The houses are on the site of the former Near North affordable housing project. That project, on which the nonprofit Avalon Housing had partnered, ultimately did not go forward. The city must complete the demolition by March 15, 2013.

The vote on the funding came at the council’s Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. The additional $96,000 can only be used for the demolition of structures at 700-724 North Main.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Sign posted at the old Chinese restaurant in the Maple Village Shopping Center. (Photos by the writer.)

That set the stage for the building board of appeals to hold a first set of four show-cause hearings earlier this month.

If the board finds that the property in question is a dangerous building under the city’s ordinance and Michigan’s building code, and orders the property demolished, then a property owner has 20 days to undertake the demolition or appeal the board’s ruling to the circuit court.

Because the city now has demolition companies under contract and the funds set aside to pay for upfront costs, it can back up the demolition order if a property owner fails to comply with it – by going ahead and taking the building down. Although the city would pay the initial cost, the property owner would be assessed and invoiced for the cost of the demolition, which includes an administrative fee.

So it’s more cost-effective for property owners to demolish buildings themselves, compared to having the city do the work. When the owner of one of the four condemned properties arrived late a few minutes after the Sept. 13 hearings had concluded, Ann Arbor’s chief building official Ralph Welton told him: “We’d much rather you knock it down.”

That property was a residential garage, located at 2415 Dorchester Road in the southeastern quadrant of the city. The garage has apparently become a home to chicken hawks, which roost in the open roof.

The other three properties on the board’s agenda included two houses – one at 3123 Cherry Tree Lane, off Packard near US-23, which had additional construction done on the property in a non-compliant way, resulting in conditions the city found to be dangerous. The other house on the board’s agenda was 3010 Dexter Road, on the city’s west side.

In fairly straightforward fashion, the board found all three residential properties to be dangerous buildings under the local and state code, and called for their demolition.

The one property for which a representative of the owner was on hand was 175 N. Maple, where a former Chinese restaurant is located inside the Maple Village shopping center. That hearing took the longest of the four. The back-and-forth between the owner’s representative and the board resulted in a 30-day timeframe set by the board for a plan to be submitted to rectify the conditions, and subsequent to that plan approval, a 60-day window to effect the remedy. The owner’s representative came from Brixmor Property Group, a portfolio company of the Blackstone Group real estate fund.

It was evident that the board was handling the first round of show-cause hearings for the city’s recent efforts. To craft the wording of the board’s first motion of the meeting required a group effort, including much consultation with city attorney staff and Welton.

Building Code Background

The section of the Michigan Building Code cited by the board is Section 116.1, which reads in relevant part:

SECTION 116 EMERGENCY MEASURES 116.1 Imminent danger. When, in the opinion of the code official, there is imminent danger of failure or collapse of a building that endangers life, or when any building or part of a building has fallen and life is endangered by the occupation of the building, or when there is actual or potential danger to the building occupants or those in the proximity of any structure because of explosives, explosive fumes or vapors, or the presence of toxic fumes, gases, or materials, or operation of defective or dangerous equipment, the code official is hereby authorized and empowered to order and require the occupants to vacate the premises forthwith. The code official shall cause to be posted at each entrance to such structure a notice reading as follows: “This Structure Is Unsafe and Its Occupancy Has Been Prohibited by the Code Official.” It shall be unlawful for any person to enter such structure except for the purpose of securing the structure, making the required repairs, removing the hazardous condition, or of demolishing the same.

The city’s own ordinance describes the kind of show-cause hearings that formed the board’s business on Sept. 13:

If at the expiration of any time limit in the notice provided for in section 8:384(1) the owner has not complied with the requirements thereof, the planning and development services unit shall issue a notice and order to show cause to the owner of the building. The notice and order to show cause shall specify the conditions making the building or structure dangerous, the action necessary to alleviate the dangerous condition, and the time and place of a hearing on the condition of the building or structure. Notice shall be given to the owner in the same manner as provided in section 8:384(2). At the hearing, to be conducted by the building board of appeals, the owner shall have the opportunity to show cause why the building or structure should not be demolished or otherwise made safe as recommended by the planning and development services unit. At the same time that the owner is notified of the show cause proceedings, the planning and development services unit shall file a copy of said notice and order with the Register of Deeds for Washtenaw County.

Meet the Board

The board itself consists of Kenneth Winters, Paul Darling, Robert Hart, Roger Reik and Sam Callan. Reik and Callan were absent for the Sept. 13 meeting.

Board members on the five-member body serve 5-year terms. Each person must be a registered design professional with the following membership prescribed: a registered architect or builder or superintendent of building construction; someone with structural engineering or architectural experience; someone with mechanical or plumbing engineering experience; someone with electrical engineering experience; and one member with fire protection engineering experience.

Also present for the city was Ralph Welton, the city’s chief building official; Lisha Turner-Tolbert, who is projects and programs manager with the city of Ann Arbor’s rental housing division; Ira Harrison, representing the fire marshal; and Kristen Larcom from the city attorney’s office.

3010 Dexter Road

Ralph Welton led off by describing the property as a single-family home on the west side of town. It has been vacant since at least the beginning of 2006, he said. It’s missing basically all of its windows, and has tarps over the roof. And the roof, he added, is caving in. Most of the plaster and drywall inside is missing. He characterized the house as not only dilapidated but also dangerous. It was posted as uninhabitable about a year ago, he said. A letter was sent in November 2011 and it was determined that the owner is Barbara Wallis, who is now living in Palo Alto, California. The building department is recommending demolition of the property, he concluded.

Robert Hart got clarification from Welton that the property had been posted as uninhabitable year ago, but has been uninhabited for as long as six years. Welton indicated that it was being monitored as a vacant building prior to being posted. Kenneth Winters ventured that it’s not even possible to see the building from the street. Welton acknowledged that was true.

Welton noted that all the property owners on the agenda were notified by certified mail and first-class mail. Assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom indicated that the certified mail letter for the Dexter Road property had come back with a confirmed receipt from Palo Alto, and also a local address. Welton concluded that the property owner had been notified and had received the notification – but the city had received no follow-up contact from the property owner.

Kenneth Winters, chair of the Ann Arbor building board of appeals.

Winters asked other board members if they recalled how to handle an actual motion. The board’s discussion then centered around the question of whether the board simply needed to issue a finding that it was a dangerous building, or if it needed to go further than that.

Welton indicated that the motion needed to find the house was a dangerous building – with a recommendation for demolition. Board members wondered if they needed to cite the city ordinance and Michigan building code. Welton indicated they needed to qualify their finding by giving the reasons that he had listed out – that the building inspector had found the property to be in extreme disrepair, not limited to the following reasons.

Board members wondered if they needed to go through and recite that the building was posted on such-and-such a date, state that there was a letter of notification, and state that the building remains dilapidated and hazardous in violation of the city ordinance. Larcom indicated that an actual citation of the code was not necessary. But the motion did need to specify the findings, she said – based on having visited the premises, or based on photos in the information packet, or based on testimony by Welton. And the motion need to indicate why the board thinks that the structure does or does not qualify as a dangerous building, she added. Larcom indicated it would be sufficient to say “under the ordinance and building code.” Welton added that the structure had been damaged by deterioration and neglect, abandonment and vandalism. Part of the structure is likely to fall, he added.

Winters ventured that it would have been helpful to have had the packet before the meeting, so that board members could have visited each building and looked at them, and had time to go through the packet. Welton felt it would be possible to make the motion based on information in the packet and testimony of the building official.

Hart floated the following motion:

In the matter of item 2012-BSC-001, 3010 Dexter Road, I make a motion that in light of the evidence and testimony presented by the building official at this hearing of the order to show cause dated 8/28/12 that under the provisions of Section 116.1 of the 2009 Michigan Building Code and City ordinance 101 Dangerous Buildings, the structure in question, which has been abandoned for the better part of six years and was posted as uninhabitable on 8/25/2011 is warranted for demolition.

