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]

Screenshot from the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County mapping website. It shows the new floodway and floodplain boundaries for the new FEMA maps, highlighting the buildings and parcels that are no longer in the floodplain, according to the new maps. The parcel with extra highlighting (yellowish green) is one of special interest for this column.

Yet among the nearly 12,000 words in The Chronicle’s report from that meeting, there’s no mention of the city’s Digital Cities award. The decision not to include that award in the meeting report was not one about which I agonized; it was not made on the basis of some high-minded journalistic principle. From a purely practical point of view, the award was likely a victim of my finite stamina for writing about a city council meeting.

But one reason I don’t mind omitting that kind of award from a meeting report is that it really does not matter to me where Ann Arbor ranks on that survey. What matters to me is the fact that the city’s investments in the realm of digital technology make life in Ann Arbor as a local journalist easier than it would be otherwise.

And that, I think, is best illustrated with a specific example. It’s an example I stumbled across a couple of months ago. But because it overlaps with two agenda items on the city council’s next meeting, on Feb. 21, I thought now would be a good time to share it with readers. One of those agenda items involves demolishing derelict houses, and the other involves the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps.

This tale begins on Facebook and ends in the bucket of a big yellow backhoe.

City Council Agenda: Feb. 21, 2012

First, let’s preview two agenda items related to the big yellow backhoe. The city council’s Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 agenda, like all upcoming meeting agendas, is available online through the Legistar system. The regular meeting schedule for the council calls for meetings to start at 7 p.m. on the first and third Monday of the month. But this week was a holiday, Presidents Day, and the meeting day shifted to accommodate it.

Live streaming of the meetings is available online via CTN’s channel 16. Depending on your connection, you’ll experience a delay of 3-5 seconds after the page loads before the video begins streaming.

City Council Agenda: Flood Maps

On Tuesday’s agenda is consideration of an ordinance change that will adopt new flood maps.

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 Flood Insurance Rate Map (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 the required public review, appeal and revisions, on Oct. 3, 2011, FEMA issued a letter with a final determination, indicating that the new maps would be 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. 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

-
The council will be asked on Feb. 21 to give initial approval to a change to the city’s building code to specify the zones in the new maps as flood-prone areas. The entire city code set is available online through the city clerk’s gateway. (Scroll to the bottom of the page, past the privacy policy.)

As an ordinance change, the council is required by city charter to give an initial approval (first reading) followed by a final approval at a subsequent meeting.

City Council Agenda: Demolition Fund

The second agenda item of interest for this tale is one that establishes 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, and thus requires 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.

The issue of dealing with abandoned and derelict buildings is one that has been pushed by Ward 3 councilmember Stephen Kunselman. By way of example, at the council’s May 16, 2011 meeting, Kunselman questioned the prioritization of neighborhood stabilization funds for the demolition of three houses on the site for the proposed Near North affordable housing development (on North Main Street, south of Summit). [No demolitions have yet taken place.] From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

Kunselman noted there are lots of blighted properties in the city that could use these funds. Why were these houses on North Main selected and not others? Why wouldn’t the developer be responsible for tearing down the houses? [Mary Jo] Callan told Kunselman those were great questions. The funds have a time limit on them, so part of the reason to use them on the Near North demolitions is that it’s a project ready to go, there’s a clear owner, a clear title, and there are no potential delays. In addition, NSP funds can only be used on certain census tracts.

Kunselman wanted to know if a lien would be placed on the property and how the Near North developer would pay it back. Callan said that certain liens are forgiven. But if the property were sold, it would have to get paid back. Kunselman concluded from what Callan said that the money for demolition is a grant. Callan told him, “It’s an investment in permanently affordable housing.” The expectation is that the housing will be permanently affordable. The city’s strategy is not heavily weighted towards “recycling” the money, as Kunselman was suggesting: use money for demolition; place a lien on the property; the property sells; the lien is paid back; and the money becomes available for demolition of another blighted property.

Kunselman asked community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl how many blighted properties the city’s nuisance committee had identified. Bahl said the committee is prioritizing a list and in the next few months, that list would be shared with the council. Kunselman wondered if the city would have any money to undertake demolitions. There was a house torn down in his neighborhood where the money was paid back. Was there any way to make sure the North Main property owner does pay it back?

And it was Kunselman who was responsible for the origin of this column – in a Facebook comment he left about a link pushed out on The Chronicle’s Facebook network.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission

On Jan. 6, 2012, The Chronicle published an article based on a meeting of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission board. Newly-hired executive director Jennifer L. Hall described for the board a possible plan for the acquisition of additional property. The location of the property was not disclosed – it was discussed in a closed session with the board. Discussion of land acquisition is an allowable use of closed sessions under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Kunselman's Facebook comment about The Chronicle's reporting on the possible acquisition of additional property by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Kunselman wrote on a Facebook post containing a link to the article: ”The last time the AAHC bought land, the city became the owner of a blighted house that had to be torn down after years of sitting empty.”

Following up with Kunselman, he described the general location as being on Platt Road, north of Verle.

From there, I checked out the maps available online through the joint city/county geographic information service. I clicked around on likely-looking parcels using the “point identify” tool.

Satellite image of 3432 Platt Road from 2010.

It’s a tool that displays information about whatever parcel a user clicks on. I was able to identify 3432 Platt as a parcel owned by the city of Ann Arbor. And by adding the satellite imagery to the layers I was viewing, I was able to verify that there was no building on the property. Checking with Kunselman, he verified that this was the parcel he had in mind.

Kunselman also subsequently mentioned to me that one of the issues associated with the property was its location in a floodplain.

By searching the city council minutes on Legistar for “3432 Platt,” I was able to verify the history of the parcel as described by Kunselman. From the Oct. 7, 1996 minutes:

Whereas, The Ann Arbor Housing Commission purchased the property at 3432 Platt Road (parcels A, B, C, D) on January 30, 1992 for the amount of $99,500.00 to be used for the new development project with property’s owner identified as the City of Ann Arbor acting by and through the Ann Arbor Housing …

Whereas, After the purchases were completed, it was determined that portions of the properties are in the 100-year flood plain and HUD determined that it would not give final approval for these properties nor reimburse the Housing Commission for the purchase price of the properties;

Whereas, Efforts by the Housing Commission to sell these properties have been unsuccessful;

Whereas, The Housing Commission is now asking that the properties be conveyed back to the City in exchange for a reduction of the debt owed by the Housing Commission to the City; and Whereas, The Housing Policy Board at its meeting on June 19, 1996, recommended that the City take title of the Platt Road properties from the Housing Commission and credit the debt owed on the properties;

RESOLVED, That City Council approve the transfer of the above described properties from the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to the City of Ann Arbor; …

Three years after that, on May 3, 1999, the council passed a resolution authorizing the disposal of the property as “excess city property.”

What’s happened since 1999? A Google search confined to just the city’s website turned up the city’s 2007 flood mitigation plan. In that plan, various options are presented for the parcel, located in the Swift Run watershed. Those options include selling the structure if possible, or demolishing the house. Most of the scenarios involved describe an outcome of demolishing the house.

The plan also states:

For some policy goals, the City may consider commissioning hydrologic studies of these areas. For example, a new study of the Swift Run floodplain and floodway may show that the Springbrook parcels (3432 Platt, etc.) are outside the floodplain, or at least the floodway.

And it turns out the new FEMA maps that the council is being asked to approve no longer show the property in the floodplain.

By way of background, a “regulatory floodway” for FEMA means “the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.” A “floodplain” is described in the metadata associated with the floodplain map files in the city of Ann Arbor Data Catalog as “That portion of the river valley, adjacent to the channel, which is built of sediments deposited during the present geological / climatic regime. Based on statistically derived hydrologic recurrence intervals, a portion of the land adjacent to the watercourse experiences bank full overflow during flood stage episodes.”

Here are some images captured from the city-county online FEMA maps that show the changed status of 3432 Platt Road. The mapping interface allows users to toggle layers on and off, to view the 1992 floodplains and floodways, and contrast them with the 2012 floodways and floodplains. [For other Ann Arbor maps options, start here: Ann Arbor maps. Those maps provide answers if you're ever curious about locations of all the streetlights or trees in the city.]

3432 Platt highlighted in yellow. The 1992 floodplain is indicated with green hatching. The parcel is indicated as being mostly inside the floodplain.

3432 Platt highlighted in yellow. The blue region is the 2012 floodway. The green region is the 2012 floodplain.

Among the layer options that users can toggle on and off is one showing buildings (dark green areas) and parcels (light green areas) that were previously but are no longer classified as within the floodplain.

The last image in that set contains a piece of information that probably needs to be updated. It indicates a building at the 3432 Platt location. We’ve already seen a satellite image (above) from 2010 showing just open space – so the house did, in fact, get demolished just as Kunselman had written. In fact, Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, added confirmation by writing to The Chronicle that as near as he could determine, it was general fund money that had been used for the demolition.

But when did the demolition take place?

Based on the 2007 flood mitigation plan, the house was still standing in 2007. Given that the city-county online mapping service actually includes layers for historical satellite imagery, I figured I could identify the last year in which a house appeared in the satellite image, and narrow down the timeframe. The 2009 imagery shows open space. The 2008 imagery still shows a house. But it shows something else, too. In the image below, that sure looks to me like a yellow backhoe and a dumpster. Demolition day was also satellite flyover day:

2008 satellite imagery for 3432 Platt Road (Image links to animated sequence of satellite images from 2005-2010.)

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County. 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!

In the foreground is Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) as his council colleague Mike Anglin (Ward 5) explained the reasons why he wanted to appoint a historic district study committee for the area south of William Street along Fourth and Fifth avenues.

Heritage Row had been considered and rejected more than once before by the council, with a history in front of Ann Arbor’s legislative body dating back well over a year. The project had been brought back for reconsideration because the demolition of the seven houses was apparently imminent – as part of the construction of City Place. City Place is a different, already-approved project on the same Fifth Avenue site by the same developer.

But by the Friday before Monday’s meeting, all four agenda items related to Heritage Row (site plan, zoning ordinance and their respective public hearings) had been deleted from the agenda. The developer had withdrawn the Heritage Row project.

With the construction of City Place a virtual certainty – along with demolition of the houses – on Monday afternoon Mike Anglin (Ward 5) placed a proposal on the agenda that would have started a procedure to establish a historic district in the area. The related moratorium on demolition in the study area would have, at least temporarily, blocked the City Place development.

But in the end, the council was in no mood to repeat the same exercise it had gone through two years ago. At that time, the council had appointed a historic district study committee, then subsequently rejected the committee’s recommendation that a historic district be established in the neighborhood. Arguing against the establishment of a historic district study committee this time around, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he didn’t want the council to become a joke. Later during deliberations Margie Teall (Ward 4) ventured that already, “We’ve become a bit of a joke.”

Also on Monday afternoon, two other items – which asked the council to reconsider votes it had taken at the Oct. 17 meeting about the City Place project – were placed on the agenda by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Kunselman was not interested in getting the votes reversed, but had questions he wanted answered. While other councilmembers agreed to reconsider the items, the council then dispatched them with unanimous votes after Kunselman’s questions.

That left one item on the agenda – added on Friday after the agenda’s Wednesday publication – that actually resulted in a vote that might change the course of events in the city. The resolution directed city staff to make recommendations on improvements to crosswalks throughout the city. Councilmembers expressed some interest in tweaking a new pedestrian ordinance that it approved on July 19, 2010.

Also at the meeting, the council went into closed session to discuss the city attorney’s performance evaluation. It resulted in no change to city attorney Stephen Postema’s salary, but allowed him to cash out 250 hours of accrued time before Dec. 31, 2011.

Fifth Ave. Historic District

On the council’s agenda was a proposal to reappoint a historic district study committee for an area along Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor. The council also had on its agenda a separate but related proposal to enact an emergency moratorium on demolition in the proposed study area.

The scope of the study would have included an area roughly from William south to Madison along Fourth and Fifth avenues, as well as some addresses on Packard Street. Members of the committee were proposed to be Ellen Ramsburgh, Tom Luczak, Ethel Potts and Susan Wineberg.

It was Mike Anglin (Ward 5) who pushed the historic district proposals forward.

Historic District: Background

The site where City Place and Heritage Row have been proposed, and the area further south near Madison Street, have a long history [timeline]. An area in the same vicinity had previously been studied by a committee, which resulted in a recommendation to establish a historic district south of William and north of Packard on Fourth and Fifth avenues. However, on July 6, 2010, the city council rejected the historic district on a 4-6 vote. Voting for the district on that occasion were Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje. Anglin was absent that evening, but his yes vote would not have been enough to achieve the majority needed to pass the resolution.

The original recommendation to establish a historic district had been made by a committee established by the city council on Aug. 6, 2009, along with a moratorium on demolition in the area to be studied. [For additional background, see: "S. Fifth Ave: Historic District Development"]

The council had established that 2009 study committee (in conjunction with a moratorium) in an attempt to block the City Place matter-of-right project that had been considered by the council, but postponed until January 2010 – under an arrangement with then-developer Alex de Parry. [De Parry recently sold his interest in the project.]

When the historic district committee was established in August 2009, the City Place project was then brought forward and ultimately approved on Sept. 21, 2009, about a month after the historic district study committee and moratorium had been established. This was a key difference between then and now: Two years ago, the historic district study committee was appointed before there was an approved project on the site.

The same night in July 2010 when councilmembers rejected the Fourth/Fifth Avenue historic district, now nearly 15 months ago, they reconsidered a vote on the Heritage Row planned unit development for the same site as City Place. In the version before the council at that time, Heritage Row would have constructed three new apartment buildings behind seven existing houses and preserved the houses to historic district standards. The July 6, 2010 vote on Heritage Row was 7-3 in favor, leaving it one vote short of the 8-vote majority the project needed for approval. The council had initially considered the Heritage Row project on June 21, 2010 and rejected it on a 7-4 vote.

With Heritage Row and a historic district both rejected, and the City Place project approved, a number of efforts have been made since the summer of 2010 to avoid the construction of City Place. Those efforts culminated most recently in a council decision reached on Oct. 3, 2011 to reconsider Heritage Row another time. That came shortly after the ownership of the City Place and Heritage Row projects changed. The Oct. 3 decision to reconsider Heritage Row was hoped by many to culminate in a final vote at an extra council meeting scheduled for Oct. 24. However, on Oct. 21 news emerged that the developer had pulled the item from the Oct. 24 agenda.

City Place, Historic District: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for all those who can’t attend the meeting, seniors and disabled people. He called on the council to show the courage to withdraw the City Place items from their agenda. No other university city with the prestige of Ann Arbor has allowed itself to be bullied by land developers, he said. Other communities have turned aside businesses – like Walmart.

Partridge said the increasing power of corporations is a prime reason why Occupy Wall Street is gaining strength every day. Occupy Wall Street is about people taking themselves away from the comfort of their homes and families to demonstrate. Heritage Row is illustrative of corrupt business practices, he said. Alluding to the crosswalk items on the agenda, Partridge also called for safe access to all forms of transportation.

Rita Mitchell asked the council to take advantage of a chance to reset the process. She talked about the mutliple dimensions of benefit to doing that. The houses, she said, can’t be replaced. They’re valuable to residents, who live there. They provide unique living spaces. They provide for an interesting and unique landscape near downtown. The city of Ann Arbor’s website notes the 1824 founding of Ann Arbor and highlights the city’s historic districts. If we allow houses like these to be removed, she said, it would contribute to the erosion of a sense of time and place and neighborhood.

Mitchell stressed the importance of what Fifth Avenue means to the neighborhood. She urged reconsideration of the votes on City Place. She asked the council to support the appointment of the historic district committee and asked for the council to support the moratorium. She suggested that councilmembers could all be remembered for making a decision for the benefit of the community.

Ethel Potts noted that Ann Arbor is getting press about how great it is due to its walkability, great neighborhoods and charm. But she said that not everything built new in the city enhances its charm – there are some “clunkers” built, she said. The particular block on Fifth Avenue has historic houses and are well worth keeping for all of us, she said. She asked that the council support appointment of a historic district study committee and moratorium. After all the confusion the council has been through, she said, it’s worth taking a step back to consider the livability of the city. She also asked that they reconsider the amendments to City Place – the developer wanted those revisions for his own reasons, she said.

Kathy Boris supported the resolutions proposed by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) to establish a study committee and the moratorium on demolition. It was her understanding, she said, that the moratorium would apply to City Place. If no action were taken, the project would bulldoze away seven houses and replace them with apartment buildings. It would be a shame to dismantle the block. She urged the mayor and the council to protect historic houses and Ann Arbor’s heritage.

Historic District: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) led off deliberations by thanking everyone for their continued interest. He said the strong minority vote on the historic district in July of 2010 (which was 4-6 in favor, and would have been 5-6 had Anglin been present) indicates uncertainty on the part of the council. He thanked the community members who were willing to step up now and serve on another study committee. He described a process that would include establishing a historic district study committee, appointing its members that night, and asking them to meet that night and consider the recommendation made by the previous committee.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald (standing) confered with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) before the Oct. 24 meeting started.

Anglin then spoke about other historic districts in Ann Arbor and historic districts in general. He described how Ann Arbor’s Old West Side historic district was established in a crisis situation. [Google Map of Ann Arbor's historic districts] Buildings were torn down and cinder block buildings were put up. A historic district study committee, he said, alerts the town to what is going on. He said we’re lucky to have a strong historic district statute in Michigan. The area proposed for study, because of its location near downtown, plays a unique role in the community. There’s an affinity for this area, he continued.

The council had allowed a great deal of student housing to be put in, he said, without opposition, because those projects are suitable for their locations, Anglin said. [Anglin was likely referring to Zaragon West, being built at Thompson and William.] But in areas where there’s a legacy of some kind, it’s different.

Anglin said he enjoys living in an area where things are clearly defined. [Anglin lives in the Old West Side historic district.] There are things he can do and things he can’t – he likes that. He said his neighborhood has lots of graduate students, so historic districts don’t stop diversity, but rather encourage it. Most of the homes are privately owned and well-maintained, he said. They provide lower and affordable rents.

Coming back to the question of the procedure that night, Anglin said the process would be to appoint the committee. The council would recommend that the committee meet that evening. The mandate would be to act as a committee to determine if the intended study area is threatened. He said it was his understanding that this part of the procedure was “pretty foolproof.” He said that councilmembers, as “guardians of the city,” have the right to do their own planning. He believed the council should do everything possible to try to help the proposed study area achieve some kind of historic designation.

Anglin returned to the issue of the strong minority view, saying that back on July 6, 2010, the vote had been 6-4 vote against establishing the historic district. He wasn’t at the meeting, he said, but would have voted for the historic district. By establishing a historic district, he said, the council would be leaving the city a beautiful statement about their terms in office.

Anglin allowed that the timeline would be shorter, but that is because one study has already been done. The citizens who were asked to serve on the new committee, Anglin said, had stepped right forward.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that it’s the third time the issue of establishing a historic district study committee for the area has appeared before the council. The first time [on Dec. 15, 2008] the council did not support it. The second time [on Aug. 6, 2009] it was brought as a surprise to many, she said, but it passed. Many people felt it was warranted at that time. When the committee’s report came out, some councilmembers felt the case the committee had made was not strong enough to support establishment of the district.

Briere alluded to the city’s past experience with the establishment of historic districts where they’d initially been rejected by the council, but had eventually won approval in some form. Briere said she’d support establishing a study committee, because she thinks the area would benefit from historic district protection.

Other options, she said, have not materialized as strong protections for existing neighborhoods. For example, prevention of the accumulation of separate parcels for use to construct a single building was something that had not yet been brought forward.

