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 The developer had withdrawn the Heritage Row project.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!

Ann Arbor planning staff and members of the planning commission's ordinance revisions committee discuss existing zoning areas and implications of ordinance changes at their Sept. 13 meeting. Clockwise from left: Wendy Rampson, Jill Thacher, Kirk Westphal, Jean Carlberg. (Photo by the writer.)

The resolution passed by the council also directed the city staff and planning commission to look at possible zoning ordinance changes, with the intent of regulating medical marijuana in Ann Arbor. The resolution does not mention other regulatory approaches, such as licensing.

Since then, the city’s planning staff and the ordinance revisions committee of the planning commission have been developing recommendations to change the city’s zoning code. The changes would regulate medical marijuana dispensaries as well as marijuana grown by registered caregivers as a “home occupation.”

At a Monday, Sept. 13 meeting of the ordinance revisions committee, the group mentioned a parallel track that’s being pursued by the city attorney’s office: licensing of medical marijuana dispensaries. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning department, said that Postema has also been working with the Michigan Association of Municipal Attorneys regarding an approach to licensing medical marijuana. Postema is president of that group.

The development of a licensing approach to regulate medical marijuana was not a directive given in council’s Aug. 5 resolution – only zoning was addressed:

RESOLVED, That City Council hereby imposes a temporary moratorium prohibiting the initiation or expansion of the use of any property in the City as a facility for dispensing marihuana for medical and any other purpose and for cultivating marihuana plants, and that any zoning compliance permits or building and trade permits for such uses be deferred for a period of 120 days from the date of this resolution, in conjunction with the study and revision of the City’s Zoning Ordinance or other ordinances regarding this issue;

RESOLVED, That this moratorium does not apply to the following:

• A dwelling unit (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance) where a qualifying patient under the Act resides and is cultivating up to the maximum number of marihuana plants permitted by the Act for personal use or possesses up to the maximum amount of marihuana permitted by the Act for personal use.
• A building or structure (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance) other than a dwelling unit where no more than one qualifying patient under the Act is cultivating up to the maximum number of marihuana plants permitted by the Act for personal use or possesses up to the maximum amount of marihuana permitted by the Act for personal use.
• A dwelling unit or other building or structure where no more than one primary caregiver under the Act is cultivating up to the maximum number of marihuana plants permitted by the Act for assisting a qualifying patient or possesses up to the maximum amount of marihuana permitted by the Act for assisting a qualifying patient.

RESOLVED, That City Council directs City staff and the Planning Commission to study and make specific recommendations for ordinance amendments that restrict facilities for dispensing marihuana to appropriate zoning districts along with spacing requirements, and to also regulate such use in residential districts;

RESOLVED, That the moratorium imposed by this resolution shall expire the earlier of 120 days from its effective date or upon adoption by City Council of ordinance amendments regarding the issue of facilities for dispensing marihuana and/or cultivating plants for medical or any other purposes.

Ordinance Revisions Committee: Possible Zoning Changes

The ordinance revisions committee has met three times over the past month, most recently on Monday, Sept. 13. The committee consists of four planning commissioners: Bonnie Bona, Jean Carlberg, Eric Mahler and Kirk Westphal. Possible zoning changes are being drafted by Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff, with input and feedback from the committee.

Monday’s meeting was attended by Carlberg, Westphal, Thacher and Wendy Rampson, head of city planning. The group discussed several possible changes [still in draft form] to the city code.

Regarding location:

• No medical marijuana dispensary shall be located on a parcel within 200 feet of a residential district, and shall be located only in D1, D2, C2, C3, M1 or M2 (downtown, commercial and light industrial) zoning districts.
• No medical marijuana dispensary shall be established within 500 feet of another medical marijuana dispensary.
• No medical marijuana dispensary shall be located within 1,000 feet of a parcel on which a public school is located.

