From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners had debated the proposed revisions at a Feb. 4, 2014 working session. Some of the same issues were raised during the Feb. 20 discussion, which was relatively brief.

One revision clarifies the limitations on a city councilmember’s interaction with the commission. The revised section states: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.” The intent is to prevent undue influence on the commission, and to avoid the possibility of legal action against the city.

Other revisions affect speaking turns at public hearings. The intent is to clarify how many turns the same person can speak at a public hearing, and how public hearings are continued if an item is postponed.

In other action, commissioners recommended rezoning a parcel on the city’s north side to public land (PL). The 2.2-acre site at 3301 Traverwood Drive, donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. It was originally zoned R4D (multi-family dwelling) and had been part of a larger site that’s being developed with an apartment complex.

During communications, Kirk Westphal reported on a project that the environmental commission is working on: a neighborhood mini-grant program. Volunteers would coordinate a competitive grant program for community groups, who could apply to fund projects that address one of the city’s goals in its sustainability framework. That’s in the planning stages, he said.

Westphal also distributed a copy of a resolution recently passed by the city’s energy commission. It supports a recommendation to hire a full-time employee to focus on projects that help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. Westphal indicated that the planning commission’s executive committee would be discussing it. The energy commission would like a supporting resolution from the planning commission.

Commissioners also heard from two Skyline High School students, who spoke during public commentary as part of a class assignment. They talked about the importance of the Huron River and of the Huron River Watershed Council‘s River Up project. The planning commission’s work plan includes looking at how to implement recommendations from city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force.

Revisions to Bylaws

Revisions to the bylaws of the planning commission were on the Feb. 20 agenda. The changes related to two issues: how city councilmembers interact with the commission, and public hearings. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed revisions at start of Feb. 20 meeting]

In giving the staff report, planning manager Wendy Rampson recalled that the issue of public hearings had emerged last fall, when a public hearing for revisions to downtown zoning had continued over several meetings.  The issue about whether the same person could speak multiple times during the same public hearing – even if that hearing was held during different meetings – had been debated by commissioners on Oct. 15, 2013, during the middle of a public hearing on the downtown zoning changes.

Subsequently, a proposed revision related to this issue in the bylaws was brought forward by commissioner Jeremy Peters on Nov. 6, 2013, but no vote was taken.

On Feb. 20, Rampson reviewed the sections that were affected by the proposed revisions. She noted that the bylaws, if approved, would allow the commission to waive the limitation on speaking turns and allow the public hearing to carry over to the next meeting.

Here’s the draft proposed at the beginning of the Feb. 20 discussion [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

Article VIII Public Hearings

…

Section 3. An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total. The first person identifying him/herself as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner, or representing an organized neighborhood group registered with the City of Ann Arbor, may speak for five (5) minutes in total. Subsequent speakers identifying themselves as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner or representing an organized neighborhood group, may speak for three (3) minutes in total. The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within this section. The Chair may extend the speaking time further at his/her discretion.

…

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another date meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original.

Regarding the other bylaws change related to interactions with councilmembers, Rampson reminded commissioners that this proposed revision had been suggested following a discussion at the commission’s Feb. 4, 2014 working session.

The revised section states:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Councilmember’s term in office.

No one spoke during the Feb. 20 public hearing on these proposed revisions.

Revisions to Bylaws: Commission Discussion – Public Hearings

Bonnie Bona said she struggled with the proposed revisions to both sections, but particularly with the section related to public hearings, “mostly because I didn’t want to give any perception of tightening or restricting public input.” But based on the commission’s previous discussions, she agreed with the need to create consistency with the city council’s practice.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Sabra Briere.

She also liked the fact that the revisions put in writing that the commission can waive the restriction and allow people to speak more than once during the same public hearing. That’s been the practice of the commission, she noted, but it hasn’t been written down. She thought the changes were clarifying and would offer guidance for future commissions.

Jeremy Peters told commissioners that the whole idea behind these revisions was to provide clarity and to match what happens at city council meetings, though he thought that the planning commission bylaws would now be clearer than the council rules. He said he wasn’t trying to force through these changes, and he didn’t have a strong opinion about them. He was just hoping to add clarity.

Sabra Briere read aloud from a portion of the staff memo accompanying the proposed revisions: ”The proposed changes clarify that public hearing speaking time is limited to a total of 3 minutes (or 5 minutes for registered organizations) for an item, with the opportunity for the commission to waive the limitation via a majority vote. This would allow for the commission to maximize discussion time on certain postponed items, but still allow for public commentary in situations where a petition or proposal has changed from the time of the original public hearing.”

Briere said she took that as a goal statement, to allow people to speak again if a petition has significantly changed. But she noted that when she read the proposed revisions for Section 5, she was having a hard time reconciling that with the goal statement – because Section 5 states that a person can’t speak again at the same public hearing.

Peters thought the last sentence in Section 3, which allows the commission to waive its rules, would address Briere’s concerns. He had proposed Section 5 to clarify when a public hearing begins and when it ends – because that hadn’t been clear in either the planning commission’s bylaws or the city council rules.