She noted she had a problem with one of the “whereas” clauses:

Whereas, This proposed historic district is threatened by immediate development pressure and demolition or modifications not in keeping with the intent of the proposed district;

She said she was personally opposed to using every possible tool to prevent something [City Place] that the council had already approved. She proposed amending out that “whereas” clause. Anglin ventured he could live without it. Briere clarified that she interpreted that clause as direction to the committee. Anglin’s statement that the committee would meet that night, she said, belies the 12-month timeframe normally given for a historic district study committee to do its work. Anglin agreed to strike the clause as a “friendly” amendment and the change was made to the resolution without a vote.

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d voted to establish a study committee in the past and had voted in favor of the district. But the council had been wrestling around with it for a long time. The council as a body had voted no on the previous study committee’s recommendation, he said. Establishing a study committee creates expectations. It also puts a burden on the city staff. It re-does something the council has already spent a lot of time talking about. Hieftje said he had no expectation it would pass the second time around. He concluded that he didn’t think the council needed to go down the same road again.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) before the council meeting.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) allowed that she’d voted for formation of committee previously, but the data that had come back didn’t support the creation of the district. She saw no advantage in going through the same exercise again.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he appreciated Anglin’s efforts. Anglin had articulated the historic value in that area of the community, Hohnke said. Hohnke’s view was that those historic assets are worth preserving. He’d supported the historic district the first time around. But Hohnke said that if it moved forward, it would be with the expectation that the moratorium would be attached to it. Incorporating the clear view from the city attorney, Hohnke said, led him to conclude that it wouldn’t be in the best interest of the city to establish the study committee. [Before the council began deliberations, they held a closed session to discuss written communication from the city attorney that lasted around 25 minutes.]

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that earlier in the meeting, someone had said they were concerned about the tone the city sends out. [It was Anglin, who during his communications had relayed a complaint from a constituent about the tone of warning letters sent out by the city in connection with rental property inspections.] By reconsidering and reconsidering and reconsidering something to which the council had apparently already brought finality to, it sends out the wrong tone, Derezinski said. He thought predictability and finality is an important aspect to the character of the city council. You have to accommodate the future as well as the past, he said. We don’t want to become a joke, Derezinski said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the University of Michigan continues to buy land in the general vicinity of the proposed area of study (next to the Institute for Social Research, which has been expanding). He asked assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald if a historic district influences what the university does. McDonald, who specializes in land use issues for the city, answered in one word: No.

Anglin took on the perception that the council couldn’t make up its mind. “It’s not that we can’t make our minds up,” he contended. It’s that you tend to waver when you have important decisions. Indecision is often a good thing, he said. Indecision had allowed everyone to look at this area for a long time and to look at the scope of the neighborhood. Anglin reasserted his belief the procedure for establishing a study committee is foolproof and would not be contested.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she could appreciate the desire to maintain the row of charming houses. They present a certain rhythm as you stroll past. And they’ve been around for a long time. In an apparent allusion to a deal she’d helped work out in December 2010, but for which expected support at the council table from Carsten Hohnke had not been forthcoming, Smith said there had been opportunities to come to different conclusions along the way. She said she did not think it was now in the city’s best interest to establish a study committee and she could not support it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that this area of town and the issues surrounding it had been a part of the community conversation at least since 2008 when he was first elected to the council. It has presented moments of difficulty and reflection. He felt the reason the council was in the place it was that night was its “failure to achieve reasonable compromise.” There’d been a failure to accept something that was less than ideal. He had thought long and hard about whether the area is suitable for a historic district.

Nothing Taylor had heard had changed his conclusion. However, he said that if the council is in this situation because of a failure to compromise, then he felt he had to listen again, even if he felt there was no reason to think he would come to a different conclusion. There are people who are interested in devoting their time to the project and there’s an existing knowledge base. If the demolition is not attached to the resolution, he said he’d be open to listening and to learning.

Kunselman noted the issue certainly has a long history. He said he’d recently visited Chicago, where he’d seen a neighborhood that had some zoning in place that prevented the accumulation of parcels. He asked if it were possible to pass a zoning ordinance that specified a maximum lot size. The answer from assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald was: Yes, it’s possible.

Kunselman said he had no problem having a historic district study committee, but he was also looking to the existing R4C/R2A zoning district study committee. If that committee doesn’t take action, then he’d initiate a change in the zoning code to establish a maximum lot size. He said he’d hate to have something like City Place on Hamilton Place [the next street to the east from Fifth Avenue, where City Place is likely to be built]. In the Chicago neighborhood, he said, it was possible to have modern single-family homes right next to the old ones. The city has to allow for rebuilding, he said. He was open to learning and listening like Taylor, but concluded by saying that the council needed to move in some way.

Derezinski offered as a point of information on the R4C process – which he had kicked off with his first resolution made at the council table after winning election – that the committee had held a number of meetings, then doubled its size. He contended that the committee has been meeting consistently, and has added more meetings. The 10th and last meeting is scheduled for Nov. 9, he said. Everyone is welcome to come to add comments. It’s been a long and hard process, he said. He hoped to have a report from the committee in November, and then it’ll be up to council to decide what to do.

Hohnke said that since some councilmembers had expressed a desire to separate the resolution on establishing a study committee from the moratorium against demolition, he thought it would be worth considering establishing a study committee. But he had not had a chance to look at the staff input – it had come late to the agenda. If the council was going to consider the issue of a study committee independently, then a postponement would not have a negative effect, he said. So Hohnke moved to postpone the issue until the council’s next meeting.

On the postponement, Hieftje said the council had already done this, and had considered it over a long period of time. He did not expect he’d change his mind. Derezinski said it had been a long discussion for years and nothing has changed. It would be kicking the can down the road a little further, he concluded.

Outcome on postponement: The council rejected postponement, with only Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) supporting it.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she could not support establishing a study committee. Thinking about what Derezinski had said about kicking the can down the road, she said that as the council continued to do this, “We’ve become a bit of a joke.” The council continues to bring up the same issue and vote the same way, she said.

Briere finished off the deliberations by saying there’s a difference between a historic district and a designation in the register of historic places. She said that for the seven houses, the council had essential made a decision one and a half years ago. Her fear now is for the rest of the neighborhood – the other side of Fifth Avenue, Hamilton Place, and Packard Street. The rest of the neighborhood is worth protecting, she said, so the issue will come back to the council eventually.

Outcome on establishing the historic district study committee: The council rejected it, with support only from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

When the resolution to establish the historic district committee failed, the related resolution on the moratorium was withdrawn.

City Place Votes Reconsidered

The council was asked to reconsider two votes taken at its previous meeting on Oct. 17 about the City Place matter-of-right project on Fifth Avenue south of William Street.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) looks on as Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) moves for reconsideration of a vote on the City Place project.

It’s worth distinguishing between the parliamentary notion of reconsideration and the common understanding of “to reconsider” as meaning something like “to contemplate again and reach a different conclusion.” When the council votes to reconsider a previous vote, it’s only settling the question of whether the vote will be taken again. If a vote to reconsider succeeds, then the council must vote again on the same question it considered previously.

The two votes on Oct. 17 had related to requests from the City Place developer. One request was to waive a landscape buffer requirement that was introduced through an ordinance change made after the project was initially approved in 2009. The second request was for approval of changes to the buildings that included a new window on the upper floors of the north and south-facing sides, and a change from horizontal siding to simulated shingle siding on the dormer.

Both re-votes were prompted by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who had posed questions at the Oct. 17 meeting to which he did not feel he’d received adequate answers. One question related to fire exits for the upper floors of the development, which calls for demolition of seven existing houses to be replaced by two apartment buildings, separated by a parking lot.

City Place: Landscaping

Kunselman led off by saying that he did not have the same experience that his colleagues did with City Place. [He was not on the council when the project had been approved.] He just wanted to ask some questions, he said, and he asked for their indulgence. He assured his colleagues that he would move it along promptly, but noted that the City Place developer did not seem to have answers to his questions at the Oct. 17 meeting, so he wanted to try to get those answers that evening.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he appreciated the need to study issues carefully. But he said that this particular resolution had not been a surprise. He then stated that the council’s decisions need to have some finality. If the council keeps reconsidering decisions, the council is not well-served – because people need to have confidence in the finality of the council’s decisions. He said he was against the motion to reconsider the previous vote.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she appreciated Derezinski’s remarks. However, the one time the council’s rules say that councilmembers can reconsider a vote is at the very next meeting. “That’s tonight,” she said. She concluded that Kunselman was following the rules exactly, and she thanked him for that. Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked Kunselman if there was information that he needed from the building inspector. Kunselman turned the question aside, saying that the motion before the council was to reconsider the previous decision. Mayor John Hieftje said that when the council had previously voted, he had all information he needed, but he was happy to reconsider the vote if Kunselman didn’t have the information he needed.

Outcome on reconsideration: The council voted to reconsider the previous vote on City Place landscaping requirements. Voting against the reconsideration were Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

The specific issue Kunselman wanted to ask about stemmed from a recent change to the city’s landscaping ordinance that requires a conflicting land use buffer of 15 feet between a building and any adjacent land zoned or used for residential purposes. In the case of the City Place project, this comes into play on the south side of the property, where there is not enough room for the required 15-foot buffer. The proposed City Place building is set back 16 feet from the property line, but an existing driveway for the immediately adjacent residential parcel is located on the City Place property where the buffer would be. There is an easement on the driveway.

In response to a question from Kunselman, city planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that when the landscape ordinance changed, it required a buffer between the building itself and the other property. There’s a driveway where the trees would need to be planted, she said. Kunselman asked if there was any possibility to install some vegetation.

Rampson allowed that there might be room for some kind of vegetation, but not trees. Conflicting land use buffers usually contemplate something more substantial, like a berm, she said. Kunselman asked if it were possible to add screening of some kind. The interaction concluded with Kunselman expressing his hope that the building and its occupants will be screened by the developer from ins and outs of traffic from the adjoining driveway.

Outcome on City Place landscape requirements on revote: The council voted unanimously to approve the flexible application of the landscape ordinance.

City Place: Elevations

During an earlier communications slot on the agenda, Kunselman inquired about asbestos abatement associated with the seven houses to be demolished for City Place. The city’s chief development official, Ralph Welton, attended the meeting to answer Kunselman’s questions.

Kunselman said he was concerned because a house demolished in his neighborhood cost quite a lot to have the work done, due to asbestos that was present on the site. He asked Welton to describe the asbestos situation for the seven houses on Fifth Avenue. Welton explained that a survey was done and that the survey did find some asbestos – it would need to be abated. But he said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) handles that. He said he really could not speak to the pricing, but he did note that it drops the cost to have several houses in one spot.

Kunselman led off the short deliberations on the reconsideration by saying he was not that familiar with the “area wells” [aka window wells] on the ground level. He’d also not received answers about questions he’d had on the windows for the mezzanine level.

Outcome on reconsideration: The council voted to reconsider the previous vote on City Place elevation changes. Voting against the reconsideration were Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Kunselman said that the guardrails around the window wells were not part of the original site plans and now they’re included. What’s their purpose? he asked.

Excerpt from City Place site plan drawings showing the metal guard rail at the area (window) wells.

Responding to Kunselman’s question, Welton said he had seen the first set of plans – he could only talk about the code. He ventured that the reason for for the guardrails is to prevent people from falling into the window wells. Welton allowed that he’d heard that the developer was interested in reconfiguring the interior of the buildings with respect to the bedrooms, but that he had not discussed that with them. Welton said he’d had a conversation about the city code on how egress and sprinkling would work in bedrooms and mezzanine levels.

Kunselman asked if an egress window from the fourth floor would require a fire escape – no, replied Welton. Kunselman came back to the area well issue, asking why they now had guard rails. Rampson indicated that at the site plan stage, planning staff don’t typically get into that level of detail. However, when construction drawings are put together, that’s when elements like guard rails are shown. That’s why they’re shown now, but not before. They’re to ensure that people don’t fall in, Rampson said.

Kunselman asked for confirmation that the guard rails are not a site plan issue. Rampson described them as an appurtenance in a site like a light pole – it’s part of the site, but not the site plan. On an elevation drawing, she said, the city wouldn’t require somebody to show the light poles.

Outcome on City Place elevation drawings on revote: The council voted unanimously to approve the elevation drawings.

Crosswalk Improvements

Before the council was a resolution that called on city staff to make recommendations on improvements to crosswalks throughout the city, identifying locations where technologies like High-intensity Activated crossWalK beacons (HAWK), and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) would be appropriate. The resolution directed city staff to focus on Washtenaw Avenue near Tappan Middle School and Plymouth Road near the intersection of Beal Avenue. According to the resolution, the staff is supposed to present recommendations for the Plymouth & Beal intersection sometime in December 2011.

Crosswalks: Public Commentary

At the time set aside for public commentary at the end of the council meeting, Kathy Griswold said she’d met with the mayor and with city staff to get a clearer understanding of what the sight-distance requirements are at intersections. She reminded the council that she’s advocated in the past for moving a crosswalk at King Elementary School, which is located midblock, to a four-way-stop intersection. The requirements for sight distance, she said, involved two drivers being able to make eye contact. She asked about bike lanes and pedestrians. How can the city have an ordinance that says the pedestrian has the right of way, if you can’t see the pedestrians?

Crosswalks: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off deliberations by thanking mayor John Hieftje for bringing the resolution forward. There’s always an opportunity to review engineering of pedestrian safety as part of the “three Es” – education, enforcement, and engineering. Hohnke called it a useful request to ask staff to explore alternatives. Although they had thought that a HAWK was the best thing out there, now it appears there could be something even better.

Seated is Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). He's kidding around with Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) before the meeting.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) also thanked the mayor for bringing the resolution forward. Rapundalo said he’d heard from many constituents about their experiences with this issue on Plymouth Road and he had some of his own experiences. He described the dangerous situations that arise from the city’s ordinance [cars stopping in a moving stream of rapidly moving traffic, in order to comply with the ordinance]. So as an aside, he said, the council might want to take another look at the language on “approaching” a crosswalk. Does that mean someone who is ready to step into the crosswalk, or someone who is two or three feet away? He ventured that maybe the council could add some clarity to the ordinance.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted the focus in the resolution on the part of Washtenaw Avenue near Tappan Middle School. He pointed out that it’s near the new Arbor Hills Crossing development. There’ll be a bus stop there, and it’s also near the Washtenaw Recreation Center.

Building on remarks by Rapundalo and Derezinski, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted it’s difficult to anticipate that a pedestrian is attempting to cross, when the crosswalk location is in the vicinity of a bus stop: Is the person trying to cross or are they waiting for the bus? In some other communities, Briere said, pedestrians are expected to signal that they’re intending to cross. The council should look at the language that’s been used, she said. Maybe the ordinance needs another level of tweaking.

Briere wondered if the issue could be postponed until the council’s first meeting in November. Hieftje wasn’t amenable to a postponement, saying he wanted to “get this out the door.” Briere was not insistent about the postponement, and stated the everyone had learned that the language is too vague.

Hohnke responded to some of the sentiment that seemed to be emerging that a further revision to the ordinance might be in order. [Hohnke was one of the architects of the initial ordinance revision.] With respect to the ambiguity that exists for bus stops located near crosswalks, he noted that many traffic regulations incorporate some ambiguity and require judgment. As an example he gave yellow lights. He paraphrased the law as requiring motorists to stop for a yellow light “if you can do so safely,” but what is “safely”? By way of background, the Michigan Vehicle Code states:

257.612 Traffic control signals …
Sec. 612.
(1) When traffic is controlled by traffic control signals …
(b) If the signal exhibits a steady yellow indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection or at a limit line when marked, but if the stop cannot be made in safety, a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection.

Hohnke noted that the city’s old pedestrian ordinance required the same analysis of what “approach” meant. It simply required that analysis under slightly different circumstances, namely if a pedestrian was approaching their side of the roadway. [More detail on the differences between the old and the new pedestrian ordinance is included in the July 19, 2010 Chronicle council report, when it was enacted.]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated moving the resolution forward that night and wanted to bring back another resolution addressing the ordinance. In the last couple of weeks, she said, she’d seen motorists stop on one side of the street, with motorists behind the stopped car honking their horns and shooting around them. This kind of issue exists in several locations, she said, where cars are traveling quickly and pedestrians don’t want to jump out into a crosswalk.

Hieftje mentioned how some residents had made a video of someone trying to cross the street and having to leap back to the curb to save their life. The question, he said, is how to provide some assurance to pedestrians that the motorist will stop – that was the puzzle to be solved. If the city had just decided to enforce the old state law, they’d have the same issues, he said. The existing state law was being violated routinely. He said his concern was that 4-5 lane roads would begin to divide the city.

Higgins replied to the mayor by saying it was not a 4-5 lane road where she’d observed the phenomenon she’d described – it was at Crest and Liberty. One motorist had stopped and motioned the pedestrians to cross, Higgins said, but the pedestrians could see traffic coming the other way and didn’t want to cross.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he appreciated the mayor bringing the resolution forward. He said he was also interested in looking at the standard on “approaching.” The previous evening, he said, he’d sent out a constituent communication on the issue and his inbox has lit up. He said it was important to weigh the burden on the driver and the burden placed on the pedestrian.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also thanked the mayor for bringing the resolution forward. He wondered why the council was limiting things to Washtenaw Avenue and Plymouth Road. What about Packard? Hieftje appeared irritated at the question and cited the first “resolved” clause, which speaks generally to crosswalks in the city. Hieftje told Kunselman that if he wanted the city staff to look at a particular crosswalk, he should send them an email.

Briere noted that one of the big problems that drivers have is that they’re adjusting to pedestrians crossing on streets where they’d never noticed pedestrians before. The idea that people are having to get used to is that they have to be alert to pedestrians, she said. It’s fortunate there’s only been “one rear-ender” so far, she said – both drivers were not from Ann Arbor.

Rapundalo followed up by saying that Briere’s comment had reminded him about the need for signage. He noted that many of the crosswalks are not equipped with signs. For crosswalks that do have signs, he said, they say that local law requires motorists to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, but the ordinance specifies “approaching” a crosswalk. That’s where some of the confusion is coming in, Rapundalo said. Hieftje said he was thinking about signs addressing pedestrians, warning them that even though it’s the law, the motorists might not stop.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution calling on staff to study crosswalk locations in the city.

City Attorney’s Personnel Evaluation

The council held a closed session at the end of their meeting based on the part of the Open Meetings Act that reads:

15.268 Closed sessions; permissible purposes.
Sec. 8. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:
(a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions.
…

The personnel evaluation was for city attorney Stephen Postema. The city attorney and the city administrator are the two positions hired by the city council.

At the meeting, the council did not publicly address the issue of whether Postema had fulfilled the statutory requirement for a closed session by requesting that his personnel evaluation be closed. However, Postema’s contract contains a clause specifying that: “The results of the evaluation shall be in writing and shall be discussed with the Employee in closed session.”

When the council emerged from its closed session, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) moved a resolution to amend Postema’s contract by allowing him to cash in 250 hours of accrued banked time before the end of the calendar year, but did not change his base salary. The award of the cash-equivalent of roughly 12% of his annual salary was based only on Postema’s performance in 2009-10. Postema’s base salary as reflected in city records for FY 2010 stood at $141,540.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize Postema to cash in 250 hours of accrued time.

After the vote, Postema volunteered that it was a pleasure to serve the city and that he and the council shared a common concern.

Postema started working for the city in 2003. After awarding percentage increases in Postema’s base salary in the early part of his career with the city, the council has more recently opted to award one-time lump sums, extra vacation days, or the ability to cash in accrued days, as it did this year.