Regarding the use of medical marijuana dispensaries:

• No person shall reside in or permit any person to reside in the premises of a medical marijuana dispensary, except as allowed in the M (light industrial) zoning districts.
• No person operating a medical marijuana dispensary shall permit any person under the age of 18 to be on the premises.
• The operator of a medical marijuana dispensary must be a registered caregiver.
• No person shall become the lessee or sub-lessee of any property for the purpose of using said property for a medical marijuana dispensary without the express written permission of the owner of the property for such use and a zoning compliance permit from the city of Ann Arbor.
• In D1 zoning districts, medical marijuana may be dispensed, but not grown.
• Odors may not leave the unit occupied by the medical marijuana dispensary.
• No drive-through windows are allowed at a medical marijuana dispensary.
• No on-site smoking or consumption is allowed at a medical marijuana dispensary.

Regarding medical marijuana as a “home occupation”:

• One registered caregiver per single-family home is limited to providing medical marijuana to five patients. Caregivers may not give, sell, or otherwise transfer medical marijuana to anyone other than the five patients that have designated them as their caregiver through the Michigan Dept. of Community Health.
• Caregivers must deliver to patients – no pickups are allowed from a caregiver’s house.
• An annual zoning compliance permit is required.
• Odors may not leave the property.

The decision has been made to treat medical marijuana as a separate, standalone section in the city code, Rampson said, similar to the section on adult entertainment uses in Chapter 55, Article III, Section 5:50 of the city code.

During Monday’s meeting, Thacher – who because of this task has become somewhat of an expert on the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act of 2008, which was approved by Michigan voters – said that under these draft recommendations, 431 parcels in the city could be eligible to be used for a medical marijuana dispensary.

The group discussed possible ways to limit the size of a dispensary, such as regulating a minimum amount of parking.

Carlberg asked whether the city knows how many registered caregivers there are in Ann Arbor. Thacher reported that the state won’t release information about registered caregivers or patients.

Rampson clarified that the only way to know would be if there’s a licensing requirement in the city. Similar to the process of getting a liquor license, a license to operate a medical marijuana dispensary could require inspections for fire safety and building code compliance, as well as a criminal background check, she said. And if the city adopts a licensing approach, that would likely mean that some of the zoning changes being discussed wouldn’t be necessary.

Westphal noted that if a dispensary is regulated through zoning and is compliant with zoning ordinances, there’s no way to shut it down – even if it’s causing problems in the surrounding area. Earlier in the meeting the group had discussed the cost of medical marijuana – more than $300 per ounce – and Carlberg had commented that it could create a crime zone around the dispensaries.

Westphal said that licensing is a great idea, and would give the city more control over these dispensaries.

At the end of Monday’s meeting, Thacher said she would put together the draft recommendations for the full planning commission to discuss at their working session on Tuesday, Sept. 14. The goal is to draft a resolution that could be posted on the city’s website on Wednesday as part of the planning commission’s agenda for its Sept. 21 meeting, when a public hearing on the ordinance changes is planned.

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

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

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

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

Revenue Projections: Report from the CFO

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

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

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

Sales Tax and State Revenue Sharing

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Reality

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

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

Councilmember Questions

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

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

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

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

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

Moratorium on New Development in R4C/R2A

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

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

Moratorium: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

Moratorium: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council first handled Amendment 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historic District Study Committee

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

Another difference was that the study area was considerably smaller:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Near North PUD

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

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

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

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

Near North Public Comment Reserved Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

Near North: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exemption Certificate for AVL Inc.

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

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

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

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

Communications from Council: Driving and Cell Phones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: none.

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

Lyric sheet to a song sung by Libby Hunter at the public hearing on the City Place site plan. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Even an apparently mundane proposal from Leigh Greden (Ward 3) to allow for an additional exception to parking on front lawns was not acted on by council. In that case, they referred it to the planning commission.

However, the council did accomplish a substitution of taxable Build America Bonds for the tax-free general obligation bonds already authorized for the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure, plus a site plan approval for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s park-and-ride lot at Plymouth Road and US-23.

And finally, Mayor John Hieftje gave an interpretation of council public hearing speaking rules that precludes audience members from joining in a group chorus when a speaker at the podium is singing: To the strains of “Glory, Glory Hallelujah, Density is coming to ya,” Hieftje warned he might “clear the room.”

