The Ann Arbor Chronicle » Heritage Row

City Place: ZBA Appeal Filed

Chronicle Staff — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 23:00:52 +0000

This past week, the block of Fifth Avenue south of William Street received renewed attention from city of Ann Arbor planning and development officials.

On Friday, Nov. 4, the developer of the City Place residential project filed demolition permit applications for seven addresses: 407, 411, 415, 419, 427, 433 and 437 S. Fifth Ave. The demolition permit applications will undergo flood plain review, grading review, historic review, plan review, and zoning review.

Submission of those seven demolition permit applications came after a filing with the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals earlier in the week (on Nov. 1) by owners of nearby properties. The three-point appeal challenges two decisions made by the city council and one made by the city planning manager in connection with the City Place project. The residential project would construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot, offering a total of 24 units and 144 bedrooms.

The council decisions challenged in the appeal were made at the Oct. 17, 2011 meeting and were subsequently reconsidered with the same outcome at the Oct. 24, 2011 meeting. One council decision involved the waiver of a landscaping buffer requirement. The other decision involved approval of revised site-plan elevation drawings.

Also the subject of the appeal is a decision by the city planning manager to consider revisions of the City Place site plan as “minor revisions,” which can be handled administratively.

The site of City Place has a long and contentious history. An alternative project called Heritage Row had been proposed – but twice rejected – by the city council in the summer of 2010. Heritage Row would have retained the seven houses in some form and constructed three apartment buildings behind them. The city council also rejected a recommendation from a historic district study committee that a historic district be established for the area. A recent attempt to revive a version of the Heritage Row project failed, when the new owner of the City Place project concluded it was not financially viable.

The zoning board of appeals (ZBA) is provided with broad powers by state statute. From the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act 110 of 2006: “It [the ZBA] shall hear and decide appeals from and review any administrative order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official or body charged with enforcement of a zoning ordinance adopted under this act.”

Under the rules of the ZBA, the most likely date on which the appeal would be heard is Dec. 14. (The next regular meeting of the ZBA is scheduled for Nov. 16, 2011.) The nine-member body consists of Candice Briere, Wendy Carman, David Gregorka, Carol A. Kuhnke, Sabra Briere, Erica Briggs, Alex Milshteyn, Jason Boggs and Perry Zielak.

The ZBA is chaired by Kuhnke, an attorney with the firm Davis & Kuhke, P.C.

Candice Briere (no relation to Sabra Briere) works for ~~Atwell-Hicks~~ Atwell, a real estate consulting firm. Wendy Carman serves on a city committee that has been reviewing zoning regulations for the R4C districts. David Gregorka is vice president of operations at HealthMedia Inc. Sabra Briere is one of a maximum of two city councilmembers who can serve on the board. Erica Briggs also serves on the city planning commission. Alex Milshteyn is a real estate broker, as is Jason Boggs. Perry Zielak works at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy.

Column: City Council as a Historic Body

Dave Askins — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:28:57 +0000

By now, most Chronicle readers are likely weary of reading about the controversy involving Heritage Row versus City Place – two proposed developments for Fifth Avenue south of William Street. For my part, I am certainly weary of writing about it. [timeline]

By way of brief recap, Heritage Row was a planned unit development for the site, which would have preserved a row of seven houses to historic district standards (in the version presented to the city council in summer 2010) and constructed three apartment buildings behind them. City Place is a “matter-of-right” project that will likely start construction in the next few weeks. [Most recent Chronicle coverage: "Chapter Added to Fifth Ave. Historic Saga"]

Why will we likely see the demolition of those seven houses instead of their preservation in some form? At the city council’s Oct. 24 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) called it a failure by the city council to reach a compromise – on something that was less than ideal, but still reasonable.

The functioning of the city council as a body is an issue that has emerged as part of the Ward 2 city council race this year, which is being contested between independent Jane Lumm and Democratic incumbent Stephen Rapundalo. Lumm served on the council in the mid-1990s and has faced criticism from Rapundalo for being part of a group that he contends was characterized by brinksmanship and an inability to work constructively despite disagreements.

The functioning of the city council as a body is one of the themes of a email message written earlier today to members of the city council by Larry Kestenbaum. As far as I’m aware, Kestenbaum is not involved in the campaign of either Ward 2 candidate – that’s not his home ward, and he is not listed as a supporter on either of the candidates’ websites. In any case, the specific point of his email message was about the demolition of the seven houses on Fifth Avenue.

Kestenbaum is known to many in the community as the Washtenaw County clerk, an elected position. But he was not writing to the council as the clerk. He’s also an attorney who has a degree in land use and historic preservation from Cornell University. He served on Ann Arbor’s historic district commission in the 1990s. Also in that decade, he taught a course in historic preservation law at Eastern Michigan University. He lives in Ann Arbor.

Though his message to the council comes now, after the decisions on the South Fifth Avenue development seem to have finally been made, Kestenbaum did not exactly come late to the party as far as expressing his views on that area of the city. Writing on the now defunct ArborUpdate in August 2008, Kestenbaum stated: “I’d redesignate all of the former individual historic properties that were left unprotected after that bad court decision on 9/11/2001. And I think the area immediately south of William Street, along Fifth and Hamilton for example, should be a [historic] district.”

I think Kestenbaum’s recent email is unlikely to persuade any member of the council to take the action he suggests. But in my view, it’s a particularly well-written exposition of the idea that a city council is fairly judged by what it accomplishes as a body, not by the individual actions of its members. I think it’s important to preserve that exposition in The Chronicle’s archives.

It’s also important to preserve in the archives if it turns out that Kestenbaum’s message does manage to convince the council to set a process in motion to establish a historic district for the area.

And that’s why we’re sharing it with readers. Kestenbaum’s message begins after the jump.

Kestenbaum’s Email

The following email was sent to all councilmembers on Oct. 27, 2011 and forwarded to The Chronicle.

I write, not as County Clerk, but as a citizen of Ann Arbor.

My daughter is a student at Herbert M. Slauson Middle School.

Herbert M. Slauson (1853-1936), the namesake of that school, was Ann Arbor’s superintendent of schools for many years. It was under his leadership that our schools moved into the 20th century, taking on an enormously larger and more discerning population along the way.

Mr. Slauson lived for many years and died at 433 S. Fifth Avenue, one of the houses in the City Place/Heritage Row controversy. Samuel Beakes, the congressman for whom Beakes Street is named, also lived in one of those houses.

I spoke with some of the staff, students, and teachers at Slauson Middle School. They were shocked to hear that the City Council had passed up the opportunity to preserve the Slauson house for future generations.

What has happened, as I wrote in a previous email, is that the council has, by default, chosen the worst possible alternative for this site. By your action and inaction, you are leaving a scar in the middle of Ann Arbor.

I know that each of you want to take me aside to say, “Larry, I voted …” or “I did my best to …” But that is not enough.

A city council is not judged by the good intentions of its members. It is judged by what it accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, as a body.

Each one of you is well qualified to sit where you do, and most of you are my friends.

But your group process has completely failed. All I hear is mutual blame, and no investment in the group’s endeavor. Your total is much less than the sum of the parts.

I have been a defender and apologist for this council since long before any of you were members of it. I spoke up for you when your deliberations looked messy, or your priorities seemed odd. I spoke up for you when you were embarrassed about emails you exchanged. I have supported most of you in your individual campaigns.

But even I can see that difficulty with group process has gotten this body into trouble again and again. If you are worried about the council’s image, you should think back on all those events and hang your heads in shame.

Now, I understand that at a recent meeting, a proposal was made to revive the Germantown historic district, in a last-ditch effort to undo the damage you have done. I read with incredulity that some of you were angry that this was brought forward, and attempted to stop it from even being discussed.

Given that the current developer chose to enter into this project which already had a long and contentious history, I don’t see that he is owed “finality” on previous bad decisions. This is not someone who has owned the property for years and finds unexpected hurdles to development. It is entirely predictable that the city council would be interested in other development options.

Let me remind you that the city has vast powers to control development, and all kinds of tools that you’re not using here.

Here’s a very modest suggestion.

First, set out a territory that includes only the front portion of the seven properties, where the houses themselves stand. Reappoint your Germantown study committee and charge them with studying only that limited area. Since studies of the neighborhood have already been completed, it should not take long to create a recommendation. Give them a very short deadline, like 30 or 45 days, and limit the demolition moratorium to that time.

Second, while that is pending, rezone those properties to the higher density that is justified by close proximity to the transit center and the new underground parking facility.

You have ample legal justification to support both of those actions.

Under these different constraints, any reasonably creative developer ought to be able to come up with a profitable project, closely similar to the Heritage Row project, perhaps even without a PUD. And this combination of action would limit historic district protection and restriction to a specific ensemble of well-documented historic and architectural resources.

It’s time for the Ann Arbor City Council to redeem itself, to work together instead of separately, to show some creativity and compromise. Please don’t be so dug in to your past mistakes that you disdain positive outcomes in favor of scorched earth.

Larry Kestenbaum

Note: Dave Askins is editor of The Ann Arbor Chronicle. 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!

Chapter Added to Fifth Ave. Historic Saga

Dave Askins — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:53:05 +0000

Ann Arbor city council meeting (Oct. 24, 2011): Monday’s meeting was added to the council’s calendar specifically for the purpose of taking a second and final vote on the Heritage Row planned unit development (PUD). The project would have rehabbed or reconstructed a row of seven existing houses on Fifth Avenue, south of William Street, and built three new apartment buildings behind them.

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!

Fifth Ave. Historic District Re-Floated, Sinks

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:40:56 +0000

At its Oct. 24, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered but rejected a proposal to reappoint a historic district study committee for an area along Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor. Subsequently, a separate proposal to enact an emergency moratorium on demolition in the proposed study area was withdrawn. It would have included an area roughly from William south to Madison along Fourth and Fifth avenues, as well as some addresses on Packard Street.

It was another chapter in a years-long saga about the future of the area involving two proposed projects for the same site with the same owner – City Place and Heritage Row. [timeline] Now appearing imminent is construction of City Place, which would demolish seven existing houses and construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot. It was Mike Anglin (Ward 5) who pushed the historic district proposals forward.

An area in the same vicinity had previously been studied by a committee, which resulted in a recommendation to establish a historic district 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 it needed.

The council had established that study committee and 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 the developer, Alex de Parry.

When the historic district committee was established, 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. At their Oct. 24, 2011 meeting, councilmembers cited 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 that councilmembers rejected the Fourth/Fifth Avenue historic district, now nearly 15 months ago, they reconsidered a vote on the Heritage Row planned unit development. 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.

Voting for the establishment of a historic district study committee on Oct. 24 were Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Members of the committee would have been Ellen Ramsburgh, Tom Luczak, Eppie Potts and Susan Wineberg.

The proposed moratorium on demolition was withdrawn on failure of the establishment of the historic district committee.

Council Moves on Future of Fifth Avenue

Dave Askins — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:50:53 +0000

Ann Arbor city council meeting (Oct. 17, 2011): At its meeting last Monday, the Ann Arbor city council acted on two different residential development projects for the block of Fifth Avenue just south of William Street. Both projects are owned by the same developer.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) with Heritage Row and City Place developer Jeff Helminski. (Photos by the writer.)

At the time of their votes – on the matter-of-right City Place and the planned unit development Heritage Row – councilmembers knew that one set of actions would become moot. Only one of the projects, located on the same site, would be built. A few days after the meeting, news emerged that Heritage Row is now off the table and that City Place will move forward, with construction planned to start sometime this fall.

That meant that the council’s action last Monday, to give initial approval to the Heritage Row project, will ultimately have no effect. Developer Jeff Helminski requested that the item be pulled from the council’s Oct. 24 meeting – a meeting that had been added to the council’s calendar specifically to take a second and final vote on the Heritage Row project.

At their Oct. 17 meeting, the council took two actions on the already-approved City Place project – one to allow flexible application of the city’s new landscape ordinance, and a second to approve additional windows on the upper stories and to change the siding. That added to an Oct. 3 decision by the council to allow greater flexibility in the sequencing of City Place construction.

Also on Monday, the council confirmed two appointments to the city’s zoning board of appeals. The ZBA is a body that has purview to hear any challenges to city decisions about the correct application of city ordinances and the appropriateness of administrative decisions, including those associated with matter-of-right projects like City Place.

In other real estate development news out of Monday’s meeting, the council approved changes to the elevations for City Apartments, a residential project at First and Washington scheduled to start construction yet this season. The council is expected to authorize the sale of the city-owned parcel at its Nov. 10 meeting.

The council approved the annexation into the city of a township parcel where Biercamp Artisan Sausage & Jerky has set up shop. A tax abatement for Arbor Networks, a computer network security firm, was also approved by the council.

Another significant item on the council’s agenda was the appropriation of $25,000 from the city’s general fund reserve to keep the warming center open this year, which is operated by the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County in the Delonis Center on Huron Street.

The council also approved a resolution of intent on the use of sidewalk and street millage funds, which voters will be asked to approve at the polls on Nov. 8. The resolution was amended to clarify how funding will work for sidewalk repair adjacent to commercial properties inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district.

City Place, Heritage Row

On Monday’s agenda were three items related to two different proposed developments at the same site on South Fifth Avenue just south of William Street: City Place and Heritage Row.

The council was asked to give initial approval for the Heritage Row proposal, which was to receive a second and final vote at a council meeting scheduled for Oct. 24. Later in the week, however, the developer withdrew the item from the agenda for Oct. 24.

The plan for the matter-of-right project called City Place would demolish seven houses and construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot. The two City Place buildings would comprise 144 bedrooms in 24 6-bedroom units.

As revised from an earlier proposal rejected by the council 14 months ago, the planned unit development (PUD) Heritage Row project would provide for some manner of reconstruction of the seven existing houses, and construct three additional buildings behind the houses. The project, as revised, would not be required to provide any on-site parking for a total of 85 dwelling units containing up to 180 bedrooms on the 1.23-acre property. The previous proposal would have constructed underground parking, for a total of 60 spaces on site.

For City Place, at their Oct. 17 meeting, the council was asked to approve a request from the developer to waive a landscape buffer requirement that was introduced through an ordinance change made after the project was initially approved in 2009. Also for City Place, the council was asked to approve a request for 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.

The Heritage Row project has a long and controversial history dating back four years. The city council voted at its Oct. 3 meeting to reconsider the project, which it had previously rejected around 14 months ago. The council then voted to postpone a decision on the project so that negotiations could take place between the developer, city staff and councilmembers about possible revisions. By offering concessions that could make the project more financially viable, the council hoped to induce the developer to divert from his imminent intent to construct City Place. City Place is regarded by most observers as an inferior project to Heritage Row.

At the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, a letter was discussed which councilmembers had received from the developer, Jeff Helminski. That letter outlined his requirements for concessions that he would need in order to build Heritage Row instead of City Place. At the Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers expressed clear dissatisfaction with elements of Helminski’s letter. However, the key points from the letter appeared to have been incorporated into the revised proposal.

[.pdf of marked up Heritage Row supplemental regulations as presented on Oct. 17][.pdf of comparison chart between original Heritage Row and revised proposal as presented on Oct. 17] [.pdf of Oct. 3 letter from developer]

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off deliberations by acknowledging the accelerated timeline and the unusual action. He reminded the council that the last version of the Heritage Row project (which the council rejected) was not felt by the current developer to be financially viable. [The project ownership changed hands.] So the council was continuing to look for alternatives to the matter-of-right City Place project. Appealing to a baseball analogy, Hohnke said they hadn’t seen the last out – that’s a positive and they were still on the field.

