cross referencing between code sections to determine standards governing development and redevelopment; 2) clear and internally consistent; 3) usable, both internally by staff and externally by the public; 4) enforceable and legally defensible based on objective standards and Michigan enabling laws; and 5) adaptable and structured to make it easy to amend or to add/ delete provisions in the future.

Material changes to the code will not be addressed in this project. This effort will focus on the development of a solid framework so that future code changes – both technical and substantive – can be more easily incorporated. Material code changes will be undertaken as a rewrite of zoning standards following the development of the City of Ann Arbor Master Plan: Land Use Element, Phase II: Update Land Use Recommendations, a three-year process scheduled to begin in 2010. Material code changes that may surface as part of this effort will be collected in a “Suggestions for Future Changes” document for use as a part of the future zoning rewrite effort.

Toy Guns

At the council’s Sept. 8 meeting, a second reading was heard of an ordinance that would allow enforcement of prohibitions against so-called look-alike weapons. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had raised questions about the adequacy of the language in the ordinance. [See Chronicle coverage: "City Council Begins Transition."] For that meeting, the city attorney’s office had asked that the resolution be tabled so that the language could be rewritten.

The council voted to postpone the resolution – until Oct. 5. As Briere clarified at caucus, the attorney’s office had actually wanted a tabling of the resolution (with no date fixed). No changes have been made to the language in the interim. As a consequence, explained Briere,  the request from the attorney’s office is again to table the resolution so that adequate time can be put into reworking the language.

Based on her deliberations at the Sept. 8 meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 2) might float the idea of simply voting down the ordinance, instead of tabling it, and letting it come back clean, thus eliminating the need to track changes from one version to the next.

Eric Mahler, city of Ann Arbor planning commissioner, questioned whether the downtown design guidelines, as currently drafted, would pass legal muster, if they were implemented in a mandatory-compliance system. (Photo by the writer.)

Almost every child learns in school that a haiku is a short poem with three lines – lines that adhere to a 5-7-5 syllable count pattern.

But only some children learn that not all poems conforming to that 5-7-5 rule are good haikus. For example:

I saw a tower/Looming, stretching really tall/
Is it ever high!

Many readers will recognize those lines as a generally failed poem. But what specifically makes it a bad haiku, even though it follows the rule? The first-person narrative, the lack of seasonal referent, the lack of any kind of “aha!” moment – there are any number of ways in which that poetic effort fails to meet basic haiku design guidelines.

Similarly, a proposed new downtown Ann Arbor building that follows a basic height rule of “180 feet maximum” – specified in the zoning regulations – might still be generally recognizable as a poorly-designed building. 

Knowing it’s poorly designed is one thing. But it’s another thing for someone to say what exactly makes a building poorly-designed, or in a happier case, well-designed. That requires some knowledge of building design principles – just as critiquing a haiku requires some knowledge of haiku design principles. Perhaps the building’s entrance can’t be easily spotted, or its walls rise in a sheer, windowless face from the sidewalk to its full height.

When the members of Ann Arbor’s city council, planning commission and Downtown Development Authority board met in a joint work session on Monday night, they did not attempt poetry. Rather, they convened in the studios of Community Television Network to contemplate design guidelines for future downtown Ann Arbor buildings. In their questions for the consultant and city staff, they wound up focusing not on what the guidelines themselves said, but rather on this question: What role should the A2D2 design guidelines play in the city’s project approval process?

Brief Background on A2D2

In September 2006, the Ann Arbor city council approved A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) as the next step in the Downtown Development Strategies Project. That project already had a three-year history dating from October 2003. Two of the five priority actions for A2D2 were (i) to overhaul the downtown zoning, and (ii) to establish design guidelines.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked, "How do you legislate design?" Seated to Rapundalo's left is Mike Anglin (Ward 5). (Photo by the writer.)

In the spring of 2009, the city council appeared ready to approve the zoning package. However, a back-and-forth between the planning commission and the city council, which was driven largely by questions about the appropriate zoning designation of the South University area – caused a delay.

That delay meant that the original plan – to wrap up the zoning package in late spring, leaving the summer to focus on design guidelines – had to be altered. The revised approach was to allow the design guidelines to “catch up” to the zoning package, with final approval of each to come roughly around the same time: fall 2009.

The re-alignment of the scheduled approvals for those two priority actions – zoning overhaul and development of design guidelines – had to have been welcome to those in the community who had advocated persistently against their chronological separation. The council gave its first reading approval to the zoning package at its Sept. 8 meeting.

And with the leaves now beginning to turn, the city council, the city’s planning commission, and the Downtown Development Authority board convened its triple-joint session on Monday night, to focus on the design guidelines.

Design Guideline Content

Monday’s meeting of the three public bodies mirrored the mood of the public open house on design guidelines held two weeks earlier (Sept. 2) at the Kerrytown Concert House – people were more interested in issues of implementation than in content.

Alexis DiLeo, city planner, and Abe Barge of Winter & Company, a consulting firm. (Photo by the writer.)

But what is it that people are so concerned about implementing? Abe Barge of Winter & Company, which is consulting on the project, gave essentially the same presentation at both events. He walked both audiences through the main features of the Aug. 28 draft of the design guidelines document.

Chapter One covers general urban design principles – massing (how big is a building), frontage (how a building is experienced at the sidewalk), and other miscellaneous principles. The section on massing discusses, for example, how the perception of the overall height of a building is affected by its front. Consider a building with a front that rises from the sidewalk to a height of two stories then steps back slightly, before rising to a greater overall building height of six stories. That building will feel different to a pedestrian than one that rises to six stories straight up from the sidewalk.

Chapter Two becomes somewhat more focused on the idiosyncratic properties of Ann Arbor’s downtown. The principles themselves are not peculiar to downtown Ann Arbor, but the particular set of principles reflects a priority selection out of general design principles. They’re grouped into three categories: how buildings fit into the context of other buildings, the overall shape of buildings themselves, and the specific parts of buildings. In the vocabulary of design, these translate into: site planning, building massing, and building elements.

Number one on the list for site planning in downtown Ann Arbor are pedestrian connections, followed by open space. For building massing, it’s height and articulation that are top priority. It’s not just a matter of how tall a building is. It’s important to break up the mass of a building visually – both horizontally and vertically, according to the guidelines. And finally for building elements, it’s those parts of the building at the street edge that are most important, including where entrances are located and how they’re highlighted.

DDA board members Leah Gunn and Roger Hewitt before the work session. Despite appearances, they were not checking for rain inside the CTN studios. (Photo by the writer.)

In Chapter Three, the specific recommendations are laid out that are specific to each of eight different character districts within downtown Ann Arbor: South University, State Street, Liberty/Division, East Huron, Midtown, Main Street, Kerrytown, and First Street.

By way of example, for the South University area, it’s a top priority to provide a variety of building heights.

Implementation

Barge sketched out the range of possible implementation systems for the design guidelines – from completely voluntary compliance, to a system that could result in denial of a project that did not achieve the intent of the guidelines. There are a variety of systems within that range.

The Chronicle discussed that range by phone with Alexis DiLeo, who’s been the city planner in charge of A2D2 since mid-summer, after Wendy Rampson began serving as interim director of planning development in the wake of Mark Lloyd’s departure. We also followed up by phone with Barge.

The document containing the guidelines – which would be adopted by city council resolution – would essentially be separate from the specification of how they would be implemented. Here’s our understanding of some of the options in the range of possible implementations:

• Completely voluntary: Design guidelines exist as a resource for developers. Developers are free to look at the guidelines or not. They’re free to incorporate the guidelines into their downtown projects or not.
• Obligatory process, voluntary compliance – a checklist: As a part of the site plan approval process, developers must submit a statement evaluating their project against a checklist of design guidelines. The statement would explain how a project does and does not meet the intent of the design guidelines. Regardless of how the project stacks up based on the developer’s self-evaluation or planning staff’s evaluation and feedback, the developer would not be legally compelled to change the project based on the design guidelines alone.
• Obligatory process, voluntary compliance – a design review board/panel: As part of the site plan approval process, a design review panel/board reviews the proposal independently of city planning staff with respect to meeting the intent of relevant design guidelines. The panel/board would issue a written opinion of their evaluation, but the developer would not be legally compelled to change the project based on that opinion.
• Obligatory process, obligatory compliance: As part of the site plan approval process, a design review panel/board reviews the proposal independently of city planning staff with respect to meeting the intent of relevant design guidelines. The panel/board would issue a written opinion of their evaluation and that opinion would be legally binding. Otherwise put, a project could be denied based on a design review board’s assessment.

The most recent direction given to Winter & Company was by the A2D2 oversight committee in a conference call over the summer. The oversight committee consists of Marcia Higgins (city council), Roger Hewitt (DDA board) and Evan Pratt (planning commission). Their direction is reflected in the introduction to the design guidelines:

[Aug. 28, 2009 Draft] Compliance with the design guidelines is voluntary but applications for site plan approval in the D1 and D2 zoning districts must include a Design Guidelines Statement describing how the proposed project relates to the priority guidelines in Chapter 2: General Design Guidelines and any priority guidelines for the relevant character district in Chapter 3: Design Guidelines for Character Districts. Refer to the Land Development regulations within Chapter 57 of the City Code for specific requirements.

This most recent draft does not introduce the concept of a design review panel.

That contrasts somewhat with the approach of an earlier draft, which explicitly mentions such a panel and its role in the process:

[April 30, 2008 Draft] Design Advisory Panel. A special design advisory panel will be established as a resource for the decision-making process. Their role will be advisory only. Staff may draw upon the expertise of this panel for interpreting the design guidelines. Applicants may also request the assistance of the panel as part of the review.

At Monday’s joint work session, planning commissioner Kirk Westphal referenced a report from even earlier – in October 2007 – which articulated an expectation that there would be some kind of independent review body:

Design Advisory Resource Panel. A special panel will be established to provide advice to staff in making design review decisions. The majority of this group shall be design professionals, but it should also include some downtown property owners and community advocates. The panel will meet on an as-needed basis. Since their actions will only be advisory, no formal hearing will be required. All meetings will be open to the public and advance notice will be given in order to give the public an opportunity to attend their meetings. The panel will provide their advice to staff on the interpretation of the design guidelines as needed/requested.

At the Kerrytown Concert House meeting on Sept. 2, Ray Detter, who’s president of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, had expressed his long-standing expectation “that the design guidelines would be enforced with a mandatory design review process that included some form of peer group or planning staff review board.”

Following up by phone with Detter, he clarified for The Chronicle that he was not advocating for mandatory compliance with the finding of such a board. While the community was still learning what these guidelines actually are, he said, it would be premature to take that step.

Deliberations at the Work Session

Attendees at the work session in CTN studios had various clarificational questions for staff and the consultant. For example, city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted to know what the advantages of a staff versus an external board review would be. Answer: Ease – staff are already in place. They also had additional requests of the consultant. For example, city councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked if it were possible to take some potential downtown development sites and mock up the biggest, ugliest buildings possible within the zoning constraints, then look at the impact that the design guidelines would have on such buildings if they were followed.

From left to right: (planning commissioners) Eric Mahler, Erica Briggs, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Bonnie Bona; (city councilmembers) Tony Derezinski, Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Christopher Taylor; (DDA boardmembers) Joan Lowenstein, Leah Gunn, Roger Hewitt; (staff) Jayne Miller, director of community services with the city of Ann Arbor. (Photo by the writer.)

Stephen Rapundalo seemed to express some skepticism of a mandatory compliance system, asking, “How do you legislate design?” And planning commissioner Eric Mahler expressed some doubts about whether the malleable concepts in the guidelines – like “visual interest” – would pass legal muster if implemented as part of a mandatory compliance system. Queried by Mahler, Barge said that in his view, the language of the guidelines was ready to go for mandatory compliance, if that’s the direction the city of Ann Arbor decided it wanted to pursue.

But as far as back-and-forth among the members of the three public bodies – city council, planning commission, and DDA board – not much was on offer on Monday night. The seating configuration – an “L” that put 11 people on one side and another 7 people on the other leg – was perhaps an inhibitor to dialogue.

At some point there will need to be specific direction given by the city council to staff with respect to the desired implementation of the design guidelines. Unless the direction is to make the design guidelines an optional informational resource – with no formal role at all in the application process – then in addition to adoption of the guidelines by city council resolution, Chapter 57 of the city code would also need some kind of amendment.

The current game plan is for city council to vote on design guidelines in mid-October.

Mike Anglin's (Ward 5) amendment with edits made by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) at the council table.

Ann Arbor City Council meeting (July 6, 2009): The word “public” covered much of the ground of this past Monday’s meeting: public art, public land, public input.

The council got an annual report from the Public Art Commission highlighted by a reminder that Herbert Dreiseitl will be visiting Ann Arbor on July 20 to introduce plans for the storm water art he’s been commissioned to design for the new municipal center. The designs have not yet been accepted.

The council also heard a report from the Greenbelt Advisory Commission on a slight strategy shift in the use of $10 million of public money so far to protect 1,321 acres of land. The  council also approved a resolution to preserve the First & William parking lot as public land.

The discussion of another parcel of public land, the library lot, led to long deliberations on the wording of a resolution to establish an RFP (request for proposals) process for development of the site – below which an underground parking structure is planned. At issue was the timing of the RFP and the explicit inclusion of a public participation component in the process. The deliberations provided some insight into how councilmembers work together when the outcome of their conversations at the table is not scripted or pre-planned.

Planning in the sense of “land use” was also a topic addressed in multiple agenda items by the council. Councilmembers passed a resolution establishing a study committee to review the R4C and the R2A residential zoning districts – a bid by the Ward 3 council contingent to eliminate R2A from the purview of the committee got no support from others.

Having received a recommendation from the Downtown Development Authority board on the A2D2 zoning package that they wanted to examine more closely, the council postponed for two weeks the first reading of the A2D2 zoning package. The site plan for Walgreen on Jackson Road, near Maple Road, was approved with permits contingent on an easement for ingress and egress.

The November city council campaign in Ward 4 began to take shape when independent candidate Hatim Elhady took a turn at public commentary, and he took the occasion to ask some questions of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), the incumbent he’s challenging.

Site Development Committee and RFP for the Library Lot

-

Background

The planned underground parking garage along Fifth Avenue has generated discussion about the “What goes on top?” question. In March, the DDA passed a resolution in support of making DDA resources available for facilitating a public process. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

Community Vision for 300 Block of South Fifth Avenue: What Goes on Top? [Sandi] Smith introduced the resolution, which states support of a process to develop a community vision for the 300 block of South Fifth Avenue. She said that it was prompted by the dialogue about the undergound parking garage, which had prompted the frequent question from residents: What goes on top? The idea, said Smith, was to begin a community conversation that was vague, free from preconception, and not steering towards some pre-set notion.