The meeting was also notable for the closed session conducted in the course of the meeting to discuss attorney-client privileged information – it lasted over an hour, but provided a chance for attendees to mingle.

We begin this report in a somewhat unconventional spot: the Communications from Council. They were noteworthy, because the first communication – from Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) – put that section of the meeting to one of its potentially more important uses: notification of council and the public of upcoming openings on boards and commissions.

Communications from Council

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) alerted his colleagues and the public to the fact that there were two slots that were expiring on the Greenbelt Advisory Commission (GAC). One of the open GAC positions is specified to be the representative of an environmental group, while the other is to be filled with a plant biologist or animal biologist. He encouraged those with an interest to step forward and apply.

He also alerted the public that the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) was in the process of revising its bylaws, which would lead to an expansion of that body to include a wider range of transportation users. There would, therefore, potentially be additional seats on WATS.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reminded the residents of Ward 4 that their Area Height and Placement community meeting would take place at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 23 at Cobblestone Farm.

Higgins also addressed a concern about scheduling a status report on the Stadium bridge replacement. She wanted to explore the possibility that a status report could be combined with an early August meeting about the concept and design process. City administrator Roger Fraser had expressed his preference to combine that update on the bridge’s status with the design work at the council’s Aug. 17 meeting.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) alerted the public to a meeting on Wednesday, July 22 from 6-7 p.m. at Slauson Middle School on the subject of a pedestrian refuge island at the intersection of Seventh & Washington streets. He thanked his Ward 5 colleague Carsten Hohnke for bringing it forward. He said there would be a series of ordinance changes undertaken to help alter the perception that in Ann Arbor, cars ruled. When a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, Anglin said, cars should stop.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) alerted his colleagues to two different infrastructure projects, one that had just been completed and the other which was just beginning. He commended city staff for the completion of the Nixon/Huron roundabout. He noted that many initial naysayers were now champions of the design. Rapundalo reported that the East Washtenaw/Huron Parkway project had begun that night and would continue for a number of months.

A2D2 Rezoning Package

A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) is a multi-year process to improve zoning, urban design, transportation and development in the downtown area. Several people spoke during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, addressing the A2D2 item on the agenda.

John Etter: Etter said that he was there once again about the reconsideration of the proposed zoning of East Huron Street from D1 to D2. Etter supports the zoning of the area as D2 (a buffer zone between commercial and residential neighborhoods), not D1 as currently specified. He cited a letter written from the Michigan Department of Transportation opposed to the rezoning of the area as D1. In response to criticism that the author of the letter lacked experience, Etter cited the author’s 18 years of experience in the Michigan Department of Transportation as head of the Kalamazoo County office, plus five years of experience with the Indiana Department of Transportation. How can anyone defend your argument as reasonable, he asked?

Lazar Greenfield: Greenfield commended the council for their decision to review the downtown zoning. He noted that the Calthorpe study recommended enhancing pedestrian scale, whereas a D1 designation for East Huron violated that recommendation. He noted that the University of Michigan North Quad construction, together with the Children’s Hospital expansion, had not been factored into the D1 rezoning. He said that he supported further development, but only that which did not threaten Ann Arbor’s quality of life.

Hugh Sonk: Sonk introduced himself as the president of the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association. He cited various specific points of the 2005 Calthorpe study that he said argued against a D1 zoning for East Huron Street. Among them was on page 13, where it is noted that the non-pedestrian scale of Huron Street is described as a “negative.” Page 20, he said, recommends buildings that are somewhere between three and 10 stories tall for East Huron Street. A D1 zoning, he pointed out, would allow buildings much taller than that. He then went on to suggest the formation of a political action committee based on the 465,000 alumni from the University of Michigan that would be dedicated to the protection of quality of life in Ann Arbor. That suggestion drew applause from the audience.

Council Deliberations

Work on the  A2D2 zoning package, which includes a comprehensive rezoning of downtown Ann Arbor, can be traced back at least to 2005. In council’s deliberations on Monday, it was Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), the council’s representative to the A2D2 oversight committee, who suggested the postponement. The rationale was based on the fact that work on design guidelines would commence in earnest at a Sept. 14 work session and that it was essentially an opportunity to bring the two processes – zoning and design guidelines – into closer chronological alignment. In addition, it will give councilmembers more time to consider adjustments to building height and mass specifications suggested by the DDA board.