From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) during a recess in the Oct. 17 meeting.

Hohnke said the proposal before the council was not a perfect solution to the problem. He’d like to see less density, stronger commitment to rehabilitation of the existing seven houses, and a unit mix that doesn’t have as many 4-5 bedroom units. It’s worth noting, he said, that the physical characteristics of the project have changed changed very little – the setback, height and streetscape is proposed to be maintained.

Hohnke described the affordable housing component as a significant public benefit. He said that was a serious point of negotiation and a tough negotiating point. [Compared to the June 2010 version of Heritage Row, the Oct. 17, 2011 version offered percentage-wise less affordable housing benefit. The June 2010 version required 18% of 82 units (14.76) while the Oct. 17 version required 17% of 85 units (14.45). An earlier, Oct. 3 version would have required just 15% of 85 units (12.75).]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked the city attorney if the initial vote needed eight votes or if only the second and final vote needed eight. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald indicated it was the second vote that required the eight-vote majority.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered how it was possible for the council to be considering issues involving two different projects on the same parcel – is that legal? McDonald allowed that the city does not usually entertain multiple petitions for approval on the same parcel. But he said that City Place is an already-approved project. So the items on the council’s agenda for City Place are for an already-approved project. What was right then in front of the council was the Heritage Row PUD. If the City Place items were approved and Heritage Row is approved later, the City Place items would be moot, McDonald said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know if there was a reason why the City Place amendment was not put on the agenda for the following week, given that the council had added an extra meeting for Oct. 24. McDonald deferred to planning manager Wendy Rampson, who said that the timing was requested by the developer. He’s working on parallel tracks to prepare for construction planning, and putting it off to Oct. 24 would mean a delay of one week.

Higgins wanted to know how much movement there’d been on the part of the developer since the Oct. 3 letter. Was the version before the council the final offer, or was there room for negotiation? Rampson said the developer was still evaluating the costs and this was the closest he could come. By Friday, Rampson said, the developer was hoping to have it costed out to make sure it’s feasible.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, left, and chief financial officer Tom Crawford.

Higgins asked Helminski if there were changes from the Oct. 3 proposal. Helminski said there were changes – some had to do with affordable housing. He asked for Rampson’s help in enumerating other changes. [Substantive changes included the ability to place solar panels on the new construction and the incremental increase in affordable housing units.] Higgins said she wanted to see a third column in the chart of comparisons, so that she could see the June 2010 proposal compared against the Oct. 3 and the Oct. 17, 2011 proposals.

Higgins asked when the council would know the final offer the developer was making that he felt was feasible. Helminski said he had a call scheduled on Friday with the whole team. Helminski said the mutual commitment he’s made to the council and the staff was that if at any point there’s a deal killer, both sides would communicate that immediately.

[At the Oct. 3 council meeting, it was indicated that the final best offer would be on the table at the Oct. 17 meeting. The fact that it apparently was not ready by then ~~and the fact that an attorney for the development team, Scott Munzel, did not appear for the slot he'd reserved during public commentary on Oct. 17,~~ may have foreshadowed the announcement later in the week that the project would be withdrawn. Scott Munzel, an attorney for the former owner of the Fifth Avenue property where one of the two projects will be built, did not arrive at the meeting in time for the slot he'd reserved for his public commentary on his own behalf on Oct. 17.]

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked about the Society of Environmentally Responsible Facilities. That organization is specified as providing the environmental standards that the new construction would meet – the previous proposal would have met the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard. Helminski described SERF as a relatively new organization. With LEED, he contended that the certification process has become more important than the building components. Administratively, he said, SERF is a better experience. Smith asked if there was a SERF rating system of levels similar to LEED. Helminski said no, it’s either SERF-certified or not.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked Helminski for negotiating again with the city on the project. He described the project as unique because of its location. He wanted to know how Helminski wanted to receive additional suggestions. Helminski suggested the usual communication channels: over coffee, texting, email or phone calls.

Kunselman noted that the revised proposal has no off-street on-site parking requirement – would the developer be seeking to create an agreement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to obtain parking permits at city parking structures? Helminski described the conversations with DDA executive director Susan Pollay as going well, but no agreement had yet been reached.

Kunselman asked if the spaces would be provided for free. Helminski quipped that he did not think that’s the way it’ll shake out in the end – tenants would pay market rate. Kunselman told Helminski that he was getting a significant break and would realize a significant savings by not having to construct underground parking.

Kunselman then addressed the issue of affordable housing. Affordable housing had not actually been built in the city as part of a PUD since Ashley Mews, a development located at Main & Packard. Since that time developers had made payments in lieu, he said. Kunselman contended that it would be primarily students who lived in Heritage Row and that a payment in lieu was the most likely scenario – that puts the burden on the city to construct the affordable housing. Helminski replied that he wouldn’t expect Heritage Row tenants to be primarily students. He said he was meeting with the county/city office of community development housing manager Jennifer L. Hall to discuss whether it’s better to build affordable housing on site or do payments in lieu. Sometimes the city prefers payments in lieu, he said.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he appreciated the fact that the issue of parking had been brought up – that had been a concern of his. He was worried about the overall capacity of the parking system. He’d assumed that Helminski would primarily be pursuing parking in the new underground garage for his residents, but it sounded like that might not be absolute. Rapundalo said he’d be interested to see the impact of Heritage Row tenant parking on availability of public parking.

Hohnke responded to some of his colleagues’ comments by saying that parking spaces will be a part of the development agreement. He also pointed out that the revised version of the proposal sets a date certain for reconstruction of the houses on Fifth Avenue. [The revised proposal allowed the project to be constructed in two phases, which essentially meant that the new construction of the three buildings could receive certificates of occupancy, before the seven existing houses were reconstructed.]

Hohnke then asked Jennifer L. Hall to the podium to discuss Kunselman’s question about the benefit to the city of payments in lieu versus construction of affordable units as a part of a development. Hall traced the history from the early 2000s when the city’s policy view was that including affordable units on site was the best option. Over time, she said, she and others have come to believe that inclusion of affordable units as part of a development that includes market rate units doesn’t necessarily result in the kind of units the city is looking for. [Hall was recently selected to head the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.]

As an example, Hall gave Corner House Lofts – three affordable units were constructed there. The building is occupied completely with students. The city can’t guarantee that the student occupants of the affordable units are from historically low-income households. But Hall said that 90% of students are eligible to rent the affordable units and they can’t be excluded. Hall described how money that’s paid in lieu of construction of affordable housing can then be leveraged as matching funds for federal and state grants. Hohnke was satisfied that a payment in lieu for affordable housing would provide a public benefit.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to the revised Heritage Row proposal, with dissent from Briere, Kunselman and Higgins. The expected second and final vote would have taken place on Oct. 24. However, on Oct. 21 the developer pulled the project from that meeting’s agenda.

City Place: Landscape Buffer – Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain the issue before the council. After the new area, height and placement (AHP) revisions were put in place, Rampson explained, the planning commission had been asked to look at additional buffering requirements between multiple-family buildings. That resulted in a change to the landscape ordinance. And that had an unintended consequence in areas zoned R4C (multi-family residential). It’s problematic to apply the ordinance, she said, because often the setback is smaller than the buffer requirement – R4C areas are also largely already developed, she said. Rampson supported the modification to City Place and is working on it with the planning commission’s ordinance revision committee to revise the ordinance to accommodate existing conditions in R4C areas.

In the meantime, the landscape ordinance provides for flexible application. [The planning commission handled three such cases of flexible application of that ordinance at its Oct. 18 meeting.]

Chapter 62
5:608 Modifications
(2) Flexibility in the application of the landscaping or screening requirements of Sections 5:602, 5:603, 5:604 or 5:606 may be allowed if each of the following conditions are met:
(a) The modifications are consistent with the intent of this chapter (Section 5:600(1)); and
(b) The modifications are included on a site plan and in a motion approved by City Planning Commission or City Council; and
(c) The modifications are associated with 1 or more of the following site conditions:
…
(vii)
Landscape elements which are a part of a previously approved site plan may be maintained and continued as nonconforming provided no alterations of the existing landscape elements are proposed.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that City Place was approved before the area, height and placement work was done – before the landscape ordinance was revised. She wanted to know if the council normally went back and applied a revised ordinance to a project that had already been approved. Rampson confirmed that because the developer is making minor administrative changes, that triggers the application of the new code. Higgins wondered if the request could go before the zoning board of appeals. Rampson confirmed it could.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) questioned why the change was not postponed until the council’s Oct. 24 meeting. She said she recognized the parallel tracks on which the developer was proceeding – the developer would like to break ground at a specific time. But neither of the City Place requests before the council that night required a change to be made before groundbreaking, she contended. Either the landscaping requirements or the revised elevations could be dealt with after Heritage Row is defeated, she said, if it’s in fact defeated. Briere then moved to postpone the measure.

Developer Jeff Helminski.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked developer Jeff Helminski to speak to the issue. Helminski said there was a tremendous amount of effort going into both City Place and Heritage Row simultaneously. If Heritage Row doesn’t work out, he said, his team needs all elements of City Place in place. It’s not an easy task to move Heritage Row forward, he said. His continued desire to do that is based on seeing good faith efforts by the city. If the City Place requests were postponed, he said, it would send a clear message to his team and it would impact the future of Heritage Row. Based on Helminski’s remarks, Teall said she wouldn’t support postponement.

Higgins said that before the council had started its conversation about Heritage Row, she was very concerned. However, she could understand the developer’s viewpoint. Next week, she continued, the council will make a decision one way or another. Even though she’d heard the city attorney’s office say that actions related to City Place would be moot, if Heritage Row were approved, Higgins still wanted to see City Place resolutions rescinded. She said she wouldn’t support postponement.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) agreed with Higgins’ unwillingness to postpone. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he supported postponement. Approving the resolution would send the wrong message about the city council. The City Place project has been approved for two years, he said. He did not know why the developer couldn’t wait a week.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was opposed to postponement, because the council needed to match the good faith effort of the developer. However he shared his colleagues’ view that it makes more logical sense to look at City Place after voting up or down on Heritage Row.

Teall said she was having a tough time with Kunselman’s description of “bending over backwards” for the developer. It was the council that had gone back to the development team and asked them to look at Heritage Row again.

Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone the landscaping issue for City Place failed, with only Briere and Kunselman voting for it.

Outcome on City Place landscaping: The council approved the resolution over dissent from Briere.

City Place: Revised Elevations – Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) introduced the resolution by saying that it was the second of the pair of resolutions that had been requested by the developer. Planning manager Wendy Rampson described how the changes included additional windows on gable ends and new materials on upper parts of the building. She said that planning staff recommended approval, because the changes are relatively minor and provide additional architectural interest.

Noting the additional windows are on the fourth floor, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if that floor was for tenant occupancy. Rampson explained that it would be a common area or loft area for third-floor units. Kunselman wanted to know how fire escape is being addressed. Developer Jeff Helminski said that the architect Brad Moore had addressed those issues appropriately.

Back-and-forth between Kunselman and Helminski revealed that the intent is to treat the third-level units in parallel fashion with the other units of the building, which are two-level units. Namely, they’d all have two different, separated common areas. With six people sharing a unit, Helminski said, two common areas would allow residents to engage in different activities – say, watching TV and playing games.

Responding to a request from Briere for additional clarity about the internal configuration of the units, Helminski described a spiral staircase and a vaulted ceiling configured in a townhome style.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the changes to the City Place elevations.

Zoning Board of Appeals Appointments

The council was asked to consider confirmation of the reappointments of Wendy Carman and David Gregorka for three-year terms to the city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The nine-member ZBA enjoys fairly broad authority, including the power [from the city code]: “To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Building Official or any other administrative official in enforcing any provision of this Chapter.”

Outcome: The council voted to confirm the reappointments to the ZBA.

Stopgap Funding to Warming Center

On the agenda was a resolution to authorize $25,000 to support the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County‘s warming center. The money will come from the city’s general fund reserve balance. It will make up the gap between the roughly $56,000 in private donations that SAWC has been able to raise for the warming center and its $81,000 annual operating budget.

Of that operating budget, $600 is spent on utilities for laundry, and the rest compensates shift workers paid $12.57 per hour, and a half-time case worker, who is paid $15.96 per hour.

The warming center, located in the Delonis Center on Huron Street on the western edge of downtown Ann Arbor, can accommodate up to 50 individuals. It is open December through April, or any time the temperature (or wind chill) falls below 35 F degrees.

Closure of the warming center was part of the Shelter Association’s strategy to remain financially solvent in the face of funding cuts from Washtenaw County, the state and federal government.

A number of specific negative impacts have been cited by Shelter Association staff that would result from a closure of the warming center: more police calls; increasing frustration among business owners; increased vandalism; backlash against homeless people; increased crime by desperate people; untreated mental health problems; increased use of emergency rooms for non-emergency care; and overcrowding of jails and the court system.

The $25,000 allocated this year could be analyzed as follow-through on recent previous investments made by the Ann Arbor city council in the specific mission of the warming center.

For example, at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting, the council passed a resolution that awarded a $30,500 contract with the Shelter Association and a $129,000 contract with Interfaith Hospitality Network, which operates a family shelter. The money was to provide case management and staff support for 25 additional beds at the Delonis Center and 25 additional beds in the rotating shelter program, as well as housing vouchers for eight families.

The council had received a presentation on the homelessness crisis at its Oct. 19, 2009 meeting from Mary Jo Callan, head of the county/city office of community development. She had alerted them to the likelihood that a funding request would be coming to them at a subsequent meeting.

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, at its Nov. 4, 2009 meeting, had authorized $20,000 to cover the “hard costs” – i.e., the actual beds – in connection with the initiative, which was seen as a short-term solution in the face of approaching winter weather.

Although it was not earmarked specifically for the warming center, on Oct. 6, 2010 the DDA authorized a $218,050 grant from its housing fund to the Shelter Association for improvements at the Delonis Center. The money paid for new washers and dryers, lockers and chairs, an emergency generator, energy conservation measures, medical equipment and software.

Warming Center: Update

At the beginning of the Oct. 17 meeting, Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, and Washtenaw Housing Alliance executive director Julie Steiner gave the council an update on the funding situation.

Schulmeister thanked the council for current and past support. The shelter and the city had been partners for a long time, she said. Now is a very hard time – both for people who need help and those organizations who support them.

The shelter had lost $400,000 in funding while costs continue go up, she said.

The shelter has had to cut staffing to two vital programs: the warming center and the rotating shelter. The shelter had tried to use volunteers for the warming center, but was unable to get volunteers who could be awake all night. The Washtenaw Housing Alliance asked the Shelter Association to operate the warming center one more year, so later in the evening, the council would be asked to provide some support so that the warming center can continue through the winter of 2011-12. She said that over the next year the Shelter Association would work diligently to identify longer-term solutions.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance Julie Steiner get on the same page before the meeting.

Steiner told the council that the shelter’s warming center and rotating shelter are doing the community a huge favor. In Washtenaw County, she said, they work hard to make sure that shelters are not just mission shelters – “three hots and a cot.” The goal has been to provide case managers and services too.