An overview of Postema’s compensation history:

• Oct. 24, 2011: can cash in 250 hours before Dec. 31, 2011
• Nov. 5, 2009: can cash in 120 hours before June 30, 2010
• Oct. 20, 2008: paid lump sum of 2.75% annual salary ($142,000); cash in 150 hours before June 30, 2009; allowed to engage in outside legal work
• Nov. 5, 2007: base salary increased by 2.75% for “merit increase” and 1.25% “market increase;” vacation days increased to 25 days per year.
• March 20, 2006: can cash in 80 hours of unused vacation time before June 30, 2006.
• Oct. 5, 2005: base salary increased at Postema’s discretion up to 3%; awarded 80 hours of vacation time.
• Sept. 13, 2004: base salary increased by 3% to $130,810; annual vacation days increased to 22 days;
• April 3, 2003: started work at base salary of $127,000 (20 vacation days in addition to legal holidays)

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: Open Door Thank You

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) offered thanks to city administrator Steve Powers, who’d greeted her at the front door of city hall the previous evening to let her and residents into the building. She noted that the previous night was not a normal caucus night based on the council’s calendar set at the beginning of the year. But because the council had added a “regular” meeting to its calendar, the associated caucus, which is held the Sunday evening before all regular council meetings, was also due to be held.

Before the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) chatted with William Hampton, president of the Ann Arbor chapter of the NAACP.

Briere said it was delightful to have someone waiting with a key – three residents had showed up for the event.

[No other councilmembers attended the caucus on Oct. 23, 2011. The majority of councilmembers, including the mayor, have a record of perfect non-attendance at caucus for the calendar year 2011. The meetings are, according to the city's website, meant to provide a chance for councilmembers "to discuss and gather information on issues that are or will be coming before them for consideration." The meetings are also described on the website as "optional."]

Comm/Comm: NCCAP Freedom Fund Dinner

William Hampton, president of the Ann Arbor branch of the NAACP, thanked the council for the chance to speak. He called their attention to the annual Freedom Fund dinner on Nov. 5 at 6:30 p.m. He said that several councilmembers were planning to come and he appreciated that. Although the mayor won’t be there, he said, mayor pro tem Marcia Higgins would be. This year, the speaker would be someone who many people have not heard of, he said. However, it was someone who was a sit-in demonstrator, who had been arrested and put in jail.

Comm/Comm: Civil Rights

Thomas Partridge said he has consistently urged the council to take civil rights into consideration and to provide access for the most vulnerable residents to voting booths that are properly maintained. But the council has ducked every opportunity to do that, he contended.

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

Next council meeting: Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 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!

During public commentary, Sue Maguire addressed the council on the topic of proposed reductions to the fire department. (Photos by the writer.)

But Monday, at its second meeting in May this year, the city council did not act, choosing instead to recess and continue the meeting the following week, on May 23. The decision to delay was prompted by uncertainty about revenue from the public parking system. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city were poised to ratify a new agreement on parking revenue on May 2, but that agreement was put off when questions were raised about the DDA tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The DDA later called a special meeting on Friday, May 20 to address that issue.

Even though the council did not act on the budget, most of the evening’s discussion was dominated by budget talk, including extensive public commentary on the proposed cuts in the police and fire departments. The council also got a briefing from its chief of police and interim fire chief, Barnett Jones, who responded to an article published in AnnArbor.com about fire department response times, calling the calculations presented in the piece inaccurate.

In addition to putting off action on the FY 2012 budget, the council also tabled decisions on human services funding, funding for a water system study, and fee increases for next year.

However, the council did transact some business. It authorized an increase in taxicab fares in light of rising gas prices. The council also approved neighborhood stabilization funds for demolition of three houses on North Main Street to prepare the site for construction of the Near North affordable housing project. Two large vehicle purchases – a street sweeper and a sewer truck – that had been postponed from the previous meeting were authorized.

The council also revised its administrative policy on how the 2006 parks millage is to be spent. Funds outside the general fund can count as general fund money for the purpose of the policy, as long as those funds are not drawn from the parks millage. The council also gave initial approval to an ordinance on design guidelines for new buildings downtown.

FY 2012 Budget Decisions

Before the council was approval of the 2012 fiscal year budget that had been proposed by then-city administrator Roger Fraser just before he left that position to take a post as a deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan. The city’s fiscal year starts on July 1.

The city’s charter stipulates that the administrator must submit the proposed budget to the council in April and that the council must approve a budget by its second meeting in May, which this year fell on May 16. If the council fails to approve the budget – with any amendments – by its second May meeting, the budget as proposed by the administrator is adopted by default.

The budget as proposed included $77,900,405 in general fund revenues and tapped the reserves for a total of $1,022,136. The city of Ann Arbor’s total budget, including all of its funds (major street fund, parks millage, water fund, sewer fund, etc.) stands at $312,182,605 for FY 2012.

FY 2012 Budget: Announcement of Delay

At the beginning of the council’s May 16 meeting, mayor John Hieftje indicated that when the council reached the budget item on the agenda, they intended to recess the meeting and continue it the following Monday. The budget was the next-to-last agenda item.

As a reason for delaying, Hieftje cited uncertainty about the status of a new parking agreement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Later in the week, the DDA board announced it would hold a special meeting at noon on Friday, May 20 in an attempt to address questions about its TIF capture and to ratify its side of a new parking contract with the city.

Expected amendments to the budget when the council takes it up on May 23 include: (1) use of $90,000 in general fund reserves to add to the parks allocation; (2) use of $85,600 in general fund reserves to add to human services funding; (3) use of a nominal amount of general fund reserves to cover the cost of an additional primary election (as proposed, the FY 2012 budget anticipated primaries in only two of the city’s five wards – there will be primaries in three wards); and (4) elimination of a proposed fee for three-times-weekly trash pickup in the downtown area.

Before the meeting, no budget amendments were anticipated that would change the proposed cuts in public safety positions – 13 in police services and seven in fire protection services. However, at the meeting, Hieftje hinted that some, but not all, of the cuts in police and fire might be avoided.

FY 2012 Budget: Safety Services – Public Commentary

The formal hearing on the FY 2012 budget took place at the council’s May 2 meeting. But several people had signed up for the public commentary reserved time at the beginning of the meeting, including some familiar faces from local government, past and present. [At the council's next gathering on May 23, there will presumably not be public commentary reserved time offered, as it is a continuation of the same meeting.]

Leading off public commentary was Fred Veigel, who serves on the Washtenaw County Road Commission. He introduced himself as president of the Huron Valley Central Labor Council, AFLCIO, which includes 37 local unions with 18,000 members, he said. Terminating police and firefighter positions below national standards would endanger lives and property of Ann Arbor citizens, warned Veigel. Responding to comments by Hieftje at the start of the meeting about the separation of the budget into various funds, he said, “Balderdash!” Money could be borrowed from different funds, he contended, not taken away.

He asked if the last audit of fund balances has been reviewed to see if funds are available for public safety services. The council should cut other services first, he said, like human services. The council should amend the city’s parks policy and let Washtenaw County take over the two city golf courses – that would save several hundred thousand dollars. He said he’d talked with councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) about enforcing state vehicle codes on unmarked commercial vehicles that don’t pull permits to work in the city – that could generate additional revenue.

Following Veigel to the podium was Wes Prater, who currently serves on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. He introduced himself as a retired firefighter, and vice president of the Huron Valley Central Labor Council, AFLCIO. He told the city council it was good to be back before them – he hadn’t been there in a while. He asked to council to reflect on some basic points. What services do citizens expect to receive from government? What are the basic quality of life issues? What will ensure sound economic development in the community? What are best practices for re-entry of those who are incarcerated and for dealing with mental health issues? These are all related to the function of the emergency safety system of the city, he said.

For the fire department, eight minutes is too long for a response time – four minutes is recommended by national standards, he said. After four minutes, Prater said, a fire doubles in size every minute. Closing stations and rotating stations gives citizens a false sense of security. The fire department is struggling at this time to provide a basic level of service to the citizens, and the further reductions will make it difficult to answer more than one fire at one time. Multiple fires would require mutual aid from departments in other communities, which would require more than eight minutes, he warned.

Prater noted that according to a recent report from Washtenaw County’s equalization director, Ann Arbor’s property values had dropped less than the values in the rest of the county.

University of Michigan Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) supporters in the audience at the May 16 Ann Arbor city council meeting.

Chelsea Del Rio introduced herself as the vice president of the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) at the University of Michigan. She told the city council that the GEO stands in solidarity with the firefighers. The GEO is concerned about the rotating closure of fire stations, especially when Station 5 on the university’s north campus is closed. It’s a great concern to the UM community, she said. It’s a concern about physical property, ranging from the safety of historical documents to research facilities, as well as a concern about safety and well-being of students, faculty staff and all Ann Arbor residents.

The unions at UM – from lecturers, to building trades, to nurses – have expressed this view to UM president Mary Sue Coleman as well, Del Rio said. She concluded by saying that the members of the GEO stand with Ann Arbor firefighters, and they urged the council to do the same.

Noting that he was a former member of the city’s park advisory commission and the planning commission, James D’Amour told the council that he was speaking to them as a citizen, not as a member of any group. He said he’d seen declines in terms of services and the promise the city was supposed to keep with respect to the parks, but said he might address that issue later. That evening, he said, he wanted to put a face on the important public safety services offered by the city.

D’Amour then recounted how 12 years ago, his second-floor neighbors – he and his wife lived on the third floor – had started a fire through careless behavior. He said that without help from the fire department, his wife wouldn’t be alive today and likely neither would he. He said he’d seen thousands of dollars paid by the city for consultants, parking structures and public art. He concluded by thanking the firefighters who saved his wife’s life 12 years ago.

Lisa Dusseau told the council she was born and raised in Ann Arbor. She was speaking to them for the first time due to the pending fire department layoffs. She said she admired the skill and fortitude it takes to be a firefighter. She said she’d been following the budget discussions on AnnArbor.com. She wondered why it took so long to get the information out. She had concerns about response times and deaths per calendar year. Increased cuts will turn Ann Arbor’s fire protection service into a surround-and-drown department. If she wanted that level of service, she said, she’d move to a township.

Dusseau contended that once staffing levels fell below 100 firefighters, the number of deaths due to fire had started to increase – even one is too many, she said. Non-essentials need to be eliminated from the budget. She’d read that money to supplement the budget was available but not applied for. She said that people wearing swim goggles at the city council was good theater, but doesn’t serve needs of the city as a whole. [This was an apparent allusion to the May 2009 public hearing on that year's budget, which included advocates for keeping Mack pool open. They had worn swim goggles – among them was James D'Amour. ] She told the council to take another look at the budget and not let staffing levels deteriorate.

Standing is Wendy Woods, former Ward 5 councilmember and current city planning commissioner. She was talking to Sandi Smith (Ward 1) before the meeting.

Former Ward 5 councilmember and current planning commissioner Wendy Woods told the council she wanted to address the issue of police and fire fighters. She said the myth needs to be debunked that fewer fires means we need fewer firefighters. The fire department has served our residents admirably, she said. They are first to respond when you’re at the lowest point in your life. They bring a calm reassurance that someone is there to help you.

Woods said she was concerned about protecting lives of citizens and their property, and also about the safety of firefighters. She urged the council to take the steps necessary to bridge the gap between the fire department and city hall. It’s just a street [Fifth Avenue] that separates them, but it might as well be the Grand Canyon, she said. She concluded with three requests: (1) don’t cut the fire department; (2) don’t cut the police department; and (3) keep residents safe.

University Bank president Stephen Ranzini introduced himself to the council as speaking for himself. He noted that he was a member of the city’s economic development corporation board.

He criticized spending $59 million on the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage at around $90,000 per parking spot – he called the project “the Big Dig.” He continued by criticizing the $43 million expenditure on the “Taj Mahal.” [He was alluding to the new municipal center, or police-courts facility, which the city is officially calling the Justice Center. Some residents have tagged the facility with the name "Raj Mahal" after former city administrator Roger Fraser.]

Ranzini said the city had a $29 million net increase in assets in FY 2010 – which the private sector would call a “profit.” He also said the city had $103 million in unrestricted funds, based on the city’s audited statements. He was referring to the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) [emphasis added]:

$103,726,801 is unrestricted and may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors, subject to the purpose of the fund in which they are located. This balance is comprised of $43,955,179 in governmental activities and $59,771,622 in business-type activities. [page 10]

“Governmental activities” include general fund activities such as police and fire protection and parks and recreation. “Business-type activities” include funds like water, sewer, and solid waste.

In light of the increase in assets and the amount of unrestricted funds, Ranzini questioned the need to cut police and fire staffing. There’s only one ladder truck owned by the city that is capable of responding to rescue his family from the 10-story building downtown where his family lives, he said. [The 95-foot ladder truck is deployed at Station 1 on Fifth Avenue, across from city hall.] If that ladder truck is responding to a fire in another part of the city that would have otherwise been handled by a station that is closed, he and his wife and children would die, because they can’t jump to safety, he said.

As a downtown resident, Ranzini said he could tell the council that it’s already unsafe at certain times of the day to walk outside. It’s a hostile environment for pedestrians, he said, because a culture of panhandlers is allowed to operate with impunity. The city had allowed 10 Level IV registered sex offenders to take up residence in the homeless shelter, he said, which is one block from the YMCA, and there is no visible police presence.

Ranzini said his wife is correctly afraid to leave their home by herself at night. It’s not just a rainy day, but a “financial hurricane,” he said, so what else is the $103 million rainy-day fund for, if it’s not for times like now, he asked. People say that the money is in buckets, he said, and that the money in one bucket can’t get access to the money in other buckets. So, he said, “Let’s drain the buckets.” Persisting with the fiction of the various buckets enables claims of poverty, he said.

Ranzini noted that there are “leaks in the buckets,” citing as an example the $12 million in revenue to the general fund – used in part for police and fire protection – which the city has received from the city’s public parking revenue via the Downtown Development Authority over the last six years. If the DDA had not decided to build the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage, he said, more money could have been transferred to the city. He contended that one fund can lend money to another fund. He said the city is very talented at charging fees to funds located outside the general fund. If the leaks in the buckets aren’t enough, then he suggested that the city’s charter be amended to access the money the city needs until the storm passes.

Sue Maguire introduced herself as a life-long Ann Arbor resident. She told the council how she’d been driving down Eisenhower Parkway recently, when her daughter yelled at her to call 911. Why? she asked her daughter. She pointed to the sign on the fire station, which read “Fire station closed. Call 911.” [The city is currently closing some fire stations on a rotating basis. The station near Eisenhower has a Briarwood Circle address.] They got a good laugh out of it, she said, but it really is an emergency – it’s an emergency that the city council has the ability to respond to. She told the council they need to say no to public safety cuts. She said she works in the field of crash research and knows the importance of immediate emergency response. As an Ann Arbor resident who has paid taxes her whole life, she wants public safety service to stay the same.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Democratic Party member and leader. He called on the city council, the public attending the meeting and the community at large to look at major issues and the direct issues. He told them to look at the movement to recall Gov. Rick Snyder. He called on the citizens of Ann Arbor to think creatively when it comes to budgeting and to do it for multiple years, not just a single year. [The city of Ann Arbor's charter mandates that budgeting be done year by year, but the city has a two-year planning cycle.] He asked that responsible business owners think about “adopting” fire stations and police stations. He called for joining the fire departments of Ann Arbor with those of neighboring communities.

FY 2012 Budget: Council Commentary – Municipal Center

After public commentary, several council members used their communications time to discuss budget-related issues.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he wanted to address a FY 2011 allocation for non-departmental contingencies – $639,000 in construction overruns for new the municipal center. He said there is money allocated in FY 2012 for asbestos abatement, but he thought the asbestos abatement had already taken place. Funds seem like they’re being shifted, he said. The building is 50,000 square feet over-sized, he said.

Sign on the Huron Street entrance to city hall before the May 16 meeting. As the logistical routines settle into place for use of the new building, staff use practical means to ensure things work as planned.

Anglin suggested that the city should simply complete the work that needs to be done – and not do anything else on the extra 50,000 square feet, until it’s an economically better time. At that point we could put money into it. He noted that this year the city had eliminated the $700,000 economic development fund. [It's been folded into the general fund balance reserve.]

He noted that there was $3 million promised from a developer of the city-owned First and Washington parcel, but the city had not ever seen that money. [The city council extended the purchase option for the developer, Village Green, most recently in August of 2010, through June 1, 2011. The council set in place a series of milestones to be met and amended the development agreement in February 2011.] Anglin said that if he’d been asked in 1990 about building a new building, he’d have been right on board. But now we need to know what we can afford and what we can’t afford.

Responding to Anglin’s remarks about cost overruns with the municipal center, mayor John Hieftje asked interim city administrator Tom Crawford about cost overruns: Were there any? Crawford said that no, he was not aware of any.

Hieftje also clarified with Crawford, who’s the city’s CFO, that it would be possible for the city to amend the budget after it’s adopted if the financial situation changes. Crawford noted that the city council does not do it frequently, but it’s a possibility, and includes bringing back laid-off workers.

FY 2012 Budget: Council Commentary – Funds/Buckets

Mayor John Hieftje asked Ann Arbor’s CFO and interim city administrator Tom Crawford to respond to comments by Stephen Ranzini during public commentary about $103 million being in a rainy day fund. Crawford suggested that Ranzini was referring to the aggregated fund balance. For some of that amount, it’s not appropriate to use it for the general fund, he said, because it comes from ratepayers for utilities.

A lot of that $103 million is reserved for construction of the new wastewater treatment plant, Crawford said. Use of those funds is not a city charter issue – it’s a basic law. Crawford said that he had a lot of concern about the idea of borrowing funds from one fund to another. He allowed that the current situation is painful, but said the city has historically not taken short-term solutions for long-term problems. And that’s the kind of fiscal discipline that has allowed the city to remain financially stable.

Hieftje asked city attorney Stephen Postema to lay out what the legal consequences would be from the state if the city were to take money inappropriately from a utility fund. Postema said he’d have to get back to the council with the specifics on that.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that it was an opportune time to discuss the issue of using restricted funds as they relate to public art. [The city's Percent for Art program allocates 1% of all capital projects for use on public art.] Kunselman said the council had never received a written opinion from the city attorney on that issue, and now was perhaps a good time to get that opinion.

Kunselman asked if it were possible to pass an ordinance to pay for human services in the same way that public art is paid for. Kunselman said that for the public art program, the city is pulling from restrictive funds to build a fountain. [Kunselman has raised this issue previously about obtaining a legal opinion from the city attorney: "Getting Smarter About the City Charter"]

Kunselman wanted to know about possible increases in revenue now being projected by the state. He asked Crawford if the council would receive adjusted revenue projections by their next meeting. Crawford said that would be very unlikely. Of the additional revenue being discussed by the state, Crawford said, it’s not clear how much may roll down to the local level. It will be well past May before that’s clear, he said.

Kunselman asked about the city’s own property tax projection. Crawford told Kunselman that the numbers are pretty solid – he’s not expecting a change.

Marica Higgins (Ward 4) responded to public commentary by saying what she’d heard was not a suggest to take money from one fund and put it into another, but rather to borrow against it. That, she thought, was a fair question. Hieftje said he thought that would not be wise, even if it’s possible.

Kunselman asked about a comment from the city’s public services area administrator, Sue McCormick, to the effect that there is a formula through which the city is paying for police and fire protection from utility funds, not borrowing it. Hieftje commented that the formula-based allocation is made because the city’s public safety area is delivering a service for protection of facilities, given heightened national security concerns. Crawford added that the reason for the safety services fee as applied to utility infrastructure is that the property is government-owned, so there’s no property tax collected. The fee for safety services is a mechanism the city utilities can use to contribute to the city, Crawford said.

FY 2012 Budget: Response Time Reporting by AnnArbor.com

Mayor John Hieftje introduced the topic of an AnnArbor.com article about fire protection in the city that was published over the weekend, noting that for him, it raised more questions than it answered. From the podium at the front of city council chambers, chief of police and interim fire chief Barnett Jones agreed that the article called to mind a lot of questions.