Outcome: A2D2 was postponed to the council’s Sept. 8 meeting.

Moratorium on Development in R4C/R2A Zoning Districts

Several people spoke during public comment about a proposed moratorium on building in districts zoned for multi-family residential dwellings (R4C) and two-family dwellings (R2A).

Mozhagn Savabieasfahani: She noted that she had been coming to city council meetings for many years asking for a boycott of Israel. She suggested that if Ann Arbor wanted to decide for itself how our city looks, that we could take a lesson from the democratic movement in Iran by simply stating, “This is how we want our city to look!” Referring to the City Place project on that night’s agenda, she described the removal of seven homes as “despicable.” It’s shameful, she said, to demolish part of our history. She encouraged the council to place a moratorium – also an item on the council’s agenda – on demolition. She then transitioned to talk about what she described as another demolition site – Palestine. She reflected on 25 years of Ann Arbor activism against the continued financing of Israel by the United States. She described Israel as the second biggest warmonger in the Middle East, behind United States. She warned that Israel was now planning to bomb her own country, Iran.

Vivienne Armentrout: Armentrout began by noting that the previous speaker, Hugh Sonk, who had suggested a political action committee based on University of Michigan alumni, would be “a hard act to follow.” Armentrout stated that she was there that evening to support a moratorium on development in R4C and R2A districts. She said that to her, it represented a rational planning process: to ensure that a zoning category fits the master plan. With regard to that fit, she said everyone acknowledges that there are currently deficiencies. She described the 180 days of the proposed moratorium as a relatively short period. The tension between the Central Area Plan on the one hand and “matter of right” development on the other could be solved, she continued, by leaving the R4C/R2A study committee to do its work. She noted that the proposed moratorium had a built-in appeals process, and that the city council could repeal it at any time. Although the moratorium had come up in connection with the City Place project, Armentrout pointed out that the council was now contemplating a postponement of City Place that evening, so there was no longer a connection to a particular project. She concluded by encouraging the council to see the moratorium has an example of good government and good planning, not as anti-development.

Hatim Elhady: Elhady began by thanking Vivienne Armentrout for the sentiments she had expressed, and commended councilmember Anglin for bringing forward the notion of a moratorium. “Let’s try not to emulate Southfield,” he joked. He described a moratorium simply as taking “a breather.” He stated that he was not anti-development except when it endangers Ann Arbor’s quality of life. [Elhady is running as an independent for the Ward 4 council seat currently occupied by Marcia Higgins.]

Maureen Sloan: Sloan spoke on behalf of the Homebuilders Association of Washtenaw County. She asked that the proposed moratorium be tabled, citing questions about its legality because it did not address issues of health, safety, or welfare. She then ticked through various service problems with the city’s building department connected to issuance of permits and inspections. It had a negative impact on contractors and homeowners alike, she said. Among complaints that she cited were (i) delayed inspections, (ii) lack of consistency among inspectors, (iii) new items cited on re-inspection, (iv) a lack of mutual respect and (v) poor communication about scheduling appointments.

Beverly Strassmann: Strassmann spoke in favor of the proposed moratorium on R4C zoning, saying that it protected against unplanned development – sprawl. She warned the council that a vote against the moratorium was a vote for sprawl. She noted that while other communities were trying to engineer a sense of charm and history, Ann Arbor already has a sense of charm and history. As an argument for the moratorium, she cited the fact that currently there are no R4C projects before the city. If councilmembers did not support the moratorium, she told them that they would be “declaring war against your own constituents.”

Claudius Vincenz: Vincenz has spoken frequently in public hearings on the City Place project and thus introduced himself by saying “I’m afraid you know me by now!” He stated that his neighborhood was under assault. Because of the tension between the Central Area Plan and the definitions of R4C zoning, he said, it’s time to call a timeout – by applying a moratorium. Among the specific problems that he pointed out with the R4C zoning district was the number of bedrooms allowed – six. The city code did not define exactly what a six-bedroom apartment actually is. The result, he said, could be an apartment complex where 200 people had only 36 parking spots.