[John] Hieftje said he was happy to begin the discusison and that the reason it hasn’t come before is that it’s not a good economic environment to start a project. People needed to understand, he said, that it would be a few years before that climate would change.

[John] Mouat said it was an interesting urban planning exercise involving potentially a lot of different groups. “Are we really prepared to take it on?” he wondered.

John Splitt stressed that the DDA would just be offering resources: “We’re not trying to steer it into any direction; we’re there to help.” [Jennifer] Hall said she supported it, and pointed out that the discussion would include the whole block, not just the library lot. “Somebody needs to get out the door,” she said. “It should have been done ages ago.”

Public Commentary on Library Lot Site Development

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Alan Haber and Hatim Elhady addressed the council, speaking on the topic of the library lot site development.

Alan Haber: Haber began, “By the time questions get here, the fix is in and the deal is done and this is ceremonial democracy so that the people will think that we had something to do with this.” Haber sketched a scene of an America that is owned by banks, and the local landscape dominated physically by the “elite monumentalism” of the university. He gave the newly renovated Michigan Stadium as an example. He expressed the hope that sometimes people can actually change their minds and let the people’s voices come in. Haber proposed that the council dedicate the parcel as public land, dedicated to the culture of peace and nonviolence for the children of the world. “Build a park on the Commons, on the public land. Build it all-season, make it solar, geothermal, a place for community, embrace the vision of The Commons, a place for people to come together to sustain themselves and each other.”

Hatim Elhady: [Councilmember Marcia Higgins will be unchallenged in her August Democratic primary, but will face Hatim Elhady, who's running as an independent, in the fall.] Elhady began with a point blank question: “I would like to ask councilmember Higgins just what the rush is to build atop a nonexistent parking lot a project threatened with a lawsuit from an environmental group – when the Stadium bridge has gone unrepaired since you and George W. Bush were elected into office?”

Elhady noted that there were emails from the mayor and other councilmembers to constituents saying there were no plans to build anything on top of the library lot and that it could be years before anything is built, but that soon after the emails were sent it had been declared there must be something built. He focused on two clauses in the resolution. [The first of these was eventually taken up during council deliberations by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).] The first clause that Elhady highlighted specifies that the the site must bring financial return to the city. The second says that the city administration shall incorporate a design committee with residents. From that Elhady reasoned that residents can have whatever they want – as long as it brings revenue. This immediately tosses out the idea, he contended, that a park should be made with swings in it. The citizens of Ann Arbor deserve honest and open answers to their questions and an inclusive and thoroughly deliberate discussion about what gets built in their city before council votes to issue RFPs, he concluded.

Deliberations by Council on the Library Lot Process

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) introduced the resolution by acknowledging that it had morphed a little bit based on input from the public and from the council. At the immediately previous council meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had moved successfully for a postponement of the resolution to establish a committee on site development of the library lot.

The general context described by Smith in which the resolution was being brought forward was one in which the council had received an unsolicited proposal from a developer. Drawings had been provided to councilmembers at their January 2009 budget retreat. The idea, said Smith, was to throw the door open wide to any and all other proposals to see what they get.

Mike Anglin then offered amendments to the resolution, couching them in terms of the council’s commitment to public participation in development decisions. He said that the same requirement for public participation should apply to city projects as well as private developments. Anglin circulated printed copies of the amendment language to all of his council colleagues. Anglin noted that there was a feeling in the community that the space itself was very special and that it has the potential to become something spectacular. Anglin’s amendment:

RESOLVED: That the city conduct a series of public meetings to determine citizen opinion on the desired use of the site before the RFP is prepared.

Anglin’s amendment also proposed to strike the date-related resolved clauses specifying an RFP issuance on Aug. 3 and a 60-day time frame for submissions.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) began deliberations on the amendment by saying that he appreciated Anglin’s motives, saying that they were “well served.” But he reminded his colleagues that this was an RFP process and that removing the dates reflected a non-standard way of moving forward. Having dates certain ensured that everyone had the same amount of time to respond to the proposal, Rapundalo said. He echoed Smith’s view that the process really did open the door wide to anything and everything that someone might propose. He said that once the RFP process was finished that it was reasonable to expect that there would be some kind of public review of proposals. He characterized the RFP processes that he’d been a part of over the years as “very deliberate.” Rapundalo concluded that he would not be supporting the amendment.

Anglin then challenged his fellow councilmembers to describe what the public input to date had been on the subject. A longish pause ensued.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) responded to Anglin by saying that the community had been talking about the downtown for six years. Over the years, she said, they’d talked about what might happen to the parcel if it were ever developed: There’d been ideas about selling the parcel, and they’d heard from groups about making it into a park; they’d heard a proposal to put an ice rink there; and it’d had been discussed as a possible location for the municipal center. During that whole period, Higgins said, they’d heard many different ideas about what should happen on the lot.

What they had not yet heard, she allowed, was council saying that they would like to hear from everybody, and that’s what this RFP process was about.

[Analysis: Here Higgins acknowledged that there'd been a lot of talk by a lot of people, but never a specific directed process meant to achieve some specific design proposal. It could have been used as a common ground gambit, but was mostly missed in subsequent deliberations by Anglin, Rapundalo and Leigh Greden. Higgins' characterization allowed that there'd been a lot of discussion up to now (which occupied subsequent focus by Greden and Rapundalo) but none as specifically directed and as wide open as this one they were about to contemplate – the only part that Anglin focused on.]

“We are not saying that it is a done deal,” Higgins stressed. She allowed that people had heard there was a group who had convinced the council that the parcel should be used for a conference center. She’d also heard from greenway advocates that the parcel could become another park area. She’d heard the mayor advocate for a very long time that he would like to see an ice skating rink downtown as a part of any project that might be done there.

Part of this proposed process, Higgins emphasized, was to say that there were no particular criteria that they were looking for. She said she was hoping for lots of different ideas to be proposed. The proposals would all go forward for review by the committee, she said, which would include citizens. That, she declared, would start the public process. She concluded that it was the most wide-open RFP process that she had ever seen the city council do.

Higgins said that if, after 60 days, the city administrator reported that they had received no proposals, then the council could easily extend the time frame.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) read through an amendment by Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) weighed in by saying that it was not a question of whether to have public participation but rather when. Once council had a series of proposals, he said – with different themes and with different uses for that property – then it was appropriate to have public input as to which one might be picked. Restricting the process of beginning, he said, would simply choke off the flow of potential alternatives. He stressed that council should wait and see what proposals they received, noting that the public input on the proposals was going to be incredible in any case. “It’s a question of what you choose from,” Derezinski concluded.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) said he agreed with the idea of some additional public process associated with the site, and that the question was when and in what form. He allowed that he did not know if he had a position on the “when” question– is it after the bids come in, or is it earlier in the process?

Greden said he wanted to point out that there had been extensive public process already to date on this particular site. Greden appealed to the historical record of a resolution passed in November of 2007 in which council had talked about the development of the area above what could eventually become the future underground parking garage.

The language of that resolution, which authorized the DDA to design and construct the underground parking garage, was quoted subsequently in deliberations by Stephen Rapundalo:

… Whereas, The land above an underground parking garage on the South Fifth Avenue lot could be used in the near future to support new residential, retail, and/or office development and open space for public use, thus increasing the number of downtown residents, employees, and visitors, increasing the tax base, creating jobs, and enhancing the experience of being downtown; and …

… Be it further resolved … the underground parking garage shall be designed to support above ground, in the short-term, surface public parking, and in the long-term, development which could include, but is not limited to, a residential, retail, and/or office building(s) and a public plaza;

Citizens had come and spoken at public comment on that, Greden said. In the process of the DDA designing the garage, Greden noted that the DDA had coordinated public activities to help design the underground garage itself and also to explore the question of what might go above the site. A second resolution, Greden said, had been passed in early 2008 that shows similar conversations were conducted.

While he agreed with the idea that there should be additional public input, Greden said that the language of the amendment was “too vague.” “Public meetings – what does that mean? How many?” he asked. Greden also allowed that the dates and times proposed in the original resolution (Aug. 3 and 60 days) might be too strict, but agreed with Rapundalo that there should be dates of some kind. He said he’d be open to an amendment of the dates but would not support eliminating them completely. He concluded that he would not support the amendment as written.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said that over the years there had been a significant amount of input from the public that had been specific to the site. However, he felt that some additional public input would be useful. Having no deadline, he cautioned, was not constructive for the process. Hohnke wanted to know what was meant by having “a financial return to the city,” but he was advised by Mayor John Hieftje that he needed to focus the amendment – which did not include that phrase.

Anglin, advised by Hieftje that this would be his last speaking turn without a suspension of council rules, contended that there had been no public input specifically on the library lot. The DDA, he said, had done “invite only” meetings. He then said he believed that the financing was not yet in place for what was to go below or on top, saying that it was not a done deal. And he then introduced a phrase that caused momentary confusion by saying that he would be calling for a “voice vote” on the issue – subsequently Hieftje would clarify that the intended term was “roll call vote.”

Anglin then admonished his colleagues that voting no on the amendment meant that they didn’t want the public to say anything more about this. Zeroing in on a previous mention of public process on the library lot as having begun with the Calthorpe process, Anglin declared: “And this nonsense of saying that we started this at Calthorpe, that is erroneous.” Anglin then contended that the cost of the underground parking structure was 25% greater than it needed to be, because the city council had already planned to put something on top of it. “The public has not been consulted. So tell the public that you don’t want them to vote on something that is so important to them.”

Anglin said that he was certainly happy to change the dates and that conversation could happen once it was determined there would be public input.

If Anglin had been blunt, then Rapundalo was equally so: “With all due respect to councilmember Anglin, I think a lot of what you allude to is, quite frankly, in your own words, ‘nonsense.’” Rapundalo stated that the Calthorpe process had been fully open to anybody and everybody and not limited to select groups. He noted the example that Greden had previously cited was a resolution that passed on the public record. Based on that resolution, Rapundalo concluded: “We are in no way limiting what could be there.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) explaining that before asking the public to weigh in he felt there needed to be something "in hand" to show them.

Rapundalo related the timing of the solicitation of public input to having something specific for the public to evaluate: “I don’t have a problem going out to the public for their input. I’d like to have something in hand, and right now we have nothing.” Rapundalo reiterated that timelines are fairly standard for RFPs, then concluded with: “If you’re not up to speed on this, go back and do some homework on what has transpired at this body for years on end.”

Higgins then asked the city administrator, Roger Fraser, if the timelines were too restrictive. Fraser replied that he had provided input on the resolution and that he felt that it was doable to prepare the RFP by Aug. 3. Fraser characterized the 60 days as “tight but doable.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) reported that at the last partnerships committee meeting of the DDA there had been discussion of putting the RFP out more widely, possibly on a national level. A longer timeframe, she said, might allow for something like that.

Greden analyzed Anglin’s reference to a roll call vote as an implication that councilmembers should be ashamed to vote no on the amendment. Greden said that he thought the amendment was a “poor proposal.” “It’s vague,” he said. Anglin’s proposal didn’t have any parameters for time, Greden said, but he allowed that Aug. 3 and 60 days were probably too strict – he would entertain some alternative proposal. He said he agreed that a proposal for some kind of specific public process might be useful before the RFP is issued – that was a fair debate, he allowed. Because the amendment lacked sufficient detail, he said, “I look forward to casting my vote on the record against this amendment and would happily entertain any alternatives that someone else at the table has to address those issues.”

[Link to a column: "How a Skilled Politician Plays Chess"]

Councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) identified the points of commonality around the table, focusing on the willingness of several people to discuss different dates as well as an agreement that there should be a public process. Councilmembers then thrashed through amendments to Anglin’s amendment at the level of wording differences like “determining public opinion” versus “soliciting public opinion.” There was constructive input from many around the table. One example was from Higgins, who warned that the explicit inclusion of a provision for public input might imply that the usual practice was not to have public input. The final draft reconstructed by The Chronicle:

RESOLVED: That the committee conduct a public meeting to solicit public input, consistent with usual practice.

At this point, the Aug. 3 date had been left intact, and the 60-day window was extended to 90 days.

The roll call vote on Anglin’s amended amendment resulted in unanimous approval.

Greden then proposed delaying the date for issuance of the RFP by a month. Subsequent deliberations, which included an invitation by Smith to Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, to offer her perspective, resulted in an Aug. 14 date for the issuance of the RFP.

Hohnke then returned to the issue of the phrasing “financial return to the city.” He asked if the intention was that it required there to be a profit or rather that any proposal be at least revenue neutral. Higgins indicated that a proposal yielding profit was fine but that a revenue-neutral proposal would also be fine.

In summing up the deliberations, Hieftje said that a challenge facing the city council was the question of when public input should be solicited. On the one hand, he said, council strived to get public input as early as possible. On the other hand, in his experience, the public generally wanted something to react to, and that without something concrete for the public to consider, there was the risk that some members of the public would feel like their time is being wasted.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously as amended.

Planning: A2D2 Rezoning Package

-

Public Commentary on A2D2 Rezoning

Bruce Thomson: Thomson owns property on the north side of East Huron Street. He noted that it had long been zoned as C2AR, so the idea that it was being “changed” to D1 was not accurate, he said. He noted that the currently proposed zoning as a part of A2D2 included a height limit that was 30 feet lower than the rest of downtown [150 compared to 180 feet], plus had a requirement of increased setbacks. He said he felt the proposal was a good compromise and reflected some good hard work. [Thomson's remarks came in the context of a relatively recent effort by residents of nearby tall buildings to see Thomson's property zoned D2 under the new ordinance, which would limit future building heights to 60 feet.]

Jerald Lax: Lax introduced himself as Thomson’s attorney and offered comment on a communication from a Michigan Department of Transportation employee that had been sent to the city related to the proposed D1 zoning on Huron Street. He cautioned that the letter had been elicited by the residents of a nearby tall building who did not wish to see another tall building built on Thompson’s property. He noted that the zoning designation that had been in place for decades – C2AR – allowed for unlimited height. He also noted that the property already had curb cuts.

John Etter: Etter said that he was the one who had provided information to MDOT and it had come as a surprise to him that MDOT had not been consulted in the context of the rezoning effort in Ann Arbor.

Bob Snyder: Snyder reminded councilmembers that they had received communications from a variety of sources and neighborhood groups recently on the subject of the A2D2 zoning ordinance that was on their agenda. He said there was overall support for the effort, which had included a lot of hard effort over several years. However, Snyder reported a certain anxiety over last-minute compromises that might take place without going back the citizens. He stressed that after five years of involvement in public process, the groups he’s involved with generally approved of the Downtown Plan, the Central Area Plan, and the DDA Renewal Plan of 2003. They supported the new zoning ordinances, but only in the context of the Downtown Plan plus a context-based design process. “Consistency is what we looking for,” he said. Snyder was critical of a last-minute attempt to increase the mass of buildings in the downtown.