Winters wondered if it would be appropriate to go through and say that there are windowpanes missing. Larcom reiterated that the motion would need to be based on the board’s findings. Hart continued the motion by saying:

The motion is made in so far as it was presented to the board that the property was in extreme disrepair, including many missing windowpanes, tarps covering the roof, with exposed 2×4 stud walls inside the structure and vehicles in the rear yard, the building being in complete disrepair with additional vehicles abandoned and parked in the driveway hidden by shrubs. The property has not been maintained, and the property was posted as uninhabitable, and a letter of violation notice was sent to the property owner without response. Further to that point, the building remains in extremely debilitated condition and is a hazard to the public and is a violation of the aforementioned city ordinances and building code statute.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved a motion declaring that 3010 Dexter Road is a dangerous building and in need of demolition.

Larcom paused the board and indicated that the board’s motion needs to state the action that needs to be performed. That is, the board should say what needs to be done as a result of the finding that it is a dangerous building. Hart ventured that the motion already included that. With that assurance, Larcom was satisfied with the wording of the resolution.

Concluding remarks from Welton and the board indicated the city would now order the owner to demolish the house – with an option. If the owner does not demolish it, then the city will do it.

175 North Maple Road

Next up was a property in the Maple Village shopping center, also on the west side of town. Appearing on behalf of the owner was Martin Liles, a vice president for redevelopment with Brixmor Property Group, which is affiliated with the ownership of the shopping center. Liles asked to which address the city’s letters have been sent. Ralph Welton told him it was an office in Arizona. Lisha Turner-Tolbert, projects and programs manager with the city of Ann Arbor’s rental housing division, told Liles the specific address was PO Box 4900 in Scottsdale, Arizona. Liles asked if someone signed for it – no, she said.

The pink arrow points to the building in the Maple Village shopping center that the city of Ann Arbor has found to be dangerous. It’s across the road from Veterans Memorial Park.

Liles introduced himself as working locally out of Farmington, Mich. He told the board that he was shocked to see the written notice – and he’d become aware of it only through word-of-mouth. He told the board that he had on numerous occasions tried to contact the city’s planning manager, Wendy Rampson. He contended she had directed him to “hang tight,” and the building inspector would get back to him after the building inspector had gone through and reviewed the premises.

The site has been vacant for almost six years now, Liles said: “Our intentions are to redevelop it.” But unfortunately through the tough economic times of the last few years in the state of Michigan, he said, Brixmor has not found many individuals who were interested in the developing the property. He told board members he wanted to discuss what they were looking for – but he did not want to demolish the structure. If there’s something that can be done to cosmetically enhance it, that’s what he was hoping to hear that afternoon from the board.

Welton then went through the findings of the building department. The brick veneer is failing on two elevations, he said, and is falling away in some places in sheets. The roof structure is impaired by fire and is open to the elements. There have been several break-ins into the building, Welton continued. The building has been boarded up several times. The building has a compromised foundation, Welton said – and it’s unsafe and unsanitary.

Welton also described how the building gets used as a blind for companies dumping material, where it is out of sight from the rest of the shopping center. So the building department recommended demolition of the site, he concluded.

Turner-Tolbert added at that point that the city had also sent notification to an email address on file. Welton told Liles that as far as the city could tell, the property is not for lease or for sale. Liles told Welton it was, in fact, for lease, but not through a Realtor. He told Welton that Brixmor had created a couple of drawings for future development, which dated back to about a year and half ago. He described the new city ordinance mandating that a structure now must be within a certain distance of a property line – namely, within 25 feet. The existing structures are approximately 150 feet off the line. That’s been a very challenging footprint to try to lease out, he said. [Liles was referring to the city's new area, height and placement zoning regulations, which were given final approval by the city council at its Jan. 3, 2011 meeting.]

This was an issue that surfaced at several points in the back-and-forth between Liles and the board. Liles indicated that if the building were demolished, then new construction would need to comply with the 25-foot setback requirement of the new zoning regulations. So Brixmor was keen to keep the existing structure, which would not need to meet that requirement and was consistent with Brixmor’s hoped-for future development.

Left to right: Martin Liles (standing), Paul Darling and Robert Hart.

Brixmor intends to keep the existing structure up and expand that structure or build within the existing footprint, Liles told the board. He showed the board some drawings that Brixmor had been using to market the property to some different retailers. But the hardest challenge is to push the building to within 25 feet of the property line, he said. Brixmor is trying to maximize the lot and is showing anywhere from a 7,000 to 9,000- square-foot building – compared to the existing 3,000-square-foot building. Liles said there are a handful of retailers who would like the space. But Brixmor’s goal would be to build something with a 100% leased-out structure – not build something and hope that they could subsequently lease it out. The way the building sits today, the maximum visibility faces Maple Road, and that’s what the shopping center would like to achieve, he said. He felt that it would be possible to salvage some of the walls and the foundation of the existing building – that would be ideal.

Kenneth Winters wondered if the building could actually be rehabbed at this point. Liles assured Winters that whatever Brixmor turned over to a proposed retailer would be a solid structure. But Liles allowed that he could not say that 100% of the building as it stands now would remain. Winters ventured that the existing foundation might not be strong enough to bear the loads of a bigger building. Liles contended that the slab had proven itself and was not heaving and was not moving.

But Winters noted that some of the deterioration over the last six years was in the form of brick veneer falling off. He observed that this can come from two things – water from the top, or movement of the foundation. We don’t know which it is, Winters ventured. It could be the movement of the foundation, Winters contended – water getting under it and freezing.

Robert Hart was not interested in pursuing the issue of crossed letters and e-mails and the development difficulties: “How long have you guys actually owned the building?” More than 20 years was the answer. Hart told Liles that the question at hand was: “How did you let it get to this level of deterioration, and what are you going to do about it?” Liles reviewed some of the history of property – how it had been a ground lease with a Chinese restaurant that had previously occupied the premises. A fire occurred, and it took two years and a lawsuit – because Brixmor was going after the rent as well as damage to the building – for Brixmor to take back possession. Liles brought up again the difficulties in redeveloping and marketing the property.

Hart told Liles that the issue was not the marketing plan. Rather, it’s the condition of the building as it stands now, and what Brixmor’s intention is to rectify the situation. If there’s no intention or the wherewithal to correct the situation, then all it’s going to do is get worse, and not a lot of options exist, Hart feared. Liles allowed that was the point, and asked what Brixmor could do as an owner. Liles wondered if it were cost-worthy to go in and make repairs that have been identified. He told the board if there were, for example, a punch list of 10 items that Brixmor could complete in order to buy time, then that’s what he would like to do.

Winters wondered if all the exterior damage and roof damage that’s allowing water to get into the building could be taken care of – would the city then allow the owner to keep the building as it was repaired? Liles returned to the point that if Brixmor demolishes the building, it cannot rebuild the building the way it is today. Liles then showed the board an aerial photograph to make clear how the new area, height and placement zoning regulations would require that the building come within 25 feet of the property line. Liles noted that currently it’s more than 100 feet back because it was built prior to the current zoning ordinance.

Winters felt it did not seem to make sense that the city would require Brixmor to have a new building start within 25 feet from the roadway. Assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom was disinclined to weigh in, saying that would be a zoning issue. [In a phone interview with city planning manager Wendy Rampson, she confirmed for The Chronicle that if a currently non-conforming (grandfathered-in) structure were demolished, then new construction would need to comply with the new zoning regulations.]

Sheets of brick veneer missing from 175 N. Maple. View looks toward Maple Road.

Liles indicated that currently the building is grandfathered-in, and if the existing structure were to be removed and replaced, it would be required to fit the new guidelines. If Brixmor keeps the existing structure and works within that, the visibility to Maple Road would be maximized. He then presented the board with a drawing of what Brixmor would like to do. The drawing showed a 7,000-square-foot building. It would maximize both visibility and the parking field – and that’s what retailers want, he said.

Hart responded that with all due respect to the presentation materials, he did not think it was relevant to the issue. The issue is this: The building has deteriorated and it’s only going to get worse. “You’re basically being asked to rectify the problem … it’s going to put it onto us to make a determination whether the building should be allowed to remain standing.”