Kirk Westphal said the fact that Section 5 comes after Section 3 seems to undo the waiving of rules.

So Peters then proposed an amendment, to remove the last sentence of Section 3 and move it into a new, separate Section 6. He originally proposed that the new Section 6 would apply to the entire Article VIII of the bylaws, but accepted a friendly amendment offered by Briere to limit its application to Sections 3 and 5.

Section 6: The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within Sections 3 and 5.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved the amendment creating a new Section 6.

Westphal noted that during public hearings, the commission will need to be mindful that if an agenda item is postponed and the public hearing is carried over, the commission will need to provide the public with notice that they’ll have the option of speaking again at a future meeting.

Commissioners then voted on these revised bylaws, as amended:

Section 3. An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total. The first person identifying him/herself as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner, or representing an organized neighborhood group registered with the City of Ann Arbor, may speak for five (5) minutes in total. Subsequent speakers identifying themselves as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner or representing an organized neighborhood group, may speak for three (3) minutes in total.

…

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original.

Section 6. The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within Sections 3 and 5.

Outcome on public hearing revisions: Commissioners unanimously approved these revisions.

Revisions to Bylaws: Commission Discussion – Councilmember Interactions

Commissioners had debated at some length the proposed bylaws revisions at a Feb. 4, 2014 working session, discussing the issue of council interactions. The Feb. 20 discussion was relatively brief.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Jeremy Peters thought it was best for city councilmembers to manage their own conflicts of interest, and to avoid the legal issues that might arise from jumping in front of the city’s due process. The change prevents the city from the possibility of being sued, he said, so he supported the proposed revisions.

Sabra Briere said she had tried to come up with a situation in which the proposed Section 9 would be a problem, but she couldn’t come up with one. She could imagine that a situation might occur at the city’s historic district commission, where someone might want to come and present their case. But HDC operates much more independently of council than some other boards or commissions, she said, even though HDC members are also appointed by the council.

She couldn’t recall a time when a single-family homeowner came to the planning commission with a petition. It had occurred at the zoning board of appeals, but not the planning commission. Typically, items that come before the planning commission are brought forward by developers of large parcels, she said.

“I’m looking for the unintended consequences of this [bylaws] change,” she said. Briere asked whether any other commissioners or staff could recall the kind of situation that she had described. No one offered any examples.

Kirk Westphal cited a hypothetical situation in which a councilmember might request a rezoning, and would have to be recused from voting on the issue at council. So should they be given the opportunity to speak to the planning commission? He could imagine such a scenario, and wondered if the bylaws should include some kind of “release valve” to allow commissioners to waive the rule.

Diane Giannola recalled the HDC bylaws, saying that if you serve on the HDC, you can’t be a petitioner in front of that body. She drew a comparison to city councilmembers, saying they wouldn’t be able to bring a petition to the planning commission as long as they serve on the council.

Giannola was referring to Section 8 of the HDC bylaws [.pdf of HDC bylaws] :

Section 8. A Commissioner shall not be heard before the Commission as an applicant, representative of an applicant, or as a party interested in an application during the Commissioner’s term of office.

Regarding petitions to the planning commission, Briere responded that there were other options – for example, your spouse or lawyer could bring forward a petition. “It’s just that you the councilmember may not appear in front of the planning commission representing yourself on an issue that’s to be determined by the planning commission.” She could imagine a situation in which someone who is a developer is elected to the council. In that case, any petitions from the person would require representation by an architect, attorney, or someone else on the development team.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson recalled that many years ago, the mayor of Ann Arbor at that time was a developer – it was so long ago that “I think there were Republicans on the council at that time,” she quipped. [She was referring to Lou Belcher, a Republican who served as mayor from 1978 to 1985.] His projects came before the planning commission, but Rampson couldn’t recall whether he addressed the commission in those instances.

Peters agreed that the option exists for a councilmember to be represented by someone else, if an item that involves them comes before the planning commission. He hoped that councilmembers would choose not to come before the commission anyway, even if the bylaws didn’t explicitly ban it. But this change would make the rules straightforward and clear, he said.

The vote was then taken on this revised section:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.

Outcome: The revisions to planning commission bylaws on council interactions were unanimously approved. Any changes to the bylaws are also subject to review by the city attorney’s office and approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

Rezoning Donated Land

The Feb. 20 agenda included a resolution recommending that the city council rezone land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. The recommendation is to rezone it as public land.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline, south of Stapp Nature Area.

Katy Ryan, an intern with the planning unit, gave the staff report. She noted that city staff have recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land spans from Traverwood Drive and to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. The land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement, Ryan said. Staff is working to determine the exact route.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land), Ryan noted. This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, she said, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Rezoning Donated Land: Commission Discussion

Jeremy Peters applauded Bill Martin for donating the land, saying that he hoped others would be receptive to doing this kind of thing in the future.

Bonnie Bona asked when the PROS plan will be updated. Planning manager Wendy Rampson replied that Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, is close to starting the next review and update. The state requires that the plan be updated every five years, in order for the city to be eligible for state funds.