Council Deliberations on A2D2

In response to the question raised during public commentary, Wendy Rampson, the city’s interim director for planning services, was asked to explain what the nature of the consultation had been with MDOT. Rampson noted that the communication conveyed to city council had come via MDOT’s Brighton service area. She noted that in addition to the Brighton office, the city of Ann Arbor dealt with MDOT via the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS). She indicated that she had given a presentation to that group in December of 2008 and in January of this year.

Rampson noted that the current zoning is similar to the zoning that is now proposed. She indicated that traffic would be addressed on a site-by-site basis.

The effort to increase building mass – to which Bob Snyder had referred in his public commentary – was rooted in a resolution passed by the DDA at its June 3 meeting. In relevant part, that resolution reads:

Given that City Council has resolved to impose building height limits in D1 and D2, the DDA respectfully recommends that if 33% or more of a floor of structured parking required by the zoning ordinance is being constructed within a development, the remaining parking needed to complete a floor of parking should not be calculated as part of the building’s FAR.

• We recommend that the ratio for residential premiums be restored to a 1 to 1 proportion as is current zoning.
• Now that a height limit has been established in the D1, we recommend that the by right zoning in the D1 be increased to 500%.
• Further, to increase the community benefits of new buildings, we recommend that the FAR with
  premiums be increased to 900%, and with affordable housing to 1,100%.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated he didn’t have enough information on the interpretation of the suggestions that had been made by the DDA regarding building mass. He therefore asked for a two-week postponement in order to query staff. After confirming that the postponement would be to a date certain in two weeks, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said that council would still be able to take care of rezoning in time for the Sept. 14 joint working session with the planning commission on design guidelines.

Outcome: The first reading of the A2D2 zoning ordinance package was postponed until the July 20, 2009 meeting.

More Planning: R4C/R2 Zoning District Study Committee

As an amendment to the resolution to appoint an R4C and R2A zoning district study advisory committee, Leigh Greden (Ward 3) moved that the R2A district be eliminated from consideration, saying that it unnecessarily burdened the committee members and city staff.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves as city council’s representative to the planning commmission, appealed to a resolution from October 15, 2007 that specifically referenced the need to review both the R2A and the R4C districts. The idea, he said, was to do the review comprehensively: “Here’s the thing: Get it done!”

Higgins elicited from Jayne Miller, director of community services for the city, some of the rationale for consideration of the two districts together. First, these two districts represented the last classifications that planning staff needed to review in order to complete their comprehensive look at zoning for the whole city. R4C is more dense than R2A – R4C is multi-family housing, which also includes group housing, she explained. R2A is single- and two-family dwellings.

The idea, Miller said, was not to replace one zoning district with the other. The idea was that they should be considered together because there are many places, especially in the central area, where the two zoning classifications abutted each other. Higgins concluded that it would not be prudent to look at the zoning classifications separately, given their close geographic proximity, especially in this area.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he could appreciate the view of geographic primacy, but he felt that the designations were sufficiently distinct that they could be teased apart analytically. Sabra Briere acknowledged that it was important to analyze the two districts separately. But she noted that she herself lived in an R2A district, whereas her neighbors lived in R4C. She noted that her street was not unique in that the two districts were interwoven. She concluded the two kinds of district should both be within the purview of the study committee.

Outcome: The resolution to appoint the review committee passed with dissent from both Ward 3 councilmembers, Greden and Taylor.

More and More Planning: Possible Moratorium in R4C

During Mike Anglin’s (Ward 5) communications to council, he announced that he would be bringing forward at the council’s next meeting, on July 20, a resolution to establish a moratorium on all demolitions, rezoning, and all new developments that require site plan approval within the R4C and R2A districts, effective immediately.

Anglin indicated that the city attorney’s office was working on the language of such a resolution. The moratorium, said Anglin, would extend for a period of six months in conjunction with the study and possible revision of zoning ordinances pertaining to those districts. Anglin said that one of the goals was to bring the zoning ordinances in line with the Central Area Plan, which was adopted in 1992.

It was supposed to be ready in draft form by Thursday (July 9). In his report to the planning commission on Tuesday, July 6, Tony Derezinski – the council’s representative to that body – alerted the planning commission to Anglin’s intended resolution, concluding: “I don’t know how much support he’ll get.”

Even More Planning: Preserving First & William as Open Space

-

Public Commentary on First & William

Margaret Wong: Wong said that although she was affiliated with the Greenway Conservancy and the Friends of The Greenway, she was there to speak as a citizen. She said that she was encouraged by the resolution on the council’s agenda that would establish the First & William parking lot as open space, but noted that it was just the first step. She noted that there were specific concrete actions that need to be completed, which included seeking funds for the remediation, revising the mutually beneficial parking agreement with the DDA, and rezoning the land. She noted, however, that there was a crucial need to classify the parcel as parkland. She encouraged council to expedite all of these concrete steps.

Rita Mitchell: Mitchell said that she’d been working with Margaret Wong on the Greenway for a long time and she welcomed Mayor Hieftje and councilmember Hohnke to the effort. Mitchell echoed Wong’s sentiment that it is a first step. She noted the benefits deriving from turning the parcel into a park: flood risk mediation, and improvement of water quality. She stressed the need to make sure that this parcel becomes the first in a chain and to make sure that it is more than just a green space on a piece of paper.

Council Deliberations on First & William

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began deliberations with a friendly amendment of the resolution he co-sponsored with John Hieftje, which confirmed Margaret Wong’s view – reported previously in The Chronicle’s analysis and expressed during public commentary – that the Park Advisory Commission needed to designate the parcel as parkland in its Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) plan. The amendment directed the commission to add the parcel to its PROS plan.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Yep, More Planning: Walgreen Site Plan Approval

Dave Prueter: Prueter, with Agree Realty, appeared at the podium to indicate that he was present and available to answer any questions along with Marc Levy, the owner of the property.

John Lagos: Lagos, who is an adjoining property owner, asked the council to maintain the requirement that an easement be granted to allow ingress and egress. The easement, he said, should be granted prior to the issuance of any permits.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge told the council that any site plan should require the consideration of access for people with disabilities. In particular he cited the need to require access to public transportation riders. He cited the case of the recent eviction of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority from the Arborland shopping plaza as an example illustrating why a necessary requirement of any site plan should include such access.

During deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) clarified with staff that the easements mentioned by Lagos were in place to be granted in a manner that seemed acceptable to all sides.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Fee Adjustments for Historic District Commission

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave the background for the resolution, which included the fact that application fees for a historic district permit had increased from $50 to $500 as a part of the recently passed budget by the city council. Briere noted that the fee increase had not been a part of the budget book circulated to councilmembers. Instead, she said that it had been provided in a packet that had been sent the day before they had voted.

The resolution changed the rules so that all application fees would be $40 until September, and directed city staff to develop a sliding fee schedule. Briere noted that it made little sense to charge a $500 application fee to someone who wanted to install a new door that might cost $100-$150. The fee schedule, Briere said, should not encourage residents to avoid going before the Historic District Commission.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Revised Park Advisory Commission Bylaws

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) thanked the city attorney’s office, in particular Kevin McDonald, for assistance in “getting into the weeds” with the review of PAC bylaws. There was a brief discussion about the fact that city council representatives to the Park Advisory Commission were non-voting members. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) noted that a similar situation applied in the case of the housing commission and the cable commission. Anglin said that he was surprised at the last Park Advisory Commission meeting that some members said they did not want councilmembers to have a vote on the commission.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Greenbelt Advisory Commission

Laura Rubin, who is chair of the Greenbelt Advisory Commission, gave a presentation outlining progress to date on land protection activity and provided an update on some changes in their strategic plan. Rubin said that 12 deals had been closed that protected 1,321 acres of land. The city itself, she said, had invested around $10 million, which had been matched by almost $9 million – in federal funds, funds from surrounding townships that had also passed a similar greenbelt millage, Washtenaw County, as well as landowner donations.

She reported the fund balance at around $6 million. Each year the millage generates around $1 million, she said. The focus to date on land protection had been in the area north of the city. Rubin, who is also executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, said that no land had yet been acquired on the Huron River itself, but that land on its tributaries had been protected with millage funds.

Rubin said there had been a change in the commission’s approach due to the overall economy. Whereas the commission previously had a real sense of urgency with the need possibly to pay top dollar to protect land, the market has slowed so there’s less need to act quickly.

In terms of general strategy, Rubin reported that the commission was placing a new priority on local food markets. Previously, land parcels greater than 40 acres had enjoyed a higher score on the metric used by the commission to evaluate parcels. Now, however, Rubin said that the commission had lightened its emphasis on matching funds when it came to smaller parcels that could be used for growing local food.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) confirmed with Rubin that the dollars invested by the city had so far been matched on a roughly 1-1 ratio with other funds. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Rubin to speak to the new strategy of a local food focus, asking if it was related to the scale or if the emphasis was on organic food production.

Rubin clarified that it is the scale of the operation that is at issue. She said the new strategy is intended to provide that parcels of 5-10 acres were also suitable candidates for protection under the greenbelt millage. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked Rubin to clarify how easements are being handled for the smaller parcels. Rubin clarified that some of the easement language is more restrictive for investments that are matched by federal grants.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted to know whether the new emphasis on local food production amounted to a material change in scoring outcomes for parcels. Rubin clarified that there are still many other factors in the scoring metric used to assess suitability of protecting a particular parcel. But she said that the 40-acre threshold used to get quite a bit of weight. Rubin allowed that it amounted to an expansion of eligible properties.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was curious about what Rubin had meant by “going it alone” in the case of protecting some of the smaller parcels. Rubin clarified that it might well be that the city of Ann Arbor could be the only purchaser of development rights for some of the smaller parcels. If a parcel is less than 40 acres, she said, then the federal government cannot be a partner.

Higgins noted that this represented a policy shift, saying that it had always been the intended policy that the city of Ann Arbor would never be the sole purchaser. She stated, “I’ll have a conversation with you off-line.” Higgins explained that she was not sure if there had been a public enough discussion on this shift in policy.

Public Art Commission Annual Report: Dreiseitl

Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, gave an annual report to the Ann Arbor city council during the agenda’s introductions section. Parker said that in the commission’s first year it had designated the new municipal center as the focus for public art projects and had convened a task force to identify such projects in connection with the center’s construction. That work had begun in August of 2008, she said.

In February of 2009 the commission had hired a half-time administrator, Parker reported. She noted that the DDA had set up its own Percent for Art program and that the Fourth & William parking structure addition had generated funds that could be spent on public art. The DDA had designated the Public Art Commission as the body to allocate those funds but had not included any funds for administration, Parker said. She characterized the coordination between the two bodies – the city’s public art commission and the DDA – as “still being determined.”

Parker said that one half-time person would be able to accomplish not more than one major project per year. She announced that on July 20 Herbert Dreiseitl would be visiting Ann Arbor and that from 4-5 p.m. on that day he’d be presenting proposed designs for the storm water art to be installed at the new municipal center. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) inquired of Parker where the commission was currently getting its administrative help.Parker said that 8% of the money generated through the Percent for Art program goes to fund administration. She said that the city attorney’s office had been very helpful with legal concerns and that Sue McCormick, who is director of public services with the city, had also provided support.

Any arrangement with the DDA, Parker said, still needed to be clarified. “The DDA has their own way of doing things,” she concluded.

Airport Runway Expansion

Since the beginning of the year, public commentary at most, if not all, Ann Arbor city council meetings has included remarks on the proposed runway expansion at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

Kathe Wunderlich: Wunderlich spoke against the proposed runway extension at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. She said that she wanted to correct some errors that had appeared in an Ann Arbor News article about a plane that had landed on the Stonebridge golf course recently. She stressed that the runway would be lengthened by 950 feet and that planes taking off from an airport took off directly over Stonebridge. She warned that the citizens advisory committee appointed in connection with the environmental review was loaded with Ann Arbor citizens and was therefore biased. She told city council that they would be asked to approve the runway extension without a safety study by the city, the state, or the Federal Aviation Administration. She noted that the Willow Run airport is just 6 miles away.

Miscellaneous Roundup

Two concerns leftover from the adoption of the FY 2010 budget were addressed formally: a Senior Center task force was appointed, and a task force to create a self-sustaining financial plan for Mack Pool was created.

Finally, a liquor license for the new Tios location on Liberty Street was approved.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, John Hieftje.

Absent: none.

Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 20, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

But it wasn’t the bike path that drew more than 20 people to speak at a public hearing. That turnout was for the adoption of the Downtown Plan. It was ultimately adopted as amended by the city’s planning commission so that the D2 buffer in the South University area is a small area in the southeast corner.

The expected vote on the City Place project along Fifth Avenue was delayed again after additional technical errors by planning staff were discovered related to the planning commission’s April meeting. That project will now start over with the planning commission public hearing.

Audience members who waited until the end of the long meeting heard Mayor John Hieftje appoint a subcommittee of councilmembers to meet with the DDA’s “mutually beneficial” committee to discuss the parking agreement between the city and the DDA.  In the discussion after the jump, we provide a record produced in the preliminary response to a Chronicle FOIA, which dates the renegotiation of the parking agreement to as early as September 2008 and connects it to discussions between the mayor and a candidate for the DDA board, Keith Orr, who was eventually appointed to the board.  The record shows that his appointment was not contingent on a commitment to a particular vote on the parking agreement.

Development – Downtown Plan

More than 20 people spoke at the public hearing on the adoption of the Downtown Plan. Readers interested in details of their comments can view the video of Monday’s meeting here.

Downtown Plan Background

In broad strokes, what’s at issue are two kinds of policy: zoning ordinances and planning documents. Ideally they should support each other and not be in conflict. The Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2) process was an effort to revise both the zoning ordinances and planning documents to bring them up to date to reflect the goals for future development, and to make them compatible.

The city’s planning commission recommended a set of new zoning ordinances and sent those to the city council for final approval this spring. The council made its own revisions to the zoning ordinances that had been recommended by planning commission. The city council has the legal authority to adopt those ordinances as amended with no further input from the planning commission. While council has completed the preliminary step (the “first reading”) for approval of the zoning ordinances, the final step (“second reading”) is not scheduled until July.

Earlier in the spring, planning commission also sent to the city council its recommendation for a new Downtown Plan, which was considered by the city council after it had undertaken changes to the zoning ordinances recommended by the planning commission. The Downtown Plan that had then come from planning commission – while consistent with the planning commission’s recommended zoning ordinances – was inconsistent with the changes that city council had made. But council does not have the legal authority to amend the Downtown Plan  and adopt the plan as amended. Instead, council must vote the plan up or down – the two bodies (planning commission and city council) must adopt the same plan. Council and commission have equal status in this case.