Jones said the information he’d seen in the article was not in the official reports. The article contended that at an April 23, 2010 fire, a father and six-year-old had “jumped” from a roof. Jones said that no indication of that had been made by firefighters in the written report. When he looked at it, it made him wonder, “Where did that come from?”

By way of clarification, an AnnArbor.com article published last year on April 23, 2010 about that fire included the headline: “House fire injures 3 Ann Arbor firefighters; father, child jump from roof to safety.” The first sentence of the article states: “A father and his 6-year-old daughter jumped to safety from the roof of a burning house …” Near the end of the article, the description of the descent from the roof attributed to then-fire chief Dominick Lanza is less dramatic: “Lanza said they had made it off the roof by the time firefighters arrived.”

The AAFD official documentation for that fire includes the reports that people were on the roof, but indicates firefighters were told on arrival that everyone was out of the house:

LADDER FIVE RESPONDED FOR A REPORTED HOUSE FIRE WITH PEOPLE TRAPPED ON THE ROOF. UPON ARRIVAL THE TWO STORY RESIDENCE WAS WELL INVOLVED WITH FLAMES THROUGH THE ROOF AND FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR. A BYSTANDER STATED THEY THOUGHT EVERYONE WAS OUT.

The fire investigation documentation reports an interview with the father of the family as follows:

He went to [the daughter's] bedroom and woke her up to get her out but when he attempted to escape he could not make it down the stairs through the smoke so he exited out the window on to the outside ledge and proceeded to the garage roof and then to the ground.

The Chronicle was not able to identify any descriptions in the report, or attributions to fire department officials in the AnnArbor.com article, that specifically indicate a jump was made from the roof.

Jones said the AnnArbor.com article stated that the response time for that fire was 9 minutes [and 4 seconds], but Jones said that in fact the total complement of firefighters was on the scene in 7 minutes. These are professional firefighters whose reputations could be damaged by what’s in the article, he said. Jones said he wanted to look at the reports and get together with the assistant fire chiefs and reach out to Ryan Stanton, the AnnArbor.com reporter who’d put together the article, and compare it to what’s in the actual reports. The information in the article doesn’t appear to be what the city has in the fire department reports, Jones said.

Hieftje wondered if it would make a difference if six people or four people were staffed – he wondered how they would get to the scene any faster. Jones said that for some of the fires discussed in the AnnArbor.com article, the houses were totally engulfed before the firefighters arrived. They did their best to get there as quickly as they could. So to have information put out in the community that indicated that they didn’t get to the scene fast enough – when the official reports show a different time – that needs to be clarified and corrected, Jones said.

Hieftje asked for a clarification of how “response time” is calculated. Jones said you hear a lot about the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) 1710 Standards. Jones described the standards to the council. The text of the response time standard [emphasis added]:

5.2.4.1 Initial Arriving Company.
5.2.4.1.1 The fire department’s fire suppression resources shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of an engine company within a 240-second travel time to 90 percent of the incidents as established in Chapter 4.
5.2.4.1.2 Personnel assigned to the initial arriving company shall have the capability to implement an initial rapid intervention crew (IRIC).
5.2.4.2 Initial Full Alarm Assignment Capability.
5.2.4.2.1 The fire department shall have the capability to deploy an initial full alarm assignment within a 480-second travel time to 90 percent of the incidents as established in Chapter 4.

Jones told the council that it’s the four-minute “response time” standard they’ve been hearing a lot about. And based on the fire department official reports, Jones said, the fire trucks are covering the distance in the appropriate time from anywhere in the city. He said he believed there are some errors in Stanton’s calculations published in the AnnArbor.com story that need to be cleared up.

FY 2012 Budget: AnnArbor.com Fire Reporting – Background

In terms of the NFPA standards, it’s clear that the “response time” of the fire department is a time interval – with a beginning and an end. The start of the “response time” interval is when the firetruck is on the way (i.e., is en route) to the fire scene. The “response time” interval ends when the truck arrives on the scene of the fire.

This fits with the idea that the “response time” standard is meant in part to address the issue of adequate geographic fire protection coverage, which is related to the number of fire stations, hence to staffing levels. That standard does not address how efficient firefighters are at getting themselves into their gear and onto their trucks after they are notified that they need to roll. And the “response time” also does not include the interval before firefighters are notified – that is, the time it takes the 911 operator and fire dispatcher to deal with a call.

Obviously, the intervals that precede the “response time” interval also matter. And separate standards apply to those intervals. For the interval that starts with the call to 911 and ends with the notification of a fire station that it needs to roll its trucks down the road, the standard is 60 seconds. From the time a fire station receives notification, i.e., is dispatched to the fire scene, to the point when the trucks are actually on the way, the standard is also 60 seconds.

In terms of time points and the intervals between them, this is The Chronicle’s summary of what the NFPA timeline looks like:

Timepoint 1: The time when the emergency alarm is received by the public safety operator.
Interval: 1-2 [Dispatch Time (or Call Processing Time)] 60 seconds
Timepoint 2: The time when sufficient information is known to the dispatcher, and the relevant fire station is notified of the emergency.
Interval: 2-3 [Turnout Time] 60 seconds
Timepoint 3: The time at which a fire truck is en route to the emergency incident.
Interval: 3-4 [Response Time] 240 seconds (4 minutes), 480 seconds for full-alarm assignment of vehicles and personnel.
Timepoint 4: The time when a fire truck arrives at the scene.

Determining the actual intervals for a given fire is a matter of performing the clock arithmetic on the correct timepoints. The reporting in the AnnArbor.com article about the AAFD response times was based on timepoints drawn from AAFD official reports. However, instead of using Timepoint 3 (the actual en route time) for the arithmetic, it appears a different timepoint was used.

The fire reports used in the AnnArbor.com article were uploaded by that publication to a2docs.org:

-

Based on The Chronicle’s review of the AAFD reports used in AnnArbor.com’s arithmetic, it seems that AAFD’s practice is not to record Timepoint 3 as a separate datapoint, but instead to copy the timepoint labeled “dispatch time” into the report field labeled “enroute time.” From a Sept. 16, 2010 report:

Ann Arbor Fire Department report for Sept. 16, 2010 fire reporting, illustrating the identical timepoint recordings for "notify time" and "enroute time."

-

If the timepoint labeled “enroute time” is used for the clock arithmetic, ignoring the fact that it’s identical to the “notify time” (an equivalence that seems impossible), the result of the clock arithmetic for “response time” is 4 minutes 9 seconds [05:59:44 – 05:55:35 = 00:04:09], or 9 seconds longer than the NFPA standards that should be met for 90% of fires.

In multiple places elsewhere in the same Sept. 16, 2010 report, a “dispatch time” is recorded as 05:55 – it’s only precise to the minute. And an “alarm time” is recorded as 05:55:35 – which is also identical to the “notify time” and the “enroute times.”

The sum of the NFPA standards for the interval between the dispatch timepoint (Timepoint 2) to the on-scene arrival time (Timepoint 4) is 5 minutes. Based on that interval, the Sept. 16, 2010 “response time” + “turnout time” would be classified as meeting the NFPA standard.

One of the reports used in the AnnArbor.com article does include Timepoint 3 as a separate datapoint – in the form of a screen grab from a dispatcher’s screen. For the April 23, 2010 fire, a separate timepoint – between “dispatch” and “on-scene” – is recorded as “respond.” That’s the timepoint when the firefighters alert dispatchers that they are on the way.

Excerpt from a dispatcher screen grab included in the Ann Arbor fire department report for April 23, 2010. The "respond time" corresponds to the "enroute time," or Timepoint 3, when the firefighters let the dispatcher know they're on the way to the scene.

-

Using the “respond” timepoint for the clock arithmetic on the April 23, 2010 fire yields a 2 minute 37 second “response time” for the first-arriving vehicle and a 7 minute 6 second response for the fifth vehicle on the scene (including the battalion chief), which is Ann Arbor’s “full alarm assignment.” Both of those “response times” meet the NFPA standard.

In an email to The Chronicle, assistant fire chief Chuck Hubbard noted that sometimes firefighters tell the dispatcher over the radio at the station that they’re responding to a call, then climb aboard the trucks and head to the fire scene, rather than radioing from the truck. That introduces some uncertainty in the response time data.

Assistant fire chief Chuck Hubbard attended the council's May 16 meeting.

While the “response time” standard addresses travel time to a fire scene, and relates to the number of stations maintained in the city and their geographic distribution, the other time intervals relate to call-center efficiency and the ability of firefighters to assemble their gear and start rolling down the road. It’s not clear what accounts for the three-minute interval between “dispatch” and “respond” for the April 23, 2010 fire.

It does seem clear that, without an understanding of actual AAFD operating procedures and how they relate to the data included in official AAFD reports, it’s difficult to draw definitive conclusions from those reports about the actual time intervals that are relevant for evaluating Ann Arbor fire department performance against NFPA standards.

The uncertainty of the data in the reports is supported by a notation in a report made five days after an April 13, 2010 fire [emphasis added]:

04/18/2010 09:51:55 ETAYLOR All individual personnel names were added to each apparatus for complete accountability of who was at the scene. The injury report was updated with the proper age of the firefighter who was injured at the scene. Also wanted to note that some of the times were estimated because of inaccurate times reported by central dispatch.

FY 2012 Budget: AnnArbor.com Community Comparison Reporting

At the council meeting, chief Jones went on to say that a AnnArbor.com article had failed to include in its presentation of data about other Big 10 university communities that some of those fire department have their own ambulances. That requires additional staffing, he said.

Each ambulance would require an additional seven staff, he said. Taking East Lansing as an example [home of Michigan State University], Jones said that if the ambulance personnel were subtracted, it would work out to approximately the same relative staffing level as Ann Arbor.

FY 2012 Budget: Council/Staff Response – Fire Protection

Speaking about the fire protection study that the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) is conducting for the city, chief Jones characterized that organization as the neutral third party that would bring in experts from the fire service profession to do the study. [The contract with ICMA, for not more than $54,000, was authorized at the city council's Feb. 7, 2011 meeting.]

Toward the beginning of the council meeting, mayor John Hieftje had asked interim city administrator Tom Crawford about the status of the fire protection study that the city has commissioned. Crawford said it’s expected to be delivered in July. [In connection with the appointment of the interim administrator from an internal pool of candidates, the fire protection study was one of the major projects identified as important for the appointee to carry forward.]

Chief Jones noted that he’d been working with the two assistant fire chiefs, and he’d be bringing a recommendation to fill the open fire chief position by promoting from within. [Jones is head of public safety services for the city and is serving as interim fire chief in the wake of Dominick Lanza's resignation this spring, after only about a year on the job.]

Ann Arbor is an intelligent community, Jones said, and we need to have the facts in front of us. The ICMA would provide those facts. ICMA would give clear advice so that Ann Arbor is prepared to go in the right direction, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know who would be doing the fire protection study – city managers? Who are the actual people who have the expertise to evaluate the fire department, she asked. Jones told her it would be experts from the relevant field of city government. For Ann Arbor’s study, it would be Don James, a firefighter from Florida, who would lead the study. He’d be assisted by a data analyst and a third person who is an ex-fire chief, Jones said.

Higgins asked who would write the report. She wanted to know if it would be filtered. Jones told Higgins, “No, ma’am.” He said a personal friend of his – the fire chief in Troy – had tried to influence that report, and they’d “slapped him” a few times. ICMA will not “water down” their results, Jones assured Higgins.

During his communications time, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he wanted to clear up some misinformation. He said there’s a perception that the city has refused to meet with firefighters to negotiate a new contract. He said that’s clearly not accurate. The city has met at least 16 times with the firefighters’ negotiating team, most recently a week or so ago. A state mediator has participated in meetings on three occasions. Another another meeting was scheduled later this week. The firefighters had filed an Act 312 petition requesting arbitration in March. Among the issues in dispute are wages, pension, rank differential, and staffing levels. All of those have the potential to affect the budget, depending on how the arbitrator rules, Rapundalo said.

Despite the uncertainty of the situation, the city continues to meet and hope that “cooler heads will prevail,” Rapundalo said. He hoped that the two sides can come to an understanding to mitigate some of the cuts.

FY 2012 Budget: Council Deliberations

The decision to recess the meeting and continue it a week later is driven by a city charter requirement that the council adopt its budget no later than the second meeting in May, which began May 16. When the meeting resumes on May 23, it will be considered to be the same meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she’d looked it up in Robert’s Rules of Order and what should happen is to “adjourn to date and time specific” After clarifying with city attorney Stephen Postema that either the word “recess” or “adjourn” would work, Hieftje noted that the date and time would be 7 p.m. on May 23.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to recess the meeting until Monday, May 23 at 7 p.m.

Human Services Funding

Before the council was a resolution to allocate $1,159,029 in funding to nonprofits in the city that provide human services.

The $1,159,029 amount to be allocated reflects a 9% reduction from FY 2011 human services funding levels. The council had postponed consideration of the human services allocation at its May 2, 2011 meeting in order to explore ways of “finding another dime.”

The city’s support for human services is allocated in coordination with other entities: the United Way of Washtenaw County ($1,677,000), Washtenaw County ($1,015,000) and the Washtenaw Urban County ($363,154).

On Monday, councilmembers were inclined to delay action on all budget-related issues, given their plan to delay action on the FY 2012 budget, which was achieved through a recess of the meeting until Monday, May 23. When the meeting continues at that time, the resolution on human services funding can be taken off the table for deliberation and a vote.

It’s possible that when the budget resolution is considered on May 23, an amendment will be proposed to draw $85,600 from the city’s general fund reserve to increase the human services allocation. That budget amendment is expected to be proposed by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Outcome: The council voted to lay on the table the resolution on human services funding. It can be taken up off the table when the meeting resumes on Monday, May 23.

Water System Study

Before the council was a $208,984 contract with AECOM for a study of the city’s water distribution system. The money for the study, which dates from a 2007 request for proposals (RFP), was allocated in the fiscal year 2011 budget of the city’s water fund. The level of service (LOS) study to be done by AECOM will recommend a sustainable level of service for the city’s water distribution system, and determine how much investment it would take to achieve that level. The study would also help the city decide, for example, which water mains should be replaced first.

Water System Study: Council Deliberations

Cresson Slotten, unit manager in the systems planning department, fielded questions from the council on the study. He described it as the second part of a two-part study. The first part had addressed the capacity and technical function of the water distribution system. The second phase looks at the level of services and will involve a citizens group, addressing issues like taste and odor, and will provide cost estimates to deliver the desired level of service.

Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that the money for the study derives from fees paid by water consumers.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Slotten if the four water main breaks in his neighborhood in the last year would be included in the scope of the study. Slotten allowed that this kind of issue is part of the study. Other factors include taste – as pipes begin to age, taste might be affected – color and odor.

Kunselman then noted that the city has a very qualified staff. They know where breaks are, so why can’t the city do this internally? Why do they need to hire it out? Slotten said the city has maintained the system well, but hasn’t gone out to citizens and asked them for their views.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said if she understood the proposal correctly, what the city is seeking is a consultant to communicate better with people who live in Ann Arbor, to ask the right questions and give the staff the information they have to share. Briere said it seems not to be a one-time thing – it seems to be a recurring theme about why the city hires consultants. Is it that the city doesn’t have the capacity to do the work, she asked, or doesn’t have the capacity to communicate?

One thing a consultant brings, Slotten said, is the ability to compare standards to other communities across the U.S. and Canada. The consultant has evaluated assets in communities across the country, and brings that experience and context. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said the question has come up from residents about the city possibly privatizing its water distribution system. Smith provided the historical note that Ann Arbor had actually purchased its system originally from a private company in 1908.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked Slotten to speak to the value of the consultant as it relates to the city’s capital planning. Slotten said that one of the reasons this particular firm was selected is that they use a capital asset prioritization simulator (CAPS) that takes advantage of information that the city is already tracking, like where breaks are occurring.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she could appreciate that the city wants to have the study done. However, she had a problem taking on a $200,000 study. She said she was not sure she could support it. She was particularly concerned about the $10,550 contingency. She felt like the city did not do a good job making sure that unused contingencies are returned to fund balances.

CFO Tom Crawford noted that contingencies are used only if needed. Contingencies are reviewed quarterly, he said, and when the project is closed, contingencies go back.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he was not for the amendment, saying that if there are concerns about accounting and how contingencies are closed out, then that issue should be addressed directly. Hieftje said he would not support the amendment either, saying the contingency could cover critical work that needs to be done.

Outcome on contingency amendment: Amending out the contingency was approved on a 6-5 vote with support from: Smith, Briere, Rapundalo, Higgins, Kunselman and Anglin.

Hieftje then asked if Higgins perhaps would like to delay a final vote until other budget issues were also addressed. So she moved that the issue be laid on the table.

Outcome: The council voted to lay the resolution on the table. They’ll be able to take it up off the table when the meeting resumes on May 23.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funds: Near North Demolition

Before the council was a resolution to add to its neighborhood stabilization program (NSP) budget, and a corresponding expenditure to pay for the demolition of three houses as site preparation for the Near North affordable housing project on North Main.

The addition to the NSP budget came from a reimbursement. The owner of a house paid back NSP money to the city, previously expended to demolish the owner’s property. That reimbursement amounted to $24,135. NSP funds come originally from federal grants allocated through the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA).

In addition, city staff identified an NSP homeowner acquisition and rehabilitation project that was completed under budget by $11,750. Combined, the additional revenue to the NSP budget and the savings on the rehabilitation project amount to $35,885. Of that amount, $33,292 will be used to pay for the demolition of 718, 722, and 724 N. Main St., with the remaining $2,593 going to administration costs in the office of community development, which oversees the NSP. The money will be allocated to the nonprofit Avalon Housing, which is developing the Near North project with Three Oaks.

The city council originally approved rezoning for the project – a four-story, 39-unit mixed use residential building on a 1.19-acre site – on Sept. 21, 2009.

NSP Near North Demolitions: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Mary Jo Callan, head of the city/county office of community development, to explain how the funding worked. Neighborhood stabilization program (NSP) funds received in 2009 were used initially to demolish a residential property. A lien was placed on it for $24,135. When the property was sold, the sale proceeds were used to pay back the city. When the NSP program receives income, the city tries to apply the money to an existing, shovel-ready project, Callan said.

Kunselman noted there are lots of blighted properties in the city that could use these funds. Why were these houses on North Main selected and not others? Why wouldn’t the developer be responsible for tearing down the houses? Callan told Kunselman those were great questions. The funds have a time limit on them, so part of the reason to use them on the Near North demolitions is that it’s a project ready to go, there’s a clear owner, a clear title, and there are no potential delays. In addition, NSP funds can only be used on certain census tracts.

Kunselman wanted to know if a lien would be placed on the property and how the Near North developer would pay it back. Callan said that certain liens are forgiven. But if the property were sold, it would have to get paid back. Kunselman concluded from what Callan said that the money for demolition is a grant. Callan told him, “It’s an investment in permanently affordable housing.” The expectation is that the housing will be permanently affordable. The city’s strategy is not heavily weighted towards “recycling” the money, as Kunselman was suggesting: use money for demolition; place a lien on the property; the property sells; the lien is paid back; and the money becomes available for demolition of another blighted property.

Kunselman asked community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl how many blighted properties the city’s nuisance committee had identified. Bahl said the committee is prioritizing a list and in the next few months, that list would be shared with the council. Kunselman wondered if the city would have any money to undertake demolitions. There was a house torn down in his neighborhood where the money was paid back. Was there any way to make sure the North Main property owner does pay it back?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was intrigued that it’s a permanent loan that gets paid back only if a property is sold. She said it’s a disincentive to sell, and a reason to give this kind of grant. She asked if there are other similar situations in the offing. Callan said this is the city’s model for investing in affordable housing. She said the need to repay on sale of the property is absolutely a disincentive to sell, but that Avalon Housing doesn’t need the disincentive in the case of the Near North project, because affordable housing is their mission.