Liles then appeared to seek a kind of negotiation. He asked: If Brixmor were to demolish the building, would the city allow the existing structure to be rebuilt in the same location? Would there be a way Brixmor could get grandfathered-in again? Larcom responded to Liles by telling him this was a question he would need to ask his own attorney.

Winters asked Liles why the city should continue to allow a dangerous building to exist. It’s for them as a board to decide: Are we going to give you some time to do the work that is spelled out here? The board could not give Brixmor a directive to perform specific repairs, he said. Brixmor had to take care of what’s been pointed out as dangerous, and the board might be able to allow a certain length of time to do that. After that time, if it’s not accomplished, then the city has the board’s permission to go ahead and demolish it.

This is the way Winters saw the board’s options: It’s for Brixmor to tell the city how it is going to take care of this within the length of time that the board might allow.

Paul Darling ventured that the board had another meeting the following month. In that time, he thought the owner could develop a plan for undertaking work to make the building safe. Welton countered by saying that he did not think the city wanted just to see the buildings sit secured for another five years. The city would always want to look at any proposed plan of action. But just because of financial reasons – that it did not happen to be the opportune time to either build or tear it down – Brixmor was asking the city to put up with the building that doesn’t meet the standards, Welton concluded.

Winters asked if it was possible for the board to require that the property be made secure – with a cyclone fence 20 feet high or whatever is needed around the property. Welton responded by saying that in his opinion, as the building official, what the city is looking for is at least a “white box” – something that can be moved into. The city is not looking for something that has simply been sealed up but is still the same eyesore, bringing down property values in the area, Welton said. At this point the dangers remain, and he did not think the property was fixable with a coat of paint or a little “shoeshine.” There has to be an effort to make it a viable building or to tear it down – because that’s what the state law says about dangerous buildings, Welton said. It needs to be made into an occupied the building or else demolished.

Liles said that occupy-able could simply mean a “cold shell.” Welton allowed it could be close to that. Liles again asked that a list be put together for repairs that were necessary. But Welton told Liles: “It’s not for us to design something – it’s for you to design and for us to approve.” Welton told Liles that what he’d been hearing so far was: “What is the least I have to do to keep you from tearing down this building?” But that’s not the question to be asked, Welton said. The question is: Can we have time to make this a viable building, or tear it down ourselves?

Liles responded by saying his goal was to do what the city of Ann Arbor would like him to do. If the city tells him to do repairs, then he would do them. He did not want to turn the building into an occupy-able premises, then have to tear down the structure six months later because a retail tenant wanted something different. Liles maintained: “I want to make y’all happy.” He felt that if city officials met with Brixmor out on the premises and did a walk-through with Brixmor’s general contractor on-site – and if things could be pointed out that needed to be fixed – it would be possible to assess whether it’s cost-efficient to make the repairs.

Winters told Liles that at this point, either the building is made occupy-able or the city will proceed to have it torn down. So if the owner does not tear it down, the city will, Winters said. Liles then asked about a possible timeframe. Welton ventured it would take at least 14 days to generate architectural drawings – which would be necessary to work on a commercial building. But Welton indicated that he felt it was simply an effort to delay what is inevitable. A better approach, he suggested, would have been to talk to the planning department about what is possible – a variance for something else – rather than just letting it sit for six years.

In the conversation he and Liles had earlier in the week, Welton contended that Liles had said Liles had never seen the building. Liles objected that he had, in fact, seen the building – back when he used to manage the shopping center. He may not have seen it recently, he allowed. Welton indicated he felt that Brixmor didn’t actually have any real plans for the building, but rather was waiting to see how things turned out. “Meanwhile, the city endures this,” Welton said. Liles responded by saying it’s a considerable amount of money to invest. But he allowed, “We’ve been sitting on our heels waiting for the right time – with what we see as a potential ‘out lot’ for a single-use tenet.” Ideally, Brixmor would like to have a ground lease where a tenant would come in and take the property “as is,” he said.

Liles asked what the board’s timeframe would be to have the building demolished – because he did not know if he could get architectural drawings done within two weeks. Welton told him the timeframe would be set by the board. Liles told Welton that as a public company, the owner would need to go out and get three bids and present them to a committee. He figured it would be a 30-day process, at least. Welton noted that if the board were to rule that the building had to be demolished, that would still give Brixmor 20 days to appeal. Making the buildings occupy-able, Welton ventured, is probably not a very economic proposition, judging by what he knows of the building. The whole structure has been weakened by fire, he noted.

Winters asked if Brixmor had an architect or engineer go through the damaged building and say what might be salvageable. Liles indicated that the company’s property management had done that, but he had not been involved in it. On a monthly or quarterly basis, all of the vacancies in all of the buildings are reviewed just for security purposes, he said. Hart wanted to know just for the record who actually owns the property: Is it Brixmor? Liles told him that Blackstone Group ultimately has the ownership.

Hart asked if there were legal issues preventing the undertaking of remedial work – besides the economic conditions. Liles indicated it was a quite lengthy process. The tenant leases had to be reviewed. Some leases call for notification, if any structure in the shopping center is to be removed. Lender approval would also be needed.

Hart felt like the owners potentially had the wherewithal to do something, so he put forward a motion that granted 30 days to consult with the building official and produce a specific action plan, with architectural drawings to remedy the deficiencies and dangerous conditions outlined in the show-cause order. It would be at least a “cold shell” potentially occupy-able structure. And the plan would need to be executed within 60 days of plan approval. A biweekly inspection program would also be required that would be implemented by Brixmor properties. The motion went on to describe how the existing building would be demolished if the plans were not presented or were not implemented on approval.

Hart said the intention of the motion is to give the owner 30 days to put together architectural drawings and the game plan to remedy all the problems that have been identified with the building. If the owner can do it and it’s approved by the city, then the owner gets 60 days to actually get it done. If the first 30-day requirement is not met, or the second 60-day requirement is not met, then the building will be torn down.

Liles ventured that all of that amounted to “Option One.” He suggested that Option Two would be for the owner simply to demolish it. If that were the option taken, he asked if there was anything more required than a demolition permit. Welton told him that utilities would need to be shut off, too.

Outcome: The motion giving a 30-day timeframe for plans and a 60-day timeframe for implementation was approved unanimously for the 175 N. Maple property.

2415 Dorchester Road

Ralph Welton ventured that for this property, owned by Brian Gast, the “pictures tell the story.” He described it as a garage with a hip roof and three of the four hips have opened up. Tony Derezinski from the city council had provided the building board with pictures of chicken hawks roosting there – so it’s become an aviary, Welton said.

The owner had been approached by mail and there is a tenant who currently occupies the house, he reported. The house is probably close to needing condemnation, Welton supposed, but is currently occupied. The garage, in any case, is obviously a danger, he said – because the roof is in danger of collapsing into the building. There’s also a very big hole in the back side of the building. Rather than allow the structure to sit as a liability to the city and as a danger to tenants in the house, the building department recommends the demolition of the garage, he said.

Lisha Turner-Tolbert indicated that someone signed the return receipt on certified mail and confirmed that the property had been posted. Paul Darling made the motion ordering demolition of the garage.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the motion ordering demolition of the garage at 2415 Dorchester Road.

2415 Dorchester Road: Coda

Shortly after the building board of appeals meeting concluded, the property owner, Brian Gast, arrived in city council chambers where the show-cause hearings were held. He had the letter in hand that had been posted on his property. Welton told him that the hearing had just been held and that the garage had been approved for demolition.

Welton clarified to Gast that it was the garage, not the house, that was currently at issue – but made clear he felt like the house was also “headed down the same road.” He told Gast that the order coming out of the hearing that day would give him 20 days to undertake demolition himself or to appeal it to the courts if he felt the building should remain. “We’d much rather you knock it down,” Welton told Gast.