So when the Downtown Plan first came before the city council several weeks ago, it was rejected and sent back to the planning commission.

Planning commission then reconsidered its Downtown Plan in light of city council’s zoning changes and revised the plan – but a major inconsistency remained between the version of the Downtown Plan presented to the city council this past Monday (June 15, 2009) and the zoning ordinance package that, procedurally speaking, is between its preliminary and final approval by the city council.

At its June 15 meeting, then, the city council faced essentially two alternatives: (i) insist upon a Downtown Plan that was exactly consistent with the zoning ordinances it wanted to pass and send it back to planning commission, or (ii) accept the Downtown Plan, together with the implication that council would need to revise the zoning ordinances to be consistent with that Downtown Plan.

Previous Chronicle coverage of the interplay between planning commission and city council can be found here. One key issue is the setting of the D1/D2 boundary in the South University area: planning commission recommended a very small D2 buffer area in the southeast corner, whereas council had seen fit to assign the D2 zoning designation to the southern half of South University.

Downtown Plan: Deliberations

Councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) opened deliberations by suggesting the addition of a resolved clause, which would direct staff to revise the zoning map in accordance with the revised Downtown Plan that planning commission had forwarded to the council. Otherwise put, the resolved clause would take the council down path (ii) above.

The resolved clause also stipulated that on July 6 the zoning ordinance revisions would be brought back before the council for an additional first reading. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), an attorney himself, asked if that point had been reviewed by the city attorney, and Higgins clarified that the decision had come directly from the city attorney’s office.

At issue legally would have been whether these new changes to the zoning ordinances – which were procedurally between their preliminary and final passage – were substantial enough to require starting the process over with a first reading. In the view of the city attorney, they were substantial enough to restart the process.

Councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that he was against accepting the Downtown Plan as is. He acknowledged that with respect to the Downtown Plan, planning commission and the city council were on an equal level. Specifically, it was not up to city council to amend and then adopt a plan, but rather they needed to accept or reject the plan as a whole.

Taylor noted that city council had undertaken a specific action to designate South University areas outside of the Downtown Development Authority district as D2 zoning and that within a short time following that decision the planning commission had contravened it. He allowed that the planning commission had a right to vote its conscience on the matter. He contended that though the two bodies on this question were co-equals, that elected officials had some incremental measure of preference. The fact that planning commission had not respected council’s decision reflected a “failure of process,” he said, and he continued by stating that planning commission should have respected the decision of the “electeds.”

Speaking by phone the following day with The Chronicle, Taylor clarified that the distinction he was drawing between the two bodies did not have to do with the status of planning commission as volunteer public servants versus the paid public servants on council but rather was rooted specifically in the more direct connection – via election – of the council with the community. Asked by The Chronicle if he’d reflected on the fact that the three-year appointments of planning commissioners gave that body a greater buffer against “political fads” than council enjoyed [councilmembers are elected to two-year terms], Taylor said that in this case he gave priority to direct democracy as opposed to checks-and-balances.

[Editorial aside: In considering the priority assigned to the two different bodies, it's worth factoring into the mix the presumably greater expertise in subject matter that planning commissioners have for a planning exercise as compared to councilmembers – which is not to suggest that all planning commissioners are architects or urban planners by trade. They're not.]

Higgins, for her part, said that she supported the Downtown Plan. For her, the critical point was that changing the lower half of the South University area to D2 zoning would amount to “down zoning.”

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) noted that the city council did not have the legal authority to amend and adopt the plan. To send the Downtown Plan back to planning commission would delay a plan that had several significant improvements over the current plan, including a height limit, said Greden. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) echoed the same sentiments as Greden, adding that it was important to retain the D1 zoning designation along East Huron Street for the technical reason that to make it D2 would result in existing properties’ nonconformance.

Margie Teal (Ward 4) said she shared Taylor’s perspective and was disappointed about the redesignation of most of South University as a D1 area but thought that she would probably vote for it for the good of getting it in place. She was not convinced, she said, about having D1 zoning outside the Downtown Development Authority district.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she had gone to the planning commission meeting and watched that body decide as it went through its revisions to the Downtown Plan. She said it was not any easier for that body than it was for the city council. She commended Taylor for saying that what council had marked as D2 should stay as D2. She said that the question to ask was whether that area should be a buffer or whether it should be built to a maximum 150-foot height limit. She was not comfortable with the idea that the document could become a ping-pong ball, she said. However, she did not support the Downtown Plan’s adoption.

Outcome: The city council adopted the revised Downtown Plan as put forward by the planning commission, with Taylor and Briere dissenting.

Development – City Place

City Place had been postponed already from the last council meeting due to errors in the online documentation.

City Place Public Hearing

Jim Mogensen: This is a “by right” project, he began, which he characterized as meaning that everybody basically has to say this is the way it has to be. He said that the project reflected a “community failure.” The way the project had evolved came from the playbook of the developer, he added, and it was the same narrative that had been told in connection with the 828 Greene Street development. Mogensen said he didn’t understand why the proposal for the Germantown study committee did not happen at the same time that 828 Greene Street had been proposed. He acknowledged that there was a plan to look at the R4C (multi-family dwelling) zoning, but noted it would be an effort complicated by the fact that there was a need to have multi-family zoning so that students would be able to live there. An additional constraint is that it wasn’t desirable to undertake zoning that amounted to a “property taking.”

Tom Luczak: Luczak said he appreciated the fact that city council had seen fit to reexamine R4C zoning in detail. But suggested the following analogy for not deciding to put a moratorium on development in R4C zoning districts: It would be like conducting a study to see if you should close the horse barn and having Secretariat [Triple Crown winner] run out of the barn during the study period. He contended there were many gray areas in the zoning code, among them the definition of roof height.

Alex de Parry: De Parry introduced himself as the project owner and noted that he had the entire development team with him if council had any questions. He told the city council that they had before them a project that meets the zoning and code requirements of the city of Ann Arbor and cited its conformance with the following chapters: 55, 57, 59, 62, 63, 105. He described the project as using the latest in energy technology. He said that the 24 six-bedroom units each would be equipped with a kitchen, living room, dining room and that, contrary to rumor, bedrooms would not be equipped with a kitchen. De Parry pointed to three other projects that had used the same interpretations of terms like “dormer,” “ridge height,” and “window wells”: 133 Hill Street, 922 Church Street and 818 Forest.

John Floyd: Floyd said that the decision not to do a study on the question of whether a historic district should be established in the area was a failure of process, “a grand mistake.” He suggested that it was an opportunity to run the government in a more straightforward way, and not just use process when it meets a predetermined end.

Scott Munzel: Munzel is legal counsel on the project. He noted that the homes slated for demolition are older, and are divided into rentals, and represented quite an investment to maintain. He said that it was not a realistic option for owner-occupiers to purchase them and rehabilitate them. He continued by saying that the law is very clear for site plan approval, noting that city council’s role is very limited. He said that the Central Area Plan is not legally relevant – though he noted that the project in many ways does, in fact, meet the goals of the Central Area Plan. He allowed that the buildings are old and attractive, but concluded that the decision is straightforward.

Fred Beal: Beal introduced himself as a member of the Downtown Residential Task Force. He described the project as beneficial because it increases density in an edge area. He said it should be approved because it meets zoning and that he’d like to see more of this kind of project.

Brad Moore: Moore is the architect on the City Place project. He stressed that the interpretation of the code of the city of Ann Arbor had been the same for this project as for every other project examined by the planning staff and the planning commission. That included setbacks, reach height, unit size, sized bedrooms, etc.

Yousef Rabhi: Rabhi said that as a student at the University of Michigan and a future lifelong resident of the city of Ann Arbor, he wanted to live in a city of cultural significance.

Ray Detter: Detter noted that city council was considering the Downtown Plan that evening and that he did not see how tearing down the seven historic houses was consistent with the Downtown Plan or the Central Area Plan. About the proposed building, Detter said, “It’s a dog,” from a design point of view. The problem in this case, Detter said, had resulted from planning documents that were inconsistent with zoning documents.

Lou Glorie: Glorie sketched out an analogy with a medical procedure – a needle biopsy, in which “needle” is a euphemism for a much larger implement. The point of comparison was “public process,” [echoing a sentiment from John Floyd, an earlier speaker]. Glorie characterized the public process as consisting of a conversation that began with the chamber of commerce, developers, councilmembers and ultimately was controlled by those parties. She suggested that urban sprawl had been replaced by the desire to pack 1,000 more souls into the downtown of some city. “Concrete is the new green,” she concluded.

City Place Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began deliberations on the City Place site plan approval by indicating to his colleagues that he had brought information to the city attorney’s office concerning a possible conflict of interest on his part with respect to the City Place project. He stated that councilmembers had the analysis provided by the city attorney’s office and indicated he was prepared to accept their recommendation, if any, on the topic. [Council rules require members to vote on any resolution before them, unless their colleagues request by a majority vote that a councilmember recuse himself/herself.] No one moved that Hohnke should recuse himself.

Instead of deliberating on the resolution before them, a completely different resolution was substituted – and that resolution called for the site plan to be returned to the planning commission to be reconsidered. Kevin McDonald, senior assistant city attorney, clarified for councilmembers that the parliamentary mechanism by which the substitution would be achieved was the same as that used for an amendment. In this case, however, the “amendment” to the resolution replaced the existing language in its entirety with new language.

The reason cited for the return of the site plan to planning commission was errors in the documentation provided by planning staff in connection with the commission’s April meeting on the plan. This marked the second council meeting in a row at which a vote was expected on the site plan by council, but did not happen. Two weeks ago, council delayed the decision for two weeks due to errors in the documentation provided online for council’s meeting that week.

The expected time frame for reconsideration of the site plan by the planning commission is for a new public hearing and recommendation to be made at the planning commission’s July 7, 2009 meeting. Assuming the planning commission makes the same recommendation as before, it would come before the city council on July 20, 2009.

Taylor asked what the affects of the substitution resolution would be on the public hearing that had just been held. Hieftje clarified that there would be another public hearing, assuming that planning commission again recommended that the site plan come to city council. Rapundalo asked whether this procedural development had been discussed with the petitioner. Hieftje indicated he was not sure, but assumed that the petitioner was learning of the situation in the same way that he himself was. Higgins had indicated she was sending to all of her colleagues an email with the replacement language.

Derezinski, who is the city council’s representative to planning commission, said this was simply a technical glitch, and that there had been a thorough discussion and deliberation on the site plan at the planning commission’s meeting in April. He described the return of the matter to the planning commission as simply exercising caution and making sure that every aspect of due process was respected.

Higgins took care to point out that the decision to return the product to the planning commission was in no way a negative reflection on the developer and that there had been no error on his part.

Outcome: The decision to return the site plan to planning commission passed unanimously.

Development – What Goes On Top?

The city council entertained a resolution that established a site development committee to initiate a search for a private development partner for the South Fifth Avenue underground parking structure site.

It was a resolution brought by councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1). At the previous council meeting, she had alerted her colleagues of her intention to bring the resolution. At that meeting she described her intention to call for a request for qualifications (RFQ). However, on Monday she indicated that she had rethought that intention, saying it was to be the purview of the committee to determine the best way to engage the community in a process. The idea was that representatives from planning commission, the Downtown Development Authority, downtown residents, and city council could use the short-lived committee to determine whether it would be best to issue an RFP (request for proposal) or an RFQ.

Higgins moved to postpone the decision until the council’s July 1, 2009 meeting, saying that she wanted to have more dialogue about what other things they’d like to see. She said she’d like to have the resolutions reflect a “council view” instead of a “councilmember’s view.” Smith asked Higgins for a better idea of the process that they could expect over the next two weeks. Higgins offered only that she just wanted to have some more dialogue.

Hieftje said to Smith that to him it sounded like Higgins wanted to have coffee with Smith. Councilmember Margie Teall (Ward 4) alluded to her work on the Downtown Development Authority partnerships committee, which had made an offer help with community dialogue on the parcel’s development.

Outcome: The resolution was postponed, with dissent from Smith.

Development – Design Guidelines

Council considered a professional services agreement with Winter & Company for the Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown design guidelines revision project in the amount of $34,230. Higgins reported that the A2D2 steering committee had had a phone call with Bruce Race, the consultant who is helping with work on the design guidelines. She indicated that there would likely be a joint September working session with city council and planning commission to address the design guidelines project. That project is part of the zoning and planning effort, and is seen by many in the community as crucial to its success.

Outcome: The resolution was passed unanimously.

Parking Meters

Parking Meters: Public Commentary

Several people spoke during public commentary reserved time (at the start of the council meeting) on the topic of the installation of parking meters in residential neighborhoods near downtown Ann Arbor. The meters were proposed as a part of the FY 2010 budget that the city council recently adopted. City officials hope the meters will generate an additional $380,000 per year in revenue. The meters in question should not be confused with the E-Park stations currently being rolled out by the DDA inside the downtown area.

Gwen Nystuen: Speaking for the North Burns Park Association Advisory Board, she said that they supported the resolution to place only a limited number of parking meters in specific areas. She said that the board objected to the fact that there had been no public hearing on the proposal to introduce parking meters into residential neighborhoods near downtown. She noted that the Burns Park Association had had residential parking permits for over three years now, and it had improved the ambiance of the neighborhood. The introduction of such permits, she said, made the neighborhood more pleasant to be in – it was nice not to be a part of the parking lot. She said they didn’t support any kind of parking meters – not 21st-century, not streamlined, not blue, not gold, not digital parking meters.

John Hilton: Hilton spoke representing the North Central Property Owners Association. He reflected on the fact that 25 years ago city council had come up with the idea of a residential parking permit system in response to a situation in his neighborhood. He expressed his thanks to Sandi Smith, who had worked hard on the resolutions.

Bob Snyder: Snyder spoke representing the South University Neighborhood Association. Snyder said that he was speaking against the introduction of parking meters in residential neighborhoods and hoped to derail further attempts to install such meters. He asked to see a map of the precise locations of the proposed meters. Snyder criticized the proposed introduction of parking meters into residential neighborhoods as having the sole purpose of generating an extra $380,000 of revenue. He noted that eight different neighborhood associations are against “planting” parking meters in residential neighborhoods. The next step, he said, is to fast-track residential parking permits in those areas that do not currently have them.

Ann Schriber: Ann Schriber spoke representing the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association, consisting of 150 households. She summarized the meetings that the neighborhood association had had, and reported that the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association strongly opposes the addition of such parking meters. They want to be informed in advance of such proposals, she said. She concluded that residential parking permit programs work and they don’t want to see them changed.

Parking Meters: Deliberations on 415 W. Washington

How are parking rates at 415 W. Washington related to the installation of parking meters elsewhere?

If parking meters were not to be installed in all the areas planned by city staff as a part of the FY 2010 budget plan, then the revenue shortfall needs to be addressed. And part of the strategy for addressing that shortfall is – in cooperation with the Downtown Development Authority – to raise the parking rates on the surface lot.