As the Shelter Association looks at how to address the funding problems over the next couple of months, Steiner hoped councilmembers would help. She told them they’d been leaders around this issue. She noted that a copy of the Blueprint to End Homelessness Progress Report had been distributed to councilmembers. [.pdf of progress report] It traces progress from the creation of the blueprint in 2004. Steiner noted that the world is different from the way it was in 2004. She said the Washtenaw Housing Alliance will sponsor a series of community conversations to address the situation – as a whole, not just the warming center – in a world of shrinking resources.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted to know if Washtenaw County was matching any of the $25,000 that the city was being asked to contribute. Schulmeister told Smith that no funding for the warming center’s current need was coming from the county general fund. The other private funding – from an unnamed organization that Schulmeister expected would provide it – has not yet been approved by that organization’s board, she said. It’s an organization that involves the county but is not the county.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that Washtenaw County is proposing deep cuts in human services funding as part of its proposed 2012-2013 budget. Hieftje said the city looks at the Delonis Center as a partnership with the county. The city has been holding up its end of the partnership and the city is asking the county to hold up their end, he said. [Chronicle coverage: "Proposed County Budget Brings Cuts." The proposed county budget, if unchanged, would cut funding to the Shelter Association from $160,000 in 2011 to $25,000 in 2012 and 2013. On Oct. 19, the county board voted to reallocate another $26,230 to the Shelter Association in both 2012 and 2013, though it was not earmarked for the warming center.]

Hieftje invited councilmembers to ask any questions immediately following the remarks by Schulmeister and Steiner at the beginning of the meeting, so that they did not have to stay until the council reached the item on the agenda. Schulmeister told the mayor she was planning to stay anyway.

Warming Center: Public Comment

Lily Au expressed concern about the amount of administrative costs for the office of community development and the United Way. She noted the county’s proposed reduction in support for the Delonis Center from $160,000 to $25,000. She told the council that if they approve the money that’s asked of them, next month people will come again, saying the homeless are cold and hungry. The whole community needs to wake up and donate directly to organizations they want to help, she said.

Warming Center: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off council deliberations by giving some context for the request being made to the council for the $25,000. She’d heard news earlier in the year about the impact that reduced funds from the federal, state and county level would have on the Delonis Center’s ability to perform services.

Of the reduced services, Briere said she was particularly concerned that the warming center would be closed, because of the potential impact on the city of its closing. She cited the various expenses that would accrue across various parts of the community – from law enforcement to medical care providers – if people had no place to stay warm. The city would be wiser to spend money on prevention than reaction, Briere said. She said she’d spoken with the mayor and then the mayor had spoken with Schulmeister. In their conversations, the city had said they would not provide 100% of support and that the Shelter Association would need to find other support to match the city’s contribution. She encouraged her council colleagues to support the contribution.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the program the city was providing money for is something that the city had asked the Shelter Association to provide, citing a contract from 2009. It’s important that the warming center continue, she said, and the need is even greater now. Hiefjte then described how back in the 1970s there were people living on the street. This is this generation’s depression, he said.

Hieftje reiterated remarks he’d made immediately following Schulmeister’s comments at the start of the meeting, saying that Washtenaw County is a partner in the Delonis Center. However, the county has proposed a budget that dramatically decreases funding to the center. The city needs to watch that closely, Hiefjte said. The county has some tough budget hurdles and the county board will have to make some tough decisions, he said. Those decisions will impact Ann Arbor, Hieftje concluded.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize funding for the warming center.

City Apartments Elevation Revisions

The council was asked to approved modifications to Village Green’s already-approved City Apartments planned unit development (PUD) at First and Washington. [This should not be confused with the similarly named City Place matter-of-right proposal by a different developer on South Fifth Avenue].

The changes include increasing the height of the structure from 94 to 104 feet (to lift the base of the building out of the water table), adding an entrance on First Street, modifying the window type and size on the residential portion of the building, and adding ventilation screens on the east side (alley) of the building.

The City Apartments project was given PUD zoning and site plan approval by the council on Nov. 6, 2008. The nine-story building will include 156 dwelling units and 244 parking spaces on the first two floors. The site is currently a city-owned property functioning as a surface parking lot with 64 spaces, after the parking structure there had to be demolished due to its poor structural condition. The new parking deck, which will offer spaces to the general public as well as to residents, is being financed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The sale of the property, for a little over $3 million, is part of the city of Ann Arbor’s financing plan for construction of the new municipal center, which houses the police department and the 15th District Court. The council has extended the purchase option on the First and Washington property several times, most recently on Aug. 4, 2011.

At one of the DDA board’s late August committee meetings, news of a pending deal and imminent construction was relayed to committee members. The council is expected to authorize the closing on the deal at its Nov. 10, 2011 meeting. Signs at the First and Washington parking lot warn patrons of the lot’s imminent closure.

During his communications to the council, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reminded his colleagues that he’d brought up the issue up a few months ago of environmental studies in connection with the First and Washington site. The foundation had been elevated another 10 feet, he said, which is an accomplishment. But there were other environmental engineering studies that could be of value.

So Anglin has requested in an open letter to staff that any studies related to this property be made available. When a different parcel (at First and William) was being considered as the site of a parking structure, there were studies done and soil samples taken, he said. So he requested that if there is information out there, that it be made available to the council.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the change in elevations for City Apartments.

Biercamp Parcel Annexation

On the council’s agenda was an item regarding the annexation 1643 and 1645 S. State St. into the city of Ann Arbor from Ann Arbor Township. A new business, Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky, is located on one of the parcels.

During the public hearing on annexation, Thomas Partridge complained that the resolution has no language about a requirement for affordable housing. The council should table the resolution and consider it in detail, he said. The council should consider the impact on the township and the loss of taxes to the township.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the annexation of the 1643-45 S. State St. parcels.

Now that the annexation has been approved, action by the city council on a rezoning request will be scheduled. The owners of Biercamp would like for the city to approve the parcel for C3 (fringe commercial district) zoning. It would allow the business to sell a greater variety of products beyond those that it produces on the premises.

The planning commission voted unanimously to deny C3 zoning for the parcels at its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting. The rezoning request will be the second one considered recently in the general area of State Street and Stimson. On Oct. 3, 2011 the council rejected a request to rezone the parcel where Treecity Health Collective is located – from O (office) to C1 (local business).

The two rezoning requests have prompted discussion by the planning commission and the city council about the need for a study of the South State Street corridor, so that the parcels in question can be considered in a larger context. At an Oct. 11 working session, the planning commission was updated on city planning staff’s in-house effort to conduct a study of the State Street corridor. Previously, the intent was to hire a consultant to do that work.

Arbor Networks Tax Abatement

Before the council for its consideration was a tax abatement for Arbor Networks, a computer network security company. The abatement is on $883,527 of real property improvements and $7,790,454 of new personal property and equipment.

Lon Lowen of Arbor Networks.

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, Arbor Networks was granted a tax abatement in 2008. The abatement agreement in 2008 required Arbor Networks to move 74 jobs to their Ann Arbor facility and add at least eight jobs. However, as of December of 2010 there were only 74 jobs at this location.

The staff memo on the current request for a tax abatement states that the digital information business is continually changing with new and faster technology. Arbor Networks needs new test equipment and digital equipment, and according to the memo, anticipates adding 20 new employees to the Ann Arbor facility.

During the public hearing, Lon Lowen, quality assurance director with Arbor Networks, introduced the council to the company, which was founded in 2000 and has maintained a research and development facility in this area since its founding. The company makes software to fend off threats to computer network security, he said. The equipment on which the tax abatement is requested, he explained, is needed to expand the research and development facility. It reflects an investment of over $8 million by December 2012. As a result of that investment, the company expects to add 20 new jobs by December 2013, he said.

Thomas Partridge also spoke at the public hearing, and called on the council to fully inform the public on the resolution as to the details and rationale for placing the item on the agenda. He complained that these questions are decided in advance and usually passed unanimously by voice vote without discussion of the reasoning. He questioned the need for this resolution without requirements of equal opportunity employment. He questioned whether the company had exhausted other financing options.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously, without discussion, to approve the tax abatement.

Local Development Finance Authority

The council was asked to appoint Ned Staebler to fill an open four-year term on the local development finance authority (LDFA) board. The term will end June 30, 2015. The position previously was held by Michael Korybalski. That term expired on June 30, 2011 but had not yet been filled.

The LDFA is funded through TIF (tax increment financing) capture in a geographic district comprising the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts. However, TIF revenue for the LDFA is generated only in the Ann Arbor DDA district. The principal activity of the LDFA is a business accelerator. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to manage the accelerator.

Staebler took a position starting in the summer of 2011 as vice president of economic development for Wayne State University, after previously serving with the Michigan Economic Development Corp.

Staebler currently serves on the city’s Housing and Human Services Advisory Board, which was established in 2007 to replace two other bodies: the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) executive committee and the city’s housing policy board. The function of the HHSAB is to make recommendations on policies and programs to address the needs of low-income residents, to monitor the implementation of Ann Arbor’s housing policy and the creation of a city housing coordinator.

Staebler lost a close Democratic primary race for District 53 state representative against Jeff Irwin, who was elected to that position in November 2010.

During the brief city council deliberations, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who serves as the city council’s representative to the LDFA board, noted that Staebler is known to the council and has familiarity with economic development. He had also held an ex officio position on the board when he worked for the Michigan Economic Development Corp. Staebler is a perfect fit for the LDFA board, Rapundalo concluded.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Staebler’s appointment to the LDFA board.

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax Use

At the Oct. 17 meeting, the council considered a resolution of intent for the use of proceeds from a street/sidewalk repair millage that will be on the Nov. 8 ballot. The council had considered the resolution of intent at its Oct. 3 meeting and before that at its Sept. 19 meeting.

Voters will be asked to approve two separate proposals: (1) a 5-year renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to support street repair projects; and (2) a 0.125 mill tax to pay for sidewalk repair.

The resolution of intent specifies that the street repair millage will pay for the following activities: resurfacing or reconstruction of existing paved city streets and bridges, including on-street bicycle lanes and street intersections; construction of pedestrian refuge islands; reconstruction and construction of accessible street crossings and corner ramps; and preventive pavement maintenance (PPM) measures, including pavement crack sealing. [.pdf of unamended Oct 3, 2011 version of resolution of intent]

At its Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers had questions about the need to have any resolution of intent, as well as the status of millage revenue use inside the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The resolution of intent had originally stipulated that sidewalk repairs inside the Ann Arbor DDA district would not be funded by the sidewalk repair millage, except when the sidewalks are adjacent to single- and two-family houses. A recent meeting of the DDA’s operations committee revealed a measure of discontent on the DDA’s part about the intended restriction inside the DDA district and the lack of communication from the city of Ann Arbor to the DDA about that issue.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) have stated in the course of their re-election campaigns that they only reluctantly support the sidewalk repair millage. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) has characterized the sidewalk millage as simply offering voters a choice. Though not up for re-election this year, mayor John Hieftje stated at the DDA’s Oct. 5 board meeting that he did not think councilmembers are out in the community saying that the city absolutely needs the sidewalk millage or that it’s essential. Like Rapundalo, the mayor characterizes the sidewalk millage as offering residents a choice of having the city take over the responsibility for sidewalk repair.

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax Use: Public Commentary

Karen Sidney stated that the resolution has many unanswered questions. There’s $30 million currently in the street millage fund, she said. [This appears to be based on the FY 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the city, which gives a snapshot of the fund balance on June 30, 2010.] Of that, $7 million is needed for the East Stadium bridge project, Sidney said. [Although the city has received federal and state funding for a large part of the project, the city still has a local share.] What streets will be fixed with the remaining $23 million? she asked.

What streets will be fixed with the $45-50 million the millage will generate over its 5-year lifetime? So far, Sidney said, she’s seen only five streets named – surely there would be more? [The fact sheet prepared by the city specifies these five projects for 2012 constructions: Packard (Platt to US-23), Hill St. (Forest to Washtenaw), E. Stadium (Packard to Washtenaw), Pontiac Trail (Skydale to M-14), and Dexter Road (Maple to Huron)] Sidney also wanted to know if priority would be given to roads that serve new building projects, like the proposed Fuller Road Station.

With respect to the $500,000 that the sidewalk repair millage is expected to generate, Sidney wanted to know how much will be consumed through administration costs. The city has estimated that those administration costs will be $160,000. That’s 27% of the additional tax, she noted. She also wanted to know why the city is saying it can repair sidewalks cheaper than residents can, when five years ago the city said that residents could have the work performed for 40% less than it would cost the city.

Residents along her street, Sidney said, had paid to fix their sidewalks, but now those same slabs are being replaced as a part of a street resurfacing project. She wanted to know what steps will be taken to improve coordination. She noted that the city is taking over the cost of sidewalk repair now, “when there’s nothing left to do,” after administering a sidewalk replacement program for five years. What happens after five more years, she wondered. Will residents be asked to pay again?

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax Use: Council Deliberations

Council deliberations were led off by an amendment offered by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) concerning how the millage would be used in the DDA district. He said the amendment would address an inequity identified by commercial property owners under the original language – they’d be included in the repair millage but excluded from the benefits. Rapundalo’s amendment added the following language

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph II.2, if the City and the Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”) execute an agreement whereby (i) the DDA agrees to perform sidewalk repair within the Downtown Development District (“DDD”) adjacent to all properties against which the City levies property taxes; and (ii) the City agrees to transmit to the DDA annually 1/8th mill for parcels located within the DDD and not otherwise captured by the DDA; then the 2012 Street and Bridge Resurfacing and Reconstruction and Sidewalk Repair millage may be used for sidewalk repair within the Downtown Development District adjacent to all properties against which the City levies property taxes. The 1/8th mill shall be subject to the Headlee rollback. [.pdf of complete resolution of intent as amended on Oct. 17, 2011]

The original version of the resolution of intent had assumed that the DDA would repair the sidewalks within the district that are adjacent to commercial properties, based on the incremental tax capture in the DDA district for the millage. The impact of the amendment is to provide the entire millage amount to the DDA (not just the captured increment), but only if the DDA agrees to take responsibility for sidewalk repair inside the DDA district.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) questioned the inclusion of the phrase “shall be subject to the Headlee rollback.” He wondered if that is a restatement of the law. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that assistant city attorney Abigail Elias had prepared the language, and that he assumed it’s a restatement.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) confirmed with Postema that the entire millage is subject to the Headlee rollback. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she absolutely supported the amendment. She was glad the council took the time to pause and come up with a healthy solution.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said it’s a fair and fine balancing of two competing interests.

Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management for the city, was asked to respond to comments made by Karen Sidney during public commentary about the amount of money in the fund balance for street repair. The fund balance does not distinguish committed funds for contracts on projects that were previously done, he said. As an example, he gave a West Liberty Street construction project from 10 years ago. As another example, for the West Stadium Boulevard project, he said, the city also still owes money to the state, that will need to be paid when the city is invoiced.

The fund balance also does not distinguish money that is earmarked for all the projects the city is planning to do, like Dexter-Ann Arbor Road and Packard Road next year – those projects will need a large sum of local dollars that are not labeled in the fund balance. Once you subtract the committed dollars and planned-for dollars, he said, the amount in the fund balance is much smaller. Without the new millage, he said, the funds will be used up by the end of 2012.