3123 Cherry Tree Lane

Ralph Welton reviewed some of the history of the property, owned by Byron Patrikakos, which goes back at least to the summer of 2007. The city noticed that the owner was trying to build an addition without permits. Eventually the owner was ticketed for that, Welton said. He characterized the completion of the work having taken place in a somewhat “clandestine” fashion, and then people moved into the house. At that point, the owner moved back to Greece, Welton reported. The owner would periodically call the housing department and had once called Welton as well, he said, in order to discuss complaints about the house.

Meanwhile Welton, said, there were people living in the house. He listed off a number a problems: holes that go through the wall right to the sidewalk; drains that run into the bathtub; human waste in the crawl space; dangerous wiring going through cold air returns; lights hung with no junction boxes. “Every room is a disaster waiting to happen,” Welton concluded. Because there were people trying to live there, the city ordered the house evacuated, and the tenants left. The city’s housing department did an inspection and recommended condemnation, Welton said.

Lisha Turner-Tolbert added that the house and garage on the premises had been boarded up and padlocked. It was a nuisance property for the community, she said. Complaints have come from the neighbors – about drug activity and such. The police department had also recorded a lot of activity at that house. There had been no response to certified or for first-class mail sent by the city.

Paul Darling sought clarification about the garage: Was it detached or not? Welton noted that the city code does not allow for the existence of an accessory structure without the main structure being in place.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to order demolition of the house and garage at 3123 Cherry Tree Lane.

Present: Kenneth Winters, Paul Darling, Robert Hart.

Absent: Roger Reik, Sam Callan.

Also present for the city was Ralph Welton, the city’s chief building official; Lisha Turner-Tolbert, who is projects and programs manager with the city of Ann Arbor’s rental housing division; Ira Harrison, representing the fire marshal; and Kristen Larcom from the city attorney’s office.

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

The Ann Arbor city council gave initial approval to new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps at its Feb. 21 meeting. The council briefly touched on the topic of the current location of the Amtrak train station, which is in the floodplain (green area). The dark red is a building (Gandy Dancer) that was previously not analyzed as within the floodplain, but now is analyzed as such – similarly for parcels colored bright red. (Image links to higher resolution file with legend.)

The council denied a rezoning request from the owners of Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky, located on South State Street near the Produce Station, that would have allowed them to use the property for a retail operation larger than what currently exists. But the council did give initial approval to a rezoning request from the Society of Les Voyageurs that will allow the group to make an addition to their house, which is located near the Argo Dam.

At the other end of the spectrum from development, the council also took action that will allow the city to move quickly to demolish buildings that are derelict, posing a safety risk to the community. The council authorized the allocation of $250,000 from the general fund to pay upfront costs for the demolition of such structures. The city expects to be able to replenish the money out of a lawsuit settlement it won previously against the owner of the former Michigan Inn. The city will also eventually be able to recover its costs from property owners whose buildings require demolition.

Also related to possible future construction on land throughout the city, as well as the insurance for existing buildings, was the council’s initial approval of new federal flood maps. The most recent maps date from 1992. The new maps being considered for approval by the city were created out of a process begun by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Throughout the city, 452 structures are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain, while 88 buildings are newly analyzed as in a floodplain, according to the new maps.

Floods are one of the natural disasters that the city’s new emergency management director, Rick Norman, will be responsible for preparing the city to handle. The council formally authorized Norman’s appointment at their meeting.

In resolutions that required expenditures of funds, the council authorized additional outside accounting and legal expenses, as well as the painting and repair of equipment at the city’s water treatment plant.

In other business, the council passed a resolution in support of a clean air campaign, and authorized the closing of city streets for eight different upcoming events.

Two significant appointments were discussed at the meeting. The first was a mayoral nomination on which the council will be asked to take action at its next meeting – appointing Sue Gott, planner for the University of Michigan, to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The other was an appointment that has already been made by Gov. Rick Snyder – Joe Burke as judge to the 15th District Court. Burke was on hand to be introduced to the council.

Biercamp Rezoning

The council considered a request from the owners of Biercamp to rezone the South State parcel where the artisan sausage store is located – from TWP (township district) to C3 (fringe commercial district).

Biercamp Rezoning: Background

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the city planning commission had unanimously recommended denial of the rezoning request.

The property is located at 1643 and 1645 S. State St., south of Stimson and next to the Produce Station. The parcels currently house a relatively new business – Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky – as well as an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer. Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to rezone the property to C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site. The annexation of the property, from Ann Arbor Township, was approved by the council at its Oct. 17, 2011 meeting.

At the council’s Oct. 3, 2011 meeting, councilmembers had finally voted on a rezoning request in the same vicinity, from Treecity Health Collective. The medical marijuana dispensary was denied its rezoning request, which it had sought in order to qualify for a medical marijuana license issued by the city. The council had postponed their Treecity vote from their Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. Councilmembers had wanted the extra time to ensure that they would be handling Biercamp and Treecity in a parallel fashion.

At that time councilmembers also cited the study of the South State Street corridor, which is now in progress, as possibly affecting changes in zoning in the area in a more comprehensive way.

Biercamp Rezoning: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by saying she was willing to move the rezoning request forward to a second reading before the council. [Zoning requests are ordinance changes, which require two approvals by the council at separate meetings, and must include a public hearing.] But she cautioned that the council needs to keep in mind the context of the broader corridor study. Previously, the council was advised it was premature to rezone a single parcel, because it would be “spot zoning.” She concluded that she’d be willing to give the request an initial approval, though she was not certain how she’d vote at the second reading.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, said the planning commission had unanimously recommended a denial. It would be nice to rezone the parcel, but the fact is, he said, that you’d be destroying the idea of predictability in the city’s decision-making on zoning issues. That would risk a lawsuit, he said.

Derezinski said the corridor study is moving along. He noted that South State Street will get very busy when the new Costco store opens [at Ellsworth and State, in Pittsfield Township] and “pumps” thousands of people onto that road. His own sense was that given the unanimous denial by the planning commission, the council should not move it to a second reading so that the council doesn’t “clutter up our docket.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked Wendy Rampson, head of city planning, what the future of the owners would be if the council denies the rezoning request. Rampson explained that Biercamp had made sure they got the blessing of the township for the store’s current use. If the city continues with the process of establishing a staff-initiated zoning of M1, Biercamp could continue as a “non-conforming use,” but couldn’t expand their retail operations. Currently, Rampson said, the business is subject to the zoning it inherited from the township. Teall said she saw Biercamp as becoming a much beloved business, if it was not already. She said she’d like very much not to infringe on their business.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the proposed zoning by the owners was denied, because it’s not consistent with the city’s master plan. He asked about “conditional zoning” – is that an opportunity for Biercamp? Rampson explained that when the city planning staff were approached by Biercamp, they went through a number of options, and one of them was conditional zoning. The owners had opted not to pursue that.

Kunselman confirmed that Biercamp would get to operate their existing business. Based on Rampson’s assurance that they could continue to operate their existing business, Kunselman said he would support denial of the rezoning request and he saw no reason to take it to a second reading. It was a case where the council needs to follow the planning staff’s recommendation, he concluded.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked when the corridor study would be complete. Rampson described how planning staff is currently doing interviews with property owners. Meetings have been held with a half dozen property owners on the northern end of the corridor. Rampson indicated she was not sure what the public engagement process would be like – the area has very few residents, and mostly businesses are located there. Lumm clarified that the corridor that’s the subject of the study goes from Produce Station near Stimson all the way south to Ellsworth.

Currently, Rampson said, they’re looking at the corridor as composed of three to four different subsections with distinct character, including the Briarwood Mall area. The city has had some discussions with Pittsfield Township, Rampson said. Lumm said that her sense was – based on the planning commission minutes – that everybody felt sorry for the petitioner, but felt it’s not a good thing to approve zoning inconsistent with the master plan. She said she was comfortable with denying the request for rezoning.

Derezinski agreed with Teall that Biercamp is a good business and they have expansion plans, which he said is always healthy. He described the planning staff as having bent over backwards. Eventually, he felt, it’ll be worked out – it’s a matter of waiting. He said he had patronized the business a half dozen times. It’s the kind of business the city wants, he said, but things have to be done in an orderly fashion. So he would ask for a denial at this point.