Smith introduced a resolution to approve the extension of the temporary use of the 415 W. Washington parking lot as a parking lot. She noted that when the fees were set up in that parking lot, they were not set at a market rate. Her resolution raised the monthly fee from $40 to $80 a month. Smith noted that this was still quite competitive with the surface lot at First & William, which charges $105 a month. Part of the rationale for extending the use of the parcel as a surface parking lot is that redevelopment of the parcel at 415 W. Washington is not going as fast as previously hoped. At the July 1 meeting of the Downtown Development Authority, the board will be asked to approve their side agreement, Smith said. In broad summary, the increase in revenue from the higher rates would go to the city instead of the DDA. [Smith also serves on the DDA board].

Briere noted that on May 18 the idea of installing parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown was not something that council had really been prepared to deal with. She commended Smith for trying to solve the problem very creatively and in a very rapid way. Briere noted that the work is not finished and that it was really a stopgap that didn’t solve the problem permanently. Briere noted that it had been Smith plus herself and the two council representatives from the Fifth Ward, Carsten Hohnke and Mike Anglin, who had worked together on the resolution.

Hohnke said that although he had concerns that introducing parking meters were inherently a sign of commercial activity, he felt it was a necessary revenue solution in an extremely tight budget year. The resolutions, he said, are limited in timeframe. We’re not leaving a potential gap, he said, because the default plan remains for parking meters to be installed if no alternative revenues can be found. [See moratorium below.] He pointed out that it would be important to monitor what happens on Washington Street as the prices on the 415 W. Washington lot were brought into alignment with other parking in the DDA system. He said it might be possible that as prices are raised, motorists would seek more economical free parking out on the street, which could add to the traffic challenges around the new YMCA, located at 400 W. Washington.

Anglin noted that Ward 5 and Ward 1 representatives had worked together on the problem and had had some community meetings on the issue. He noted that it dismayed him a bit that downtown neighborhoods might have such meters installed. Councilmember Leigh Greden (Ward 3) thanked Smith for her hard work. He said that a key point about the plan was that this particular parking lot was never included in the parking agreement with the DDA, and they had never gotten around to closing a loophole. It was not a final solution, he allowed, but it was a step forward to finding a solution.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Parking Meters: Deliberations on Installation

Council also contemplated a resolution to begin the installation of some of the parking meters. Smith explained that the spaces along Depot Street were selected in part due to the possible east-west commuter rail that might be developed.

• East Madison (18 spaces)
• Depot Street west of Broadway (16 spaces)
• Depot Street in front of Gandy Dancer (5 spaces)
• Depot Street Lot (20 spaces)
• Wall Street (115 spaces)
• Broadway (4 spaces)

The plan applies a moratorium to all the proposed meter installations except those listed above, but the moratorium ends on Oct. 5, 2009. The upshot of the plan is that by Oct. 5, which is a council meeting date, there would need to be an alternative plan in place to replace any shortfall against the $380,000 in the budget.

Rapundalo suggested that Upland – in the commercial district on the east side of the street – is an area with free parking that would be a good place to think about introducing parking meters.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

DDA and City of Ann Arbor Parking Agreement

In his communications to council, Hieftje appointed councilmembers Teall, Greden, and Hohnke to work with the “mutually beneficial committee” of the Downtown Development Authority to talk about the parking agreement between the DDA and the city. The appointment of the council subcommittee came subsequent to the challenge from DDA board chair, Jennifer S. Hall, at the DDA board’s last meeting, for council to finally seat its own committee, in light of the fact that she had removed herself from the DDA’s committee – her presence on the DDA’s subcommittee had been cited by the mayor as an obstacle to the city council’s appointment of its own committee.

Related to that upcoming discussion of the parking agreement is an email sent on Sept. 22, 2008, from Keith Orr, who was subsequently appointed by Hieftje to the DDA board to replace Dave Devarti. The email was included in a preliminary batch of records provided to The Chronicle under a FOIA request.

In basic summary, the email is apparently a reply to a verbally conveyed question from Hieftje to Orr about whether he’d be willing to commit to a revision to the parking agreement between the city and the DDA in the context of a possible appointment to the DDA board. Orr wrote:

As far as funding issues we talked about, I certainly believe that city solvency is a critical issue … And I have a general understanding (as much as can be understood from A2 News, and other secondary sources), of the funding issue as it relates to parking issues. I am uncomfortable making a firm commitment to a vote on an issue of several million dollars/year without knowing the full context of the budget issues. I guess that is as close as I can come to making an absolute statement of how I feel on the issue. If those are acceptable parameters, I’ll be happy to fill out the application. If you need a more absolute commitment, I understand, and hope you understand my reluctance to commit beyond that statement.

Contacted via email by The Chronicle, Orr confirmed the basic summary of the message’s context, and added:

… my response remains the same. I am sympathetic to the city’s fiscal needs, and could not promise a particular vote. That was apparently acceptable since I did get appointed.

I remain committed to helping the city. Indeed, the budget passed by the DDA Board contains a line item of “Contingency – $2M”. Thus, the entire board is committed to some type of transfer of funds to the city. The vehicle for that transfer is up in the air. Fortunately the city has finally appointed folks to the “mutually beneficial” committee so talks can finally begin. … I am convinced that reasonable policy determined by intelligent folks will prevail.

The Chronicle has also learned that Newcombe Clark is expected to be appointed to the DDA board as a replacement for Rene Greff when her term expires next month.

LDFA and SPARK

Local Development Finance Authority Budget Amendment

City council considered a resolution to amend the SmartZone of the LDFA budget to increase the total by $25,000. Stephen Rapundalo, who is the city council representative to the LDFA board, explained that there had been a question about a line item in the previous budget providing funds to a private investor network to support the connection of investors with companies in need of venture capital.

Rapundalo reported that the city attorney’s office had done due diligence on the proposal and that it was clear from the state enabling legislation, together with the tax increment financing plan, that money from the LDFA cannot be used for third-party staffing. However, said Rapundalo, the necessity to connect investors with companies who need capital is a legitimate need. That’s why the dollars were reinstated to the budget – in order to realize the same goals but with a different means. How? Instead of allocating money to a private angel investment group, Ann Arbor SPARK should develop a program to connect angel investors with companies.

LDFA Budget Reaffirmation

An additional resolution was added at the council table to reaffirm the 2010 LDFA budget. Rapundalo explained that there had been a leftover question about where and how marketing dollars could be spent. He said that it was clear that marketing dollars could not be used outside of the jurisdiction and the TIF (tax increment financing) plan makes it clear that marketing dollars are to be spent within the jurisdiction.

Ann Arbor SPARK

Council considered a resolution to approve a contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for business support services in the amount of $75,000. As the “whereas” clauses in the resolution indicate, Ann Arbor SPARK is the entity that resulted from the merger of Washtenaw Development Council and SPARK. Historically the city of Ann Arbor had contributed $50,000 to the Washtenaw Development Council. Ann Arbor SPARK is funded partly through tax capture in a SmartZone, which geographically consists of the union of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts. In the next year, Ann Arbor SPARK will receive around $1 million in Ann Arbor property taxes, administered through the LDFA.

Deliberations by the Ann Arbor city council began with Higgins’ expression of support for the contract approval, saying that SPARK would leverage it well for the city of Ann Arbor. Hieftje added that when he was outside of Ann Arbor talking to people who have heard about Ann Arbor SPARK, they say they would like to have one too. He said he was sure it would make good use of these funds. Hohnke, who was recently appointed to the SPARK executive committee, did not offer any commentary at the table. Councilmembers had no questions for Michael Finney, CEO of SPARK, who had remained in attendance at the meeting up through the recess just before SPARK’s contract was considered.

Transportation

-

Transportation: Non-motorized Safety Outreach

Council considered a resolution to support a nonmotorized safety education outreach campaign. It had been introduced at the previous council meeting by Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager.

The resolution did not allocate new funds, but provided guidance to staff on how to spend those funds – up to $10,000 for development and implementation of a non-motorized safety education outreach program. The money comes from the alternative transportation fund created from Act 51 funds directed to development of a safe system of on-road bicycle lanes.

The campaign itself, which has already been developed, will include brochures, radio spots, and video spots. Higgins noted that there had been an ongoing discussion about how to accomplish the educational component. She noted that deputy chief of police Greg O’Dell had previously worked with bicycling groups on the topic. She wanted to know if the city had ever heard back about how that worked. Hieftje noted that the previous effort had never actually been funded. He cited the statistic that at any given time, the majority of people on the road in Ann Arbor don’t actually live here. So the outreach campaign had a certain challenge in reaching the population. Signage would be key, he said. Higgins stressed that she felt it was important that education be provided for cyclists about their responsibility for using the road.

Hohnke asked Cooper to explain how the various constituencies would be engaged through the campaign. Cooper cited the slogans themselves as reflective of targeting all users of the roadway, not just motorists: “Share the road” and “Same road same rules.” He described the brochure that had been developed as a tri-fold that when opened displayed a motorist on the left and a cyclist on the right.

Transportation: North-South Connector Feasibility

City council approved its $80,000 contribution to a north-south connector feasibility study. As transportation program manager Eli Cooper explained, the feasibility study would determine whether the Plymouth Road and State Street corridors could be enhanced as a “signature corridor” in terms of the transportation master plan update, using either existing buses, bus rapid transit, or streetcar systems.

Funding from the city of Ann Arbor apparently completed the funding authorization among the four partners in the feasibility study. Already authorized were the contributions from the DDA, AATA, and the University of Michigan. [However, at the AATA's Wednesday, June 17, 2009 board meeting, the board balked at the $320,000 portion it was asked to pay, postponing that final decision until August – the AATA board does not meet in the month of July.]

Outcome: The resolution authorizing $80,000 for the north-south connector study was passed unanimously.

Transportation: Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project

Briere indicated that she would be glad to see the countdown pedestrian walk signals installed in a few areas outside the downtown and suggested that people would come to appreciated them.

She was referring to countdown pedestrian signals at 12 locations and various crosswalk signing and pavement marking improvements encompassed by the project. The project will also include three pedestrian refuge islands to be constructed on South Main at Oakbrook, Packard at Woodmanor and Ellsworth.

The estimated cost of the project is $244,100, with $195,300 coming from a federal grant and $48,800 from the city. Construction is scheduled to begin in June 2009 and continue until September 2009.

Higgins expressed reservations about one of the pedestrian refuge islands.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Transportation: Bike Path

Council entertained a resolution to approve an amendment to the professional services agreement with Midwestern Consulting in the amount of $111,870 for a nonmotorized path along Washington Washtenaw Avenue, from Tuomy Road to Glenwood Road. The money would cover design. The city has been approved for a MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation) Transportation Enhancement Grant of up to $538,527, plus an MDOT Surface Transportation Program grant of up to $460,000 for the construction of this project.

Outcome: The resolution passed with no discussion by the council.

Street Closings

Street closings on the agenda generated a bit of unexpected “controversy.” The Main Street Area Association had requested an East Washington Street closing for Oktoberfest on September 18-22, 2009. For the same days, a resolution to approve a West Washington Street closing was on the agenda, requested by Grizzly Peak Brewing Company and Blue Tractor. Rapundalo voted against both street closings, saying that it was a University of Michigan home football weekend and that safety services had not yet signed off on the idea.

For the street closing requested by Grizzly Peak and Blue Tractor, Taylor asked his colleagues to consider voting to require his recusal in light of the fact that his law firm does work for the parties involved. Apparently realizing that the same potential conflict of interest applied to himself with respect to a previous agenda item, Greden asked for a previously approved item to be reconsidered. That item involved a resolution to approve the temporary outdoor sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages during the 2009 Ann Arbor Art Fairs. Greden said that his law firm did work for the Red Hawk Bar and Grill, which was one of the parties that could potentially benefit from the outdoor sales.

In both cases, councilmembers asked for their recusal, and both measures passed. At issue was the potential for enhanced profits on the part of the parties benefiting from the resolutions passed.

Fire Dispatch

Council considered a resolution to approve a contract with Huron Valley Ambulance for two years for a fire dispatching service [ $99,420 FY 2010 and  $109,620 in FY 2011].

A representative from the fire department explained that the contract would provide that HVA handle dispatching for the city’s fire department. HVA already handles the dispatch for several other fire departments in the area, which would make it easier for the city of Ann Arbor to undertake mutual aid agreements with those departments. The new system would also reduce the use of fire trucks on medical emergency calls not involving fires, which would reduce the wear and tear on those trucks.

Outcome: The contract was approved unanimously.

Department of Justice Allocation

Jim Mogensen: During the public hearing on a Department of Justice grant, Mogensen noted that every year the Department of Justice appropriates grants. He encouraged councilmembers to ask the question, “So what strings are attached?” He observed that last year’s grants were used to purchase bicycles and shotguns. This year he said, it’s digital video recorders to be installed in patrol cars with the provision of up to 30-50 terabytes of storage. The grant also provided for mobile license plate readers, he said, at a cost of $20,000 apiece. He suggested reflection on the probability that all of this information would be collected, including face recognition software together with the driver license photos, so that one could imagine a protest taking place at the Federal Building and being able to identify people participating in the protest.

The Department of Justice grant was for  law enforcement policing equipment and technology for Ann Arbor police department’s Patrol Division. The $168,158 grant award requires no matching funds.

Senior Center Task Force

A resolution to establish a Senior Center Task Force was postponed, with councilmember Teall explaining that not all of the proposed task force members had been contacted. Higgins elicited the clarification from Teall that the appointment would be made by council as opposed to by the mayor.

Miscellaneous

Councilmember Taylor will be appointed to the Council Rules Committee, which was consistent with councilmember Briere’s report from the previous night’s caucus that some councilmembers are interested in exploring revisions to council rules to address, among other things, protocols for sending electronic mail.

Public Comment

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen spoke to councilmembers on the issue of electronic communications. He recalled an occasion on which the planning commission was conducting a work session and he was the only person in the audience. The planning commission had on that occasion received a presentation from an attorney in the city attorney’s office, and he said that they seemed to forget that he was still there in the room. He said that he learned all kinds of interesting things about ways people could use to get around the Freedom of Information Act. He suggested that some standards be put in place to address how electronic communications are used. He noted that physically there are rules about how documents can be submitted and when they can be submitted, and that  standards needed to be developed for electronic documents as well. One of the ways that was discussed for getting around FOIA with the idea of using the email address of an employer if that employer was a law firm. The law firm’s email address, he said, was thought to convey the idea that its communication was protected from FOIA due to attorney-client privilege.