Discussion related to the sidewalk repair millage also arose earlier in the meeting as a part of the consent agenda, when the council approved moving delinquent water utility, board up, clean up, vacant property and housing inspection fees to the December 2011 city tax roll.

The current sidewalk repair program was supposed to result in residents being charged a fee for replacing sidewalk slabs, if they are cited by the city and decline to have the work performed themselves. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that in two years nothing has come through as delinquent charges. City treasurer Matt Horning confirmed for Kunselman that in this current tax roll there aren’t any delinquent sidewalk repair charges.

Kunselman wanted an explanation – in the past he’d seen those charges come through. Sue McCormick, public services area administrator, indicated that this year the city has been working with a contractor completing outstanding sidewalk repairs. Those bills will go out and the council would see them in the next round, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution of intent on use of the sidewalk/street millage.

Stadium Bridges Project

The council was asked to authorize the execution of a standard contract between the city and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the East Stadium Boulevard bridges reconstruction project. The project will result in the closure of East Stadium Boulevard in both directions for about a year, starting around Nov. 28, just after the University of Michigan’s last home football game of the year.

Dan’s Excavating Inc. was awarded the bid – at $13,910,334.77, it was the lowest qualified construction bid. The staff memo accompanying the council resolution put the current estimate for the total project cost – including all prior expenses, but excluding contingencies for the future construction – at $22,776,700. The city received a total of $13.9 million in TIGER II federal grant funding to pay for the project, as well as $2.87 million in state funds.

The project website, which includes detour maps and timelines, is annarborbridges.org.

During council deliberations, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited from city staff some of the planned architectural details related to the stairways from Stadium Boulevard down to South State Street. They’ll have bicycle grooves to allow cyclists to walk their bicycles up and down the stairs more easily. And snow clearance will be achieved through radiant heating built into the steps, powered by the same circuit as streetlights, which in this case are owned by the city, not DTE.

Outcome: The council voted to authorize execution of the MDOT contract.

Labor Union Benefits

The council was asked to give initial approval to revisions to the ordinances that govern the retirement and health care plans for two of its unions: the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association (AAPOA) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

The revisions to the ordinances resulted from a collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME and a binding arbitration under Act 312 with AAPOA. The changes are similar to ordinance changes already enacted for non-union city workers.

The pension contribution for AAPOA and AFSCME workers will rise from 5% on a post-tax basis to 6% on a pre-tax basis. The vesting period for new hires will increase from 5 years to 10 years. Also for new hires, the final average compensation (FAC) calculation will be increased to a five-year period. The previous FAC was based on a three-year period.

On the health care side, the AFSCME and AAPOA employees would have the same access-only retiree health plan as non-union employees have. Like all ordinance changes, the city council will need to give these revisions a second and final approval no sooner than its next regular meeting.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the union labor pension and retirement health benefits.

Taxicab Law

Before the council for its consideration was initial approval of changes in the taxicab ordinance. The changes make explicit how long a taxicab company license is valid (10 years) and spell out some additional conditions on revocation or suspension of the company license.

The revisions also add reasons that can be used for suspending an individual taxicab driver’s license, which include a city administrator’s view that a driver “has acted in an unprofessional, harassing or threatening manner to passengers, or others.”

Like all ordinance revisions, the taxicab licensing revision will need a second and final approval from the council in order to take effect.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told the council that as the council’s representative to the taxicab board, ordinance amendments are needed. He asked chief financial officer Tom Crawford, who also sits on the taxicab board, to explain the changes and the concerns that are addressed by the changes.

Crawford characterized the changes as falling in three areas. In the first area, related to licensing, Crawford said that in the past the city had seasonal operators who would want to come in and work the football season and then disappear. The ordinance is being changed so that if a company ceases operation for 45 days, the city can revoke the license. Crawford explained that a healthy taxicab industry needs stability and this is a mechanism to help guard against companies frequently coming in and out of the market.

Another area of change has to do with solicitations and how the companies represent themselves. Several companies advertise themselves as taxis, but they’re in fact limousines. Crawford characterized it as a safety issue for someone who believes a vehicle is a taxi, but it’s in fact a limo. [A taxi is per code "... accepting passengers for hire within the boundaries of the city as directed by the passenger." A limousine is pre-booked.] If a company they hold itself out as a taxi, they have to be licensed as a taxicab, Crawford said. [The city's taxicab code already prohibits advertising in the reverse direction – it prohibits taxicabs from holding themselves out as limousines.]

Outcome: The council voted to give the taxicab ordinance initial approval.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Crime

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that he’d attended a neighborhood meeting recently where many people had expressed a perception that there’s a crime problem in Ann Arbor. He said it was perhaps fueled by increased access to information about crime data that a perception had resulted that crime was on the uptick. He asked deputy chief Greg Bazick how the police see things.

City clerk Jackie Beaudry and deputy chief of police Greg Bazick before the start of the Oct. 17, 2011 city council meeting.

Bazick said they’re not seeing an upswing in reported crime. He noted that crimmapping.com allows for real-time access to what’s reported on a daily basis. There have certainly been incidents that have raised concern in the community [including a series of sexual assaults]. But there’s nothing to indicate an upswing or a crime wave, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje said he gets the stats on crime every week before he meets with the police chief and that this year crime has shown a double-digit decrease.

Among the points Bazick made was the size of a law enforcement agency is never the sole indicator of crime. He also cautioned that the crimes categorized as “Part 1″ by the FBI are the kind of crimes that are almost always reported by victims and are not typically identified as a result of police-initiated enforcement activity. On the other hand, “Part 2″ crimes might show an increase based just on a police-initiated enforcement effort.

Comm/Comm: Police Hiring

Hieftje reminded the council that on the last day of May, when the council had approved the budget, he’d said the goal should be that there would be no further cuts in the police department. He said he’d been working with staff and with councilmember Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) on that issue. Hieftje said the department will see some retirements, and the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association also has new contract. Cuts are projected to be necessary at part of the FY 2013 forecast, but he felt that some replacements could be hired starting on Jan. 1, 2013.

Rapundalo commented that all along the council has repeatedly talked about its commitment to public safety. The council had to make a difficult decision last year [to lay off some police officers], but now that the city has an agreement with AAPOA, he said, there are opportunities to sustain and increase the police officer ranks.

[Rapundalo is facing a strong re-election challenge in Ward 2 from independent Jane Lumm, whose campaign includes criticism of the reduced numbers of police officers employed by the city of Ann Arbor.]

Comm/Comm: Energy Farms

Kermit Schlansker described the potential benefits of energy farms, which can include gasifiers that turn hard biomass into fuel. He also described solar arrays that could be used to concentrate the sun’s energy to create solar steam.

Alan Haber (left) and councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Comm/Comm: Library Lot

Alan Haber said he was glad to hear about Schlansker’s energy farm. He told the council he was there again to talk about the space above the underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. He noted there’s a process going on to invite as much of the public as possible to figure out what to do there. He contended the land can be used maximally as a public gathering space. Citizens would adopt the library green without the use of city funds, he said, and they could program the space. Citizens need the opportunity to do that.

Is the city going to pave the surface, or will the council give citizens the opportunity to develop the surface? Haber wondered. It’s counterintuitive to have a surface lot above the underground lot, Haber said, if you want to encourage people to use the underground parking lot. Ann Arbor needs a heart in the center of town, and the space above the underground parking garage could serve that function, he said. It could be combined with a building as a practical solution, he said.

Stefan Trendov told the council he’d done some drawings to illustrate what Haber was describing – the building would be light and see-through and inviting. He said he’d recently designed a project for the Sultan of Oman. He wanted cranes to come in and start building in Ann Arbor – we need to see more cranes, he said.

Comm/Comm: End Discrimination

Thomas Partridge told the council he was there to address them about the importance of ending discrimination of all forms and working to stop government corruption of all forms, including corrupt acts by Ann Arbor government employees, police officers and businesses in the entire region. They need to bring about a true democratic party, attitudes, mindset and practices, he said, and he called on voters to recall regressive Republicans.

At the public comment period at the end of the meeting, Partridge also spoke. He described himself as an advocate for those who can’t attend public meetings, and those who are the most worthy of services. He called for public access to polling places through public transportation and transportation for the disabled, polling stations that actually work for handicapped people, and better-trained poll workers.

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

Next council meeting: Oct. 24, 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!

Heritage Row Proposal Withdrawn

Chronicle Staff — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:52:07 +0000

According to a city council source, developer Jeff Helminski has withdrawn the revised proposal for Heritage Row, a planned unit development on South Fifth Avenue. A different project, City Place, is now expected to be built on the same site by the same developer, though some possibility exists to contest the City Place project via the city’s zoning board of appeals.

The plan for the matter-of-right City Place would demolish seven houses and construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot. The two City Place buildings would comprise 144 bedrooms in 24 6-bedroom units. By contrast, Heritage Row would have constructed three buildings behind the row of seven houses and either rehabilitated or reconstructed the seven houses. That project would have included up to 85 units with 180 bedrooms.

At its Oct. 17 meeting, the city council gave initial approval to a version of the Heritage Row PUD that was considerably revised from a version it had rejected in June 2010. The second and final vote on the revised Heritage Row project would have been taken place at an extra meeting scheduled for Oct. 24. That meeting is still scheduled to take place. The vote on Oct. 17 was 8-3. Voting against the proposal were Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The project has a long and controversial history dating back four years. The city council voted at its Oct. 3 meeting to reconsider the Heritage Row, which it had previously rejected about 14 months ago. The council then voted to postpone a decision on the project so that negotiations could take place between the developer, city staff and councilmembers about possible revisions. By offering concessions that could make the project more financially viable, the council hoped to induce the developer to divert from his imminent intention to construct City Place.

At the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, a letter was discussed which councilmembers had received from the developer, Jeff Helminski. That letter outlined his requirements for concessions that he would need in order to build Heritage Row instead of City Place. At the Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers expressed clear dissatisfaction with elements of Helminski’s letter. However, all the key points from the letter, including the elimination of any on-site parking requirement, appeared to have been incorporated into the revised proposal considered at the council’s Oct. 17 meeting.

City Place, Heritage Row Both Get Action

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:05:19 +0000

At its Oct. 17, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered three items related to two different proposed developments at the same site on South Fifth Avenue just south of William Street: City Place and Heritage Row.

It’s still an open question as to which of the two projects, owned by the same developer, will be built. The council approved two requests related to alterations to the City Place project. The council also gave initial approval for the Heritage Row proposal, which will receive a second and final vote at a council meeting scheduled for Oct. 24.

Two of the council’s agenda items concerned City Place; the third concerned Heritage Row.

For City Place, the council approved a request from the developer to waive a landscape buffer requirement that was introduced through an ordinance change made after the project was initially approved. Also for City Place, the council approved a request for 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.

For Heritage Row, the council advanced a revised proposal of the PUD to a second reading, which will be held at an extra meeting scheduled on Oct. 24. The vote was 8-3. Voting against the proposal were Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The project has a long and controversial history dating back four years. The city council voted at its Oct. 3 meeting to reconsider the project, which it had previously rejected around 14 months ago. The council then voted to postpone a decision on the project so that negotiations could take place between the developer, city staff and councilmembers about possible revisions. By offering concessions that could make the project more financially viable, the council hopes to induce the developer to divert from his imminent intention to construct City Place.

At the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, a letter was discussed which councilmembers had received from the developer, Jeff Helminski. That letter outlined his requirements for concessions that he would need in order to build Heritage Row instead of City Place. At the Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers expressed clear dissatisfaction with elements of Helminski’s letter. However, all the key points from the letter appear to have been incorporated into the revised proposal.

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]

Proposed Heritage Row Revisions Available

Chronicle Staff — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:47:22 +0000

Added to the Ann Arbor city council’s online Legistar system on Friday, Oct. 14, 2011 are the proposed revisions to the Heritage Row planned unit development (PUD) on South Fifth Avenue.

The council will give initial consideration to the revisions at its upcoming Oct. 17 meeting. If the council chooses to advance the proposal to a second reading, that final consideration would take place at an extra council meeting scheduled for Oct. 24.

As revised, the Heritage Row project would provide for some manner of reconstruction of seven existing houses, and construct three additional buildings behind the houses. The project, as revised, would not be required to provide any on-site parking for a total of 85 dwelling units containing up to 180 bedrooms on the 1.23-acre property. The previous proposal would have constructed underground parking, for a total of 60 spaces on site.

The project has a long and controversial history dating back four years. The city council voted at its Oct. 3 meeting to reconsider the project, which it had previously rejected around 14 months ago.

At the Oct. 3 meeting, however, the council voted to postpone a decision on the project so that negotiations could take place between the developer, city staff and councilmembers about revisions to be made to the project. By offering concessions that could make the project more financially viable, the council hopes to induce the developer to divert from his imminent intention to construct City Place, which is a different, already-approved project on the same site.

The plan for City Place would demolish the seven houses and construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot. The two City Place buildings would comprise 144 bedrooms in 24 6-bedroom units.

At the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, a letter was discussed which councilmembers had received from developer Jeff Helminski. That letter outlined his requirements for concessions that he would need in order to build Heritage Row instead of City Place. At the Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers expressed clear dissatisfaction with elements of Helminski’s letter.

However, the main points listed out in the letter appear to have now been incorporated into the revised proposal, which the council now has on its Oct. 17 agenda. The council could opt to try to amend the proposal at that meeting.

[.pdf of marked up Heritage Row supplemental regulations][.pdf of comparison chart between original Heritage and revised] [.pdf of letter from developer]

Heritage Row, Sidewalk Tax Intent in Limbo

Dave Askins — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:58:12 +0000

Ann Arbor city council meeting (Oct. 3, 2011): In spite of the eight public hearings scheduled for Monday night, the council’s agenda was actually relatively light. Six of the public hearings were very similar requests for annexations of property from Scio Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexations were all approved with scant comment from the public or the council.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) talk before the start of the Oct. 3 council meeting. (Photos by the writer)

But two agenda items – both related to the future of the block of South Fifth Avenue just south of William – resulted in over an hour of deliberations by the council.

An item added late Monday afternoon gave a glimmer of hope to the Heritage Row planned unit development (PUD), which the council last had on its agenda on Dec. 6, 2010 – nearly a year ago. On Monday, the council voted to suspend its rules, then voted to reconsider the project, and finally voted to postpone it until its Oct. 17 meeting.

By Oct. 17, a set of changes proposed by the development team are to be incorporated into the site plan and zoning regulations for Heritage Row. The developer says the changes to Heritage Row would be necessary, in order for him to diverge from his current intention to build City Place, an already approved “matter of right” project at the same location. Those changes include eliminating any on-site parking requirement, increasing the number of residents, relaxing the energy standards, and not making a commitment to the historical preservation of the existing seven houses on the site. [.pdf of letter from developer]

If the council were to give the new version of Heritage Row initial approval at its Oct. 17 meeting, it would then take a second and final vote on it at a meeting now scheduled for Oct. 24.

In a related action, the council approved a revision to the development agreement for City Place that eliminated the need for the developer to complete off-site utility work before being issued a building permit for that project. Now, that utility work would need to be completed later in the process, before the certificate of occupancy is issued. The relaxation of the timeline was undertaken to allow the developer additional flexibility to discuss a modified Heritage Row, as an alternative to City Place.