Briere wondered if, generally speaking, NSP funds were not for demolition. Callan explained that demolition is, in fact, an allowable activity for NSP funds – it’s about stabilizing neighborhoods. Although the city has not used NSP funds often for that, she said she’d talked with Margie Teall (Ward 4) about setting aside some of the NSP funds for demolition.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the NSP allocations so that the houses on North Main could be demolished in preparation for the Near North housing project.

Large Vehicle Purchases

Before the council were authorizations for the purchase of two large vehicles – an Elgin street sweeper ($273,300) and a combination sewer truck ($398,806).

The staff memo accompanying the request for the sweeper states: “The sweeper being replaced has been in service ten years and has 5,960 hours of use. Over the last two years, this unit has been taken to Fleet Service for maintenance and repairs 87 times of which 33% have been for breakdowns. The total cost of all repairs over the same time frame have exceeded $113,250.”

About the combination sewer truck: “This truck will replace a 2004 unit with 8060 hours of use. Over the last two years, this unit has been taken to Fleet Service for maintenance and repairs 53 times of which 58% have been for breakdowns. These breakdowns have taken the unit out of service from as little as four hours to as long as two weeks.”

The council had postponed the purchases from its May 2, 2011 meeting with a request for additional information about the vehicles.

Large Vehicle Purchases: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the trucks had any resale value. Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, said they did. The city is known for keeping its trucks in pretty good shape, he said. But the city kept the trucks in service for a longer time than a dealership would be willing to offer a guaranteed buy-back, so the re-sale value depends on the market, Hupy said.

Kunselman asked if the same sewer truck purchase proposal had been brought before the council last year. No, said Hupy. It was in a previous year’s budget. But Hupy described how the city had a desire to do cooperative bidding with other cities and they’d gone together with three other cities to bid for the truck. Agreeing with the other cities on the specifications for the trucks was like “herding cats,” Hupy said, but in the end the city had gotten about a 10% better deal than if it had gone out to bid by itself.

Mayor John Hieftje drew out the fact that the vehicles to be replaced had frequently been out of service, and in the case of the combination sewer truck could delay cleaning out of sewers, which could result in sewers backing up.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) picked up on the idea that the city needs the truck – it’s needed to do sewer clear-outs, which can result in sewer backups for residents if they’re not done. Hearing that, said Higgins, boggled her mind. She said she understood comments by Hupy and Hieftje to mean that if the city doesn’t do sewer clear-outs, it can cause sewer backups in the basement. Hupy allowed that the failure to do sewer clear-outs “can result in” sewer backups – not “cause.” Hupy said it was his understanding that if the city has not performed adequate sewer maintenance and a resident experiences sewer backups, then it can result in a payable claim.

Higgins also wanted to know how the vehicles were being paid for. If a vehicle is not originally paid for out of the fleet fund, does the revenue from resale go back to the fund it was paid out of? Hupy said he’d defer to the financial folks to answer the question – Sue McCormick, public services area administrator. The truck was originally paid out of sewer funds, said McCormick. So money from resale goes back to the sewer fund.

As the city moves ahead, McCormick said, it purchases new vehicles from the fleet fund. So the next time a truck like this is replaced, it’ll be bought out of the fleet fund with money contributed by the sanitary sewer fund. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted McCormick to explain why the city was moving to a strategy of paying for vehicles out of the fleet fund.

McCormick described the history at the city related to pressures on general fund fleet purchases. That had resulted in a very slow vehicle replacement schedule, with older vehicles. And the city wound up with very low reliability on daily production work. So the decision was made years ago to stop purchasing vehicles from the fleet fund and to pay for vehicles through cash flow. The city has now done away with that practice, McCormick said, and is returning to a strategy of paying for new vehicles out of the fleet fund. The reason, she said, is that if you think about paying annual depreciation on a vehicle, as opposed to “cash flowing it,” the cash-flow approach impacts utility rates in the year when the expense is incurred, instead of spreading it over the life of the vehicle. The fleet fund approach is thus more favorable to ratepayers, she said.

Kunselman wrapped up his comments by saying he would be supporting the purchase. He noted there have been four water main breaks within two blocks of his house, and when the city comes with the trucks, they’re right there and they pull everything out of the hole.

Outcome: The council approved both truck purchases on separate votes.

“Parks Fairness” Resolution

Before the council was a proposed revision to the 2006 administrative policy that governs the use of the city’s parks capital improvements and maintenance millage, including how the city’s general fund should support Ann Arbor’s parks.

A key point to the revision includes an additional provision that “for the purpose of this resolution all funds other than the Millage which are used to support Parks and Recreation system activities shall be considered the same as City’s General Fund support.” The proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 calls for using money from the METRO Act fund and the city’s stormwater fund to pay for certain parks operations, which the city would like to count as general fund support.

The new provision in the policy helps the city’s planned budget for FY 2012 conform with another administrative policy requirement – that the amount of general fund parks support not decrease any more than other parts of the general fund.

A further amendment that was before the council on May 16 would have changed the standard of general fund support from one that is based on hard dollars to one that is based on service levels, with FY 2011 as a baseline: “[T]he General Fund budget supporting the Parks and Recreation system for that year may be reduced by a higher percentage than the average percentage reduction of the total City General Fund budget as long as the FY11 level of service within Parks and Recreation system is not materially reduced.”

That second amendment would have helped the city conform with the policy this year, because the proposed FY 2012 budget called for spending $90,000 less on parks than would otherwise be required if the administrative policy were left unamended. The city contends that the $90,000 reduction in expenditures is due to increased efficiency, and would not affect service standards. [Chronicle coverage: "Council to Get Reminder of Parks Promise"]

The city council also revised the 2006 administrative policy during the FY 2010 budget cycle, so that millage funding for the natural area preservation program would not automatically increase by 3% every year.

Parks Fairness Resolution: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) began by introducing the background for the resolution: The 2006 parks maintenance and capital improvements millage was accompanied by a city council resolution outlining how the millage money should be spent. Generally speaking, he said, the resolution was meant to have any reductions/increases in parks funding be on a parallel track with general fund reductions/increases.

Taylor indicated that he’d be suggesting a friendly amendment to a resolution revising the 2006 policy. In the midst of his remarks, which Taylor self-described as a “long and wandering introduction,” Mayor John Hieftje wanted to get the issue of the amendment settled. But Taylor told the mayor that he’d not gotten to the actual amendment yet.

The amendment that Taylor wanted to make to his own resolution was this:  Strike the proposed addition of a clause that would establish service levels as the standard that parks spending would be measured against, instead of a hard dollar figure comparison to the general fund. The reason he wanted to strike the clause was that he felt it might be possible to find a way to make up the additional $90,000 for parks in the FY 2012 budget, which the current administrative policy would require, if it were not amended.

Confusion ensued among councilmembers as they struggled to understand what Taylor intended. In sum, the following language from his amendment was stricken, which left that part of the administrative policy intact.

… [T]he General Fund budget supporting the Parks and Recreation system for that year may be reduced by a higher percentage than the average percentage reduction of the total City General Fund budget as long as the FY11 level of service within Parks and Recreation system is not materially reduced.

Surviving amendment was the part of Taylor’s resolution that allowed non-millage funds outside the general fund to count for purposes of calculating the amount of general fund support for the parks.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to revise the parks millage administrative policy to allow non-millage funds external to the general fund to count as general fund money for purposes of the policy.

Taxicab Fares

Before the council was an increase in the allowable fare for cabs operating in the city. The rate increase affects only the mileage component of fares, which were last approved on May 19, 2008.

The mileage increase from $2.25/mile to $2.50/mile had been requested by several taxicab companies in light of rising fuel prices, which are currently just over $4/gallon. The city’s taxicab board has indicated that with this increase, it does not anticipate considering another rate change until the gas prices are over $5/gallon for at least two consecutive months. The board had voted to recommend the change at its April 28, 2011 meeting.

Members of the taxicab board include the city’s CFO Tom Crawford, and William Clock, an officer with the Ann Arbor police department, as non-voting members. [The city's ordinance actually requires that the city's CFO and the chief of police serve as non-voting members.] The five voting members are Stephen Kunselman (representative to the board from the city council) as well as Barbara Krick, C. Robert Snyder, Tom Oldakowski and Timothy Hull.

[Hull has filed nominating petitions to contest the city council Democratic primary in Ward 2 against incumbent Stephen Rapundalo. Kunselman will be running for re-election in the Ward 3 Democratic primary.]

Crawford, who is also interim city administrator, had announced the public hearing on the taxicab fare increase at the city council’s May 2, 2011 meeting.

Taxicab Fares: Public Hearing

Michael Benson introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident and president of the University of Michigan graduate student body. He told the council he wanted to speak about the process for the increase. He noted fuel costs are in fact going up and he understands the need for the increase. But he noted that in the past, a temporary surcharge has been used to address increased fuel prices – why not this time? He asked that the increase be amended with some kind of sunset clause that would require the increase to be reviewed after a certain period, and that a recommendation be brought back to the council.

Thomas Partridge called on the council to postpone the increase. Any increase in rates harms the most vulnerable residents first, he said. Executives in limousines pulling up to Google are not concerned about taxicab rates, he said. He called on the council to table the measure and come up with a better proposal.

Taxicab Fares: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) inquired whether a formula been considered that would tie taxicab rates to some objective third-party measure of fuel prices, so that requests for fare increases would come before the council less frequently. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who sponsored the resolution as the city council’s appointee to the taxicab board, responded to Hohnke by saying that other costs have also increased – it’s not just the gas increase that’s driving this. He told Hohnke that no formula tied to fuel prices has been discussed.

In response to Benson’s suggestion made during public commentary to sunset the increase, Kunselman said he was not going to make that recommendation. Taxicab companies are struggling for other reasons. Kunselman amended one of the “whereas” clauses to make it clear that gas prices have now exceeded $4/gallon – they didn’t jump by $4/gallon.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the fare increase.

Downtown Design Guidelines

Before the council was initial approval to an amendment of its land use control ordinance that will establish design guidelines for new projects in downtown Ann Arbor, and set up a seven-member design review board (DRB) to provide developers with feedback on their projects’ conformance to the design guidelines.

All city of Ann Arbor ordinances require approval at an initial first reading before the council, a public hearing, and a final approval.

The project review by the DRB will come before a meeting with nearby residents – which is already required as part of the citizen participation ordinance. While the DRB process is required, conformance with the recommendations of that body is voluntary.

The city council had previously approved the design guideline review program at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting. The city planning commission unanimously recommended the change to the city’s ordinance at its April 5, 2011 meeting. [Previous Chronicle coverage, which includes a detailed timeline of the design guidelines work, dating back to a work group formed in 2006: "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

Council deliberations were brief. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that the ordinance now before the council is coming back after being presented at the February meeting. The city’s planning commission had been asked to expedite it, she said, and they had done that. That means that new construction will fall under the ordinance. She urged her colleagues to pass it, saying, “It’s exactly what we wanted.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the design guidelines, which will need a final approval before the ordinance is enacted.

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: Transformers in Neighborhoods

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) informed his council colleagues that in response to an issue raised in Arbor Oaks subdivision by a city engineer – it concerned electrical transformers in the easements of backyards – he and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) had contacted Paul Ganz, DTE’s regional manager, and DTE had sent crews out to investigate. Everything is safe, he reported, and there is no danger of electrocution. DTE is going to address some of the visual issues that had caused concern.

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

Council meeting to be continued: May 23, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The addition to the NSP budget came from a reimbursement. The owner of a house paid back NSP money to the city, previously expended to demolish the owner’s property. That reimbursement amounted to $24,135. NSP funds come originally from federal grants allocated through the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA).

In addition, city staff identified an NSP homeowner acquisition and rehabilitation project that was completed under budget by $11,750. Combined, the additional revenue to the NSP budget and the savings on the rehabilitation project amount to $35,885. Of that amount, $33,292 will be used to pay for the demolition of 718, 722, and 724 N. Main St., with the remaining $2,593 going to administration costs in the office of community development. The money will be allocated to the nonprofit Avalon Housing, which is developing the Near North project with Three Oaks.

The city council originally approved rezoning for the project – a four-story, 39-unit mixed use residential building on a 1.19-acre site – on Sept. 21, 2009

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]

The plan calls for tearing down the one-story building and constructing a two-story, single-family, owner-occupied house with an attached two-car garage. The entrance will be oriented to the north, and the garage will be accessed from the public alley on the west side of the site. The site is directly north of the Armory condos and south of a two-story residential rental property.

The project requires a site plan because the single-family house is on property that’s not zoned solely for residential purposes. It’s zoned D2 (downtown interface) and is located in the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. The Ann Arbor historic district commission already reviewed the site plan and issued a certificate of appropriateness at its Feb. 10, 2011 meeting. The Ann Arbor city planning commission had given its recommendation for approval of the site plan at its March 15, 2011 meeting.

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

Plans to build an addition behind the brick Zingerman's Deli building will ultimately require approval from the city's historic district commission. (Photos by the writer.)

Zingerman’s itself is “handling a complaint” from the city’s Historic District Commission (HDC) – one that can be traced back to a June 2008 Zingerman’s request to demolish two houses, which are located in the city’s Old Fourth Ward historic district.

Now Zingerman’s is bringing back another proposal, but this time they’re not starting formally with the HDC. Instead, they’ll begin by seeking approvals from the city’s planning commission and the city council.

The site plan calls for a two-story, 9,500-square-foot structure to be added to the rear of the deli building, which will carry a price tag of around $4 million. The new building would replace the house at 322 E. Kingsley St. and extend lengthwise towards Community High School.

Zingerman’s started satisfying the formal steps for getting approval of their expansion project this week, on Monday, March 8, by holding a citizens participation meeting.

But Zingerman’s has also met informally with the HDC at two separate work sessions since the start of the year – one in January and the other on Thursday, March 11. Based on a significant change in design between those two meetings, which integrates “the orange house” into the project instead of demolishing it, Zingerman’s is trying to “make it right” for the HDC.

Still, at Thursday’s HDC work session, the Zingerman’s team stressed how great the challenges were – financial and logistical – to preserving the orange house as part of the project design. It seemed apparent that Zingerman’s was making an implicit pitch for members of the HDC to give a green light for the previously proposed project – the one minus both houses.

It was clear enough, in any case, that Jill Thacher – the city planning department’s historic preservation specialist – finally said towards the end of the meeting: “We’ve been over that. I want to keep you from going back to that.”

Background: Certificates, Notices, Zoning Change

In June 2008, the first step Zingerman’s took with their project was to request permission to demolish the two houses from the city’s historic district commission. This time around, Zingerman’s will first seek approval from the city’s planning commission and city council, and then ask for approval from the historic district commission.

Understanding the reason for ordering things differently this time requires a clear understanding of the difference between two notions: (i) a certificate of appropriateness; and (ii) a notice to proceed.

It’s also useful to understand how the zoning code has changed for part of the land since June 2008.

Background:  Certificates of Appropriateness

The minutes from the historic district commission’s June 12, 2008 meeting show that the commission considered Zingerman’s application to demolish two houses – along with a garage – as an application for a certificate of appropriateness. This is one “flavor” of the kind of permission that the HDC can grant.

That application was brought before the HDC without a site plan or drawings to show what Zingerman’s planned to build there. What Zingerman’s had planned at that point was a 3-story new building, compared to the 2-story building that is now being proposed.

During the June 12, 2008 HDC public hearing on the matter, the lack of a presentation on their actual plans was a point on which  Zingerman’s drew criticism. Responding to that criticism, Ken Clein, an architect with Quinn Evans who is working on the project, explained the absence of a specific site plan. From the HDC minutes of that meeting:

Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Clein – [...] the fact that they are not presenting plans or designs to replace these structures with. It was at the suggestion of staff that we separate that issue from the issue for request for demolition.

The issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for work in an historic district depends in part on whether the building in question is a “contributing” or  a “non-contributing” resource. A building that’s determined to be “non-contributing” is more easily altered than a building that’s “contributing,” under the Secretary of the Interior standards governing historic renovation.

A recent case of requested demolition in the Old West Side historic district – unrelated to Zingerman’s proposal in the Old Fourth Ward – highlighted the same issue of “contributing” versus “non-contributing” buildings. Permission to demolish two houses and a gas station on Second Street was sought by the developer of the Liberty Lofts project, to make it possible to construct additional parking spaces. He’d hoped that the potential for adding parking spaces would help attract a retail tenant for the still-vacant space in the greenhouse structure at First & Washington. [Chronicle coverage: "Demolition in Historic District?" and "Historic Commission: No Approval for Demolition"]

The HDC found the gas station – at the corner of Liberty & Second – to be non-contributing, but found the houses to be contributing. Commissioners voted to issue a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the garage, but wound up splitting 3-3 on all possible resolutions on the two houses.

Similarly, in June 2008 the HDC voted to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the Zingerman’s non-contributing garage, but voted to deny the request to demolish the two houses, which commissioners found to be contributing to the Old Fourth Ward. While the HDC vote on the house at 420 Detroit St. was unanimously against demolition, the vote on the fire-damaged 322 E. Kingsley St. house was only 4-3 against demolition.

Background: Notices to Proceed

It seems impossible to reconcile Secretary of Interior standards for appropriate work in an historic district – one of which concerns “reversibility” of the work – with demolition of a building that the commission has determined to be a contributing resource.

However, another option to contemplate – a second “flavor” of permission – is that the HDC could issue a “notice to proceed.” The criteria for issuance of such a notice, from the city code, are as follows:

8:416. Notice to proceed.
(1) Work within a historic district shall be permitted through the issuance of a notice to proceed by the commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions:
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structure’s occupants.
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.
(d) Retaining the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.

In the case of the recent request in the Old West Side for demolition, the Liberty Lofts developer argued that all of the criteria might apply, including (b). However, the commission – in consultation with the city attorney’s office – seemed ultimately to reject (b) as a possibility, citing the fact that the developer had no “planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances” as required by (b).

And when Zingerman’s went before the HDC in June 2008, they also did not have planning commission or city council approval for the project.

With their current plan to obtain permissions from the planning commission and the city council first, before returning to the HDC, Zingerman’s would be in a position to make a case for alteration of contributing structures, based on criterion (b).

At the earlier public hearing in June 2008, Peter Pollack, a landscape architect who also lives near Zingerman’s Deli, laid out the case based on exactly that criterion. From the summary of Pollack’s remarks in the HDC minutes of that meeting:

[...] I ask you to put in context with the historic development of what has occurred on this property. Buildings have been  relocated, reoriented and adjusted. This is in the same spirit of that reorientation and adjustment. If you look at the “Notice to Proceed,’ this is a major deterrent to an  improvement program, and I say that this is exactly the case.

Background: Zoning

The Zingerman’s project that will be brought before the planning commission – probably in May – will be intended to meet all applicable zoning codes. That will make it a so-called “matter of right” project. That is possible due in part to a rezoning of the 322 E. Kingsley St. parcel, which took place last summer as part of the Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2) rezoning project for all of downtown.

The previous zoning for 322 E. Kingsley St. was R4C, which is designated for residential, not commercial use. The new D2 zoning classification allows for various commercial uses, including restaurants and offices.

The rezoning of 322 Kingsley St. was given preliminary approval by the city council in April 2009 as part of a comprehensive rezoning of downtown Ann Arbor. That required review of the change by the planning commission, which ultimately approved it, in connection with its revision of the city’s downtown plan.