Phelps Connell: Phelps introduced himself as a resident who lived adjacent to the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport. He said that when they had bought their house he had been assured that the airport would not be expanded. He allowed that he enjoyed living next to the airport and that it was fun to watch. As an example, he cited the Goodyear blimp, which had been moored at the airport this past weekend, as well as the occasional B-17 bomber. He said that safety is the stated reason for needing the runway extension, but noted that the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport is one of the safest airports. An expansion of the runway, he said, would mean that larger, faster and heavier airplanes would be using it and would put those aircraft 950 feet closer to homes in the area.

Henry Herskovitz: Herskovitz brought with him a photograph of himself taken with Bassem Abu Rahmah four years ago in the city of Bi’lin in Palestine. He said that every Friday they would go in protest near the Israeli wall that goes through Bi’lin. He reported that rubber bullets, tear gas, and sound grenades had been shot at them. Herskovitz said he was saddened to report that two months ago his friend had been hit in the chest with a tear gas canister and killed. He noted that the teargas canister had been paid for by “me and you,” which is to say U.S. taxpayers. Herskovitz stated that he did not care about the emails that councilmembers sent back and forth while speakers were addressing the city council. What he cared about, he said, was the abdication of a previous city council’s responsibility to uphold the U.S. Constitution five and a half years ago, when it had condemned the demonstrations held weekly outside of Temple Beth Israel in Ann Arbor. He called on the current city council to rescind the resolution passed in 2004 that had condemned the demonstrations.

Ed Fontanive: During public commentary reserve time, Fontanive spoke in favor of zoning East Huron Street as a D2 area instead of a D1 area. He noted that across the street are two old churches and a behind the area lay the Old Fourth Ward. He said that a 60-foot-tall building could be built under D2 zoning, which would help it blend better with the rest of downtown.

John Floyd: Floyd noted that last summer, the day after the primary election, Hieftje had been quoted in the Ann Arbor News as being pleased that the candidates had the same “shared high-level vision” for the future of Ann Arbor. Floyd asked what that vision was. He noted that the occasion of consideration of a Downtown Plan as council was undertaking that evening meant that it was an appropriate time to find out what the shared high-level vision was. [Rummaging through the Ann Arbor News archives of the Ann Arbor District Library turned up the quote from Hieftje that Floyd likely meant, in an Aug. 6, 2008 article by Tom Gantert: "We have elected five council members with a big-picture vision of the future of Ann Arbor. They have the ability to work together to see it through."]

Thomas Partridge: Partridge noted the continued need to address the serious issue of discrimination in Ann Arbor, in Washtenaw County, in southeast Michigan, the entire state, and in fact the whole nation. He called on all elected bodies to address this problem with respect to housing, public transportation, healthcare, and education.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, John Hieftje.

Absent: none.

Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 6, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Bonnie Bona, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, leads the commission through discussion of the 322 E. Kingsley property. On the map projected behind her, that's the light blue sliver to the east of the thick dashed line. The dashed line is the DDA boundary.

At its Tuesday meeting, Ann Arbor’s planning commission voted to adopt a downtown plan that was different in significant ways from the one they’d previously adopted just three months ago. A small D2 (interface) in the South University area has been carved out, when none previously existed on the planning commission’s map. And  a one-parcel-wide expansion of the D2 area has been undertaken to include a property owned by Zingerman’s Deli.

Why was the commission considering the changes? Since the plan’s previous adoption, the city council had undertaken revisions to the proposed city zoning ordinances that had rendered the downtown plan inconsistent with those ordinances.

While the city council has final say over the ordinances, the council and planning commission must agree on the adoption of the same downtown plan. [See previous Chronicle coverage of the commission-council relationship on this issue.]

The planning commission’s action taken Tuesday night does bring its adopted downtown plan closer to consistency with the city council’s proposal for Ann Arbor’s new downtown zoning, but a significant incompatibility in the South University area remains. Before planning commission met, the revised downtown plan was scheduled to be presented for action by council at its June 15, 2009 meeting, with consideration of the final vote on the zoning package on July 6, 2009.  Now that time frame could change, depending on the path taken by council. More on possible outcomes after the break.

Planning commission was working from an affirmative resolution to adopt a downtown plan – changed in ways recommended by city staff – that conformed to the zoning changes made by city council at its April 6, 2009 meeting. The “amendments” referenced in the staff report reflect differences between planning commission’s originally adopted downtown plan and the downtown plan as it would need to be changed in order to be consistent with council’s zoning.

Text Amendments

Planning commission did not deliberate on the text amendments to the downtown plan, which addressed the fact that the city council had introduced specific height limits as a part of its zoning package. But in relevant parts, planning commission’s downtown plan adopted Tuesday night now reads:

[page 28] Incorporate recommended land use and urban design objectives, including the  consideration of height limits, into overlay zoning districts for the review and approval of projects in the Core Areas.

[page 53] Properties in the Downtown Interface district should have a minimum height of two stories and a maximum height of up to 6 stories. Placement standards should  require a small amount of open space to be maintained and limit the building coverage to 70-80% of the lot. Additional building massing and setback  requirements for Downtown Interface properties should be set by the character  overlay districts.

Map Amendments

Revisions to two different maps were considered: (i) the future land use [core/interface], and (ii) base and overlay zoning map [D1/D2].  Three geographic areas were involved: East Huron Street, 322 E. Kingsley, and South University.

Huron Street: For Huron Street, only the zoning map was at issue. City council had split the East Huron character area into East Huron 1 and East Huron 2. For the East Huron 1 area, which is the north side of Huron Street between North Thayer and Division, the building height limit is proposed by council to be 150 feet. That contrasts with the rest of the D1 areas, which have a height limit of 180 feet. The key point is that the council left the zoning as D1 in both of the Huron Street character areas. Because D1 zoning translates as “core” for the future land use map, that map – which doesn’t reflect character areas – didn’t require revision. The base and overlay zoning map reflects character areas, and thus needed revision.

During the public hearing, some residents of Sloan Plaza and of One North Main weighed in for designation of that section of Huron Street as D2 – an interface zone that would limit the height of buildings to 60 feet. That would be a more dramatic height reduction than the East Huron 1 character district provides, which has a maximum of 150 feet – 30 feet reduced from the 180 foot maximum in other D1 areas. The planning commission spent little time deliberating on this particular issue, essentially agreeing with one representative of a property owner in the affected area, who spoke at the public hearing about the various compromises that had already been struck – no further compromise was required, he said.

South University: Both maps came into play for the South University area. During the public hearing, planning commissioners heard arguments on both sides that will have been familiar to them from the years-long process that’s now drawing to a close. On the one side: residential areas need a buffer, don’t make South U. a “dumping ground for density.” On the other side: increased density is essential for economic sustainability, and a D2 zoning, with its 60-foot height limits, would amount to a “taking” of property value.

We focus on the future land use map, because it’s visually a bit more accessible than the cross-hatching used by the city in the zoning map – the two maps mirror each other in a straightforward way. Although planning commission had originally proposed the entire South U. area as “core,” the city council revised the proposed zoning at its April 16, 2009 meeting so that there’s a D2 transition area on the southern portion that wraps upward along the eastern edge:

Excerpt from the Downtown Plan Future Land Use Map as it would need to be drawn to be consistent with city council's proposed zoning at its April 6, 2009 meeting. This map was extracted from city documents. The heavy dashed line is the DDA boundary.

The planning commission did not eliminate all of the transition area implied by council’s zoning proposal, leaving the southeast corner of it intact:

Excerpt from the Downtown Plan Future Land Use Map as it would be drawn by planning commission at its May 19, 2009 meeting. This depiction of planning commission's map was drawn by The Chronicle – any errors are ours. The heavy dashed line is the DDA boundary.

The vote was 5-2, with Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods, Kirk Westphal, Tony Derezinski and Jean Carlberg voting for the re-introduction of the “core” designation for most of the area. Eric Mahler and Ethel Potts voted against that. [Evan Pratt and Craig Borum were absent.] Mahler said he found the claim of a “taking” to be “a little bit over the top,” and was concerned about designating areas as “core” that are outside the DDA area. On the prevailing side, Carlberg said that the area they were designating as “core” would be appropriate for high-density student developments.

322 E. Kingsley (Zingerman’s): At its April 16, 2009 meeting, city council changed the proposed zoning for the parcel at 322 E. Kingsley from R4C to D2. Zingerman’s Deli owns the parcel, located directly behind their operation at 422 Detroit St. Zingerman’s would like to incorporate the property (where there’s currently a fire-damaged building) into its operations, thereby removing some of the stress on its current buildings. Any rennovation to the 322 E. Kingsley property would be subject to review by the Historic District Commission, because it lies within the Old Fourth Ward historic district.

During the public hearing, the  planning commission heard from several speakers who objected to the assignment of the D2 designation to the property, on the grounds of  “fairness” and “favoritism” – everyone loves Zingerman’s, themselves included, they said. But that didn’t translate into changing the zoning, just because Zingerman’s asked for it.

They also heard from representatives of Zingmerman’s about why the D2 zoning was requested, as well as from a speaker who noted that he’d just witnessed two hours of “serious participation” by citizens who were engaged, and had been properly noticed, and concluded that the notion of fairness had not been violated.

The vote on the commission was 4-3 for following council’s lead in assigning D2 zoning to the parcel. Voting for the D2 designation were: Eric Mahler, Tony Derezinski, Jean Carlberg, and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were: Bonnie Bona, Kirk Westphal, and Ethel Potts. Mahler, responding to an argument made by Peter Pollack at the previous week’s work session, said that the option of pursuing a PUD for a particular project (as an alternative to having the D2 zoning) would, in his opinion, be difficult. For a PUD, Mahler said, a public benefit would have to be demonstrated – and from what he could tell, the kind of project Zingerman’s was contemplating would most likely be for Zingerman’s benefit.

Westphal did not cite “fairness” in voting against the D2 designation, but rather a respect for the long, extended process of community participation that had extended over a few years – none of which had included discussion of the 322 E. Kingsley parcel.

Next Steps: The potential area of conflict between city council and planning commission has been reduced to the South University area. If on June 15, 2009, city council is presented with the downtown plan that’s been newly adopted by planning commission, and it chooses to adopt that plan, it will still need to contemplate changing the zoning proposal it considers on July 6.

The current status of that zoning proposal is that it’s been approved on its first reading before council, with the reading on July 6 counting as the second and final reading. At that meeting, if  council changes the zoning ordinance to match the downtown plan’s maps in the South University area, then the question becomes: Is that change substantial enough to require that the ordinance be given another first reading?  That’s a question that will likely be put to assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, who specializes in land use and planning matters.

If council declines to adopt planning commission’s newly-revised downtown plan at the June 15 meeting, then the document would cycle back to planning commission for reconsideration. It’s possible that the A2D2 oversight committee – Marcia Higgins (city council), Roger Hewitt (DDA), and Evan Pratt (planning commission) – would provide some coordination between the two bodies so that an endless ping-ponging of the downtown plan would not result.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called for the ball to address a repaving contract on the agenda, as well as to float the idea of a parliamentary alternative to formal discussions –  ideas that are still rattling around the rim.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) arrived just as the 20-minute session concluded; he was not asked to run punishment laps around council chambers. An informal shoot-around, in the form of conversational pods among some councilmembers and members of the public, persisted until nearly 8 p.m.

Council’s Monday meeting starts at 7 p.m. on CTN’s Channel 16, which allows at least 2 hours and 21 minutes of council viewing before the NCAA finals begin.

After the break, we provide viewers with a playbook of sorts to follow the action in council chambers. It’s a set of 12 possible amendments to the zoning recommendations passed by planning commission that have been compiled by city staff.

Possible Amendments to A2D2 Zoning

The following are excerpted from a compilation by Ann Arbor city staff of requests for amendments to the A2D2 zoning proposal by councilmembers. The complete .pdf of possible amendments can be downloaded here.  Planning commission’s recommendations can be downloaded here.

Caveats include the fact that some amendments are not necessarily in their complete or final form. Further, not all amendments in this list will necessarily be brought forth. And finally, nothing rules out other possible amendments being brought forward.

Sponsors of amendments are indicated in parenthesis. The list of considerations include both the rationale for the amendment, plus possible downsides identified by staff. We’ve labeled Chronicle commentary as such.

Amendment 1 (Higgins): Eliminate Character Overlay Zoning Districts.

• Reduces complexity in administration of zoning ordinance.
• Removes massing requirements (i.e., upper story offset, diagonal, setbacks from residential) from downtown zoning districts.
• Inconsistent with Vision and Policy Framework and Design Guidelines Advisory Committee. recommendations for identifying overlay districts for areas of differing character.
• Would require amendment of the Downtown Plan (Future Land Use map and Zoning Plan), which was adopted by Planning Commission on Feb. 19, 2009.

Chronicle commentary: At the point when the design guidelines were split off from the zoning package, the thought behind inclusion of the character districts in the zoning, along with the massing requirements, was to put the quantifiable elements of the design guideline committee’s work  into the zoning. We interpret Marcia Higgin’s comments at the most recent DDA board meeting, when she discussed the prospect that design guidelines could be ready by fall with hard work over the summer, to mean that massing requirements would find their way into city planning code via these design guidelines – which would presumably also include character districts. Higgins serves with Roger Hewitt (DDA) and Evan Pratt (planning commission) on the A2D2 oversight committee.

At caucus, Leigh Greden (Ward 3) said he did not support the amendment eliminating character areas.

The DDA board passed a resolution at its last meeting recommending elimination of character districts from the zoning package.

The need to amend the Downtown Plan is not inconsequential. State law requires that master plans be adopted by planning commission and council. Otherwise put, if council changes an element to the zoning package that doesn’t affect master plans (like, for example, whether the height limit in a particular area is 60 feet, 120 feet, 170 feet, etc.) then council has the final say. However, if council amends the zoning package in a way that affects the master plan, then the master plan would need to be send back to planning commission, which could elect to modify its adopted plan, or not.

Amendment 2 (Greden, Taylor, Teall): Rezone properties in the South University commercial district that are outside of the DDA boundary to D2, rather than D1.

• Reflects “interface” area between South University retail core and adjacent residential.
• Inconsistent with Vision and Policy Framework and Downtown Zoning Advisory Committee recommendations.
• Represents a “downzoning” from the current C2A floor area ratio (by-right from 400% to 200% and premiums from 660% to 400%).
• Would require amendment of the Downtown Plan (Future Land Use map and Zoning Plan), which was adopted by Planning Commission on Feb. 19, 2009.
• Forest Street parking structure would not conform with D2 height, coverage and open space requirements.
• For consistency, should be linked with separate character area district (see Amendment 4).

Chronicle commentary: At caucus, this amendment received the support of two neighbors of the South University area. Amendment of the Downtown Plan, as noted in commentary on Amendment 1, would require reconsideration by planning commission. Here’s a map of the proposed D1-D2 split.