In other business, the council again delayed action on a resolution of intent for the use of revenue generated by a proposed street and sidewalk repair millage that voters will be asked to approve at the Nov. 8 election. Questions concerned the need for such a resolution at all, as well as the plan for use of the millage inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district.

A request for rezoning a medical marijuana business on South State Street was denied by the council, but did achieve three votes on the 11-member body.

The council also approved an easement for DTE to replace a gas main along the north side of Fuller Road.

Heritage Row

Added to the agenda late Monday afternoon was a bundle of resolutions that in concert put the Heritage Row planned unit development (PUD) for South Fifth Avenue back before the council for formal consideration and possible future approval. Approval of the project is contingent on the council’s judgement that the project meets the standard of public benefit required in order to replace the land’s existing zoning with the alternate zoning requested for it.

Heritage Row, as it had been previously designed, consisted of preserving seven existing houses and constructing three apartment buildings behind them, with underground parking.

A different project for the same site, City Place, has already won council approval. That approval was based on the planning staff and city attorney’s judgement that the project met all existing zoning codes and regulations, and could be approved as a matter-of-right project. City Place would require demoliting the existing seven houses, to be replaced with two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot.

City Place is seen by most observers as an inferior project to Heritage Row, and the prospect that City Place will actually be built – based on recent pre-construction meetings and the termination of leases for tenants in existing properties – has prompted the council to take up the issue again.

Heritage Row: Parliamentary Issues

In broad strokes, there were three parliamentary steps for the Heritage Row agenda item, each corresponding to a separate vote.

First, the council needed to suspend two parts of a council rule on reconsideration of previous votes. The council had previously reconsidered the project over a year ago – on July 6, 2010, when the council rejected Heritage Row on a 7-3 vote. The council had initially rejected the project at its June 21, 2010 meeting on a 7-4 vote. The project needed an eight vote super-majority to pass, because sufficient signatures were collected from nearby property owners to force the eight-vote majority.

So some parts of Rule 12 needed to be suspended. It reads [relevant parts in italics]:

RULE 12 – Consideration of Questions
When a question has been taken, it shall be in order for any member voting with the prevailing side to move a reconsideration thereof at the same or the next regular meeting; but, no question shall a second time be reconsidered.

The parliamentary motion to suspend the rules is not subject to debate. This is a point that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) made on Dec. 6, 2010, when the council had a similar set of motions on its agenda concerning Heritage Row. Citing the parliamentary rule, Hohnke successfully quashed all debate on the issue that evening. At Monday’s Oct. 3 meeting, Hohnke did not choose to invoke this rule, and councilmembers debated the suspension of council rules for an extended period.

Because Hohnke had previously voted with the prevailing side – along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – he could then make the motion to reconsider Heritage Row.

The second step of the Oct. 3 process was a vote on whether to reconsider the Heritage Row project.

The third step of the Oct. 3 process was a vote on the project itself, which was presented to the council as an action to postpone a decision until the council’s next regular meeting, on Oct. 17. Part of the motion to postpone included a direction to city staff to incorporate the content of a set of developer-proposed changes into the site plan and zoning for Heritage Row, so that on Oct. 17 those changes would be presented to the council for their initial consideration.

The third step also included a motion to add a “regular meeting” to the council’s calendar for Oct. 24, so that the council could give the project a second and final approval, assuming that it received initial approval at the Oct. 17 meeting. All ordinance changes require two readings by the council. [A PUD project is an ordinance change, because it changes the zoning of a parcel.] The first regular council meeting in November falls on Nov. 10 (due to the Nov. 8 election) and that was deemed by the developer to be too late.

During deliberations, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned whether the revision to the calendar to add an extra meeting constituted the addition of a “regular meeting,” or was rather the addition of a “special meeting.” Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald noted that it had to be a “regular meeting” due to the charter requirement that a second reading of an ordinance cannot come before the next “regular meeting” of the council, after the initial reading. From the city charter [emphasis added]:

SECTION 7.3.
…
(b) Each proposed ordinance shall receive two readings, which may be by title only, unless ordered by the Council to be read in full or in part. After the first reading of a proposed ordinance, the Council shall determine whether it shall be advanced to a second reading. The second reading shall not be given earlier than the next regular Council meeting.

If the Oct. 24 meeting were labeled a “special meeting,” then the council could not take the second vote on the Heritage Row project at that meeting, because that would be earlier than Nov. 10, the next regular council meeting.

The city charter also stipulates that the council must determine its regular meeting times:

SECTION 4.4.
(a) The Council shall fix the time and place of its regular meetings and shall hold at least two regular meetings in each month. If any day prescribed for a regular meeting of the Council is a holiday, such regular meeting shall be held at the same time and place on the next secular day, except that when such holiday is an election day, the meeting shall be held on the following Thursday.

At the Oct. 3 meeting, defending the labeling of the additional Oct. 24 meeting as a “regular meeting,” mayor John Hieftje observed that the charter allows for more than two “regular meetings” in a month.

However, the mechanism the council uses to fix the time of its “regular meetings” is the set of council rules, which it ratifies after installation of new councilmembers each year. In Rule 1, the principle for scheduling of regular meetings, is laid out:

RULE 1 – Time of Council Meetings
Regular meetings of the Ann Arbor City Council shall be held on the first and third Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall.

During a recess in the Oct. 3 meeting, after the Heritage Row votes were taken, including the motion to modify the council’s calendar by adding a single “regular meeting,” The Chronicle pointed out to Higgins that the council’s vote to establish a “regular meeting” on Oct. 24 had flouted Rule 1. When the council resumed its meeting, Higgins made a motion to suspend Rule 1, and to re-establish the modification of the calendar to add a “regular meeting” on Oct. 24.

Outcome: Later in the meeting, after a recess, the council unanimously approved the suspension of Rule 1 and the addition of a “regular meeting” to the calendar for Oct. 24.

Heritage Row: Substance of the Letter

Around 4 p.m. on Oct. 3, councilmembers received a letter written by Jeff Helminski representing City Place Ann Arbor LLC, the owner of the City Place project. The letter outlined the expectations for modifying the Heritage Row project that would be necessary for the project’s new ownership group to consider building Heritage Row instead of City Place.

Helminski writes: “The investment perspective of the new ownership group and development team is that the formerly proposed Heritage Row project is not economically viable or financeable.” [.pdf of letter from developer] [.pdf of revisions to supplemental regulations for PUD]

The main points of the letter that likely pose the greatest hurdle include a relaxation of the commitment to historic preservation of the existing houses, a relaxation of the energy-conservation features, an increase to the number of residents, and the elimination of any on-site parking requirement.

Heritage Row: Why Hohnke?

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) sponsored the agenda item related to the Heritage Row project. His has been considered the key vote on the project, which needs an eight-vote majority because of a successful petition by nearby property owners to force the super-majority requirement.

The other three councilmembers on the 11-member council who voted against the project have not indicated any hint that they might be inclined to support it now.

On July 6, 2010, when the council reconsidered the project for the first time, later in that same meeting Hohnke first attempted to get his council colleagues to reconsider establishing a historic district in the area. When that failed, he made a motion to suspend the council rules to reconsider the Heritage Row project, apparently finally ready to change his vote. However, the mayor called a recess to the meeting, and during the break Hohnke apparently changed his mind. When that meeting resumed, Hohnke withdrew his motion.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Administrative Envelope

On Oct. 3, Hohnke led off deliberations on the Heritage Row item. He referred to the complexity of the consideration and the multiple timelines as accounting for the late addition to the agenda. He said the council had anticipated a different process for this project. As a council, they had voted to waive part of the fee for resubmitting the project. [The council made that decision at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting.]

However, Hohnke said, that initial development team discovered that the Heritage Row project was not financially viable. The new development team is moving forward with the City Place project instead, he said. Hohnke characterized the new team as very gracious about discussing the Heritage Row project. Hohnke allowed that he had not had a chance to speak with all of the neighbors on the block, but that those he’d spoken to have been very constructive. And those who have been closely involved have indicated support, he said.

What he intended to accomplish, Hohnke said, was to create the opportunity to continue conversations about how to modify the Heritage Row project so that it’s financially viable to the developer and continues to provide the beneficial effects to the city as required by a PUD. He alluded to the letter from the development team, and noted that there’s “a lot of devil in the detail” of the letter. The shortest way to communicate the content of the letter, Hohnke said, is that the goal is for the developer to come back with a version of the plan that is “inside the administrative amendment envelope to the existing site plan.” That is, he said, there would be adjustments of the type that could have been approved administratively for the site plan currently on file with the city.

By way of background, Chapter 57 of the city code defines specifically the type of administrative amendments allowable to a PUD site plan [emphasis added]:

Administrative Amendments to Approved PUD Site Plans. A minor change to an approved PUD site plan may be approved as provided in this Chapter for Administrative Amendments to Approved Site Plans, except that the proposed changes shall not alter the fundamental design, conceptual integrity, natural features shown to be preserved, any specific conditions of the PUD development program, the conceptual PUD plan or the supplemental regulations. The following restrictions shall also apply: Adjustment in approved phase lines shall not result in a change greater than 10% of the total gross land area in any phase, or 10% of the number of approved lots, or 10% of the approved maximum building square footage. Any decrease in building size or changes in bedroom counts per dwelling unit shall not reduce the size or number of affordable housing units approved as part of the PUD site plan.

Given the nature of the explicit changes to the supplemental regulations corresponding to the stipulations in Helminski’s letter, Hohnke’s description of a revised proposal that would fall within the envelope of administrative amendments appears questionable.

In a followup phone interview with The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson offered some clarity about the goal of the conversation between the staff and developer. The proposal to be worked out for the Oct. 17 first reading wouldn’t fit within the envelope of “administrative amendment” to the site plan currently on file with the city, Rampson said. Instead, the goal was to alter the site plan and PUD zoning in a way that, if approved by the council on second reading, any additional changes needed by the developer could be made administratively, Rampson said.

Hohnke concluded by saying that the point of suspending the council rules was for the sole purpose of reconsidering Heritage Row. He stressed that the action that night would not be “determinative” of the kind of project that would result. He urged his colleagues’ support of the motion to suspend the rules.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – What Are We Approving?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Hohnke to explain why he was asking the council to suspend the rules now, some 14 months after the initial vote on the project, and why the developer is not going through a standard PUD process.

Hohnke said there are significant timeline constraints. There are significant financial constraints that the development team is under. Backing up the time of having rent-paying tenants in a new development, Hohnke said, you have a situation where there is not time to have a full process of submitting a new proposal with new supplemental regulations and a new site plan, and going through staff review and the planning commission. The timeline for a full process, he said, is not an option for the development team. The alternative of City Place would be pursued if the full-process option were the only option for Heritage Row. But the council has the opportunity to reconsider a previously submitted site plan, he said.

The flip side to that shortened process is that the development team is then constrained by the existing site plan, Hohnke said. The need to reconsider the existing site plan, he said, is driven by the timelines that drive the financial ability to finance the alternative project.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) ventured that basically it’s because the developer has given tenants notice – that’s what is driving the timeline. The developer could leave tenants in place and go through the process from square one, she said. Hohnke stated that was not the case. He said that when the carrying costs are factored in – something like $14 million – keeping the current tenants in place would cover some, but not enough of the costs to keep the tenants in place and move ahead with a full process. Eliminating the financing carrying costs becomes the critical factor, Hohnke concluded.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said in looking at the reconsideration, there are attachments to the resolution. [.pdf of letter from developer] [.pdf of revisions to supplemental regulations for PUD] She wanted to know if the council would be approving the attachments – because their content gave her great pause, she said.

Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office reviewed for Higgins the set of parliamentary motions described in one of the attachments. [.pdf of parliamentary motions] The first motion was the suspension of rules. The second motion was about the question of the reconsideration. The third motion was to explain the resulting timeline. McDonald noted that one of the attachments is a developer’s letter of requested changes that the city received at 4 p.m. on Monday, which was forwarded to the council.

McDonald stressed that those changes were the developer’s requested changes. McDonald said the city attorney’s office has not had time to review the material. He noted that the third parliamentary motion gave direction to staff to work on incorporating those requests so that council could have a first reading with revised supplemental regulations. The council was not being asked for an approval specifically, he said.

Higgins noted that under the scenario councilmembers were weighing, the council would reconsider the project, then postpone it, giving specific direction to revise the project. She noted the council would be giving direction that staff should spend time on making changes – but she did not agree with many of the changes. The original elements of the project with great public value are being significantly changed, she said. It would be one thing if the direction was being given based on the council’s view of what should happen, she said, but that it appeared that the direction was being given to make modifications based on what the developer wanted.

McDonald acknowledged that the changes were proposed by the developer and had not been reviewed by staff – Higgins was correct. Unless the council provided some other direction, staff would try to check to see if the developer-proposed changes met the PUD standards and would seek to incorporate them as best they could.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Are These Actual Demands?

Hohnke stressed that there is nothing about the letter and the third motion that is constraining. The motion simply directs staff to work with the development team, the council and the community on a “slightly modified PUD.” Hohnke thought it would be helpful to the council for the developer to lay out exactly what he’s suggesting. Because of the accelerated timeline, Hohnke said, it’s not exactly clear to the developer how they need to modify the project to provide financial viability.

Hohnke ventured that the developer is asking for the “maximum envelope.” Hohnke said he would hope that the version the council would see at first reading on Oct. 17 would be “much tighter” on the requirements for renovating the existing houses, height, floor-area-ratio (FAR) and open space requirements. It provides the opportunity to get input to make the project as beneficial as possible, he said.

Hohnke thought the eventual proposal would be different from the outline in the letter – it would be “more beneficial” to the community. At the first reading and at the second reading, the council would have the opportunity to provide additional input. Higgins clarified with McDonald that it would come before the council on Oct. 17, and that it comes back to second reading the very next week on Oct. 24 – at a meeting created through modifying the council’s calendar. Hohnke clarified that given the way weekdays fall this year (with the first day of November falling on a Tuesday), the first regular meeting of the council falls as late as it can possibly come in the month – on Thursday Nov. 10, after the Nov. 8 election. That would be too late for the developer’s timeline, Hohnke said.

With respect to the timeline, McDonald weighed in, saying that the statutory requirement of a 15-day notice before the public hearing on Oct. 24 meant that the public hearing would need to be noticed to the public before the first reading on Oct. 17.

Responding to Hohnke’s mention of opportunities to modify the proposal further at the first and second readings, McDonald advised councilmembers that it was really the occasion of the first reading when they should be considering any possible revisions to the proposal, not the second reading. Material changes made at the second reading would result in an additional reading required before the council, McDonald said.

Higgins lamented the fact that it means it won’t be until the night of the final decision that the council would have the opportunity to hear from the public, and it’s been a very hot topic with the public, she said.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Public Benefit

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted the majority of the public benefit had been removed. [The PUD ordinance stipulates that a public benefit must be provided by a project in order to justify the non-conformance to zoning.] Nothing requires historic preservation of the homes. The developer is cutting back on the affordable housing component. So the question, Kunselman said, is whether the project is a PUD or not. Obviously, he said, Heritage Row did not meet the financial requirements of the developer, because there was too much public benefit and it was costing too much money.