The 322 E. Kingsley St. rezoning was controversial for the planning commission, passing on a 4-3 vote. From The Chronicle’s report of the May 19, 2009 planning commission meeting, when the revision was approved.

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 Zingerman’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.

Background: Timeline Overview

• June 12, 2008: Historic district commission denies request for demolition of 322 E. Kingsley St. and 420 Detroit St. [Rocco Disderide's former residence, aka "the orange house."]
• Feb. 19, 2009: Planning commission adopts downtown plan with various revisions but no change to existing R4C zoning of 322 E. Kingsley St.
• April 6, 2009: City council gives initial approval to zoning revisions to downtown requiring alterations to the downtown plan adopted by the planning commission; major alterations include changes in South University area, but also included a rezoning of 322 E. Kingsley St. from R4C to the new D2 classification. The amendment on 322 E. Kingsley St. is introduced by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and passes with dissent only from Sabra Briere (Ward 1). [link]
• May 19, 2009: Planning commission approves revisions to the downtown plan to accommodate part of the city council’s South University zoning revisions, an East Huron zoning revision, and the 322 E. Kingsley St. revision. [link]
• June 15, 2009: City council adopts downtown plan as revised by the planning commission. [link]
• Nov. 16, 2009: City council gives final approval to downtown zoning revisions, including the D2 designation to 322 E. Kingsley St.
• Jan. 14, 2010: At an HDC work session, Zingerman’s presents plan showing demolition of two houses.
• March 8, 2010: Zingerman’s holds a public participation open house on its proposed expansion.
• March 11, 2010: At an HDC work session, Zingerman’s presents a plan showing demolition of one house only.

Zingerman’s Expansion: January 2010 HDC Work Session

The city’s historic district commission typically conducts its work sessions just after its regular meetings conclude – in the city council workroom, which adjoins the council chambers where the commission holds its regular meetings.

At the Jan. 14, 2010 HDC work session, Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects was joined by Gary Bruder, Zingerman’s legal counsel, and Nancy Rucker, who works in Zingerman’s Deli operations.

Clein presented the project with conceptual drawings and a study model – which at that time showed the removal of both the 322 E. Kingsley St. house and the 420 Detroit St. house.

Clein explained that the proposal to expand was related to an interest in preserving the original historic deli building. The current cooking and dishwashing operations in the building, he explained, generated moisture that escaped through the exterior brick, and caused deterioration of the wall. The evidence of the toll that it takes, he said, can be seen on the exterior of the wall facing Kingsley in the form of efflorescence – white salt deposits.

Clein also outlined a number of challenges associated with the Zingerman’s campus, one of them the seven-inch elevation change, which has an impact on what’s required to meet ADA accessibility standards, as well as the tight quarters, which has an impact on where stormwater detention can be undertaken.

The key issue for commissioners, naturally, was the question of removing both houses. Generally, commissioners did not seem wed to the idea of preserving the 322 E. Kingsley St. house.

[The June 2008 vote on that house had been close: 4-3 against demolition. One of the votes against demolition was Michael Bruner, who has since been replaced on the HDC with Patrick McCauley. McCauley's comments at the work session suggest he could be supportive of removing the 322 E. Kingsley St. house.]

On the 420 Detroit St. house, however, McCauley was unambiguous: “I’ll just come out and say it. I don’t think you should tear that house down.”

What McCauley pointed to was the fact that the proposed new building seemed to impinge on just one corner of the house, and for that reason, he did not think the condition was met that the removal of the house be “necessary.”

Clein countered by saying that there was more to it than just the small corner of the house. Among the specific issues he enumerated were: the impact on accessibility and the need to construct ramps; plus proximity of the house to the new structure triggering a requirement of fire-proof sheathing, which added to the expense; and the need to temporarily move the house to accommodate the actual construction of the new building.

Key for Clein was the idea that if cost were no object, then anything was possible – but it was a matter of how much cost was reasonable to ask of someone in order to rehabilitate an historic property.

On the question of expense, commissioner Diane Giannola wondered what the cut-off was for rehabilitation being “too expensive.” She allowed that it was “something to think about.” On the cost question, McCauley contended that it was only a small part of the overall project budget. Clein countered that in ballpark numbers, the rehabilitation of the house would likely be $0.5 million out of a project budget of $3.5 million to $4 million – or 1/7 of the budget, which he did not consider to be a small part of it.

Giannola raised the question of whether the 420 Detroit St. house could be seen from the street, to which McCauley responded: “You can totally see it from the street!” Giannola maintained that it was not a part of the streetscape, but noted that it was still a part of going to Zingerman’s Deli.

On the topic of location, Jill Thacher, the city planning department’s specialist in historic preservation, addressed the topic of the house’s history. It had been moved from the corner where the brick deli building now stands, she said, but that was during the district’s period of significance. This meant the fact that it had been moved was not an argument that it wasn’t a contributing structure. “Let me get the ‘it’s been moved’ argument off the table,” she said. [The same issue had been discussed fairly thoroughly at the HDC's June 2008 meeting.]

Commissioners discussed how far the notion of “necessity” in the criteria for a notice to proceed extended – was it “necessary” that Zingerman’s undertake the expansion at that location?

Commissioner Ellen Ramsburgh wondered if the expansion was more than the site could take. She noted that the Zingerman’s Creamery and Bake House had moved to peripheral locations. “Do you need to be there?”

In her remarks, Ramsburgh was echoing sentiments expressed by then-commissioner Michael Bruner back in June 2008, when he had made the suggestion that Zingerman’s think of moving their operations. The specific location he had in mind was the Old West Side structure adjoining the Liberty Lofts development:

Commissioner Bruner – [...] This may be less than what they need, but there stands today, a project that we reviewed and was approved, a development that includes a 20,000 square foot commercial retail area with parking that is begging to be occupied. [An apparent allusion to the Liberty Lofts greenhouse building.] As preservationists that want to encourage the success of economic projects in the city, perhaps Zingerman’s should consider moving their location as they have with their Creamery, which is at a satellite location, their Bakery which is at a satellite location, their Roadhouse that is a satellite location – this could be relocated as a satellite component at another location, nevertheless retaining this location as it is.

Clein responded to Ramsburgh at the January 2010 HDC working session by wondering if there were another historic district in another town where Zingerman’s could contemplate locating their operations. Ramsburgh: “That’s a threat!”

Zingerman’s Expansion: March Public Meeting, HDC Work Session

At the open house event held on March 8 to introduce the new project to the public, a key difference in the plan was apparent, made since the January HDC work session: The 420 Detroit St. house – “the orange house” –  is now incorporated into the design, both in the drawings and the study model.

HDC work session, March 11, 2010. From the far end of the table, at right, going clockwise: Paul Saginaw, Lori Saginaw, Lesa Rozmarek, Kristina Glusac, Diane Giannola, Ellen Ramsburgh, Nancy Rucker, Gary Bruder, Bill Kinley, Deb Cooper, Ken Clein, Jill Thacher, Patrick McCauley, Rick Strutz, Grace Singleton.

At the open house, Ray Detter, president of the city’s downtown citizen’s advisory council, responded to a mention that the plan now included “the orange house” with the clarification: “You mean the Disderide house?”

Rocco Disderide was the proprietor of a grocery in the brick deli building, who moved the house from the corner to make way for that building.

Detter had told the board of the Downtown Development Authority at their last meeting, on March 3, 2010, that the advisory council was concerned about Zingerman’s plan to expand:

Zingerman’s plan generated “heated discussion” at DCAC, said Detter. The deli is located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. He said they agreed that Zingerman’s is an essential part of the community, but that they needed to make sure there’s not a precedent set that would undermine planning. The decision needed to be oriented around the city’s planning documents: the downtown plan, the central area plan, and the historic district.

At the March 11, 2010 HDC work session, Ken Clein mentioned that some of the attendees of their March 8 open house were puzzled as to why they were keeping the 420 Detroit St. house as a part of the design.

As a designer and an architect, Clein said, he did have some concern for the judgment of history – would people look back 50 or 100 years from now and wonder why that house was incorporated into the design? “Will they look back and say, ‘What the …? Stupid preservationists!’” Patrick McCauley joked in response: “They’re going to say that anyway!”

At the March 8 open house, Paul Saginaw, a founding partner of Zingerman's, is not explaining how he fought his way through the curds, swimming to the surface after falling into a vat of cheese. He's explaining to a neighbor how the Zingerman's project is going to look.

The question of how much the preservation of the 420 Detroit St. house would cost arose again, just as it had at the January work session. In the interim, some more concrete numbers had been attached to the cost of rehabilitating the house for integration into the design. The house is shown in the design to be attached to the building at the rear via a glass connector.

Bill Kinley, who owns Phoenix Contractors Inc., was at the work session on Zingerman’s behalf to provide comment on some of the construction costs. McCauley was skeptical of the costs shown for electrical upgrades to the structure, citing some familiarity with the cost of a complete electrical replacement of a house. Kinley pointed out that there’s a rule of thumb for residential rewiring of $30-$35 per opening (switch plate or plug) versus a $120-$140 rule of thumb for work to bring things up to commercial code.

The code requirements that the 420 Detroit St. house would need to meet are commercial standards.

Clein reported that the kind of work that would be necessary, and which Zingerman’s had now had estimated in more detail, included a rebuild of the foundation, new floor framing for the first floor, new joist hangers for the second floor and the addition of exterior sheathing. [The house is built with the balloon-frame construction technique.]

The additional cost of the project attributable to the rehabilitation of the 420 Detroit St. house would be between $600,000-$750,000. In terms of cost per square foot, Clein said, it came out to $572/sq. ft.  By comparison, the new construction cost of a laboratory building at the University of Michigan – the Biomedical Sciences Research Building – was $100/sq. ft. less, at $480/sq. ft., Clein said. Kinley added that the new construction of a recent project that Phoenix had completed – the Towsley Children’s Center at Forest & Willard – came in at only $300/sq. ft.

Commissioners pointed to the importance of retaining the spatial relationships between the 420 Detroit St. house and the other buildings in the compound. At their regular meeting just before the work session, they’d turned down a request to add a second story to a 1-story garage, partly on the basis of those spatial relationships.

Picking up on this need to preserve the spatial relationships, Kinley suggested that they could simply rebuild the 420 Detroit St. house anew and replace it with new construction that would have the same shape and massing of the old house. Clein pointed out to the commissioners that with all of the work that would be required on the house to bring it up to code, there would likely be little of the original “fabric” of the house remaining.

Commissioners seemed cool to the implicit pitch that the Zingerman’s team was making to go back to a scenario where both houses would be demolished. Said Jill Thacher: “We’ve been over that. I want to keep you from going back to that.”

Commissioners also took care to stress that they were really happy with the proposal that removed the 322 E. Kingsley St. house but integrated the 420 Detroit St. house into the design, characterizing it as a good compromise. “I really like this,” said McCauley, allowing that he had been “the most strident person about the preservation of the orange house.”

On the fact that Zingerman’s had taken their feedback and incorporated it into their new proposal, McCauley summed it the contrast between the HDC’s experience with some applicants: “This is much preferable to getting yelled at.”

The current schedule calls for the proposal to come before the city’s planning commission in May. In the meantime, the Zingerman’s team will meet with the city’s building inspector on code issues related to the 420 Detroit St. house.

A rough study model of the area as it currently stands. The view is from the north. Detroit Street runs from front to back. Kingsley runs left and right. The Zingerman's Deli brick building is on the corner of Detroit and Kingsley.

A study model of the Zingerman's expansion viewed from Detroit Street, looking east. The finger is pointing at the screening for mechanicals on the roof of the proposed new building.

The Zingerman's Deli building viewed from Detroit Street. The 420 Detroit St. property is the orange house to the right of the brick deli building.

Nancy Rucker and Gary Bruder with the Zingerman's team at the January 2010 HDC working session.

City planner Jill Thacher and Rick Strutz, a partner in Zingerman's Deli, inspect the current study model at the March 11 HDC work session. In the backround is Grace Singleton, another Zingerman's Deli partner.

Efflorescence on the spawled brick of the Zingerman's Deli building on the wall facing Kingsley Street.

Council voted down the more general prohibition on new development in R4C/R2A residential districts, but approved the historic district study committee with its attached moratorium on demolition. It’s a case where the vote tally alone doesn’t tell the whole story – or even an accurate one: Counter to what one might expect, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) voted against the R4C/R2A moratorium, while Leigh Greden (Ward 3) voted for it.

A third major agenda item facing council was also related to new development: the Near North planned unit development (PUD) proposed for North Main Street just south of Summit Street, which is an affordable housing project that includes the nonprofit Avalon Housing as a partner. The council voted to move Near North on to a second reading, when a final decision will be made.

But probably the most important matter considered by council on Thursday appeared on the agenda as an “introduction” by the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, who spent around a half hour telling the city council why the city’s projected financial condition is worse now than it had been when the FY 2010 budget was adopted in the spring. Crawford’s presentation was characterized during commentary from the public later in the meeting as the “first salvo in a PR campaign” for a city income tax.

A bit of breaking news from Crawford’s report: bonds for the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage were issued on Aug. 5.

Revenue Projections: Report from the CFO

The city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, started his update by acknowledging that oftentimes speakers begin their remarks with a joke, but he said, “There is no joke tonight.” He then spent the next half hour not joking.

There are some national-level reports with glimmers of hope that the economy is starting to turn around, Crawford said, like the fact that stocks are starting to climb. But the glimmers are based primarily on the fact that the measurables are not declining as fast, he said.

What we confront locally, Crawford said, is grim: June unemployment figures for Ann Arbor and the state of Michigan are 10.6% and 15.2%, respectively. Part of the impact of high unemployment levels is that people spend less money – that causes state sales tax revenues to decrease. So far this year, state sales tax revenues are down 8%.

Sales Tax and State Revenue Sharing

What does state sales tax have to do with the city of Ann Arbor’s budget? Part of the sales tax collected by the state of Michigan is allocated to municipalities like Ann Arbor through “state revenue sharing.” That state revenue sharing has two components: (i) a constitutional part based on a fixed formula, and (ii) a statutory part over which the state legislature can exercise discretion, depending on state budget needs.

Queried by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) about possible changes in the two kinds of state revenue sharing, Crawford clarified that both kinds of state shared revenue would go down as a function of the 8% year-to-date decrease in sales tax revenues. That’s because the total amount of sales tax revenues determines the “size of the bucket” from which both types of shared revenue are taken. The statutory share could go down even further, Crawford explained, because the state legislature showed no signs that the resolution to the state’s budget issues would be addressed – the state currently shows $9 billion in expenses compared to $7 billion in revenues. Part of the $2 billion gap is expected to be covered with state sales tax money that would have otherwise gone to municipalities through state revenue sharing.

How much money are we talking about? And what has been the historical pattern of state shared revenue? In 2002 the city of Ann Arbor received $6.2 million in statutory state shared revenue and $7.5 million in constitutional state shared revenue. In FY 2009 those totals had changed to $2.9 million and $7.9 million, respectively – roughly a $3 million decrease since 2002.

Projections on which the adopted FY 2010 budget were based saw state shared revenue levels as flat compared to last year. Based on the actual 8% drop in sales tax collections, plus a pessimistic assessment of likely action by the state legislature to address its own budget, Crawford is now projecting $1 million to $1.9 million less in state shared revenue in FY 2010.

Added with $1 million less than projected in investment income, $0.2 million less in traffic citations, and $0.2 million less in development review fees, Crawford sketched a picture for councilmembers of a $2.4 million to $3.3 million shortfall for FY 2010, which is the current budget year. For next year, continued decreases in state shared revenue, traffic citations, and development review fees, together with a yet-to-be renegotiated parking agreement that assumes $1.7 million to be paid to the city by the Downtown Development Authority, led to a possible projected shortfall of $4 million to $5.8 million, said Crawford.

In terms of percentage of the budget, those shortfalls translate into 3-4% and 5-7% deficits for FY 2010 and FY 2011 respectively. In terms of people, it translates into 24-40 full-time employees for the first year, and 50-70 in the second year, whose salaries would not be covered.

New Reality

Declining property tax revenues did not factor into the slides Crawford showed councilmembers explaining why the forecast had become more grim since they had adopted their budget for FY 2010 in May. Why not? While property tax revenues continued to decline, Crawford said, so far this year they were tracking as they’d been forecast.

Still, factors other than property taxes had led to Crawford’s conclusion that, “We’re looking at a new reality.” Part of that reality was, said Crawford, that the city would be facing the prospect of service reductions. Whereas in the last decade, the reduction in staffing levels – from around 1,000 in 2001 to around 800 in 2009 – had been achieved through greater efficiencies, without reducing services, this next cycle could be different.

Councilmember Questions

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted to know what the impact of the early-out police retirement incentive had been, which the council had authorized in the spring. [There had been 34 officers who qualified for the program and based on a June 30, 2009 memo from Crawford, 26 of them had elected to accept the incentive, with the possibility that two additional officers might also accept because they'd been given a deadline extension for the decision.] In responding to Anglin, Crawford indicated that the cost of the buyout had been around $5 million, which had been paid out of the city’s reserve.

Anglin wanted to know what the effect the reduction of the reserve from around 17% of expenditures to around 10% had had on the city’s bond rating. Crawford indicated that the city’s 10-11% reserve fell within the policy range of 8-12%. Further, Crawford said, the city had been given a rating of Aa2 the previous day, when they had issued the bonds for the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked what other programs might exist at the federal level to help cities. Crawford said that he was not aware of any that might be relevant, and stressed that to date the federal stimulus package dollars that had been approved did not address needs that are related to recurring operations.

Derezinski inquired to what extent collaboration with other government entities was being explored – Ypsilanti and the Ann Arbor Public Schools, for example. Crawford said that in the IT department there were three different projects he was working on in collaboration with Washtenaw County. As a matter of philosophy, Crawford explained, whenever any issue comes up, possible collaborations are considered. City administrator Roger Fraser stressed that no two public sector organizations do business the same way, which meant that a desired collaboration might not happen today, but rather could be realized one to two years down the road. Fraser pointed to the new sheriff, Jerry Clayton, as “a major turn for the positive” in terms of the potential for collaboration with the county.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked when council might be provided with “some species of articulation” for the kind of decreases in services they might be looking at. Crawford deferred to Fraser on the question. Fraser stressed that the forecast reflected a “probable case.” He said he continued to stress that managers of departments needed to make cost reductions a priority. In September, Fraser said, the exact picture would be clearer.

Moratorium on New Development in R4C/R2A

The proposed moratorium on new development in R4C/R2A areas had been brought forward by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) at the previous council meeting, when it had been postponed. The key resolved clause of the resolution submitted by Anglin read: “That City Council hereby imposes a moratorium on all new development that requires site plan approval, expansion of existing development that requires site plan approval, zoning changes, special exception uses, or other comparable zoning items, in the R4C and R2A zoning districts … ”

The idea of a moratorium had been mooted at planning commission at least as far back as April 2009. [See previous Chronicle coverage.] Several speakers at public commentary voiced their support for a moratorium.

Moratorium: Public Commentary

Mozhagn Savabiesfahani: Savabiesfahani was signed up under public commentary reserve time to speak to the issue of the moratorium on new development in R4C districts. She began by thanking the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, for the grim presentation on the city’s economic outlook. If the state of Michigan needed $2 billion dollars to make up a budget shortfall, she suggested, then the U.S. should think about getting back the $300 billion in aid that it had given to Israel. She then called on the council to stop the demolition of the seven houses on South Fifth Avenue where the City Place project is proposed to be built. She said that her response to a friend who asked her why she cared about those houses was this: If you destroy history anywhere, you’re destroying history everywhere. So she was opposed to the erasure of history locally, just the same as she was opposed to it in the Middle East.