At caucus, Carsten Hohnke asked for clarification about the current zoning of the parcels that are outside the DDA boundary. Those present indicated that some were C2A, while others were R4C.

Christopher Taylor has indicated in an email to The Chronicle that the compiled memo does not reflect a 40-foot setback where D2 abuts residential properties, but this would be added before Monday’s meeting.

Amendment 3 (Greden, Taylor): Revise building frontage designations on Washtenaw Avenue and Forest Street.

• Reflects existing character along the street frontage segments.
• Will make buildings at 1338 Washtenaw and 1335 South University non-conforming due to insufficient building frontage (i.e., buildings have less than 15 foot front setback).

Chronicle commentary: Frontage requirements (which would remain, even if Higgins’ amendment 1 were to pass) are intended to support pedestrian scale character. There are three types of frontage:

1. Primary Street: Lot frontage where placement of buildings at the front property line is desired.

2. Secondary Street: Lot frontage where a range of building setbacks from the front property line is acceptable.

3. Front Yard Street: Lot frontage where a setback from the front property line is desired.

The proposed frontage changes in the amendment would make a section of Washtenaw Avenue a “front yard street” and section of South Forest a “primary street.” Here’s a map of the proposed frontage designation changes.

Amendment 4 (Briere): Subdivide the South University Character Overlay Zoning District into two separate districts with different massing standards, including a revised height limit and tower diagonal requirement in the proposed South University 1 character district.

• For consistency, should be linked with D2 rezoning (see Amendment 2).
• South University 2 side setbacks from residential may be insufficient, given potential 60 foot height in the D2 district.

Chronicle commentary: On comparison with the D1-D2 split proposed in Amendment 2, the proposed character district split appears to follow the same boundary. Here’s a map of the proposed D1-D2 split. And here’s a map of the proposed South University 1-2 split.

For the D1 part of the South University character district, the absolute building height limit (which planning commission recommended at 170 feet) is suggested by Briere to be reduced to 120 feet (here the compilation by staff is not accurate).

Amendment 5 (Briere): Subdivide the East Huron Character Overlay Zoning District into two separate districts with different massing standards, including a  height limit in the proposed East Huron 1 character district.

• Reflects unique massing requirements of D1 zoning adjacent to residential.
• May prevent parcels from fully using premium floor area bonuses if diagonal requirements in Character Overlay Districts are retained.

Chronicle commentary: The amendment would create another character district from North Thayer Street to Division Street along the north side of Huron Street and establish a maximum height limit of 120 feet for that area. At the public comment session held two  weeks ago on the proposed zoning revisions, some of the commentary focused on the area. Property owners in the area asked council to respect the compromise worked out by planning commission, which proposed D1 zoning. Neighbors in the historic area abutting the district asked for D2 zoning. The proposed amendment retains planning commission’s recommended D1 zoning, but adds a 120-foot absolute building height limit. Here’s a map of the proposed split of the East Huron character district into two character districts.

Amendment 6 (Higgins, Hohnke ): Eliminate “active use” requirements for retail streets in D1.

• Addresses concern about creating non-conforming uses for existing businesses.
• Removes tool for retaining pedestrian-attracting uses on retail streets.

Chronicle commentary: It’s a gross over-simplification, but “active use” can be roughly understood as “not an office and especially not a bank.” In public commentary and discussion to date, concern has been expressed that a non-active use – while less desirable than an active use – would be preferable to a space remaining unrented.

Amendment 7 (Greden, Higgins, Taylor, and Teall): Add and revise height limits in D1 districts.

• Provides clear direction for building design.
• May prevent larger parcels from fully using premium floor area bonuses if diagonal requirements in Character Overlay Districts are retained.
• Inconsistent with Downtown Zoning Advisory Committee recommendation.

Chronicle commentary: The proposed absolute building height limit for the D1 district would be 180 feet except for the South University overlay district, which would be 120 feet.

Amendment 8 (Greden, Taylor, Teall): Add and revise height limits in Character Overlay Zoning Districts.

• Provides clear direction for building design.
• May prevent larger parcels from fully using premium floor area bonuses if diagonal requirements in Character Overlay Districts are retained.
• Inconsistent with Downtown Zoning Advisory Committee recommendation.

Chronicle commentary: Amendments 7 and 8 have essentially the same effect, but differ in terms of how the absolute building height limits are expressed – in terms of the D1 district versus in terms of  character areas within that zoning district. Leigh Greden (Ward 3) explained at caucus that one or the other of the amendments would be brought forward, depending on whether Amendment 1 passed, which would eliminate character districts from the zoning package.

Amendment 9 (Higgins, Hohnke): Remove diagonal requirements from Character Overlay Zoning District massing standards.

• Provides maximum flexibility for building design.
• Inconsistent with Design Guidelines Advisory Committee recommendations.

Chronicle commentary: The “diagonal” is the measurement from corner to corner of a building floor plate. In the planning commission’s recommended zoning package, maximum diagonals are used on tower elements – parts of the building above the base – to try to encourage slender design allowing light and air. At its last meeting, the DDA board passed a resolution asking for the elimination of the maximum diagonal, partly on the grounds that it encourages square (not rectangular) floor plates, which are not the most conducive to residential development, which is one of the goals of the rezoning.

Amendment 10 (Briere): Revise Affordable Housing Premium to state that cash-in-lieu of units is not permitted.

• Reinforces that the purpose of the premium is to provide on-site affordable units.
• May not be necessary, since section refers specifically to providing on-site units.

Chronicle commentary: Related also to affordable housing premiums was speculation at caucus that Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) might propose an amendment related to the minimum square foot area for an affordable unit, which is currently set at 600 square feet. In the brief discussion among council members attending caucus, Carsten Hohnke said when he’d lived in Manhattan, he’d lived in a 400-square-foot apartment.

Amendment 11 (Taylor) : Increase penalty for failure to meet premium LEED commitment proportional to the benefit gained by the premium.

• Formula reflects increased penalty with increasing scale of premium.
• Formula is complex and may be difficult to explain.

Chronicle commentary: One concern that has been expressed is about additional square footage that a developer can be allowed to build based on satisfying various criteria. These are expressed in terms of premiums. Planning commission’s recommendation is for a variety of premiums: residential use, affordable housing, green building, historic preservation, pedestrian amenities, public parking.

What happens if a developer is not able to achieve certification of the green building (LEED) requirements that allowed construction of additional square footage?  The short answer is that there’s a penalty. Taylor’s amendment related the amount of the penalty directly to the amount of additional square footage that a developer was allowed to build because of the green building premium. Here’s the formula:

P = [(LC-CE) /LC] x CV x GPUP

P is the penalty; LC is the minimum number of credits to earn the requested LEED certification; CE is the number of credits earned as documented by the U.S. Green Building Council report; CV is the construction value, as set forth on the building permit for the new structure; and GPUP, the green premium utilization percentage, is the greater of (i) .075; or (ii) a fraction, the numerator of which is LEED FAR, the denominator of which is TFAR. LEED FAR is the minimum amount of floor area proposed that is attributable to the Green Building Premium; TFAR is the total floor area proposed.

Taylor has provided an Excel Spreadsheet that can be used to see how the formula reflects the interplay between the different variables by plugging in different values.

Worth pointing out is that the definition of LEED FAR, by specifying “minimum amount,” clarifies how situations might be handled when a developer has accumulated the right to build additional square footage through a variety of different premiums, but does not actually build all of the additional area. How does one assess how much of the actually-built area is attributable to the green building premium? The definition provides the implicit direction that all other premiums besides the green building are taken into account for as much of the actually-built additional square footage as possible, to measure the LEED FAR.

Amendment 12 (Briere): Add Small Business Premium.

• Currently no definition of “small business” in zoning ordinance.
• Standards for affordability would need to be developed.

Chronicle commentary: The idea is to extend the notion of “affordability” – typically associated with residential units – to small business use.

Repaving Maiden Lane

There’s a paving contract on Monday’s agenda, which drew Sabra Briere’s attention, because it includes Maiden Lane. She noted at caucus that the University of Michigan has plans for that area, which would make sense to integrate into any repaving schedule. Briere lives in that neighborhood.

Rule of Discourse

Briere also floated the idea of using a provision in Robert’s Rules of Order – which governs parliamentary procedures of the council – to allow for informal discussion, as opposed to the formal discussions that require, among other things, that councilmembers be recognized by the chair of the meeting before speaking and that their speaking turns are limited to two per councilmember on any item. Mayor Hieftje responded by pointing out that the two-turn limit applied to each item individually – including each amendment to any main resolution – so that on any resolution, a councilmember might well be able to speak far more than just two times. He said that a mechanism that could be used to allow for more speaking turns was to suspend the speaking rules by voting to do so. [This is not uncommonly used at council to provide members with an opportunity to speak again.]

Briere followed up by saying that within Robert’s Rules itself, there was a provision for informal discussion. Hieftje said that council speaking rules were somewhat different from Robert’s Rules, noting that in Robert’s Rules there is no provision for “calling the question.”

Chronicle commentary: According to the rules of the council, discussion is governed by Rule 8:

RULE 8 - Conduct of Discussion and Debate
• No member shall speak until recognized for that purpose by the Chair.
• The member shall confine comments to the question at hand and avoid personality.
• A member shall not speak more than two times on a given question, five minutes the first time, three minutes the second time, except with the concurring vote of 3/4 of the members present.
• A motion to call the previous question (call for cloture) immediately ends all discussion and shall be out of order until all members have had an opportunity to speak twice to the question on the floor, and shall require a concurring vote of 3/4 of the members present.
• A motion to lay on the table shall be out of order until all members have had an opportunity to speak once to the question on the floor.

Robert’s Rules factor in to cover issues not addressed in Rule 8:

RULE 18 - What Other Rules Shall Govern
The rules of parliamentary practice, comprised in Robert’s Rules of Order, shall govern the Council in all cases to which they are applicable, provided they are not in conflict with these rules or with the charter of the City.

Some rules of order allowed by Robert’s Rules, which allow for informal discussion, are described here.  However, it appears that Rule 8 supercedes Rule 18.

The board met at its usual location in the DDA offices, but this time it was recorded by three new wall-mounted video cameras. There's no schedule yet for the airing of the video material on CTN.

Downtown Development Authority board meeting (April 1, 2009): The board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday and passed  a resolution – with some dissent – recommending that city council eliminate the character districts from the A2D2 zoning proposal.

The board also authorized spending around $75,000 to help start a business district in the Main Street area – an idea mentioned in our report on the board’s December 2008 meeting.

Additional spending, totaling around $25,000, was authorized for bicycle parking – some of it on-street.

The board also heard a report from its ad hoc committee on the discussion of the parking agreement with the city of Ann Arbor. Initial indications are that there was clear (but not unanimous) sentiment on the committee against renegotiating the existing agreement, but for exploring other alternatives.

Accessibility was a theme that came up in the form of DDA meeting material as well as real-time parking data.

A2D2

Planning commission has forwarded to city council a set of recommended zoning changes to downtown. Council is due to hear a first reading of the changes at its next meeting on April 6.  Previous coverage in the Chronicle:

• Feedback Wanted: Downtown Zoning Revisions
• Council Begins Downtown Zoning Review
• A2D2 Zoning in the Home Stretch

At Wednesday’s DDA board meeting, the board considered a resolution recommending amendments to the proposed zoning revisions:

1. Given that one of A2D2′s most important goals is to encourage increased residential development in the downtown, we recommend that the premium credit for residential be calculated as 300% of FAR, not 300% of residential. The recommendation as currently written would not allow mixed use buildings to get to the maximum 700% with premiums.

2. We understand that an ordinance is under review by the Planning Commission that will address the FAR utilized by mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, and other non-habitable portions of a development. We recommend that the City alter the A2D2 zoning ordinance amendments to allow an increase in a project FAR to match the FAR required for mechanical and other requirements of a building.

3. We recommend that diagonals not be used to determine building form. They work to accommodate office construction, but discourage residential development, because they favor a square floor plate as most efficient, rather than a rectangular floor plate preferred for residential projects.

4. We recommend that no building height limit be established in the D1 zoning area. However, we prefer a building height limit with no diagonal to determine building form, rather than no height limit and a diagonal.

5. If City Council elects to establish a building height limit, we recommend parking should not be counted toward the maximum allowable FAR. We would like to encourage developments to include parking to reduce demand on the public parking system, not penalize them by reducing the amount of habitable space.

6. One of the important goals of the A2D2 process was to simplify the zoning process. We recommend that the character area elements of the zoning ordinance be eliminated as this information will be addressed in the design guidelines.

7. We recommend that the ground floor active use limitation be removed from the A2D2 zoning ordinance. We fully appreciate why this was suggested, but we believe that this is not the way to accomplish the goal of an active street frontage. In difficult economic times a restriction like this will ensure that a street frontage will be inactive because commercial space may sit empty for want of an attractive tenant. And in good economic times we have seen the market place operate effectively to create a mix of uses in each commercial area.

John Mouat, Marcia Higgins, Leah Gunn, Gary Boren.

Of these points, it was (6) that generated discussion among board members. Sandi Smith, who also serves on city council, suggested that (6) be stricken from the resolution, saying that design guidelines that also rely on the character districts would be passed  soon. [Differences between character districts have to do with differences in streetwall heights, setbacks, and stepbacks].

Board member Joan Lowenstein expressed her thought that the resolution without (6) would make it stronger, because a great deal had been invested in the notion of character districts. “If we come in and say all of a sudden, let’s get rid of them, that weakens our resolution.” That was a sentiment echoed by board chair Jennifer Hall.

The arguments against character districts discussed by board members were based on what Roger Hewitt called their arbitrariness and their complexity. Hewitt said that the goal of the four-year process had been to simplify the zoning. Being able to walk down the street and in the space of a few blocks cross as many as four different character districts was not, he said, consistent with the goal of simplification. Board member Leah Gunn agreed that character districts introduced unneeded complexity – developers needed to understand clearly what they could do by right. The purpose of the exercise, she said, was to provide clarity, not to create a multi-layered set of rules.  She said that the D1-D2 areas were a layer, historic districts represented a layer, active use areas were a layer, and character districts were yet another layer.

Hall countered that based on her prior service on the planning commission, clarity could arise from complexity.

Outcome: Resolution passed with dissent from Smith and Hall, and abstention by Marcia Higgins, citing the fact that she was there only to fill in for Mayor John Hieftje and that it would be coming before council.

Outcome: On the amendment to strike (6) from the resolution, only Smith and Hall supported it, and it thus failed. On the main resolution, the vote was unanimous, with one abstention by Marcia Higgins, citing the fact that she was there only to fill in for Mayor John Hieftje and that it would be coming before council.