Briere said she was also inclined to deny the rezoning request, but was inclined to allow a public hearing to proceed, which would result if the council gave it initial approval. You never know what we’ll learn from a public hearing, she ventured.

Teall asked when Costco’s construction would be completed. Rampson reported it’s under construction, but she did not know when it would be completed – within the current year, she thought. Teall said she was looking forward to having the issue come back, but would support the denial.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) before the Feb. 21 city council meeting started.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that the Costco site is in Pittsfield Township and the township will have full authority to determine zoning in the township. So she asked Rampson how that was being handled for the portion of State Street south of I-94 – the western side of State Street that’s in Pittsfield Township. Rampson characterized that as a conversation that’s a year away. Pittsfield officials are talking about making that area more active and mixing in residential uses. The exchange between Higgins and Rampson clarified that the city of Ann Arbor has jurisdiction over the full width of State Street.

At mayor John Hieftje’s request, Rampson explained the next steps for the Biercamp owners if they wanted to expand. Rampson said that if the council did not approve the rezoning, she’d ask council to direct the planning staff to initiate the process of putting appropriate zoning in place. If two years pass after the annexation from the township and no zoning is applied by the city, the parcel becomes “unzoned” and anything could happen, Rampson said.

So the staff would want to put an M1 placeholder zoning on the parcel. In the meantime, the State Street corridor discussion would be going on, Rampson said, and clearly Biercamp is a stakeholder in the corridor now and would be able to advocate for itself in the context of that discussion. At the conclusion of the corridor study, the staff would likely come up with a “package” that Rampson felt would probably include a rezoning of that parcel, among other recommendations.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that immediately to the north is a property zoned C3, where the Produce Station is located. Rampson explained that the property was originally zoned M1 – it was a warehouse. The entire area was developed on an industrial-type footprint, she said. Smith ventured that context might eliminate the possibility that rezoning the Biercamp parcel would constitute a “spot zoning.”

Rampson indicated that the objection to the rezoning is not that it would amount to spot zoning. Instead, the objection is based on the fact that the city’s master plan talks about putting a boundary on the commercial district. The Produce Station is the edge, she said. Without having a further understanding of how retail would work beyond that boundary, the planning staff weren’t comfortable letting it go farther south.

Outcome: The council unanimously denied the Biercamp rezoning request.

Les Voyageurs Addition

The council considered an initial approval to a rezoning request and a site plan for an addition to the Habe Mills Pine Lodge – owned by the Society of Les Voyageurs. The rezoning was unanimously recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its Jan. 19, 2012 meeting. The property owned by the society, at 411 Long Shore Drive near Argo Pond, is zoned public land, even though it’s owned by a private entity. The society is asking that the land be rezoned as a planned unit development (PUD), which would allow the group to build a 220-square-foot, one-story addition to the rear of the existing lodge, on its east side.

Rezoning changes the city’s ordinances, thus requires an initial approval by city council (first reading) followed by a final vote at a subsequent meeting.

The nonprofit society is a University of Michigan student and alumni club, focused on nature and the outdoors. Named for French-Canadian voyageurs of the Great Lakes fur trade, it was founded in 1907 and is one of the university’s oldest fraternal student groups. The lodge was built in 1925 – about the same time as the city’s first zoning ordinance and zoning map. Five student members live at the lodge, and society alumni gather there for potluck Sunday dinners from September to April.

Mark Doman, an alum of the society, attended the city council meeting. Responding to an invitation from mayor John Hieftje, he gave a history of the organization. He described the mission of the society so much in keeping with the setting is that it’s zoned as public land.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that it’s zoned public land (PL), because it belongs to UM. Doman clarified that the land is not owned by UM, but rather by the society. Briere noted that in any case, the resulting public land designation is an effort to not have the parcel zoned residential. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) praised the work of planning staff to find the least intrusive way to accomplish the task, saying it was an agreeable process. The request, he said, was a “no-brainer.”

Outcome: The council gave unanimous initial approval to the PUD rezoning of the Les Voyageurs property.

Fund to Demolish Unsafe Buildings

The council considered a $250,000 allocation for the demolition of buildings that the city deems dangerous under Chapter 101 of the city code. The city would like to target buildings that are diminishing the quality of neighborhoods, dragging down property values and attracting nuisances. The appropriation is from the city’s general fund, changing the budget, and thus required an 8-vote majority. The city expects to be able to reimburse the general fund from the proceeds of a lawsuit settlement related to the old Michigan Inn property on Jackson Avenue.

Councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Mayor John Hieftje described the possibility of establishing such a fund at the city council’s Dec. 19, 2011 meeting. He portrayed the idea as arising out of a conversation he’d had with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

During the council’s deliberations on Feb. 21, Hieftje noted that Kunselman as well as Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) have been looking into the issue. The proposal before the council is a plan to pre-fund the demolition work. Hieftje said there’s a surprising number of buildings in town that need to come down.

The city’s chief development official, Ralph Welton, was asked to explain the mechanics of how condemnation and demolition would work. Welton told the council that the city has an ordinance in the code for specifically for this kind of situation. [.pdf of Chapter 101] Welton described how first a property owner would be notified, and if there’s no compliance, the property owner would be invited to a show-cause hearing at the city’s building board of appeals. There’s a 20-day period to appeal a vote of the building board of appeals to the district court, he said. After that, the city would tear down the building. Welton said that the fund would perpetuate and possibly grow.

Hieftje got clarification from Welton that the city would pay the initial cost of demolition, but that the property owner would be invoiced and assessed. Welton explained that it’s not a lien that would be placed on the property, but rather a direct assessment.

Hieftje explained that conversations with the city attorney and with Ward 1 residents had led to a likely initial focus on properties on North Main Street, including the houses on the site of the future Near North affordable housing development.

Briere asked if it’s possible to get a list of properties that would be considered for demolition. Welton noted there’s criteria for condemning properties, so those lists will be fluid.

Kunselman said he’s really excited about this – he’d worked previously in a community where such a program had worked well. He noted that most property owners don’t know how to deal with their own property when it reaches this condition, so the program solves that problem. However, he questioned the initial targeting of the Near North properties – weren’t neighborhood stabilization monies appropriated for that? [Kunselman was correctly recalling the council's May 16, 2011 vote.] What would happen to those neighborhood stabilization funds? asked Kunselman. Hieftje indicated that the attorneys will take a look at that. The city wants to put the Near North project property owner on notice that the houses need to come down, whether the project goes forward or not. Kunselman wanted to make sure that out-buildings like garages are also included for consideration under the program.

In terms of properties where development is ongoing but delayed – like Near North – Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked at what point the city should “pull the trigger.” Teall indicated she was thinking about the Georgetown Mall site on Packard.

Smith asked what the typical cost is for bringing down a building – like one of the Near North houses. Welton estimated that for one of the houses, it would cost $15,000-$25,000. Responding to a question from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Welton indicated that with older houses there could be issues of lead and asbestos abatement.

Outcome: The council unanimously voted to allocate $250,000 for the demolition of dangerous buildings.

Flood Maps

The city council was asked to give initial approval to an ordinance change that will adopt a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

From left: Jerry Hancock, the city's stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, and Eli Cooper, the city's transportation program manager.

By way of background on those maps, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) makes flood insurance available for properties in participating communities – Ann Arbor is a participant. If a building has a federally-backed mortgage and it’s located within the “1% annual change floodplain” (previously called the “100-year floodplain”), then flood insurance is required.

Ann Arbor’s most recent FIRM dates from Jan. 2, 1992. In 2004, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began a map revision process for Washtenaw County. Various drains in the city were re-analyzed, using updated data, and on July 27, 2007, FEMA issued preliminary maps. After required public review, appeal and revisions, on Oct. 3, 2011, FEMA issued a letter with a final determination, indicating that the new maps would become effective on April 3, 2012. [.pdf of Oct. 3, 2011 letter] [.pdf of Dec. 20, 2011 reminder letter]

Compared to the previous 1992 maps, 321 parcels are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain. However, 116 parcels that were previously not analyzed as in a floodplain are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. Building-wise, 452 structures are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain, while 88 buildings are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. [See also Chronicle coverage: "Column: Digital Information Flood"]

As an ordinance change, the council will need to give the approval of the maps a second and final approval at a subsequent meeting.