Susan Morrison: Morrison introduced herself as a resident and an attorney speaking on behalf of several individuals who are members of the Germantown Neighborhood Association. She urged the adoption of the temporary moratorium on new development in R4C zoning districts. She noted that courts have upheld the validity of moratoria, and contended that the need for a moratorium is evident, given that the goals and recommendations of the Central Area Plan had not yet been implemented in the zoning code. As a legal matter, she said, there is no question that the moratorium would be considered a reasonable one. No one could argue that it’s been a sudden or rash decision, she said, given the long history of discussion throughout the community.

Marvin Bartlett: Bartlett urged the council to adopt the moratorium on new development in R4C districts. He read aloud a poetic effort, that went by too quickly for The Chronicle to capture in any significant part. It included the line, “Disarm the developers, please!”

Claudius Vincenz: Vincenz offered council a compliment for their rapid turnout on consideration of the moratorium. He asked that the moratorium include a prohibition against demolition, because it’s easy to “create facts on the ground.” He also asked that the council not exempt PUD site plans from the moratorium, saying that such an exemption would introduce new dynamics in the play and counter-play between developers and residents. Such an exemption, he said, would change the dynamic from “little league” matter-of-right developments to “big league” PUDs. He drew an analogy of having a flat tire while driving on the highway – instead of stopping and fixing the problem, an exemption would be like deciding to slow down to 10 mph but keep going. Addressing the historic district study committee, he argued that the boundaries should not be defined by artificial lines on a map, but should be based on the natural topography. That meant that the area should go down to Madison Street, which is the beginning of the flood plain, and not stop at Packard Street.

Moratorium: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) began by emphasizing that the resolution provided protections for people who wanted to do work on their homes – only those projects requiring site plan approval would be subject to the moratorium. Referring to the R4C/R2A study committee, which would be appointed the same night, he said that the moratorium would allow time to “get our house in order.” The study committee will provide the city council with a report and recommendations for potential ordinance changes in R4C/R2A zoning districts.

One basic premise of the moratorium is that while revisions to the zoning are being considered, no development should take place, to prevent a rush of proposals that aim to avoid compliance with any new changes that might be proposed.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that he was supportive of the notion of a moratorium, but wanted to propose a total of four amendments. We’ve indicated those amendments by red-lining strikethroughs and blue-facing additions:

RESOLVED, That City Council hereby imposes a moratorium on all new development that requires site plan approval, expansion of existing development that requires site plan approval, [Amendment 3; see also below] zoning changes, special exception uses, or other comparable zoning items, in the R4C and R2A zoning districts [Amendment 1] within the Central Planning Area, and that any petitions or permits for such items be deferred for a period of [Amendment 2] 180 365 days from the date of this resolution in conjunction with the study and revision of the zoning ordinances pertaining to these districts, with the following exceptions:

• Approval of development, redevelopment, or the issuance of building permits for projects that do not require an approved site plan, including but not limited to construction of or addition to one single or two-family dwelling or accessory structure on a parcel;
• [Amendment 3] Petitions for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and PUD site plans;
• [Amendment 4] The following petitions that have been accepted by the City for review prior to the date of this resolution and are under review by the City:
  
  1. City Place Site Plan
  2. Casa Dominick’s Revised and Expanded PUD Zoning District
  3. The Moravian PUD Zoning District and PUD Site Plan;

Anglin accepted the first two amendments as friendly to his resolution, saying they dealt with timing and geographic scope and were thus “non-substantive.” The third and fourth prompted a longer council discussion.

Council first handled Amendment 3.

In response to a question from Margie Teall (Ward 4) about why the PUD site plans would be exempted, Taylor argued that the rationale for the moratorium was to give the city an opportunity to align the zoning with the master plan, and that affected specifically “matter-of-right” projects. PUDs inherently did not follow existing zoning, and their approval “rises and falls not by right,” said Taylor, but by a separate ordinance – an ordinance that is not currently under review by any study committee.

Taylor did allow that a PUD was in a way tied to the nature of the prevailing zoning where a PUD was proposed – the prevailing zoning acted as a foil to establish whether or not a proposal required a PUD rezoning.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) contrasted the experience of councilmembers in reviewing PUD proposals with that of neighborhoods who opposed them. For councilmembers, she said, it was always intriguing to see how well planning commission, planning staff, the developer and the public had done their respective jobs, and that it was an enlightening and rewarding experience. For the neighborhoods, however, she felt like it was merely frustrating. She compared the idea of imposing a moratorium, but exempting PUDs, with offering a carrot but hitting the neighborhoods with a stick, too.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated that he’d gotten to a place where he was not inclined to be supportive of a moratorium – the downside was the perception that the city was changing the rules in the middle of the game. But he said that he’d support the amendments because they would lessen the city’s legal exposure. Responding to Briere’s comments, he said he appreciated her concern about the neighborhoods feeling threatened, but said that a moratorium wouldn’t have an effect on what could eventually wind up being built.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed some of the same sentiment as Hohnke in not supporting the overall idea of a moratorium, but supporting the amendments. This was consistent, he explained, with the legislative role of “making something bad less bad.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he supported the sound logic that Taylor had used, saying that a PUD is a customized form of zoning that gave the council great discretion.

Anglin weighed in against excluding PUDs from the moratorium, saying that they reflected a radical change to a neighborhood. Rapundalo objected to the way that Anglin had characterized PUDs, saying that Anglin implied that PUDs were inherently bad and negative. It does a disservice to the PUD designation, said Rapundalo, to suggest they’re all bad.

Mayor John Hieftje posed a hypothetical: What if the study committee finished its work in two weeks? Then anyone would still be free to bring a PUD proposal forward next week. [This seemed to be a different way of making the same point that Hohnke had made earlier – for a PUD, there'd be no material effect on what could eventually be proposed.]

A discussion ensued about whether amendment 4 was in part redundant – if amendment 3 meant that all PUDs were exempt from the moratorium. The city attorney and staff were called on to interpret. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked if it might not be possible to find wording that didn’t require the interpretation of the city attorney. The word “all” was inserted into amendment 3, with councilmembers indicating that they would delete the specific reference to Casa Dominick’s and The Moravian when amendment 4 was considered.

While the wording change and the plan to delete specific reference to two PUDs in amendment 4 seemed like a technicality, it appeared to change Briere’s mind about her vote. She said that the discussion had provided some clarity – it would be all PUDs that would be exempted, not just two specific projects.

Outcome: Taylor’s amendment 3 passed on a roll call vote, with dissent from Anglin.

With the change to amendment 4 to reflect only exemption of the City Place project (the other projects being subsumed under amendment 3 as PUDs), councilmembers focused their deliberations on that project. Hieftje led off by saying that a moratorium on development was not the best mechanism to apply to the City Place project, if the intent was to protect the houses there. Why not? The moratorium on new development did not include a prohibition against demolition. Plus, said Hieftje, a failure to exempt City Place provided some legal exposure for the city.

Briere prefaced her argument for exempting the project from the moratorium by saying, “I don’t think there are many people who think I love this project.” Briere then articulated a view that was echoed by many others: In postponing the City Place matter-of-right project at its previous meeting, the city council had made a commitment to the developer that he could bring it back with 35 days notice. If it were included in the moratorium, then that would reflect a failure to honor that commitment.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Rapundalo echoed much the same sentiment. Smith stressed that it was dangerous to deviate from the predictability of the regulatory process when someone goes down a path in good faith. Rapundalo noted, “There are such things as property rights,” adding, “Let’s be honest – it’s an attempt to stop a development.” Rapundalo cautioned that it would send a very chilling message to the broader community that Ann Arbor is closed for development.

Deliberations seemed to be covering much of the same ground when Higgins called the question – a parliamentary move that forces councilmembers to vote immediately on whether to continue discussion of the current motion, which in this case was amendment 4. Hieftje at first mistakenly asked for discussion on the calling of the question – and had to appeal to the city attorney for help. There is no discussion that’s attached to the calling of the question, and councilmembers voted on whether to continue deliberations. Hieftje, Hohnke, and Anglin voted against cutting off deliberations, with their colleagues forcing a vote on amendment 4.

Outcome: Taylor’s amendment 4 passed with dissent only from Anglin.

For the resolution on the moratorium, even as amended, there turned out to be little support. So the first part of Smith’s statement as she opened deliberations seemed mistaken in hindsight: “I sense I may be in the minority, but I can’t in good conscience send a message to the rest of the world that we’re not interested in growth in our city.” She noted that as the other aspects of the city’s zoning had been reviewed, no moratoria had been needed. This last point later was echoed by Higgins and Hohnke.

Derezinski also echoed Smith’s view, adding that he was concerned about potential litigation. If the moratorium did, in fact, pass muster, he said, then it would be in a court – and that would be expensive. He recalled that when he practiced law he had “a wonderful hourly rate.” He then described the amended resolution as an attempt to “put lipstick on a pig.”

Anglin said that by amending the resolution, council had said to residents that if they came forward with cogent arguments then they didn’t really count and their rights weren’t protected. As amended, Anglin said, he was not going to vote for the resolution, either.

Rapundalo said that his concern with the resolution was: What is the specific protection for people that needed to be put in place? The amendments, he said, gave him some comfort that the risk of legal exposure was diminished and he was thus willing to support it.

Taylor said that there were some other areas of R4C/R2A zoning districts besides the one where City Place was sited that should be considered – on Church, Tappan, and Hill streets.

Teall said the amendments went a long way but not all the way. For her, the moratorium was too broad.

Hohnke also characterized the moratorium as too broad a tool, and the concern being addressed – the incompatibility of master planning with zoning ordinances – did not rise to the level of health, safety and welfare. In any case, Hohnke said, it would not prevent demolition.

Briere, for her part, said that the moratorium applied to a much wider area than what had been the focus, namely Germantown. The area of the moratorium, she warned, was large enough that the decision should not be made based on the emotion of City Place in Germantown. A moratorium was the wrong tool, she said.

Outcome: The moratorium failed with only Rapundalo, Taylor and Leigh Greden voting yes.

Historic District Study Committee

A resolution sponsored by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) to establish a historic district study committee was added to the agenda on the day of the council’s meeting. The council had considered a similar resolution in December 2008. One difference between the resolution the council considered on Thursday and the one it rejected in December was the inclusion Thursday for a moratorium on demolition in the study area.

Another difference was that the study area was considerably smaller:

… the area encompassing properties that abut the east and west sides of South Fourth Avenue and South Fifth Avenue, bounded by the East William Historic District on the north, and Packard Street on the south, and also including 209, 215, and 219 Packard Street;

Hohnke led off deliberations by reminding his colleagues that they’d considered something similar before, and that this time the area was smaller. The study committee could extend the boundaries for a recommended historic district, he said, if they thought it was appropriate to do so.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that the proposal raised a lot of intriguing issues, but given that it had just been added to the agenda that day, he had not had a chance to look at it. He thus moved to postpone the decision. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Leigh Greden (Ward 3) supported Derezinski’s effort to postpone. Greden said he’d like to see a map. His colleagues pointed out that a map was included in the meeting packet.

Marica Higgins (Ward 4) said she was not in favor of a postponement. She noted that they’d said back in December 2008 they’d bring back a resolution if the proposed study area was smaller – it was smaller.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Honhke got clarification that the study committee had to be established first and then, at a separate meeting, the members appointed.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) initially said that he was in favor of a postponement to expand the scope of the study area, but when it was clarified that the committee could recommend a wider area for establishment of a historic district than the study area, he was content to vote on it that night.

The clarification on the boundary issue came from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who said she could not support a postponement based on the boundary issue.

Derezinski said that while he was glad that some councilmembers had had a chance to consider the proposal, he had not, because it had been sprung the same night. He contrasted the process for the moratorium on development in R4C areas, which had stretched over four meetings. Here, the council was being asked to make a decision in 10 minutes. He said he wanted to hear staff input. “I’m asking for 12 days [until the next meeting],” he said. Derezinski noted that while it was a similar proposal to the one council had considered in December 2008, it was not the same one.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), responding in part to Derezinski, weighed in against postponement. He noted there’d been a great deal of discussion on the point and that he considered it to be a subset of the previous proposal and thus felt adequately prepared to vote.

Mayor John Hieftje then reduced the talk to a very practical level: How long does it take to issue a demolition permit? The implication here was that a property owner who wanted to demolish a building within the study area might have enough time to accomplish that, if the council were to postpone the decision until its next meeting. Wendy Rampson, with the city’s systems planning unit, estimated that for a residential building it would probably take around two weeks, including the utility shutoffs.

Hohnke got clarification from the city attorney’s staff that a site plan is not tied to demolition. So the commitment the council made to the City Place developer to bring back the matter-of-right site plan with 35 days notice could still be honored.

Assessing the 12 days they’d have to wait until next council meeting and the estimated two weeks it would take to get a demolition permit, Taylor concluded: “That’s pretty close.”

Outcome: The motion to postpone consideration of the historic district study committee failed, with Smith, Derezinski, Rapundalo, and Greden voting for it.

Faced with the need to vote that night on the study committee, Smith criticized the proposal with its accompanying moratorium on demolition as “punitive.” She said that the council had set aside the City Place matter-of-right project, with the expectation that the PUD version of the project would be worked on as a part of the regulatory process – an expectation that would not be met with the creation of a historic district study committee.

Derezinski agreed with Smith, saying that it sends a “bad message.” He said it was “aimed at one project.”

Taylor Hohnke argued for the resolution he’d sponsored, saying, “This is within the rules of the game. It’s within our arsenal of options.” While he allowed that he was not sure if he would ultimately support a historic district for the area, Taylor Hohnke said he was eager to learn what the study committee had to say.

Hieftje was blunt in saying that the matter-of-right project was a “lever” in order to achieve a PUD down the road. The developer, Hieftje contended, was using every tool in the toolbox, and the establishment of a historic district study committee was a tool in council’s tool box.

Outcome: The establishment of a historic district study committee passed, with dissent from Smith and Derezinski.

Near North PUD

Near North is a planned unit development – as contrasted with a “matter-of-right” project. As such it does not conform to the existing zoning, and the city council’s role will be to assess whether the public benefit offered by the project is adequate to justify a rezoning so that it can be built.

The building, proposed for the east side of North Main Street just south of Summit Street, comprises 40 residential units (44 bedrooms total) to be built in a five-story apartment building with 2,950 square feet of commercial space and 1,645 square feet of office space attached to the building. Forty parking spaces would be provided below the building, with an additional 10 spaces not under the building.

All of the units are proposed to be affordable under Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) standards, which target rents for income levels at or below 50% of area median income (AMI). In addition, 14 of the units are designated as “supportive housing” for individuals having no more than 30% of AMI.

Several people spoke during the public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting – this was not the official public hearing on the matter. That will be scheduled when the proposal comes before council for a second and final reading.

Near North Public Comment Reserved Time

Bill Godfrey: Godfrey is a partner in Three Oaks Group, the team that is developing the Near North project. He stressed that the project consists of 100% affordable housing units. He also emphasized that the public engagement process had been extensive, which had included three design charettes and three planning commission meetings. That process he characterized as constructive and collaborative – one that had resulted in many changes to the design. He allowed that the 5-2 vote for the project by the planning commission was a recommendation for denial, but said that commissioner Craig Borum, who’d been absent for the vote, had indicated via email that he would have voted for the project, had he been present. Later, during council deliberations, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – who is the city council’s representative to planning commission and was also absent from the Near North vote – said he, too, would have voted for the project.

Kate Warner: Warner introduced herself as a retired University of Michigan urban planning professor, who’d previously served on the housing policy board, the affordable housing commission and co-directed the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corporation. She said that in her 35 years of study and work to increase the supply of affordable housing, she’d rarely seen factors of land use and economics so well aligned as with Near North. Its moderate density, she said, made it appropriate for alocation in an “interface zone” between the neighborhoods and downtown, which is proximate to the pool of service jobs in the downtown that could employ residents. Its mixed commercial use component strengthened its economics, she said.

Mary Browning: Browning introduced herself as speaking on behalf of the Religious Action for Affordable Housing (RAAH). She reported that her son has an efficiency apartment with Avalon Housing and expressed her hope that the council would approved the Near North project, in which Avalon is a partner. She pointed out that the Delonis Center – the downtown homeless shelter – can only be successful if there is housing to which shelter residents can eventually move.

Michael Appel: Appel is the executive director of Avalon Housing. He emphasized that the 100% affordable nature of the project set an unprecedented high standard for affordable housing in PUD projects. The design with a mixture of uses and its density, he contended, were right for the location. The moderate density, he said, was not as high as the proposed D2 zoning district closer to downtown and not as low as the residential areas further from downtown. He concluded by saying that he knew they had not achieved the support for the project from the immediate neighbors, but that they would continue to listen and participate in dialogue.

Lisa Marra: Marra spoke in favor of Near North, saying that there was no doubt about the quality of services that Avalon would offer. Addressing concerns about the scale of the project, she noted that the neighborhood shows a variety of different scales and that the new building would have a positive impact on that mix of scales. Damian Farrell, the architect for the project, would not site the building poorly, she said. The North Main corridor, she continued, does not currently convey the spirit of the town, which has historic homes coexisting with green new buildings. The Near North project, she said, would serve as a symbol that the community is serious about its goals.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge introduced himself as a progressive, Christian-guided Democrat. He called on the council, the residents of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and southeast Michigan, to recognize the need for enlightened development. He encouraged the council to invite expert economists and leaders of local economic institutions to study the situation. We cannot wait, he said, to begin addressing the need for affordable housing and transportation. He suggested that the council begin with a reform of site plan requirements for new developments that would include a human rights amendment.

Near North: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) led off deliberations by characterizing the project as “not new to us.” He’d had a chance to see the project in a fair amount of detail already, as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, which had recommended denial of the project on a 5-2 vote for it. Even though it had a majority of votes for it, the failure to reach a 6-vote majority from the 9-member body meant that it had been recommended for denial. Derezinski said he “pled guilty” to being absent for that vote, but would have voted for it.

Derezinski said he felt that better than 90% agreement had been achieved on the project among all parties and that it was a case of being willing to accept a three-quarter loaf.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) indicated that he’d support the project at this first reading, but wanted to continue to listen to the public and the developer. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she agreed with Greden’s sentiments, but said that she did not think a three-quarter loaf was enough – she’d prefer nine-tenths of a loaf.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that the success of Avalon Housing depended on its integration into the neighborhood. He noted that there were two Avalon houses in his own neighborhood that were not noticeable as low-income supportive housing. He said that the kind of harmony and agreement expressed by the developer was not true, saying that there was still disagreement with the project from residents.

Anglin said that even though an alternate proposal had been brought forward at the 11th hour, he hoped that it would be considered by the developer. [In The Chronicle's caucus report, we noted that North Central Property Owners Association representatives at that meeting indicated that they had developed an alternative proposal that would have roughly 30 units at around the same size (750 sq ft) as the developer’s version. A key difference would be that it would have a maximum of three stories, as contrasted with Near North, which includes a section of the structure that is five stories tall.]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said that she would support the project at this first reading because of the extent of the affordability offered by the housing units.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) advised that the minutes from the planning commission meeting when Derezinski had been absent from the vote indicated that only Derezinksi had been absent – which was not consistent with the statement made by Michael Appel that commissioner Craig Borum had also been absent, but would have voted for Near North. She asked the city administrator, Roger Fraser, to follow up to see that the minutes were corrected.

Higgins also emphasized that whether someone would have voted for the project or not did not change the fact that the project had failed to win the planning commission’s recommendation. Still, she said that the levels of affordable housing offered by the project made her more than willing to move the proposal to a second reading.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted the importance of the continued dialog between the developer and the neighborhood group. She characterized the issue as not the affordability of the housing, but rather the massing of the building.