Also related to the A2D2 zoning were some of Ray Detter’s remarks, giving his update from the regular meeting of the Downtown Citizens’ Advisory Council. He said that a recent letter circulated by the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce that included a policy statement on business development was a controversial point in the council’s discussion [full text of policy statement]. Among the more controversial points, said Detter, included the following:

• The downtown area’s decades-old present defined boundaries should be reevaluated and expanded beyond those of both the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment financing district and the current greater downtown area, thus permitting logical, necessary growth for benefit of future generations;
• The definition of the downtown area, as well as development densities, should be closely considered relative to U-M properties and the appropriate development relationship;
• Development densities should be maximized in the downtown area to increase the City tax base, to maximize existing infrastructure, and to increase walkability and efficient use of mass transit and other alternative transportation modes;
• Further downtown historic district expansion should be curtailed, and current boundaries and policies should be reevaluated to more effectively promote development opportunities;
• City staff and officials should approach the redevelopment of structures and parcels in non-historically designated areas with the same zeal and energy they approach protecting structures in historically designated areas;

Detter said that the chamber’s policy ran counter to much of what was contained in the downtown plan.

Business District

The board authorized $83,270 to support the creation of a business improvement zone (BIZ) on South Main Street. The amount includes roughly $75,000 plus a 10% contingency.

What is a BIZ?  The zones, which are enabled by Public Act 120 of 1961, allow property owners within a district to assess themselves a higher property tax to be used to promote economic development. In this particular case, the area consists of the three blocks of Main Street from the north side of William to the South side of Huron. And economic development consists of funding services above and beyond what regular city services would provide: sidewalk snow removal, trash pickup, planters, and the like.

During public comment at the start of the meeting, Bob Dascola, owner of Dascola Barbers on State Street, spoke in favor of the appropriation for the BIZ, saying it was a step in the right direction for improving downtown. Steve Bean, who described himself as a “near downtown resident,” also expressed his support for the BIZ during public comment.

Local developer Ed Shaffran had initiated the BIZ idea along with Ellie Serras, former president of the Main Street Area Association. Although Shaffran had been scheduled to speak, Serras appeared to say that Shaffran could not attend until later due to an unforeseen circumstance.  Shaffran arrived in time to see the vote, which was unanimous.

We caught up with Shaffran by phone later in the day to ask how things stood with the process – the DDA financial support does not actually create the BIZ. That’s a process that requires as an initial step that a petition be submitted to the city clerk signed by 30% of property owners in the proposed district. Here the percentage reflects a weighting of individuals based on the value of their property. One wrinkle in the weighting is that there’s a maximum weight of 25% for any one individual. After submitting the petition, there’s a required informational meeting, and a vote conducted by mail. To succeed, the vote needs a 60% majority – with the weighting of votes again based on property values. The city can recoup the cost of administering the election from the district.

Shaffran said that the petition had not yet been submitted, but that he thought they had probably already achieved 60% support, based on conversations with property owners. He clarified that while the district specified Main Street, the services provided would wrap around to the sides of properties that fronted Main.

Shaffran said that the intent of property owners on Main Street was to provide assurance – by undertaking to assess themselves a higher property tax – that the kind of services they wanted would actually be provided into the future. Shaffran went on to speculate that this could be a pre-cursor of “a la carte government” as revenues to municipalities dwindled. He suggested that the concept of a BIZ could be extended to residential neighborhoods as well. The strategy for providing services, he said, could evolve to be a system where a minimum baseline level would be provided by government, with BIZ-like affiliations electing to augment (or not) that baseline level.

What about other downtown areas that might want to form a BIZ? In board discussion of the proposal, Sandi Smith had explained that out of the current proposal the DDA would get a template for creating other areas. In our phone conversation, Shaffran suggested that another possibility was that other areas could be added to the Main Street BIZ. [The areas must be contiguous, according to the enabling legislation.] He said that the initial concept was to include the entire DDA district, but that they’d opted to start small and possibly expand.

Outcome: unanimously approved.

Bicycle Parking

Two resolutions were passed addressing bicycle parking. Both came out of the transportation committee, chaired by John Mouat. It was board chair Jennifer Hall, however, who described the projects to the board. The first one authorized spending $20,000 for fabrication and installation of  100 “bike circles” on the parking meter posts that will become available when new E-Park stations are installed. The metal rings will be attached to the posts as a way to adapt the posts to the function of a bike rack. After the meeting, executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay said that the idea had come from a citizen who’d made the suggestion and provided examples of other cities that had implemented similar projects.

The second bicycle parking resolution dealt with in-street bicycle parking. Five racks at $1,200 apiece were authorized. The racks will be installed in on-street parking spaces. They will be temporary in the sense that they can be removed during the winter season, or moved to different locations as special events might dictate [example of in-street bicycle parking]. Asked by mayor pro tem Marcia Higgins who would move the racks and where they would be stored, Pollay said that arrangements had been made with Republic Parking to store the racks, and that the logistics of moving them had not been worked out in detail. [Higgins was filling in for John Hieftje, who serves on the DDA board as mayor of Ann Arbor – he's attending a conference on solar energy.]

Keith Orr and Roger Hewitt.

Keith Orr expressed the hope that local fabricators could be found for the bike circles. Gary Boren asked that the liability issue be considered in light of who actually owns the parking meter posts.

In a public speaking turn at the start of the meeting, Steve Bean expressed his support for the bicycle circles, saying that they could help alleviate the problem with bicycles being locked to trees, which was not good for them.

Outcome: Both resolutions passed unanimously.

Discussion of Parking Agreement with City

[See previous Chronicle coverage for background on the upcoming discussions between the DDA and the city on the question of the parking agreement between those two entities.] The name of a committee appointed by board chair Jennifer Hall at the last board meeting is the “Committee to Discuss a Mutually Beneficial Financial Agreement with City Council.” It consists of board members Roger Hewitt, Gary Boren, Jennifer Hall, and Rene Greff. In her report on its first meeting, Greff, who chairs the committee, began with a light-hearted suggestion to shorten the name to the Mutually Beneficial Agreement committee – MBA – which would “make it sound very smart.”

Greff  then ticked through what the committee had done. They had: (i) reviewed history of DDA parking agreements with the city, (ii) reviewed TIF (tax increment financing) capture, and (iii) reached a majority view – with dissent from Hewitt – that they should not re-open the discussion of the existing parking agreement. It was not the role of the DDA, Greff said, to cover gaps in the city budget. The committee had given some consideration to taking over city tax-funded activities (e.g., snow removal), and had contemplated purchasing the right to meter enforcement in downtown. The latter would allow the DDA to control a piece of the public’s experience with the downtown area.

Board member Leah Gunn asked about the city’s side of the committee. Greff explained that the city council had not yet seated their committee, and the DDA contingent had met so that they would have something more concrete to bring to the table when the first meetings with the city took place.

Accessibility

The theme of accessibility of information and the DDA came up on a couple of different occasions during the meeting. At the start, DDA executive director Susan Pollay announced that the meeting would be recorded with three wall-mounted cameras, with a replay schedule on CTN as yet undetermined.

Towards the end of the meeting, board chair Jennifer Hall suggested that the entire board packet – not just the agenda – be made available on the DDA website. For people who wanted to watch video of the meetings, she said, having the written materials to which discussions referred would be helpful. Pollay noted that the language of any resolutions was already available on the website. Board member Gary Boren asked if the supporting documentation [which typically includes the previous month's parking structure usage data, among other material] was also included – it’s not.

Board member Sandi Smith suggest that the partnerships committee, which she co-chairs with Russ Collins, could take a look general issues surrounding accessibility and the website.

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Tyler Erikson, who is a research scientist at Michigan Tech Research Institute, spoke to the issue of accessibility of online parking data.

Background: On signs outside parking structures are indicators of how many open parking spots are available in that structure. The DDA provides the same real-time data on availability of parking spaces on its website. A couple of different initiatives independent of the DDA recently took advantage of the availability of this data on the web to make parking space data available by phone to drivers planning to park – call a number, get automated access to parking availability at a structure. The DDA eventually blocked access to the parking data from servers making the queries to the DDA website for the phone application. As outlined in a response to a FOIA request by Edward Vielmetti – which  could not be granted per se – access to the data for use in the phone application has since been conditionally restored. The number currently used by the automated phone application is 734-272-0909. In his update from the operations committee on Wednesday,  Roger Hewitt said that the DDA had set up a customer service line to provide parking data [734-761-9477], administered in-person by an attendant. Hewitt said that the number could eventually be automated, but that the intent was to first gather information about what types of inquiries people had when they called.

Tyler Erickson: Erickson said that it was in January 2009 when he first became aware of the real-time parking availability data and thought it was interesting from the point of view of his work as a research scientist. Erickson specializes in the analysis of space-time data. He said that the problem identified was that people don’t drive around looking at a laptop computer or hand-held screen – which led to the development of the phone application. Erickson noted that the work had received a positive response in the tech community and in the media. Although the issue seemed resolved at this point, he said that the initial result of the DDA being unsure about who was accessing their website was to block access to the data. The resulting online commentary, he said, as well as an article in The Ann Arbor News about access getting blocked, was that six out of the first 10 search results on a Google query for “a2dda” were about blocking access to data. This was a negative association, he said.

Erickson said he’d like to facilitate a way to block that negative trend by explaining what the  community of interest was: researchers, small-business people, students working on projects, among others. “There’s a lot of minds who would like to work on the data,” he said. If Ann Arbor wants to encourage students, he continued, and convince them that they can have a great IT  career here, instead of leaving and going to Boulder and Portland, then the DDA needed to stop blocking access to data and be aware of the community interested in it.

Updates and Miscellania

415 W. Washington: John Mouat reported that Wendy Rampson, with systems planning  at the city, had forwarded a new draft of the RFP, which would be re-issued sometime soon.

Giant Hole: Where will all the dirt go from the giant hole that will get dug for the new underground parking structure? Roger Hewitt said that it would be deposited in a hole at the city-owned airport, which had resulted from the Ellsworth road construction. Adrian Iraola of Washtenaw Engineering Co., who manages many of the DDA’s projects, said that a final decision was pending an analysis to see if the dirt to be removed from downtown meets criteria for clean soils. The 200,000 cubic yards of dirt represented about 5,000 truckloads, he said.

The LINK: The next transportation committee will take place as a “moveable mini committee retreat” on Wednesday, April 22 at 9 a.m. The committee will board the LINK, ride for a while, and then take a walk back through downtown to the DDA. This, after their last meeting with Chris White of the AATA, when they focused on The LINK and what options might exist for its futre – from killing it, to increasing its frequency, to expanding its geographic reach.

Present: Gary Boren, Rene Greff, Jennifer Hall, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat, Keith Orr, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn

Absent: Russ Collins

Next board meeting: noon on Wednesday, May 6 at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Sketch looking east of a possible result of the A2D2 zoning as it currently stands. Division Street, running north-south, is in the foreground. Ann Street (on the left) runs east-west, as does Huron Street (right). The currently proposed D1 zoning along Huron Street is to be mitigated by requirements that push buildings towards the street.

City council convened Monday night to hear public commentary on the downtown plan and A2D2 zoning revisions for the downtown area, which were approved by planning commission earlier this month, and which council had already begun contemplating at a working session two weeks ago. Nothing else was on the agenda.

About 30 residents took their 3-minute speaking turns on Monday, which did not preclude their participation at the public hearings when the amendments to the zoning ordinance are heard formally. The zoning ordinance’s first reading is planned for April 6 with a second reading on May 4. The  downtown plan will be heard April 20.

By 8:30 p.m. the Monday meeting had concluded, with many of the speakers and councilmembers mingling afterwards.

As they took their turns at the podium, a certain almost weariness seemed reflected by some speakers, who have been participating in the process over the course of the last three to four years. Beginning her remarks, Betsy Price, a South University area resident said, “You’ve seen me here before, I’m going to keep coming up!” And at least one resident, Jersusalem Garden owner Ali Ramlawi, said that he wished he’d gotten involved earlier than he did.

One concern expressed by Ramlawi was the need to make the surface level of the recently approved underground parking structure for the library lot as green and park-like as possible. It was a sentiment echoed by others as well, including John Floyd, who suggested four specific ways to “round off the sharper corners” of the recommended zoning changes, among them the idea of downtown park space that would not require residents to drive to outlying areas to enjoy open space.

Floyd said he also agreed with the idea expressed by Mayor John Hieftje during one of the candidate forums in the 2008 election campaign, when Hieftje suggested a 14-story height limit for downtown. Further, Floyd suggested a D2 zone around historic districts to help buffer them. And finally Floyd noted that there were no city residents who supported the D1 (core) zoning for the South University character district.

Norm Tyler displays a sketch of a possible scenario under the recommended zoning.

South University was addressed by multiple speakers, most in favor of a D2 designation for that character district, instead of the D1 that had been recommended by planning commission. The height limit of 170 feet set for the South University area was also heavily criticized, on the grounds that it had been set to accommodate a project that was now not certain would be built (601 S. Forest). A proponent of a D1 designation for South University argued based on the 2006 rezoning to the central business district, which was, she said, based on the character of the area as a core area of downtown.

The other area that was frequently addressed by speakers was the E. Huron character district. Norm Tyler, a resident who lives on Division Street between Ann and Huron streets, had developed a sketch of possible 18-story buildings that could be built along E. Huron under the zoning changes recommended by planning commission, which he displayed from the podium in poster size to councilmembers. He said that Wendy Rampson, with the city of Ann Arbor systems planning unit, had vetted the drawing as consistent with the recommended zoning. He asked councilmembers to consider some kind of protection for the historic district along Ann Street, which could come in the form of a D2 designation.

However,  several family members who jointly own property along E. Huron spoke separately in favor of a D1 designation for the E. Huron character district, based on the argument that current zoning is commercial, and that historically it had always been commercial. A designation of D2, they said, would amount to a down-zoning, and would impinge on their property rights. The compromise worked out by planning commission, they said, was fair.

The compromise to which they referred is a stipulation in the massing requirements for the E. Huron district that reads as follows:

(2) Tower: Rear or side exterior wall of the tower shall be located no further than 150 feet from the East Huron property line and no closer than 30 feet to a lot line abutting a residential zoning district.

The intent of the provision is to push any future buildings towards Huron Street, away from Ann Street.

Bruce Thomson shows councilmembers how current buildings and zoning would create a "notch" if the E. Huron Street Character District were zoned D2.

More than one resident spoke in favor of increased density and development. One of those was University of Michigan senior, who described how he felt that too many of UM’s graduating seniors did not consider staying in Ann Arbor, because there was not an adequately vibrant urban downtown. Instead of staying in Ann Arbor, he said, they looked to Chicago and New York.

Besides the two character districts of South University and E. Huron Street, another focus was on the need to pass design guidlines as a part of the zoning package, or at least commit to their timely passage once the zoning was approved.

Councilmembers did not deliberate at the meeting, as it was designated only for public commentary.