During the relatively short deliberations on the map, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked the city’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, Jerry Hancock, to explain the program.

Hancock explained that it was a FEMA project, not a city project, which began in 2004. Consultants were hired by FEMA and the state of Michigan. Some of the floodplains were completely re-studied while others were simply re-mapped, he explained. There was a preliminary report drafted in 2007, and from that point, input was received all over the county, he said. It took until six months ago to finalize the map, and now FEMA has put the final maps out. He said the city and county staff had put together an online map. Properties that have changed status are all color-coded, so hopefully people can get a sense of how these changes will affect their properties, Hancock said. He also reported that letters had been sent to affected property owners.

Kunselman asked if the recipient of such a letter would be able to take that letter to the bank without an additional letter of map amendment in order to justify changes to their insurance requirements. Hancock explained that yes, the city’s letter should satisfy the requirements of their lending agency.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) offered an “atta-boy,” saying the letters sent to property owners are well crafted with good instructions. Lumm said the good news is that the number of parcels formerly in the floodplain decreased significantly.

Watershed-by-watershed, here’s the breakdown:

Parcels Into Floodplain        Parcels Out of Floodplain                     

Allen Creek      45            Allen Creek      199
Huron River       5            Huron River        9
Mallets Creek    24            Mallets Creek     10
Millers Creek    16            Millers Creek      0
Swift Run        11            Swift Run         84
Traver Creek     15            Traver Creek      19
Total           116            Total            321

Buildings Into Floodplain      Buildings Out of Floodplain      

Allen Creek      46            Allen Creek      204
Huron River       5            Huron River        6
Mallets Creek    23            Mallets Creek     48
Millers Creek     3            Millers Creek      0
Swift Run         2            Swift Run        171
Traver Creek      9            Traver Creek      23
Total            88            Total            452

-

Outcome: The council gave unanimous initial approval to the new flood maps.

Transportation

Transportation arose as a topic at the council’s Feb. 21 meeting in at least three ways: (1) a request for additional required information from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; (2) the nomination of Sue Gott to the AATA board; and (3) the location of a possible new transit station.

Transportation: AATA Info Request

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) used a council communications time slot to press for additional information about the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority in the context of the current proposal pending before the council to sign an agreement that would set a framework for the transition of the AATA’s governance structure from an Act 55 authority to an Act 196 Authority.

Kunselman told mayor John Hieftje that he had some comments about “your proposal” to dissolve the Act 55 authority. [By way of background, as a political tactic, Kunselman has consistently labeled the proposal to transition to an Act 196 authority as "the mayor's proposal." Hieftje has responded to this tactic the same way he did at the council's Feb. 21 meeting – by insisting that he cannot accept credit for the plan.]

Kunselman said that the council keeps being told the AATA needs a new governance framework, even though the existing framework will work, he contended. He said that in doing his homework on the issue, he’d come across an agreement between AATA and the city. [.pdf of Sept. 30, 1974 agreement] By way of background, the agreement was signed in the context of litigation that was pending at the time between the city and the AATA. It was a lawsuit over the handling of $221,000 in funds dating from 1970. The AATA contended it was entitled to the money, while the city of Ann Arbor administration had claimed the money had been loaned to the AATA and needed to be repaid. So the city had subtracted that sum from the millage money collected by Ann Arbor for the AATA before the money was passed through to the AATA.

Kunselman quoted from the agreement:

11. REPORTING To ensure that council is kept apprised of the AATA’s activities, the AATA will submit to Council at least quarterly a written report indicating its activities to include such key elements as levels of ridership, budget variances and other service level information.

Kunselman noted that the council had not received the specified quarterly reports. According to the agreement, Kunselman said, the council is also supposed to receive the AATA’s proposed budget for review by April each year. ["The proposed budget should be submitted to the City council by April 1 each year unless a change in dates is necessitated by federal or state requirements."]

Kunselman also said that the last audit he was able to find posted on the AATA website dated from 2009. Kunselman said he was particularly interested in ridership information on the express buses from Canton and Chelsea. He wondered how many Ann Arbor residents ride those buses from Ann Arbor out to Canton and Chelsea – even though $100,000 of millage money is used to support the service. He noted there’s no purchase of service agreement (POSA) with Canton or Chelsea. He wondered if the AATA is running empty buses out to bring back commuters? Kunselman asked that city administrator Steve Powers contact the AATA and get the required information.

Transportation: AATA Board Appointment – Gott

Added to the agenda on the afternoon of the Feb. 21 meeting was a nomination of Sue Gott to replace Rich Robben on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Gott has served as the University of Michigan’s university planner since September 2002. She has also served as an adjunct professor with UM’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. In the private sector, she was a senior planner at the consulting firm JJR Inc.

Gott is described in her standard bio as a “third generation Ann Arborite.” She is a 1982 graduate of UM.

Robben, whom Gott would replace if her nomination by mayor John Hieftje is confirmed by the Ann Arbor city council, is also a high-level UM administrator, serving the university as executive director of plant operations. Robben resigned from the AATA board late last year, a bit less than a year into his second term, but served on the board through last month’s Jan. 19, 2012 board meeting.

Robben’s departure from the board was the second in two months – the city’s former public services area administrator, Sue McCormick, attended her last AATA board meeting on Dec. 15, 2011. Her replacement on the board is Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager. Cooper’s replacement was controversial for some city councilmembers, because he is an employee of the city of Ann Arbor, as was McCormick.

Kunselman asked for clarification regarding the dates for Gott’s term. He felt that Gott should be serving out the remainder of Robben’s term, not starting a new term. AATA board terms are stipulated in the AATA articles of incorporation as five years, with resignations replaced with an appointment to fill out the remainder of a term. The end of Gott’s term, accordingly, should be May 2, 2016.

Transportation: Train Station Location

During council communications, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that a group of councilmembers received an email from a resident reacting to the changes in status for the proposed Fuller Road Station. Given that the MichCon site (on the west bank of the Huron River, across from the new dam bypass that the city has constructed alongside Argo Dam) is about to be cleaned up, Anglin said that the existing train station location should be examined more attentively. The existing station location, he said, could be offered as an alternate location to the proposed Fuller Road Station site.

Anglin said there’s an opportunity for more discussion, and that as a member of the city’s park advisory commission he would bring this up. If the MichCon site were used, there would be no parkland involved – as there was with the Fuller Road Station site, which was proposed on land that’s part of Fuller Park.

Councilmembers Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that the council would have another conversation about the Fuller Road Station as they accept the $2.8 million in federal grant funding to undertake a study related to the project. The Wolfpack has been working on the cleanup, Hieftje said. [The Wolfpack is a conservancy group associated with the National Wildlife Federation, co-founded by local attorney and former Clinton advisor Paul Dimond and retired Ford executive Ray Pittman.]

The MichCon property being cleaned up is right next to the river, Hieftje said. It’ll be a new park and will have a view of the new whitewater feature. One of the problems is that the current Amtrak station site is in the floodplain, and is not considered a good place to make an investment. As far as using that location for commuter rail, Hieftje said, the current location is not the final destination for anyone.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) invited Anglin to join her on a walkthrough of the general area of the train station and MichCon site. There would need to be infrastructure improvements in order for the site to be serviceable as a commuter rail center. She allowed that the landscape is not terrifically hospitable, but pleasant enough if you pick a decent way.

In her most recent update to constituents, Briere has solicited feedback on the location of a train station and has suggested the following constraints:

• The land should already belong to the City. Land acquisition is expensive, and I’d prefer to talk about alternatives that are feasible.
• The land ought to be really close to the railroad tracks, and in order for the train to stop at the station, the tracks should be straight and not curved at your preferred location. The rule of thumb is 800 feet of straight tracks.
• The site should allow for sufficient on-site parking as well as the construction of a building.
• The surrounding infrastructure should be able to bear additional traffic, including bus traffic. The existing train station sits on the flood plain; Depot Street gets as much as a foot of water across it during heavy rains. Flood issues, traffic patterns, stop lights, and surrounding (close) residential areas should also affect your choices.
• The cost of construction should require (in your mind) an acceptable investment.