Council Deliberations

The basic idea of declaring a moratorium on development in R4C/R2A is to hedge the possibility that there would be a rush to push projects forward in advance of any changes to zoning definitions and districts that might come from the work of a recently created study committee to look at the R4C/R2A districts citywide.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who brought the initiative forward, led off deliberations by addressing, in part, one of the objections raised during public comment by Maureen Sloan, who suggested that public safety and welfare was not at issue. He contended that psychological welfare of the public was at issue. About the council’s fear of a lawsuit in connection with a moratorium, Anglin contended that if the fear of a lawsuit was council’s primary guidance, they would never get any change.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) suggested that the idea of a moratorium warranted very serious consideration. He noted that previously the city had never granted such a moratorium. And in connection with the discussion about the legality of a moratorium, he noted that the historical examples that had been cited were fraught with litigation. He described a moratorium as a “the nuclear option.” Said Derezinski, “You don’t drop the bomb without serious consideration.” He thus proposed a postponement until the council’s Aug. 17 meeting.

Mayor John Hieftje and councilmember Sabra Briere convinced Derezinski to move the postponement to the Aug. 6 meeting, saying that at that time they could extend the postponement to Aug. 17 if necessary.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) suggested that until the council took up the matter again, that they contemplate whether there were other zoning districts that needed to be included in the moratorium as well. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was in favor of the postponement to Aug. 6, noting that there were 1,300 property owners throughout the city who would be affected by such a moratorium.

Briere, who favors a moratorium, echoed Taylor’s sentiments. She said that although she supported a moratorium, she also had an obligation to represent her ward’s views. “My ward has not been heard on this,” she concluded.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked if the city had any obligation to notify the 1,300 property owners of the impending moratorium. City attorney Stephen Postma indicated that in fact there was no requirement that the property owners be noticed.

Outcome: Consideration of the moratorium on development in R4C/R2A districts was postponed until Aug. 6. The voice vote was unanimous with except for dissent from Anglin.

Coda: During the public commentary open time – at the end of the meeting – Vivienne Armentrout noted something in the proposed language of the moratorium that might have assuaged some of the councilmember’s concerns about homeowners being affected who had possible renovation plans. She  pointed out for councilmembers concerned about property owners – specifically homeowners – that the language of the proposed moratorium explicitly excludes any activity that does not require a site plan.

Plymouth and US-23 Park-and-Ride

Jim Mogensen: Speaking during public comment time, Mogensen suggested to councilmembers that there were two different policy points that can be made on this fairly pro forma approval. The first, he said, was that the pedestrian walkway – an “escape hatch” – and 28 bicycle spots reflected a commitment to the political correctness of having a multi-modal facility, when in fact it was not clear how bicyclists or pedestrians would get to the lot. The other policy point, he said, was that if the AATA reconfigured the bus routes and the new park-and-ride so that it is less easy for people who live here to get around using the bus, then that creates a tension. The tension is based on the fact that it’s the people who live in the urban area who pay for the buses through their millage.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge said that before this particular park-and-ride facility was put forward there should have been a plan for a coordinated city and countywide system for park-and-ride lots. He called for a coordinated countywide regional bus service with attendant para-transit service. This park-and-ride lot, Partridge contended, reflected a piecemeal approach.

Council deliberations

Chris White, director of service development with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, was on hand to explain details of the site plan for the park-and-ride at Plymouth and US-23. The primary motivation, he said, was that the Green Road park-and-ride was now over capacity. It was being paid for with stimulus funds, he said. They anticipated starting construction in the fall, with completion sometime in November and service starting in January 2010.

White underwent close questioning from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who wanted to know if there had been any discussion with the University of Michigan about simply expanding the existing Green Road lot instead of picking an entirely new site. Part of the rationale, said White, had to do with issues concerning barriers to attracting drivers to use a park-and-ride lot. One of those is that drivers tend to prefer not to go much out of their way to get to the park-and-ride lot, White said. The proposed new lot’s location right off of US-23 corresponded to a phase change for drivers coming off of US-23 highway-style driving and going into the city roads. The location was thus ideal for attracting users, he concluded.