If they’re stripping that out, Kunselman said, maybe the developer needs to do a different project that the developer can afford. What’s wrong with townhomes? he wondered. It’s “mind boggling” Kunselman said, looking at it as someone who had not seen the project from the very beginning. [Kunselman was referring to the fact that a City Place PUD had originally been rejected by the council in January 2009, just after Kunselman left the council, following his defeat in the 2008 Democratic primary by Christopher Taylor. Kunselman won back a seat the following year.]

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) reminded Kunselman that he’d been at the table for the initial Heritage Row vote in the summer of 2010. But she said she had similar concerns as Kunselman. At first glance, she said, it looked like the developer was reducing the public benefit. It wasn’t palatable in the summer of 2010 to some councilmembers, she said, so she was not sure why it would be palatable now, given the reduction in public benefit. She said she was not saying that she wouldn’t continue to support the project – she’d voted for it back in 2010. She found it “kind of awkward” that there is a “bulldozer here and a developer here” and the council is moving towards a weaker set of public benefits than they had the first time around.

Smith said if the preservation of the properties is a public benefit, then she hoped that would be negotiated – at least the facades and as much of the structures as possible. To accept less in public benefit, it would be difficult to agree. She said she’d support it going forward, but she wanted to send the message to be tough in the negotiations.

Hohnke said he agreed with Smith. He felt the historic preservation element of the project was very important. The council had an option for thorough historic preservation, Hohnke reminded his colleagues, which the majority of the council decided not to pursue – despite the unanimous recommendation of the unanimously-appointed historic district study committee to establish an historic district in that area. Whatever way the council had gotten to its current position, he said he didn’t see the value in evaluating past arguments and instead wanted to find a path forward that makes the most sense. If someone wanted to reconsider establishing a historic district, he would be willing to entertain that.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he couldn’t help but think of the phrase: “It’s deja vu all over again.” He ventured that some deathbed conversions are valid and this is one where the council should see what can be done at the last minute to preserve a better project. Derezinski said he’d been supporting the project consistently, because the design was creative and functional, and the public got a lot of benefit out of it. He said Smith is right – as currently described, there’s less public benefit. Giving it a shot would be worth it, he said, so he’d vote for the reconsideration.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he saw very little utility in reviewing past postions. In his view, it was a reasonable and forward-looking proposal to pursue conversations, and it was to the larger good of Ann Arbor that the council do so. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was very reluctant to see the public benefit scaled down. Mayor John Hieftje said he would join others in being cautious. He ventured that the whole development saga on the block will show up in a planning textbook and it would probably “not reflect brightly on us.” But he said he would support Hohnke’s efforts to pull it out of the fire in the end.

Hohnke stressed that there is a long way to go and said that the probability of success is “well, let’s just say not 100%.” But Hohnke said the thinking was to stay on the ballfield until the last out.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she would vote for the reconsideration on the understanding that the council has not seen the development agreement. She echoed Smith’s thoughts in saying she hoped the council sees something better by the time it comes back. The race is to the swift, Briere said, but it’s also to the most accurate.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said everyone had worked hard for the last four years on this project. He was willing to give it another look. He said that with a change of ownership, a new game has started, and the council has to see who it’s dealing with now. That could lead to surprises in either direction.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that he, too, would support the project but like others, he remained somewhat skeptical. It’s going to take a Herculean effort to get to some semblence of a modified project, he felt. However, he was willing to give it one last shot. He’d supported it from the very beginning.

Outcome on suspension of council rules: The council voted unanimously to suspend council rules in order to vote on the matter of reconsideration.

Outcome on reconsideration: The council voted unanimously to reconsider the Heritage Row project.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Incorporating the Letter

Before voting on the postponement and the direction given to staff, and the setting of the additional council meeting on Oct. 24, Higgins ventured that the additional meeting would be a “special meeting” not a “regular meeting.” McDonald said the charter required “at least” two regular meetings each month, but that having a third meeting would not make it a special meeting. It needed to be called a “regular meeting” because otherwise the soonest regular meeting after Oct. 17 would be Nov. 10.

Smith asked for clarification on the final paragraph of the motion:

I move that City Council direct the Planning and Development Services Unit and City Attorney’s Office to incorporate the developer’s proposal into the PUD Zoning and Site Plan, and review all required revised plans, regulations and agreements submitted by the developer, prior to Council consideration.

From that Smith concluded that the attachment was to be incorporated. McDonald said that Smith was correct, but that staff had heard some concerns from the council about public benefit and that it would be appropriate for the council to modify that language – if the council wanted to alter the wording, the council could provide specific direction to staff.

Hohnke did not agree with McDonald’s interpretation. Incorporating the developer’s proposal into the PUD site plan does not reference any particular attachment or set of proposals, Hohnke contended. It just asks staff and the developer to work on this project. The developer’s proposal might be modified from the developer’s letter by the time it reaches its first reading on Oct. 17. He asked McDonald to confirm that there’s nothing in the language to require that the “maximum envelope” expressed in Helminski’s letter be incorporated into the PUD zoning and site plan.

McDonald reiterated what he’d already said: If the council wants the staff to negotiate something, it would be helpful to add specific direction in the motion. McDonald indicated that they’d already heard in the discussion that councilmembers had concerns.

Hieftje said he read Helminski’s letter as saying: We’re going to build City Place, but we may change our mind if we can change Heritage Row so that it’s financially viable for us. He said it’d be a mistake not to put those the elements from the letter into the PUD zoning and site plan. Then if councilmembers wants to say no to it, they can do that. Hieftje said he appreciated the straightforwardness of Helminski’s letter.

Higgins said she understood the developer’s starting point, but still felt there needs to be an accounting for what city staff is to do. If there’s no agreement by Oct. 17, then there may be nothing that comes forward anyway.

Kunselman noted that the already-approved motion had put Heritage Row back on the table. He wanted to know if the council could vote for Heritage Row as it was without any of the amendments, but with all of the public benefit in the project, and just vote it up without amendment? McDonald said he didn’t think that would be appropriate. The owner has not asked for reconsideration except together with some changes pursuant to Helminski’s letter. The developer is not asking for reconsideration of the original proposal, and has stated that the original project is not financially viable, McDonald said.

Taylor felt there was a lot of conversation about what it means for it to be the “developer’s proposal” and for his reading, he did not believe the letter constitutes an “in stone” set of deal points that the developer was proposing. The letter is certainly forceful, Taylor said, and articulates a number of business points that the developer wants to achieve. The current resolution, he said, is appropriate. At the point the council receives a proposal in the form of a revised site plan, that would be the appropriate time to consider the public benefit associated with the proposal.

The development team knows what the council is saying, Taylor said. He thought it made a great deal of sense to go forward along the path indicated in the resolution. When the times comes, the council will make the judgement as to whether the public benefit is great enough.

Teall said that in addition to the letter, she was also looking at the supplemental regulations draft. That seemed pretty specific, she said, and she thought it was pretty clear what the developer was saying. She felt like it could easily be an “exercise in futility.” The developer had laid it out very clearly. She said she would not count on a lot of changes from what was indicated.

Rapundalo agreed with Taylor and felt it was a set of parameters or conditions. It’s “the box we’re going to work within.” The developer would come back with a final version and the council could then take it or leave it on its merits, he said. The developer just wanted to let the council know what the key elements were for the developer. He had no problem giving the developer time to work with the staff.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Making Direction Explicit

Derezinski said he felt there was potential ambiguity in the last paragraph. He proposed an amendment to the resolution that gave it the following form [additional material in italics]:

I move that City Council direct the Planning and Development Services Unit and City Attorney’s Office to incorporate the developer’s letter proposal into the previously proposed PUD Zoning and Site Plan, and review all required revised plans, regulations and agreements submitted by the developer, in accordance with the requirements of the PUD ordinance, including making suggested changes, prior to Council consideration.

Taylor said that a number of councilmembers had indicated their dissatisfaction with a number of points articulated in the developer’s letter. In the amendment, the council would be instructing staff to incorporate the letter into the site plan amendments, without regard to whether the developer might choose to rethink the requirements.

Taylor said he wouldn’t support the amendment because of the injection of the mention of the letter. The goal is to receive the developer’s last, best offer. Let’s wait and see what the developer brings to the staff – if it’s exactly what’s in the letter, councilmembers can vote on it as they will, Taylor said.

Briere confirmed with Hohnke that the letter and revised supplemental regulations had just arrived late that afternoon and McDonald had indicated he had not yet reviewed it. To her, she said, that indicated it was put together “in a hurry.” Hohnke replied to Briere by saying that “overnight is a generous description.”

Hohnke then said he felt the council was “over-thinking it.” City staff had asked the developer to provide the letter and revised supplemental regulations merely to provide the council with an understanding of the “maximum envelope” the developer is considering. It was not intended to lay out clearly specifically what they’re driving at. It was meant to “set some stakes in the ground.”

Briere replied that if the letter is just concepts, then the council was not actually seeing the developer’s proposal that night. She wondered if the council would see the proposal before the evening of Oct. 17. Hohnke said it would come sooner than that, because it would be an agenda item and would be distributed on Wednesday afternoon [Oct. 12] before the council meeting. There would be plenty of time to review it. If that was the case, Briere ventured, the council should be content to wait.

Higgins said two paragraphs in the letter were of concern to her:

I encourage you to take the necessary actions to allow our team and the City to continue a productive dialog in pursuit of the creative solutions necessary to devise an alternative development plan that meets the requirements of all involved.

Following is a summary of the revisions to the former Heritage Row supplemental regulations necessary to facilitate a change of direction from City Place to an alternative plan

Higgins said that read to her as exactly the things the developer needed to have in order to diverge from constructing City Place. That’s saying to her these are things they need to have. Maybe that’s a starting point, but the council will have to see if that meets the PUD ordinance. Then the council could see if there is a way to meet in the middle. She supported the amendment.

Kunselman suggested taking the course of striking all reference to the developer. Then the staff and the developer can work through whatever they want. At Hieftje’s request, McDonald offered that the council’s conversation had made clear what their concerns were and the council’s position with regard to Helminski’s letter. McDonald said he did not think that Derezinski’s amendment would require staff to follow Helminski’s letter. The amendment added some clarity that the staff needed to respond to the appropriateness of the proposal with regard to the PUD ordinance, McDonald said.

Higgins said she appreciated hearing from the city attorney’s office, but she also needed to hear it from the city administrator, because he would be handling it. “Do you have clear direction to move forward and have this dialogue?” she asked city administrator Steve Powers. His one-word reply: “Yes.”

Hieftje said he wouldn’t support the amendment, saying the way the resolution had come to the council was fairly simple, cut-and-dried.

Outcome on Derezinski’s amendment: The council approved the amendment on a 6-5 vote. Voting for it were Anglin, Smith, Derezinski, Kunselman, Teall and Higgins. Voting against it were Hieftje, Briere, Rapundalo, Taylor and Hohnke.

Some confusion ensued when the mayor misheard the report from the clerk that the amendment had been approved.

Outcome on the main motion: The council voted to postpone consideration of Heritage Row until Oct. 17.

City Place Construction Sequence

Also considered by the council at its Oct. 3 meeting was a request to modify the original development agreement for City Place. The intent was to relieve the timeline pressure on the developer to start utilities work immediately. The original agreement was standard for the city of Ann Arbor. It called for utilities work on water mains and storm sewers to be completed before construction could start.

The revised agreement on City Place doesn’t require the utilities work to be completed until later – before a certificate of occupancy is issued. So the revision gives the developer added flexibility to enter into negotiations with the city on the resubmittal of Heritage Row, which would require different utilities work.

City Place Construction: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said the intent of the resolution has two elements: the assignment of the project to the new ownership; and modification of the construction sequence.

Hohnke asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain the rationale for the standard requirement that off-site utility work be completed before on-site construction starts. Rampson said that if a building gets built without public utilities, you would have a completed building with no utilities in place. The standard requirement avoids that situation, she said.

Hohnke drew out the fact that Zaragon II had been a project where a pitted water main had slowed down work on off-site utilities and that the city had worked with the developer to allow off-site work and on-site construction to go on concurrently – the idea of allowing the adjustment of the requirement was not unprecedented.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ventured that if Heritage Row were to be approved, the resolution would be moot.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was worried about the certificate of occupancy and wondered if the state statute stipulated when a certificate of occupancy could be granted. He indicated he would not be voting for it, based on that consideration.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she could imagine that the council would approve the resolution on the construction sequence. She said she could also imagine that in three weeks, the council would not approve Heritage Row. She asked what the options were on that scenario. She wanted to know if the council could revisit the resolution and remove the arrangements about construction sequencing.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald indicated that would not be appropriate – the developer asked for the construction sequence change to allow reconsideration of Heritage Row. The development team wanted to make sure they weren’t put at a loss with respect to carrying costs, with the construction season now coming to a close. Once that’s approved, he said, it would be in place permanently. Briere confirmed there would be no opportunity to revisit the issue.

In light of Kunselman’s expressed concern, Hohnke asked for confirmation from McDonald that the language had been reviewed and approved by the city attorney’s office.

Outcome: The council approved the alteration in the construction sequence with apparent dissent from Anglin, Briere and Kunselman, but no roll call vote was taken.

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax

Again on the council’s agenda, after being postponed at its last meeting, was a resolution of intent for the use of proceeds from a street/sidewalk repair millage that will be on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Voters will be asked to approve two separate proposals: (1) a 5-year renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to support street repair projects; and (2) an 0.125 mill tax to pay for sidewalk repair.

The resolution of intent would specify that the street repair millage will pay for the following activities: resurfacing or reconstruction of existing paved city streets and bridges, including on-street bicycle lanes and street intersections; construction of pedestrian refuge islands; reconstruction and construction of accessible street crossings and corner ramps; and preventive pavement maintenance (PPM) measures, including pavement crack sealing. [.pdf of resolution of intent]

The resolution of intent would stipulate that sidewalk repairs inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district will not be funded by the sidewalk repair millage, except when the sidewalks are adjacent to single- and two-family houses. A recent meeting of the DDA’s operations committee revealed a measure of discontent on the DDA’s part about the intended restriction inside the DDA district and the lack of communication from the city of Ann Arbor to the DDA about that issue.

The resolution states that both inside and outside the DDA district (otherwise put, throughout the city), the sidewalk repair millage would be used only to pay for sidewalk repair adjacent to property on which the city levies a property tax. One impact of that resolution of intent, if it’s adopted, is that the city’s sidewalk repair millage will not be used to pay for repairs to sidewalks adjacent to University of Michigan property.

Intent on Sidewalk/Streets: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) who sponsored the resolution, began by noting that a phrase had inadvertently been dropped from the language of the resolution of intent in the editing from the last council meeting. She asked that it be re-inserted. It was part of the statement that the accounting for how the millage money would be spent would be separate, even though the revenue would be deposited into the same fund. Briere said this was a commitment that staff had made during the public information meetings about the millage. She moved an amendment that made the change.

Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, said that in the staff’s discussions with the public there was general support for flexibility in the sidewalk millage. The city may need to spend more than .0125 mills, or less, depending on the need. But McCormick said the city is committed to tracking what it’s spending on each kind of activity: sidewalk repair and bridges/street repair. It won’t be in separate funds, but the city will track it, she said. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked if McCormick saw any problems with the language in the resolution of intent. She told him she saw no problems whatsoever.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked about the DDA exclusion. She didn’t think the DDA was excluded in the ballot language, just in the resolution of intent. McCormick could not confirm Smith’s statement, saying she wished she had it in front of her. However, she did confirm for Smith that the exclusion was part of the discussion the city staff had with the public.