Introduction of New Judge: Joe Burke

On Feb. 15, 2012 Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed Joe Burke to fill the judgeship on Ann Arbor’s 15th District Court, filling the vacancy left by Julie Creal, who resigned last year for health reasons.

Joe Burke, newly appointed judge on Ann Arbor's 15th District Court.

In Michigan, district courts handle civil cases where the disputed amount is $25,000 or less, small claims cases where the disputed amount is $3,000 or less, landlord/tenant disputes, criminal and traffic misdemeanors punishable by less than a year in jail, issuance of arrest or search warrants, Ann Arbor city ordinance violations, traffic and state civil infractions, and University of Michigan regents violations. The 15th District Court also handles the preliminary examinations for the 22nd Circuit Court.

At the city council’s Feb. 21 meeting, Burke was introduced to the council by chief judge of the court, Libby Hines. She told the council that judge Chris Easthope, a former councilmember, was unable to attend the meeting to make the introduction.

Hines told the council that she’s known Burke for many years. He’s practiced law in Ann Arbor for 30 years, she said, first in the county prosecutor’s office, then in civil practice for six years, then back to the prosecutor’s office when Washtenaw County prosecutor Brian Mackie invited him to serve as his chief assistant. Hines said she knew that Burke was already very honorable, but would officially gain that title at his investiture on March 16.

Joe Burke (third from front or back) at a rehearsal for the Ypsilanti Community Band in November 2008.

In his brief remarks to councilmembers, Burke told them that he was really excited about serving as judge. He said that during the interview process, when he was asked why he wants to be a judge, he’d answered that he did not just want to be a judge – he wanted to be a 15th District Court judge. He said that Hines, Creal and Easthope have together put together a wonderful set of programs – the street outreach program, the sobriety court, the designated domestic violence docket – things that other courts aren’t doing. Those programs make it a nationally recognized court, he said.

Burke told the council it’s like being traded to the Yankees – unless you’re a Red Sox fan, in which case it’s like being traded to the Red Sox. He said he was very humbled and honored to be able to serve the city that he loves, where he’s lived – in Ward 5 – for the last 23 years.

Chronicle readers may also be familiar with Burke as a trumpet player in the Ypsilanti community band – now known as the Washtenaw community concert band. At the April 20, 2011 meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, Burke delivered remarks to the board when the long-time conductor of that group, Jerry Robbins, was honored.

Emergency Management Director

The council was asked to consider the appointment of Rick Norman as the city’s emergency management director and to approve the line of succession to that position. Norman has previously held positions with the American Red Cross and with Ionia County in a similar capacity. [To be clear, this is a position with responsibilities for developing plans and implementing contingencies for manmade and natural disasters; it's not an emergency financial manager position.]

Rick Norman, Ann Arbor's new emergency management director.

The line of succession to the position is: Sgt. Edward Dreslinski, Mary Joan Fales (assistant city attorney), Lt. Myron Blackwell, Matthew Schroeder (Ann Arbor firefighter), Andrew Box (Ann Arbor firefighter) and Matt Naud (environmental coordinator).

Fales introduced Norman to the council, mentioning that in addition to his experience, he’s attained certification as a licensed instructor. He’ll be working on the city’s new emergency preparedness plan. Norman described himself in the “assimilation phase” – he’s meeting people and starting to attend meetings.

From what he’s seen so far, he said, the city has a good solid emergency preparedness program. The people he’d met so far are well-trained and well-equipped, he said, and also dedicated to what they’re doing.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the appointment of Rick Norman as emergency management director.

Ann Arbor OKs Accounting Help

The council considered an amendment to an existing employee contract for extra help in the financial services area as the city heads into peak season for preparations to finalize the fiscal year 2013 budget. FY 2013 begins on July 1, 2012.

The existing contract with Diane Koski started May 2, 2011 for $23,400. The amendment extends the contract for an additional $15,600 for a total of $39,000. She is paid for actual hours worked at a rate of $15 per hour. The staff memo accompanying the resolution indicates that the financial services unit needs the extra assistance due to a resignation in accounting services.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council unanimously approved the amendment to the contract with Diane Koski.

Legal Services Contract

The council considered a $50,000 contract for legal services with Stevenson Keppelman Associates, an Ann Arbor firm. The contract will cover work related to pension and retiree health care issues. It will be paid out of the city’s risk fund.

During the brief deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said that Stevenson Keppelman specializes in these services and it’s being paid from the risk fund, which is an appropriate source. She wondered why this was not included in the original budget request for the city attorney’s office.

City attorney Stephen Postema replied that it was not a part of the attorney’s budget, but that chief financial officer Tom Crawford could explain. Crawford explained that the city has legal expenses through the attorney’s office but also associated with the risk fund. Money was budgeted for the work, but the scope has evolved to include changes that the city is making to its retiree and health care ordinances, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the legal services contract with Stevenson Keppelman.

Water Treatment Equipment

The council considered a $139,000 amendment to an existing contract with E & L Construction Group Inc. to repair and paint key facilities at the city’s water treatment plant. The specific items needing their structural steel components repainted are clarifiers. A clarifier settles particles out of fluid.

During the brief deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked water treatment services manager Molly Wade why the amendment was for so much – 40% of the original contract. Wade explained that conditions turned out to be worse than expected. Also, she said, the amount of mill scale was not known. The project had also been delayed due to the weather – during 2010 it had rained a lot.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract amendment with E & L Construction Group.

Chelsea IT Agreement

Pulled out of the consent agenda by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) for separate consideration was an item authorizing the extension of a $32,000 annual agreement with the city of Chelsea for Ann Arbor to provide information technology (IT) services. The agreement covers basic IT services – helpdesk, management of Chelsea’s website, server hosting, backup and recovery, overseeing IT contractors, and project management.

Lumm said she certainly supports the collaboration between Chelsea and Ann Arbor, but just wanted to confirm that the $32,000 reflects full cost recovery for the city. Dan Rainey, head of IT for Ann Arbor, confirmed that the city is recovering its full costs.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if there’d been requests from other municipalities for IT services to be provided by the city of Ann Arbor. Rainey indicated that the city certainly worked closely with Washtenaw County. Sometimes the county isn’t the best fit for another community, and the city can provide some value for them. Anglin said that the IT agreement shows regional cooperation and that’s important.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the IT contract with Chelsea.

Clean Air Promise Campaign

The council considered a resolution expressing its support for the educational efforts of the Clean Air Promise Campaign and to support clean air policies and “other protections that scientists and public health experts have recommended to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to safeguard our air quality.”

Ward 1 city councilmember Sandi Smith (standing) talks with Shirley Axon and Nancy Schewe of the Ann Arbor League of Women voters before the Feb. 21 council meeting.

The Clean Air Promise Campaign is a nationwide effort to protect the health of children and families from dangerous air pollution.

One of the co-sponsors of the resolution, Sandi Smith (Ward 1), told The Chronicle in a phone interview the week before the meeting that the resolution is not intended to supplant the possibility of enacting an ordinance that would regulate the unnecessary idling of vehicles in the city.

The Feb. 21 resolution was co-sponsored by Margie Teall (Ward 4) and mayor John Hieftje.

Shirley Axon and Nancy Schewe of the League of Women Voters of the Ann Arbor Area attended the meeting, and thanked the council for their support.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution in support of the Clean Air Promise.

Street Closings

At its Feb. 21 meeting, the council considered street closings for several upcoming events. The street closings each had separate resolutions, but they were combined at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) at the start of the meeting.