Mayor John Hieftje reported that he’d met with representatives of NCPOA and had appreciated ttheir alternate proposal. He said he found the levels of affordability very attractive.

Outcome: The Near North PUD approved at first reading. Final approval will not come until its second reading before council, which will be accompanied by a public hearing.

Exemption Certificate for AVL Inc.

There was a public hearing on the receipt of the application for an exemption certificate, but the council did not have an action item on its agenda.

Karen Sidney: Sidney noted that while the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, had just given a presentation on the doom and gloom of the city’s financial picture, the exemption certificate was a tax break, which “the rest of us pay for.” Sidney pointed to the $38 million in Single Business Tax abatement provided by the state to Google, as well as the free parking spaces provided by the city of Ann Arbor, but asked what Google had provided. [The internet company had said it expected to hire 1,000 people over five years, but in the first three years, they've only brought around 250 on board at its Ann Arbor location.]

Thomas Partridge: Partridge asked that all such certificates have a return on investment clause attached.

During his communications from council turn, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), objected to what he said was a characterization by Sidney of the certificate as writing a check and handing it over. He said there’s a prescribed procedure and that the step to be considered by the council that night was simply the acceptance of the application. When the details of the certificate were worked out, he explained, they would reflect the city’s policy of what community elements are expected.

Communications from Council: Driving and Cell Phones

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) reported that he and his Ward 2 colleague, Tony Derezinski, had asked the city attorney’s office to draft an ordinance to prohibit cell phone usage and texting while driving. He owned up to currently being an offender, but said that New York City had passed a similar ordinance and that it was a public safety issue. It will likely come before council at its Aug. 17 meeting.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the council’s agenda was now time-stamped, which meant that it was easier to distinguish different versions of that document.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reported on a “wonderful thing” that had happened in Ward 5, namely the Michigan Inn on Jackson near I-94 had been demolished. “Let’s hope something good goes up,” he concluded.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reported that the rules committee had been meeting over the last several months and that there would be a need for the council as a whole to have a work session to have a dialogue on rules changes.

Higgins also advised that the council’s administrative committee was asking that councilmembers fill out their surveys on the performance review of the city administrator (Roger Fraser) and the city attorney (Stephen Postema), as it was time for their annual assessments. [Both of these positions report to the city council.]

Mayor John Hieftje explained his rationale for objecting to the unison choral singing that had taken place at the previous council meeting: It could not be tolerated, he contended, because enforcing a rule against multiple people speaking at the same time was the only way catcalls and heckling could be prevented.

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, Aug. 17, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

From left to right: Ron Mucha, Greg Jones, David Strosberg, Kevin McDonald (city attorney's office). Mucha and Strosberg are with Morningside LLC, while Jones, a former chair of Ann Arbor's Historic District Commission, is the architect on the parking lot.

By the conclusion of its Thursday evening meeting, Ann Arbor’s historic district commission had denied the application by Morningside LLC  for permission to demolish two houses on the Old West Side.

Morningside wanted the option for demolition of the structures to give them more flexibility in the marketing of a 19,000 square foot greenhouse space adjoining the Liberty Lofts condominium project. The plan was to add additional parking spaces, if a tenant requested them.

The commission took three votes on three different motions related to the application for demolition, but was not able to pass any of them. The votes all split 3-3 among the six commissioners who attended the meeting. Given the failure to pass any of the motions, the body had fully considered the application and thus acted on it without approving it, which meant that the application failed.

What were all those motions about?

Review

Jill Thacher, historic preservation coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor, began the Old Business section of the meeting by reviewing what had happened at the last commission meeting, in February, when consideration of the application by Morningside had begun. Morningside had sought permission to demolish three properties on Second Street: a service station and two adjacent houses. [See previous Chronicle coverage.]

This past Thursday, Thacher ticked quickly through the main points of her staff presentation from the previous meeting – almost all of it was material the commission had seen before. The only exceptions were some new photographs, which Thacher had taken at the request of some commissioners to depict the relationship of the two houses (on the east side of Second Street) to the streetscape shared by the houses on the opposite side of the street.

Additional photos of the site were taken and displayed at the HDC's second meeting related to this project.

The commission had determined that the service station was a non-contributing resource in the Old West Side historic district and approved a “certificate of appropriateness” for its demolition. The commission had also found that the two adjacent houses were, in contrast, contributing resources to the district. It could therefore not issue a certificate of appropriateness for their demolition – it’s not an option under historic district regulations.

But permission to demolish the houses could be granted in the form of a “notice to proceed.” Under the commission’s bylaws, however, a “notice to proceed” for demolition of a property cannot be granted at the same commission meeting when that property was found to be a contributing resource. For that reason, the application had been postponed from the February meeting.

At their recent March 12 meeting, the commission found itself focused on the question of the two houses, which it had found to be contributing structures at the previous meeting. There were three motions considered:

1. to deny a certificate of appropriateness for demolition
2. to approve a notice to proceed with demolition
3. to issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition (not technically possible under historic district regulations)

The possibility of considering not just the first two but also the third one was suggested near the end of the meeting by Kevin McDonald, assistant city attorney, who was at the meeting with his colleague Christopher Frost. They had led the commission in a closed session before the meeting started, presumably to follow up on the legal advice that Thacher said would be requested at the previous month’s meeting about the criteria in the city code for a notice to proceed:

8:416. Notice to proceed.
(1) Work within a historic district shall be permitted through the issuance of a notice to proceed by the commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions:
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structure’s occupants.
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.
(d) Retaining the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.

At February’s meeting, Ron Mucha of Morningside had objected to a comment of Thacher’s in connection with the possibilities that would be available at March’s meeting, when she said that a notice to proceed could only be issued for Morningside’s application under criterion (d). Mucha wanted all options open for consideration. Based on that exchange, Thacher had said clarification would be sought from the city attorney’s office.

Who Was Not There

The 3-3 split on the votes the commission took resulted from the absence of the seventh commissioner, Robert White. At the February meeting, White had joined Diane Giannola in voting against the motion declaring the two houses to be contributing resources to the historic district.

The arithmetic of majorities in votes among odd numbers means that White’s presence would have resulted in passing one of the first two motions that was introduced – on the assumption that White voted with one or the other of the 3-person blocks and not “switched sides.” Otherwise put, had White been present and the application considered by a full board, the application would likely have been explicitly decided (approved or denied) through passing of some specific motion.

Mayor John Hieftje’s remarks made at city council’s Feb. 2 meeting had underscored the importance of having a full board consider the application, and he had thus offered to council the appointment of Patrick McCauley in a one-step (i.e., shortened) process, which council confirmed. As it turned out, a missing member of the commission probably had a material effect at least on the mechanism by which the application was decided – through a kind of “default” as opposed to a specific motion that was passed.

Who Was There

The commissioners who split 3-3 on the application seeking permission to demolish the two houses were Sarah Shotwell, Ellen Ramsburgh, Patrick McCauley, Diane Giannola, Jim Henrichs and Kristina Glusac. In each vote, the votes of Shotwell, Ramsburgh and McCauley reflected a position against granting the application, while the votes of Giannola, Henrichs and Glusac reflected a position in favor of it.

Who Else Was There

Those in the audience who had a public point of view on the application were, like the commissioners, split 3-3. On the developer’s side there were Ron Mucha and David Strosberg of Morningside, and Greg Jones, who’s the architect on the project. From the public were Ray Detter, speaking on behalf of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, Christine Crockett, who spoke on behalf of the Historic Preservation Alliance as well as the Old Fourth Ward Association, and Lis Knibbe, who represented herself.

From the point of view of the commission’s rules for speaking slots, however, it was not a 3-3 split. In a unanimous vote at the start of the meeting, the commissioners determined to re-open the public hearing to hear additional public comments, which meant that anyone present could address the commission for three minutes. For the developer, one three-minute slot was also allotted, which came before the public hearing.

Shotwell explained to Mucha, Strosberg and Jones that one of them would need to be chosen to speak for three minutes. At this, Mucha said that they’d each prepared to speak for three minutes, and on different specific points. He made a bid for a compromise by suggesting that two of them be allowed to speak for three minutes apiece. Shotwell granted Mucha’s proposal that two of the developer’s team be allowed to speak, but held firm on the three-minute time limit for total speaking time that was allotted to the developer’s team.

Jones and Mucha wound up sharing the single slot. Then came the public hearing during which Detter, Crockett and Knibbe spoke for three minutes apiece. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Shotwell explained to the developer that one of the prior speakers could speak for their unused time from the first turn, plus the member of the team who had not spoken would have the opportunity to rebut commentary from the public. Henrichs moved for a brief recess to sort out who would speak for the developer and for how long. McDonald, from the city attorney’s office, provided counsel to the commissioners and clarification for the developer during the recess.

What the Developer and the Public Had to Say

Greg Jones: Jones emphasized that the possibilities for development on the property was limited, because of its location in the floodway and the floodplain. Some of the historic character of the houses had been compromised, he said. Further, he pointed out that historic district regulations permit modifications to accommodate new uses. He proposed that the character-defining feature of the block is its industrial scale.

Ron Mucha: Mucha stressed that they believed the application for notice to proceed met both criteria (b) and (d) [see above] and that they met both criteria equally. Mucha stressed that the same people who had appeared at the previous meeting in favor of the project would not be appearing to speak, because they had already done so. Further, said Mucha, 80 people had already expressed their support for the project in writing and were on the record with that support. Noting that Detter and Crockett were in the audience, he said that he imagined that they would still be against the project. No one in the actual neighborhood, said Mucha, came out against it.

Christine Crockett: Crockett said that based on her own experience, houses can be restored. She described the Second Street area as the celebration of a working-class neighborhood that was a part of the built fabric of the community. She pointed out to the commissioners that they did not have a site plan before them, and therefore did not have anything concrete that they could consider as a “public good” in the context of the criteria (a)-(d) for issuance of a notice to proceed. All they had, Crockett said, was a wish and a prayer that something might happen. She stressed that it’s not a popularity contest.

Ray Detter: Detter said he’d just left a meeting [about the project formerly known as The Madison] and suggested that everyone at that meeting would have attended if they had known there was going to be a public hearing. He referenced several letters that the commission had received, including one from the Old West Side Association, all opposed to the project. He contended that the Liberty Lofts residents had simply said they would not oppose the project, but he said they don’t support it. [In his turn to rebut, Mucha would later read aloud from the Liberty Lofts Condominium Association letter sent to the commission indicating that the association supported the project.]

Lis Knibbe: Knibbe spoke specifically to the criteria (a)-(d) for issuing a notice to proceed. She said that the most salient one was (b), which talks about structures being in the way of a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community. The question, she said, had to do with the alternatives. In this case, it meant alternatives to creating parking in place of the two houses. She suggested the parking lot across Liberty at 415 W. Washington as an existing alternative and suggested some kind of expansion that could provide housing and parking. Knibbe allowed that it’s conceivable that with an agreement in hand with someone willing to rent the greenhouse space, one could imagine making a case under (b) for a notice to proceed with demolition. But without a user in place, she said, the developer hadn’t met the standard.

(Rebuttal) Ron Mucha: Mucha took exception to Detter’s suggestion that the residents of Liberty Lofts didn’t actually support the project, but rather simply didn’t oppose it. Mucha read aloud a brief section of a letter of support from the Liberty Lofts Condominium Association: “The board of the Liberty Lofts Condominium Association supports the proposal by Morningside dot dot dot.” He said that he believed that the Downtown Citizens Advisory Commission, on whose behalf Detter spoke, included a couple of residents of Liberty Lofts.

Mucha stressed that for his part, the removal of the structures was contingent on finding a user for the adjoining greenhouse space (more than 19,000 square feet of retail area). If there were a client who wanted the space “as is,” he said, Morningside would not have any interest in demolishing the houses. As far as the alternatives for parking elsewhere, he said that the various alternatives had been explained to any potential tenant but that so far, none of them had found it to be adequate.

(Rebuttal) David Strosberg: Strosberg described how the greenhouse property for which parking was now being sought had been acquired in 2003. He said that Morningside had been marketing the property to the world since that time. In the course of that diligent marketing, he said, a couple of potential tenants had expressed interest and the most serious of those wanted to make a contingency of making more parking available.

On investigation of the process for doing so [demolition of structures in a historic district], Strosberg said, they went away. The thought behind the current application was to be proactive after five years of not finding a user. He said he understood the sentiment against building more parking, but said that the realities of the marketplace are different. He described the greenhouse space as the largest single space in downtown Ann Arbor. Any potential tenant would look to a market well beyond walking and bicycling distance. He said that his company specializes in historic rehabilitation and that it’s best when such rehabilitation serves contemporary needs. That’s what Morningside had done with Liberty Lofts, he said.

Deliberations and Motions by the Commission

Motion – Deny Certificate of Appropriateness: The first motion, put forward by commissioner Ramsburgh, was to deny a certificate of appropriateness.

Commissioner Giannola invited her colleagues to approach this as a “sacrifice” of the two houses for the benefit of the Liberty Lofts project, and for historic preservation in general. Historic preservation, she said, is not just to rehabilitate specific structures. She described Liberty Lofts as a “shining star” of historic rehabilitation, with the residential side a viable enterprise, but the commercial side [the greenhouse space] not yet viable.

Even though the two houses are “contributing resources,” Giannola continued, it’s not like they are the only two such houses. The more important goal is the rehabilitation of an adjacent structure [the greenhouse space]. If the commercial side of the property were to fail, she said it would deter other developers from trying to rehabilitate historic properties, and that affects the goal of historic preservation in general. The houses are a deterrent, she contended, not to just this project, but to other projects.

Sarah Shotwell, chair of the commission, described herself as the the biggest fan of rehab and reuse. But in this particular case, she said, the reason she felt strongly about retaining the houses did not have to do with the houses themselves, but the fact that they are characteristic of so many of the houses in Ann Arbor. They are, she said, one of the artifacts of residential homes being on the same block as industrial structures. It’s about preserving the character and context of the neighborhood, she said. She said she’d love to see a viable building on the commercial side, but couldn’t be in favor of removing the houses.

Shotwell rejected Giannola’s argument that the denial of permission to demolish the houses could have a negative impact on historic preservation in general. Even though the property had sat vacant for some time, she did not think it would be indefinite. Based on what she’d seen in other cities, she concluded, she did not think that this denial would ruin all other Ann Arbor efforts at rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings.

Commissioner Henrichs stressed that maintaining vitality is a key component to rehabilitation projects. There has to be an economic vitality to neighborhoods and communities, he said. Henrichs also asked that the criteria (b) and (d) be reviewed and be read into the record.

Giannola returned to her point that historic preservation is about more than just preserving buildings –  there is an economic benefit to the community. She suggested that buildings which are of ordinary quality could be sacrificed to provide for new development. But the new development, she said, is not to make a 7-11, it’s to make another historic building [the greenhouse space] more viable. Giannola also pointed out that the developer had said he was not going to demolish the houses unless he had a tenant who insisted on the additional parking spaces.

Commissioner McCauley suggested that parking might not be the exclusive reason the space is not being rented and characterized the need for parking as hypothetical. If the commission determined that it was a substantial benefit to the community to add parking spaces, then pretty much any business that had a vacancy could bring the same argument, he said. There’s a consensus that less surface parking is better and that a surface parking lot is not in the public interest. [Editor's note: The parking garage recently authorized downtown is to be built underground.]

Commissioner Glusac described the space in the greenhouse as unique, with its almost 20,000 square feet of retail space. There’s not another space like it in downtown Ann Arbor, she said, so the commission should look at it in that fashion.

Commissioner Ramsburgh cautioned that they were steering away from their responsibilities as historic district commissioners. The district was set up, she reminded her colleagues, to preserve and protect. It was the first working-class district in the country, and the context of worker housing juxtaposed with the places where they worked was important, she said. It’s not appropriate, she said, to disregard the houses because they’re ordinary. That would be to disregard the importance of the whole district.

Rambsurgh said that if the developer came back with a concrete proposal, with all the site plans in order [as specified under condition (b)] she would consider it. To demolish historic resources without a proposal is a travesty, she said. Responding in part to Glusac’s contention that the space was unique, she offered South Main Market as a similar space with only 60 parking spaces, no other auxilliary spaces, but was very viable. There were similar situations that have tenants in them, she said, and she did not believe Morningside wouldn’t be able to find a tenant. The commission’s  jurisdiction, concluded Ramsburgh, is to preserve the resources.

Outcome: The motion failed on the  3-3 split already described

Motion – Issue a Notice to Proceed: Giannola moved the issuance of a notice to proceed. Shotwell asked her to specify a subsection. Including both (b) and (d), Shotwell said, meant that the project would need to satisfy both subsections, but it clearly did not satisfy (b). At that Ramsburgh suggested that (b) be included in the motion. Shotwell cautioned that this wouldn’t be “a fair motion.”  The commissioners settled on (d) for the motion.

There was much back and forth on the motion, but it covered much of the same ground as the previous deliberations.

Ann Arbor assistant city attorneys Kevin McDonald (foreground) and Christopher Frost (background).

Outcome: The motion failed on the  3-3 split already described.

Motion – Issue a Certificate of Appropriateness: Shotwell declared the commission at an impasse and queried Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office about what the implications for the status of the application were. McDonald suggested that to clarify the record, the commission could consider a motion to issue a certificate of appropriateness. Shotwell initially resisted the idea, saying that it was not possible to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of a structure. [Editor's note: This was the same understanding of the situation The Chronicle had, based on the description from February's meeting.]

However, Kristine Kidorf, who consults for the city on historic preservation matters, pointed out that there were no rules about what motions could be made. The commission then went through the exercise of entertaining the motion.

Outcome: The motion failed on the 3-3 split already described.

What Did it Mean

There was then uncertainty among of the commissioners about the overall status of the application, given the various votes. Given that it was Day 51 of the 60 days the commission had to act on the application, there seemed to be an interest in making sure that the commission had “acted.”

Commissioner Henrichs seemed to briefly moot the possibility of passing a motion issuing a notice to proceed that would be contingent on the developer having a tenant for the greenhouse space who required additional parking. However, the possibility was not pursued by him or other commissioners – it wasn’t clear from the brief mention by Henrichs whether the option was technically possible.

McDonald clarified that by entertaining the motion to issue the certificate of appropriateness, the body had entertained the possible positive motions and had thereby fully considered the application. Otherwise put, we conclude, it would not be possible to claim that the body had failed to act on the application within the required time period.

The Question of Contingent Demoliton

One of the issues left unclarified for The Chronicle after the meeting concluded was the question of what tools are available for preventing “needless demolition.”

Mucha had assured the commission that the permission to demolish the two houses would be used only if necessary, and had alluded at the commission’s February meeting to the economic barriers to doing so: cost of land acquisition (only an option is held to purchase some of the land) and construction of the parking area itself. Further, Mucha had pointed out, the construction of the parking lot would entail a site plan review by city planning staff. The votes and deliberations of some  commissioners seemed to indicate that they were not convinced by the barriers on Morningside’s side to demolition. We thus considered what tools are available for the city to control demolition, even if a notice to proceed with demolition is approved.

Site Plan Review: The Chronicle looked into whether the possibility that the “needless” demolition could be prevented on the city’s side by planning staff. Could a site plan for the parking lot be denied, based on the developer’s failure to have a tenant in the greenhouse space? Answer: no. As long as the site plan meets code, it’s not possible to deny the plan on the basis of whether some contractual arrangement with a third party exists.

The demolition itself could be undertaken without a site plan review, although the site could not be used for parking until a site plan specifying that use had been approved.

Contingent Notice to Proceed: Henrichs’ briefly-entertained idea to make the issuance of a notice to proceed with demolition contingent on Morningside’s identification of a tenant for the greenhouse space is, in fact, a tool available to the historic district commission.