Smith asked what portion of the city’s sidewalks are inside the DDA district. McCormick didn’t know. Smith then asked what the revenue from the millage would be for the city compared to the DDA’s tax capture in the district – Smith ventured it was roughly a 2/3 to 1/3 split. McCormick said she could not speak to those numbers. [For Chronicle reporting on this, see: "Committee Briefed on Downtown Sidewalks"]

Smith then focused on the qualitative aspect of the exclusion instead of dwelling on the quantitative angle. The idea is that all properties inside the DDA would be excluded, except single-family houses and duplexes. McCormick contended that it’s consistent with what the DDA has done with sidewalk corner ramps. Smith asked if the DDA maintains responsibility for the sidewalks in the downtown – yes, answered McCormick. What about the vaults? Smith asked. McCormick characterized that as a private property issue. Smith asked if city staff would do sidewalk inspections inside the DDA. At that point, mayor John Hieftje asked Smith if she intended to be talking on the topic of the amendment. She replied, “Oh, I’m way off the amendment!” The council then approved the amendment Briere had suggested and Smith continued with her line of questions.

McCormick explained that city staff “could be available” for sidewalk inspections inside the DDA district, but that it has not been discussed. Smith inquired about the property across from the University of Michigan – like on State Street along the Diag – how will the city treat that? McCormick said she wished that Homayoon Pirooz, the city’s head of project management, were at the meeting – she couldn’t answer at that level of detail. Smith then apologized for not having it dawn on her until this point to ask about the DDA issue, and noted that no staff was present to address her questions. At that point, Smith moved for a postponement, saying, “I would beg indulgence to postpone for another two weeks.”

Derezinski asked if there was any timing problems associated with a delay. McCormick indicated there was not a problem – the idea is to have something in place before the Nov. 8 ballot.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reminded her colleagues that when the issue was before the council at its previous meeting, they’d talked about using a fact sheet to tell people how the money will be spent. She asked if there was anything in the resolution of intent that is not in the fact sheet. McCormick described the language in the fact sheet and in the resolution of intent as “mutually supportive.” Higgins ventured that if the fact sheet is even more detailed than the resolution of intent, she was not sure the council needed to pass a resolution.

Hieftje noted that the conversation seemed to be wandering from the issue of postponement. Briere said she’d rather vote it up or down, instead of postponing. But in arguing for a resolution of intent instead of just a fact sheet, she reported that when she looked for fact sheets for the current millage, they’d disappeared. But a resolution of intent for the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage remained in the public record – you can find it again 20 years later. The fact sheet, however, can no longer be found on the city’s website. She said she agreed with whatever the rest of the council decides what to do, as long as they do something by the time of the election.

Briere said that Smith hadn’t noticed that the DDA exclusion was already in the resolution for the ballot language. A fact sheet is created for the public to present at public meetings, but a resolution is for the council to have a record to refer to in the future. It would be a benefit to future members of the council who want to know why previous members did what they did, she said.

The motion to postpone was then withdrawn in order to continue debate on the motion itself.

Higgins said she thought that Pirooz had the old fact sheet. She suggested that a way to approach the issue would be to do things administratively (with a fact sheet) instead of legislatively (with a resolution). The fact sheet is more detailed anyway, Higgins said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was a little confused. He noted that the city staff drafted a fact sheet. What’s new this year on the fact sheet is preventive maintenance, which was not done in the past, he said. How does staff determine to take a reconstruction millage and do preventive maintenance? If the council passes a resolution, then when the staff holds public meetings, they could say the council has approved preventive maintenance.

Hieftje then asked McCormick how the street repair millage works for streets in the DDA district. McCormick explained that historically, in the old contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system, the DDA made a contribution to the street millage fund for maintenance of on-street parking lanes. Under the new contract, she explained, it’s a formulaic approach in which a lump sum payment is made by the DDA to the city, based on a percentage of gross parking revenues. Hieftje stated that his understanding is that the DDA has taken care of sidewalk repair for property owners.

Smith responded to Hieftje by saying that the way the resolution is worded, the DDA appears to be responsible for repairs but would not receive the full benefit of the millage, but would instead receive only a portion – due to the TIF capture. Based on her back-of-the-napkin calculations, it would be around $15,000, Smith said. Hieftje contended that the DDA had been handling sidewalk repair in the downtown all this time on their own. Smith countered, saying she was not sure that’s accurate.

Smith then reintroduced her motion to postpone. Hieftje said he’d support the postponement, given the uncertainty about the situation with the DDA sidewalks.

Briere took the perspective that staff has set its budget based on the expectation of doing things a certain way. If the resolution of intent were amended, and it changed the responsibility of who repaired sidewalks inside the DDA district, Briere wanted to know if that would significantly affect the budget. McCormick replied that it was hard to say. If more had to be spent on sidewalks, then less would be spent on bridge and street repair, she said.

Briere said given that the staff set the language in the ballot based on a set of assumptions. Briere did not have a problem with clarifying the situation with the DDA sidewalks, but only if it affects what the council decides. What benefit would the information bring to deliberations? she asked.

Outcome: The council approved postponing the resolution of intent on the use of street/sidewalk repair millage funds, over the dissent of Kunselman.

Rezoning for Med Marijuana

At its Oct. 3 meeting, the council was asked to rezone a South State Street property, so that it could be used as a medical marijuana dispensary.

The owner of Treecity Health Collective, a dispensary at 1712 S. State, had requested that the city planning commission recommend the location be rezoned from O (office) to C1 (local business). The owner had also asked that the area plan requirement for that location be waived. However, at their Aug. 16, 2011 meeting, planning commissioners recommended denial of the requests, based on a staff recommendation, stating that C1 zoning is not consistent with adjacent zoning, land uses and the city’s master plan.

And at their Sept. 19 meeting, councilmembers were hesitant to vote down the rezoning, and instead decided to delay their vote. The council is looking ahead to another rezoning request in the same vicinity on South State – for Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky – and appears keen to treat them in parallel fashion. At its Sept. 8 meeting, the city planning commission recommended denial of Biercamp’s rezoning request, which would allow the sausage business to sell a greater variety of products beyond those manufactured on the site.

The Treecity Health Collective opened in 2010. This summer, the council approved amendments to the city’s zoning ordinances that prevent medical marijuana dispensaries from operating in office zoning districts – those changes were set to take effect on Aug. 22, 2011. Rather than relocate the dispensary, the business asked for the zoning change. The property – located on the west side of State, south of Stimson – is owned by Francis Clark.

A recent court of appeals ruling has raised legal questions about the existence of dispensaries under Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act. However, the Ann Arbor city council decided at its Sept. 6 meeting to proceed with the appointment of four out of the five members of its medical marijuana licensing board and subsequently appointed the fifth member. That body met for the first time on Sept. 21.

Medical Marijuana Rezoning: Public Commentary

Dennis Hayes began by quipping that just when the council thought they could get rid of him, he was back again. He told councilmembers that Treecity Health Collective has been working hard to comply with numerous requests from the city. Treecity has been in contact with the city attorney’s office and the planning staff and and have been quite diligent, he said. He understood that the requested zoning by Treecity is not part of the master plan, but he thinks it’s an appropriate use. It’s a nice space that was built up quite nicely, he said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and local attorney Dennis Hayes.

Hayes also mentioned that city planning staff has demanded information about the operation of medical marijuana businesses, based on a court of appeals decision from a couple of weeks ago: People v. McQueen. Hayes criticized the city attorney for adopting the Michigan attorney general’s analysis of the lawsuit, which is a disservice to the law and to the office of the attorney general, Hayes said. The attorney general was dealing with medical marijuana patients by “taking a chainsaw” to the statute, he said.

Hayes encouraged the councilmembers who are lawyers to read the language in the McQueen case. He said he did not think the language in the case stands for the proposition that the city attorney has asserted. The case simply says you can’t sell it for profit in Michigan, which is not news, he said.

One of the problems on a larger scale, he said, is that it’s difficult to find places to accept medical marijuana collectives. He hoped that the approval process with the licensing board would take that into account.

Medical Marijuana Rezoning: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off deliberations saying she was a bit conflicted. She said the staff recommendation against the rezoning is based on the idea that rezoning would go against the city’s master plan. But she said that in going over the notes from the planning commission, she’d noticed that changes to the zoning are not to be undertaken “except to correct an error in the Chapter, because of a change in municipal policy, or because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the municipality generally, to rezone an area, extend the boundary of an existing Zoning District or to change the regulations and restrictions thereof.”

Smith said she felt the Produce Station, located nearby at 1629 S. State St., has changed the particular area tremendously. She did not feel it’s strictly speaking a “spot zoning,” as the planning staff had concluded. Smith invited Wendy Rampson, head of city planning, to come to the podium and help her to go through her thoughts. Why wasn’t changing conditions pertinent in this case?

Rampson told Smith that it is pertinent – for the whole State Street corridor, viewed from Stimson down to Ellsworth. The planning commission grappled with that, but it is a small piece of land, Rampson said, so to take one piece out of context wasn’t appropriate. There wasn’t sufficient justification for the rezoning.

Smith said it seemed that the row of 10 houses on the west side of the street had retail-like businesses. Did that have any relevance? Rampson told Smith that in looking at the whole corridor it would be relevant. Alluding to the use of the existing property as a medical marijuana collective, Rampson said there are some current uses that were determined without the benefit of permits. She noted that the property on which the Biercamp business is located was annexed into Ann Arbor from Ann Arbor Township with zoning grandfathered in from the township, even though the business hadn’t originally been legally established in the township.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that as the city council representative on the planning commission, he agreed with what Rampson said. Once you start, it’s a slippery slope, he cautioned. This rezoning request, said Derezinski, underscores why the city needs to have a corridor study. It reminded him of the R4C/R2A situation, in which the zoning needed to accomodate the changes that are happening. [The city formed an advisory committee to study R4C/R2A zoning. A final recommendation hasn't yet been presented.] After the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, he said, the State Street corridor was the planning commission’s second priority.

Alluding to the planned construction of a Costco at the intersection of State and Ellsworth, Derezinski noted that the corridor would soon include a big-box store. Any consideration of rezoning should be done comprehensively, he said – that was the reason for the planning commission action on this matter.

From left: Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Rampson to describe conditional rezoning. He wanted to know if that would still be an option that could be pursued if the council decided to deny the current rezoning request.

Rampson indicated that it could be brought back as a conditional rezoning request. The business had contacted the city about that option and informational materials had been provided, she said. She described conditional rezoning as allowing a property owner to come to the city with a request and voluntarily restrict itself to a particular use, in order to proceed with a particular zoning.

For example, Rampson said, a restriction could be to use it as a medical marijuana dispensary. A business at the location of Ellsworth and Platt is the one example of the application of this kind of tool in the city, she said. That business is restricted from alcohol sales, she said. She called it a relatively new tool.

Rampson invited assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald to comment. He characterized conditional rezoning as a really broad statute that the legislature created where a property owner can “offer and voluntarily accept a condition on zoning.”

As far as the timing issue, Rampson said a new request could go to the planning commission, or the current request could be paused at this point. The challenge for this petitioner, Rampson said, was the timing related to the medical marijuana licensing ordinance.

Kunselman thought this situation was a good example of where conditional rezoning would work. The business is already operational under the current condition, he said. If it comes back as a request under conditional rezoning, he said, he would support it.

Outcome: The council voted against approval of the rezoning request, with dissent from Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith.

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) District

The council was asked to consider a resolution to establish an Energy Financing District and a Property Assessed Clean Energy program (PACE). The council had formally expressed its intention to establish an Energy Financing District and a PACE. The vote came after a formal public hearing.

The resolution of intent refers to a report, which describes in detail the project and property eligibility for PACE, as well as project size, application process, and financing, among other elements.

At its March 7, 2011 meeting, the council had voted to set up a $432,800 loan loss reserve fund to support the city’s planned PACE program. The money for the fund comes from an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) awarded to the city by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Through its PACE program, the city of Ann Arbor will help commercial property owners finance energy improvements through voluntary special assessments. By establishing a loan loss pool, the city can reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. [Some previous Chronicle coverage of PACE: "Special District Might Fund Energy Program"]

PACE: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for senior citizens and disabled persons who need the advantages of the improvements. He applauded this step, but called attention to the fact that most of the benefits are generally aimed at businesses – the most profitable businesses. There should be an “equal rights amendment,” Partridge said, to make it available to residents as well. He told the council they should ensure the district is as wide as possible – the entire county is possible.

Conan Smith is a Washtenaw County commissioner from Ann Arbor and is married to state Sen. Rebekah Warren, who has claimed a lot of the credit for the PACE legislation. Smith appeared during public commentary to say how excited he was about it. It’s one of the best things we can do, Smith said, and the fact that Ann Arbor is at the forefront is something to be proud of. The “green economy” is important for the future, he said. At the county level, Smith said, he would like to look at the work that is happening in the city and try to replicate that in smaller units of government across the county.

Smith noted that the the smaller townships wouldn’t be able to offer the bonds necessary for the program, but he thought that funding could be aggregated at the county level so that the program could be expanded. He thanked the council for taking the lead on the issue. He also thanked city environmental coordinator Matt Naud and others for their work on the issue.

PACE: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) [not related to Conan Smith] said she was pleased to see the program come forward. She described the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s energy grant program as a kind of “pilot program” for PACE. She hoped eventually it would be available for residential properties. It would result in better buildings and less waste on energy.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for clarification about what properties are eligible. Wendy Barrot, who is administering the program for the city of Ann Arbor, explained that if a property has three or more units, it’s eligible. Mayor John Hieftje ticked through names of people he wanted to thank for moving the program forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to establish the PACE district.

Annexations: Scio to Ann Arbor

The city council was asked to consider annexations of six properties on the west side of the city, all inside a well prohibition zone that was expanded in March 2011. The expansion of the zone came as a result of a consent agreement between the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment, which relaxed environmental cleanup requirements on Pall Corp. The previous prohibition zone had been established because of 1,4 dioxane groundwater contamination caused by the Pall’s Wagner Road facility, formerly owned by Gelman Sciences.

Annexation will allow these properties to connect to city of Ann Arbor water services. Pall has paid all petition filing fees as well as the connection and improvement charges for water and sanitary sewer service that are related to the annexations. All of the parcels are currently part of Scio Township. They will be annexed with the R1C (single-family residential) category. These annexations are not part of the systematic township-to-city annexation strategy authorized by the city council at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

[Google map of well prohibition zones and property locations] [.jpg of map with well prohibition zones and property locations]

Annexations: Public Hearings

Each annexation included a public hearing. Thomas Partridge spoke at only one of them.

Partridge introduced himself as a past candidate for the county board and for the state senate, and asked the council to delay action on all the annexation resolutions. It’s taking property away from the townships along with the property tax revenue that townships need. He called for state legislation to make consolidation of city and county governments possible, similar to what is being contemplated in the Grand Rapids area.

During council communications following the public hearings, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave a reminder to the public that each of the properties being annexed has its own reasons. The dioxane plume might have something to do with it, she said. She stressed that this is not a “cluster” that is part of the city’s recently enacted strategy for systematically annexing township islands into the city. She noted that all of the property owners are asking to leave Scio Township and join the city of Ann Arbor.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the annexations on separate votes.