Acknowledging Rapundalo’s point that UM now owned all the property adjoining the Green Road lot as a result of Pfizer’s sale of the land to the university, White said that the planning for the park-and-ride lot had taken place before the sale.

Outcome: The site plan was unanimously approved.

City Place Site Plan Approval

The public hearing on City Place – a project proposed  on the east side of South Fifth Avenue just south of William – included many of the same speakers and touched on many of the same themes that have appeared from the start of the meandering path that the project has taken through the city’s planning process in its various forms. Here’s a timeline:

• Jan. 15, 2008: Conditional rezoning – Ann Arbor Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: None. NO: Bonnie Bona, Craig Borum, Jean Carlberg, Ron Emaus, Joan Lowenstein, Eric Mahler, Ethel Potts, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal.
• May 20, 2008: PUD (planned unit development) – Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: Emaus. NO: Bona, Borum, Carlberg, Lowenstein, Mahler, Potts, Westphal. ABSENT: Pratt.
• Sept. 4, 2008: PUD – Ann Arbor Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: Borum, Lowenstein. NO: Bona, Carlberg, Potts, Pratt, Westphal, Woods.
• Jan. 5, 2009: PUD – City Council denied on a unanimous 0-10 vote. NO: Hieftje, Briere, Derezinski, Rapundalo, Greden, Taylor, Teall, Higgins, Hohnke, Anglin. ABSENT: Smith.
• April 21, 2009: MOR (matter of right) – Planning Commission recommends approval on 6-3 vote.
  YES: Bona, Carlberg, Derezinski, Mahler, Westphal, Woods. NO: Potts, Borum, Pratt.
• June 1, 2009: MOR – City Council postponed due to inconsistencies in drawings provided on website.
• June 15, 2009: MOR – City Council sent it back to Planning Commission due to technical errors with drawings provided at the Planning Commission April meeting.
• July 7, 2009: MOR – Planning Commission recommended denial on 5-1 vote to approve (needed 6).
• July 20, 2009: MOR – City Council postpones until January 2010.

The matter-of-right (MOR) project before council on Monday night was a 24-unit project with six bedrooms per unit.

The public hearing was noteworthy for its musical component. Libby Hunter sang a song as her contribution to the public hearing. [This is the second time Hunter has treated council to a singing public commentary.] For the final chorus, sung to the tune of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” several members of the audience joined it.

This provoked Hieftje to threaten to “clear the room.” Before he could follow through, the song ended. [When The Chronicle followed up later, city attorney Stephen Postema clarified that the phrase simply meant that council would have taken a break and allow things to settle down.]

When the song ended, Hieftje stressed that only one person could speak at a time and the rules needed to be followed. At subsequent public speaking turns several speakers addressed Hieftje’s reaction.

Among them was Karen Sidney, who began her remarks with an apparent allusion to the recently FOIA-ed emails among councilmembers during meetings, saying: “Council will get the respect from citizens that they give to citizens.” Glenn Thompson, for his speaking turn, suggested that council needs a sense of humor, saying, “Your iron fist will rust and crumble someday.”

Charles Loucks noted that when people join in singing, there’s chaos – because it breaks the rules. So why, he asked, can we allow developers to break the rules?

Chip Lind, after apologizing for singing – he didn’t know the rules, he said –  referred to the proposed design of the project by saying: “If it looks like a giant square, we become square.”

Also worth noting as somewhat different from previous public hearings was the presentation of a new 3-D model of a hypothetical building by resident Tom Whitaker, who has previously brought a different model to public meetings on City Place. The new model demonstrates the interpretation of roof height that city planning staff uses to determine conformance with the zoning code. Whereas his previous model was constructed so that he could lift off the narrow strip corresponding to the “roof,” the new version is constructed so that he can add something – a piece of “trim” – that results in a “reduction” of the building’s height.

Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) began deliberations by describing the City Place project as having been a “contentious issue.” He said that one thread running through the history of the project was the possibility that some of the disagreement might be resolved to the potential satisfaction of neighbors, the city council, and the petitioner, Alex de Parry.

He therefore suggested a postponement of the City Place matter of right project until the council’s second meeting in January of 2010. The postponement included a provision that the city of Ann Arbor accept a PUD application for a project that might reflect the kind of compromise the various parties hoped to achieve.

Outcome: The postponement was approved unanimously.

Build America Bonds

The general obligation bonds that had been authorized for issuance at city council’s Feb. 17, 2009 meeting are tax-free. That is, for the purchaser of such a bond as an investment, the typically lower interest rate earned from a municipal bond is somewhat balanced by the fact that the earnings are tax-free. Build America Bonds, explained the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, are taxable and thus have a somewhat higher interest rate – on its face more expensive for the city. But what is special about Build America Bonds is that they provide coverage of some of the debt service. The direct federal subsidy payment to local governments is equal to 35% of the total coupon interest paid to investors.

In brief deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) clarified that switching from one kind of general obligation bonds to another would not require council to wait an additional 45 days before issuance. The time requirement had already been met, she said, in the time that had passed since Feb. 17. The 45-day time window allows for the possible circulation of the petition that, if successful, would require a voter referendum on the bond issuance.

Outcome: The issuance of $49 million to $50 million worth of Build America Bonds was unanimously approved.

Front Yard Parking

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) introduced a resolution that would revise how parking in front yards is controlled. Parking cars in front yards, Greden explained, is currently prohibited except for two cases: University of Michigan football Saturdays and art fairs.

The change he was proposing would allow churches and other houses of worship to park cars on their front lawns up to two times a year and would require a permit, he explained. He said that the second reading was proposed for Aug. 17 instead of at the council’s next meeting in two weeks, because of a staff request that they be given enough time to inform the public about the change.

In subsequent deliberations by Rapundalo, Anglin, and Higgins, it was determined that it would be best to refer the matter to the planning commission. What really seemed to seal the deal was input from community services director, Jayne Miller, who said that revisions to Chapter 59 of the city code do normally go through the planning commission.

Outcome: The proposed change was referred to the planning commission.

Outdoor Sales

The council’s agenda included an item to allow temporary outdoor sales and displayed goods and services as a special exception use for C3 commercial zoning districts. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) thanked the city staff for moving the change along quickly. The impact of the change included the ability to hold a farmers market in the Westgate parking lot next to Zingerman’s Roadhouse.

Outcome: The change to allow uses to include outdoor markets was unanimously approved.

Nominations

Leah Gunn and and Russ Collins were nominated for reappointments to the Downtown Development Authority board.

Other Commentary

Chip Lind: Lind said he wasn’t really planning to speak at the concluding public commentary session, but he had missed his bus and figured, why not. He suggested that the city think about making compost bins available. He also suggested that Ann Arbor have its own currency.

Tim Hull: Hull alerted Council to the problems at Arborland in connection with the eviction of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority bus stop from that parking plaza. He suggested that a crosswalk be installed to ensure pedestrian safety to bus riders who had to cross Washtenaw Avenue to get to the bus stop that had previously been located in the parking lot. On a separate topic, he also addressed a bar ID policy, noting that his attempt to purchase a drink at  Bar Louie had foundered on the fact that he had a Michigan state ID but not a driver’s license.

Thomas Partridge: During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Partridge introduced himself as a Democratic uniter on the local, state, and national level. He gave endorsements in the Democratic primary races for city council: Ward 3 – LuAnne Bullington; Ward 5 – Mike Anglin. He said he perceived both of those candidates to be decent people with progressive policies. On a separate note, he urged council that for all the resolutions they were considering that evening, that amendments be passed to ensure democratic access, singling out a special need for access to transportation and affordable housing. He allowed that there had been disagreements over the zoning of a particular site, but that they needed to unite with the goal of democratic access.

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

Absent: none.

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

Note the different day, Thursday – a schedule revision to accommodate the Aug. 4 primary elections.