Of the events, only the marathon is new this year. In chronological order:

• Box Cart Race/Soap Box Derby (Saturday, March 24, 2012)
• Take Back the Night Rally and March (Thursday, April 5, 2012)
• Monroe Street Fair (Saturday, April 7, 2012)
• Taste of Ann Arbor (Sunday, June 3, 2012)
• 12th Annual Mayor’s Green Fair (Friday, June 8, 2012)
• Tour de Kids Competitive Bike Race (Sunday, June 10, 2012)
• Ann Arbor Marathon (Sunday, June 17, 2012)
• Rolling Sculpture Car Show (Friday, July 13, 2012)

On the Ann Arbor Marathon, Mike Highfield addressed the council. He’s the president and CEO of Champions for Charity, the LLC that is organizing the event. Highfield noted the council had approved road closings for another Champions for Charity event a few weeks earlier – the Big Heart Big House run. [By way of additional background, Champions for Charity is also now providing the race direction for the Ann Arbor Track Club's Dexter-Ann Arbor Run. The Dexter-Ann Arbor Run, on June 3 this year, comes two weeks before the June 17 Ann Arbor Marathon date. The invitation on the website for the marathon – "Be part of a new running tradition in Ann Arbor!" – works as an implicit acknowledgement of the history of the Dexter-Ann Arbor half-marathon event, which has been run since 1974.]

Mike Highfield, president and CEO of Champions for Charity, which is organizing the Ann Arbor marathon.

Highfield told the council that the Ann Arbor police department and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority had been very helpful in coordinating the logistics of the route. He noted that $6 of every entry fee goes to the support the Ann Arbor Public Schools Educational Foundation. As of 5:30 p.m. that day, 715 people from 26 states had signed up so far. [The marathon event is limited to 2,500 entrants.]

Wendy Correll, executive director of the AAPSEF, and Christy Perros, AAPSEF board member, also briefly addressed the council. Correll sketched out the mission of the AAPSEF, which in part provides support for the public schools that goes beyond the mandated curriculum. She also highlighted the fact that it’s not only a marathon that will be contested – the event includes a half-marathon, a 5K and a 1.2 mile run for young kids. Perros described how she’d thought her first marathon would be in Chicago – but now it will be in her hometown of Ann Arbor.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about important issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Homelessness

Mary Kate Bachler introduced herself as an undergrad student in the University of Michigan school of architecture and a resident of Ann Arbor. She said she was grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the interest of her community and in support of the efforts of Imagine Warming Centers. She was prompted to come address the council, she said, because of some remarks that mayor John Hieftje had said, on the topic of the 100 units of affordable housing that previously existed at the old YMCA at the corner of Fifth and William. Bachler responded to Hieftje’s contention that having affordable housing units dispersed around town – as opposed to concentrated in one place –would be better. Better for whom? she asked. How would a lack of a sense of community among those who are directly affected by poverty and addiction to help them make the difficult transition from homelessness to a home?

Bachler said Hieftje had reported meeting with representatives of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, PORT, Dawn Farm and others to discuss the need for a warming center. How many homeless people have you met with thus far? she asked. Bachler said she’d come to realize there’s already a thriving, beautiful and talented community out there fighting for their lives this winter. If there are people who would prefer to be left out in the cold, as Hieftje had implied, she wondered why that might be the case? She said that it was careless to dismiss that reaction as a problem of those who need shelter, instead of acknowledging that it indicates a problem with institutions.

Bachler urged councilmembers to look past the stigmas of homelessness, and realize that we’re all residents of Ann Arbor and the council is supposed to represent everyone. She said she felt that city councilmembers have the means to make a positive change in Ann Arbor but did not do it. She asked them if they would continue to provide scapegoats on the issue of homelessness or take a risk to effect social change.

Mary Conway thanked the council for letting her come back to speak about the homeless in Ann Arbor. They’re unseen and for the most part unheard, she said. As a resident at the Delonis shelter, she said, she could attest that there are engineers, broadcast technicians, cosmetologists – employable people who are not all drug addicts and alcoholics. She said she was sorry that the newly-appointed judge, Joe Burke, and the executive director of the getDowntown program, Nancy Shore, had not stayed at the council meeting to hear a representative of the homeless community speak. [Shore had given a presentation earlier in the meeting about the getDowntown program.]

The homeless are a part of Ann Arbor and a big part of the ridership of the AATA, Conway said. They should be included in transportation use surveys – they influence others who ride the bus. She said we’ve been lucky to have a mild winter so far. But the summers will also be important. The homeless never seem to go away. She said she hoped homeless people could be helped off the street and back into a home.

T.J. Rice told councilmembers that he’d met most of them over the past couple of years – in connection with other issues. That evening, he was there to talk about the homelessness issue. For the last couple of months, he said, he’s been involved in Imagine Warming Centers from the outside looking in. Progress has been made, he said – a meeting had been held with the city administrator and they’d toured the city-owned property at 721 N. Main.

Rice said he had an interest in the issue because he’s been homeless too. He would like to give back something to the same community that has helped him get back on his feet. That morning he went to St. Andrews and on the way out he heard about the possibility that Camp Take Notice was being shut down. [Camp Take Notice is an enclave set up by people who are homeless, located on state-owned property off of Wagner Road.] Where are these people going to go to keep warm? he asked. Ann Arbor is better than that – the very least we can offer is a place to keep warm out of the cold, Rice concluded.

Comm/Comm: Incremental Approach

Bill Hanna introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident. His main motivation in speaking was to guarantee that his daughter, who was attending the meeting to fulfill a requirement for a government class, would have some public input to observe. He took pains to assure the council that he didn’t want to disrespect the other speakers who’d addressed the topic of homelessness, as his remarks were more lighthearted. He addressed the general issue of how the council brings new ideas forward, citing the example of the new crosswalk ordinance or the discussion about the possibility of enacting an ordinance to regulate unnecessary idling.

Hanna advised councilmembers that smaller incremental steps are better than the council’s current approach, which he characterized as “one shot,” attempting to achieve all-encompassing solutions that would never be changed or modified. No new system is built in one step, he said – a good design that’s been implemented has the flexibility for change after it’s been put in place. By proceeding incrementally, he said, the council would still get feedback. That way they could see what people are thinking. Currently, he said, the council risks the perception that what they’re doing is another crazy idea from the mayor and council that the city has to follow. It would work better, he said, if people felt like they were part of the process, and their suggestions were taken into account.

Comm/Comm: Crosswalks

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said that, because Hanna had brought it up during his public commentary, she wanted to alert the council to her desire to look incrementally at some of the crosswalk locations in the city. She reported that there have been a couple of accidents at crosswalks in Ward 2 – one involving three cars and another one involving a pedestrian and a car. She told the other councilmembers that she’d be sending them more information.

Comm/Comm: Graffiti

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that many residents have noticed the city has an issue with graffiti that it is “not able to conquer.” She allowed that it’s frustrating. What she’d learned is that the city does clean properties, but the cleaner only works above 40F. And while it’s been a mild winter, it’s not been that mild. For residents who are impatient, she said, she joined them in their impatience. The city will be working on cleaning graffiti in March or April, depending on the weather.

Comm/Comm: Republican Primary, Council Races

Thomas Partridge addressed the topic of the presidential primary election to be held on Tuesday, Feb. 28. He called on the public to turn out and vote Democratic, because the eyes of the media are watching. We need state Democrats to stand up for progress, he said, including the fundamental civil right of having a place to live.

Later, at the second public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting, Partridge indicated that he had been a candidate for city council in the past and may be a candidate for a city council seat or for mayor. He complained that the council rushed through its meeting as though it was being held on the night of something important like the Super Bowl. [The council's meeting on Feb. 21 concluded in just over two hours – about half as long as a typical meeting.] The council would be better advised to promote an open democratic process and to sever all conflict-of-interest ties, he said. No councilmembers should serve on related boards like the Downtown Development Authority, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje later responded to Partridge’s comment by noting that the mayor and councilmembers are required to serve on certain boards and commissions.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje.

Absent: Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, March 5, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

Mayor John Hiefjte described the possibility of establishing such a fund at city council’s Dec. 19, 2011 meeting. He portrayed the idea as arising out of a conversation he’d had with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]