DTE Gas Line Easement

On the council’s Oct. 3 agenda was a resolution granting an easement to DTE Energy for the installation of a gas main pipe north of Fuller Road in Fuller Park. The easement includes a number of requirements on DTE related to the gas line installation. DTE will need to use horizontal boring, instead of trenching, for the section of pipe near the Fuller Road pool entrance.

The easement also includes a number of requirements to protect trees in the vicinity. For example, no roots greater than two inches in diameter are to be cut except with authorization of a city forester, and no equipment can be stored under the dripline of any city-owned tree.

DTE Easement: Public Commentary

Rita Mitchell addressed the council on the grant of easement to DTE. The council information packet provides maps and the resolution, but no documentation of the language for the agreement between the city and DTE. She said that she felt it was important that the council and the public really understand what’s in the agreement. She criticized the fact that the context for the change is not provided – the location of existing gas lines and the reason for making the change is not provided. So she urged the council to defer action.

Mitchell said she believed the easement work was an attempt to move ahead with the Fuller Road Station without labeling it as such on the agenda. [Fuller Road Station is a proposed large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station, to be built on city-owned property in partnership with the University of Michigan. It has been criticized for its location on land designated as parkland. A surface parking lot is currently located on the site.]

Mitchell wanted to know what the city cost will be? Will the land that’s being granted belong to DTE? If so, that would be giving away parkland without a vote by the public, she said. Is the easement revocable? If it’s not, then it’s a gift, she said. She told the council that they are the ones who control the parkland and that they need to follow Chapter 34 of the city code in making their decision. [Chapter 34 concerns the grant of gas franchise.]

DTE Easement: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked who’s being served by the utilities work. Paul Ganz – DTE Energy regional manager for the counties of Ingham, Jackson, Livingston and most of Washtenaw – described it as a “garden variety easement request” to replace infrastructure that serves the entire city. It’s part of a federally-mandated effort to make sure gas infrastructure meets all new specifications, he said.

A high-pressure main will be replaced, Ganz said. It would provide service from the Maiden Lane regulator. The main serves a vault that disperses gas throughout that area of the city. It is typically at around 300 pounds of pressure. By way of comparison, Ganz said, a house is served at about 1/4 pound of pressure or the city hall at around 2 pounds of pressure.

Ganz said he expected the work would be completed in about four weeks. It’s a typical agreement that is struck between MichCon and municipalities. He noted that it sometimes requires the city and his company to work around each other, and said he appreciated consideration they received from the city of Ann Arbor staff.

Briere asked why the main was not installed under the road instead of in the park. The answer, from Barbara Rykwalder of DTE, was that they did not want to obstruct traffic on Fuller Road.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got confirmation that there’s an existing pipeline with probably an existing easement.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if there was any relation of the project to Fuller Road Station. Rykwalder explained that the work to be done is due purely to a federal mandate – the pipeline needs to be replaced and DTE was abiding by a federal mandate.

Anglin then asked if the city would still own the land. Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office explained that an easement granted use of land, but ownership would remain with the city.

Work Session: Nov. 14

The council was asked to consider a resolution to add a work session to its calendar for Nov. 14, 2011. At the council’s Sept. 19 meeting, the council had voted to postpone consideration of a proposed amendment to the city’s public art ordinance – councilmembers expressed an interest in having a working session on the topic before voting on the proposed amendment to the public art ordinance. The public art ordinance taps 1% of all capital improvement project budgets to pay for public art.

The resolution itself did not specify the topic of the working session. It simply indicates: “Due to the numerous activities developing in the City, it is necessary to schedule an additional work session to bring Council up to date;”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to add a Nov. 14 work session to the calendar.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission Liaison

Near the conclusion of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje seemed prepared to forgo any additional transactions after confirmation of some appointments to the city’s human rights commission. But Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reminded Hieftje that at the previous meeting, on Sept. 19, Hieftje had said he would be nominating Margie Teall (Ward 4) as the council’s liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

The revelation at that Sept. 19 meeting also came at Kunselman’s prodding, after Kunselman had offered at the Sept. 6 meeting to serve as the replacement for Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as liaison. Derezinski had asked to be excused from that position, in order to serve on the city’s public art commission, after Jeff Meyers resigned from that post.

Hieftje made the nomination of Teall as housing commission liaison.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Teall’s appointment as council liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Habitat for Humanities Lawsuit Settlement

A late addition to the agenda asked the council to authorize settlement of a lawsuit. The authorized settlement resulted in the payment of $229.12 by Habitat for Humanities to the city of Ann Arbor. One of the defendants in the suit was the University of Michigan.

In contrast to the city of Ann Arbor, the university’s legal department makes its litigation reports easily accessible to the public. From the UM May 2011 litigation report to the board of regents:

Habitat for Humanity of Huron Valley v Angela Rowlands, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its Housing Bureau for Seniors, and the City of Ann Arbor. Washtenaw County Circuit Court. (Judge Archie C. Brown) (Served April 18, 2011 ).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rowlands defaulted on a mortgage which was payable to Habitat for Humanity. The Housing Bureau for Seniors holds a second mortgage on the property. Habitat claims that defendants Regents and the City claim an interest in the property but that such interests are subordinate to the mortgage interest of Habitat. Plaintiff Habitat seeks payment of the note and mortgage, plus costs and attorney fees, from defendant Rowlands or, in the alternative, asks the court to allow the mortgage to be foreclosed and the premises sold at public sale with the proceeds paid to Habitat. Habitat also asks the court to determine that the interests held by the Regents and the City are subordinate to Habitat’s interests.

Outcome: Without comment, the council approved the settlement of the case involving Habitat for Humanities.

Fuller Road Station, Transportation

Although the council had an item on its agenda in the same geographic vicinity as the proposed Fuller Road Station – the DTE gas main easement – there were no items involving a vote specifically on that project. However, public commentary on that easement (from Rita Mitchell, see above) raised questions about the possible connection of that work to the planned transit station and parking structure.

Other parts of the meeting also included discussion of the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Libby Hunter delivered her public commentary, as has become her custom, in the form of some familiar tune with revised lyrics. The tune was “This Land Is Your Land,” featuring commentary on the proposed Fuller Road Station. Lyrics included “This park’s not made for you and me” and “It’s Go Blue land,” a critical allusion to the University of Michigan’s role in the proposed deal. A reference to mayor John Hieftje was also included in the lyrics: “He stole our park land.”

Fuller Road Station: Council, Administrator Communications

During a slot on the agenda reserved for council communications, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he wanted to read aloud a communication he’d received from a constituent about Fuller Road Station. The project seemed to be proceeding without an “absolute vote” of the council, he said. The communication indicated strong opposition to any planning for Fuller Road Station without a public referendum. The current proposal for the land is in the form of a lease, which seemed like a way to circumvent the requirement that the sale of city parkland be subjected to a public referendem. Having a referendum, even on the lease of the land, would abide by the spirit of the charter requirement.

Responding to Anglin, Hieftje said he had some news about the Fuller Road Station project, pointedly referring to the portion of Fuller Park where the project is to be built as the “paved parking lot across the street from the Fuller Park pool and soccer complex.” He said the federal government had previously awarded $2.8 million for the first phase of the Fuller Road Station, and the news was that the funds had now been formally obligated.

Hieftje also described the action by the Michigan state legislature as “tremendous news” for rail transportation in Michigan because $160 million had been secured in federal matching funds, which will come with an additional $200 million – bringing a total of roughly $380 million to the state. That will ensure the purchase of the rail line between Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and that the improvements needed to bring the track up to standards necessary for high-speed rail are made, Hieftje said. The track improvements needed for commuter rail will be part of that, he said.

Hieftje said he had told the city’s transportation program manager Eli Cooper to take up the issue of finding locations for possible sidings with Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). MDOT already owns the trains, he noted, and he’d learned on NPR that the sale of the rail from Norfolk Southern might come as early as next week. [A deal was announced on Wednesday, Oct. 5.]

From left: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and city administrator Steve Powers.

Briere responded to the mayor by thanking him for the update. She said she was grateful he had mentioned the rolling stock, and that it was good to remind people that what they’re waiting on is the track. When the sale is completed, Briere said, the 25 mph limit on trains could be lifted, once the track is brought up to standard. Hieftje stated that Norfolk Southern has known for the last 1.5-2 years that it would be selling the track. He likened the situation to that of a homeowner who has already sold their house – you don’t spend a lot of money fixing it up.

Hieftje followed up again on the rolling stock by noting that the cars, outfitted with new seats, had received crash test certification.

From city administrator Steve Powers’ communications, one highlight involved transportation. He noted that the Oct. 10 city council work session would focus on the high-capacity connector feasibility study. [For background, see: "AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates"]

Communications and Comment

Comm/Comm: ICMA Visitors

At the city planning commission’s Sept. 8 meeting, Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, had told commissioners about some visitors from Indonesia that the city is hosting through an International City/County Management Association (ICMA) sustainability fellows program. At Monday’s council meeting, she introduced them: Olah Sajekti and Cesaria Hafstuti.

Comm/Comm: Government Consolidation

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) responded to comments by Thomas Partridge during a public hearing on annexations into Ann Arbor suggesting the consolidation of different levels of government. Derezinski said the council is not unaware of the One Kent proposal to which Partridge had alluded. [Reporting on the One Kent proposal from Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy: "Update on One Kent Local Government Consolidation Proposal"]

Derezinski said that councilmembers had talked to Grand Rapids mayor George Heartwell. The council is trying to get more regional collaboration, Derezinski said. The Grand Rapids proposal has been talked about a long time, he said– as long ago as back when he practiced law there in the 1970s.

Derezinski said that not all regional governments work, but some do. Indianapolis is a good example of one that works, he said. In the conversations about consolidation, there is a lot of emphasis on power sharing, which is a main obstacle. There are differences between Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids, he noted. But Grand Rapids is a comparable city to Ann Arbor in terms of the future of the state, he contended. “Stay tuned on that one,” Derezinski said. “There’s a lot more to come.”

Comm/Comm: Partridge

Thomas Partridge told the council that he had been a witness to history when John F. Kennedy came to Ann Arbor and proposed the Peace Corps, as well as when Lyndon Johnson had proposed the Great Society program. Partridge asked the council to remember the efforts in the 1960s to improve society, mentioning programs like Head Start. All issues are ultimately tied to the issue of civil rights, he said. He called on the council, in light of the unfinished work of the 1960s, to prioritize an agenda to address the need for affordable housing by requiring that every developer develop quality housing, not aimed at students.

At the conclusion of the council’s meeting during public commentary time, Partridge criticized bullying being perpetrated by Republican leaders in the state. He said he was disappointed that state representatives did not attend the council meeting to talk about their efforts in the legislature to stop the dishonorable bullying being carried out in the state of Michigan. Partridge said that in 2010 he had run for the senate seat now held by Rebekah Warren, but that she doesn’t appear at council meetings to convey what her stances are and what her votes are. [Warren attended part of the meeting that night in connection with the establishment of a PACE district – she played a role in enacting the state's enabling legislation.]

Comm/Comm: League of Local Government

Kermit Schlansker proposed a league of local governments that would include the city, county and state, and that could finance pilot projects that are important to the needs of the people, he said. Progress would then not be contingent on the uncertainties of national politics. As an example, he suggested a car specified as a four-passenger, hybrid car costing less than $18,000, built in the U.S. and getting 45 mpg. If the sale of 10,000 such cars were guaranteed, then the car would be built, he suggested. Schlansker went on to describe how a league of local governments could support energy farms.

Comm/Comm: Palestine

Henry Herskovitz told the council he wanted to address an issue of fairness. He drew an analogy from the local city code to international politics. He noted that Ann Arbor requires a window-unit air conditioner to be in the rear. If he wanted to install it on the side, he had to get support from his neighbors, he said. His neighbors’ opinions matter more, when it comes to his air conditioner, and that makes sense, he said. The opinion of someone who lives miles away, he said, should matter less.

Herskovitz continued by noting that in this summer’s edition of the Washtenaw Jewish News, Victor Lieberman appeals to the United Nations vote of 1947 to argue for the legitimacy of the state of Israel. The outcome of that vote, Herskovitz said, was 33-13, with 10 abstaining. Applying Ann Arbor’s doctrine of fairness, the votes from those countries that would be most impacted by creating a new state in that area should count for more. The group that was most impacted by the decision – Palestineans – had no vote whatsoever. He showed the council a map of the world.

Countries that voted no in 1947 included Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and Yemen. Those are neighbors to Palestine, he said, and their votes should have counted more than the votes of those far away. Countries that voted yes in 1947 included the United States, Canada, Brazil, Bolivia, Norway, Australia and New Zealand. The 1947 vote didn’t represent the interests of those people who were most impacted by the decision. The unfairness of that decision, Herskovitz concluded, undermines the claim, based on the 1947 vote, to the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Oct. 17, 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!

Heritage Row Has Glimmer of Hope

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 04:02:35 +0000

At its Oct. 3, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council reconsidered the Heritage Row planned unit development (PUD) for South Fifth Avenue, after declining to do so almost a year ago – on Dec. 6, 2010. This time around the council successfully suspended the council rules to allow for the reconsideration, and voted unanimously to reconsider the project and then to postone it until the council’s Oct. 17 meeting.

At that Oct. 17 meeting, the city staff will have worked with the developer to incorporate the developer’s various requests into the site plan and zoning for the project. The last version of Heritage Row considered by the council would preserve the seven houses and construct three new apartment buildings behind them. The developers’ current requests include eliminating any on-site parking requirement, increasing the number of residents, relaxing the energy standards, and not making a commitment to the historical preservation of the existing seven houses. [.pdf of letter from developer]

If councilmembers give initial approval of Heritage Row at the Oct. 17 meeting, the council would then hold a public hearing and take a second and final vote at an additional meeting on Oct. 24. The council, as part of the set of resolutions passed on Monday in connection with the project, modified its calendar to add the extra meeting, calling it a “regular” meeting. The city charter requires that second and final approval of any ordinance be voted at a “regular meeting” of the council. Later in the Oct. 3 meeting, the council voted to suspend its rule on the scheduling of regular meetings, which specifies the first and third Monday of the month.

The most recent last-ditch effort to reconsider the Heritage Row project, after it was rejected multiple times in multiple versions, failed at the council’s Dec. 6, 2010 meeting. At that meeting, councilmembers seemed poised to suspend council rules to allow another reconsideration, but the vote to suspend council rules failed.

As of mid-September, the developer – previously Alex de Parry’s Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership, but now City Place Ann Arbor, LLC – was proceeding with pre-construction meetings for a different development that has already been approved by the council: City Place. City Place calls for the demolition of seven houses and the construction of two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot, with 24 total dwelling units – each with six bedrooms.

In other action by the council at its Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers modified the original development agreement for City Place to relieve the timeline pressure on the developer to start utilities work immediately. The original agreement was standard for the city of Ann Arbor. It called for utilities work on water mains and storm sewers to be completed before construction could start.

The revised agreement on City Place doesn’t require the utilities work to be completed until later – before a certificate of occupancy is issued. So the revision gives the developer added flexibility to enter into negotiations with the city on the re-submittal of Heritage Row, which would require different utilities work.

This brief was filed shortly after the city council’s meeting concluded. A more detailed report will follow: [link]