Bona noted that people are sensitive to the fact that PL does not mean that it’s definitely parkland. Rampson replied that it’s very clear the land is being donated as parkland.

Outcome: Planning commissioners recommended rezoning the parcel to public land. The item will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Two students from Skyline High School, who are part of the school’s communication, media and public policy magnet, spoke during the first opportunity for public commentary, as part of a class assignment.

Sahr Yazdani, a student from Skyline High School, spoke during public commentary at the planning commission’s Feb. 20, 2014 meeting.

Sahr Yazdani said she wanted to give a speech about the Huron River Watershed Council. She recalled kayaking on the Huron River as a child, and noted that many others have similar experiences. Ann Arbor is fortunate to have an organization like the HRWC, which works hard to protect the river, she said. The organization has established programs to combat the devastating effects of harmful elements in the river, like phosphorus and e coli.

Yazdani highlighted the River Up program, which includes clean-up as well as recreational activities, and encourages communities along the river to make it a destination. It’s important to support River Up, she said.

Daniel Schorin continued speaking on this topic, calling the Huron River a tremendous resource. But we need to ask if we’re using the river to its full potential, he said. That’s where the “build up” component of the River Up program comes into play. In order to transform the river corridor into the center of the Ann Arbor community, the city needs to build development facing the river, not away from it. This means constructing trails, playgrounds, offices, hotels and other infrastructure facing the banks of the river, he said.

Other communities like Milford, Dexter and Flat Rock have already stated their commitment to making the Huron River a highlight of their downtown plans, with parks, buildings and festivals along the river, he said. And projects like the Huron River Art Trail will help attract tourists and stimulate the local economy.

As the city plans for new infrastructure, Schorin asked that they consider facing it toward the river, “so we can make the Huron River the forefront of the community once again.”

Communications & Commentary: North Main/Huron River Corridor

Sabra Briere reported that she’s recently had several conversations with people concerned about North Main Street and the Huron River. She noted that the high school students during public commentary had talked about River Up, including the view that new construction should be turned toward the river.

The concerns that she’s heard are about the report by the North Main Huron River corridor task force, and questions about when the planning commission is going to look at whether the parcels in that area are properly zoned. She’s heard from three different people who are interested in new developments along that corridor, and they’re interested in what kind of zoning might be put in place.

Briere said she knew the commission had a lot on its plate, but she wanted to bring up the topic as a reminder.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the project is on the commission’s work plan. She said commissioners have given higher priority to zoning revisions for the downtown and R4C districts, as well as a review of the citizens participation ordinance. [Planning commissioners had most recently discussed their work plan at a Jan. 7, 2014 working session.]

Rampson said the commission’s master planning committee could start taking a look at the North Main Huron River task force recommendations. The first step would be to take a detailed inventory of the parcels along that corridor, including the size and characteristics of each parcel. That information would be helpful in determining appropriate zoning, she said.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Planning manager Wendy Rampson told commissioners that the Burton Commons project will hold a citizen participation meeting for the proposed apartment project on Wednesday, March 5 from 6-8 p.m. in the Pittsfield Elementary School library, 2543 Pittsfield Blvd. The proposal – 80 apartments in five buildings, plus a clubhouse – would be located at 2559-2825 Burton Road, on the east side of Burton north of Packard. A previously approved site plan is in effect, but the developer now is proposing an addition to the plan – a sound wall that runs the entire length of the east property line, between US-23 and the apartment buildings. Because the sound wall will impact natural features, it will come forward to the planning commission for review.

Rampson also reminded commissioners that they’d met with a property owner at a September 2013 working session, regarding a proposal to build an indoor/outdoor tennis facility. That project is now moving forward, and the owner will hold a citizen participation meeting in the next few weeks.

Communications & Commentary: Environmental & Energy Commissions

As the planning commission’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, Kirk Westphal reported on a project from that group: a neighborhood mini-grant program. Volunteers would coordinate a competitive grant program for community groups, who could apply to fund projects that address one of the city’s goals in its sustainability framework. That’s in the planning stages, he said.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Matt Naud – the city’s environmental coordinator – said that environmental commissioner Susan Hutton is taking the lead on this project. She is trying to raise $10,000 in order to give out grants of $2,000 – one grant in each of the city’s five wards. The likely fiduciary is the nonprofit Ann Arbor Awesome. Naud said the effort is modeled on some small neighborhood grant programs in Seattle.

On Feb. 20, Westphal also gave commissioners copies of a resolution that the energy commission recently passed, and which the environmental commission will be taking a look at too. He said the planning commission’s executive committee will be discussing it. He did not mention the topic.

A copy of the handout was obtained by The Chronicle after the meeting. It supports a recommendation to hire a full-time employee to focus on projects that help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. [.pdf of resolution]

The one resolved clause states:

Resolved, City of Ann Arbor Energy Commission recommends that the Ann Arbor City Council direct the City Administrator to restore the second position as an FTE (full time equivalent) to create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets, reduce our community GHG emissions, provide economic benefit to our community and help to preserve our quality of life.

Communications & Commentary: Minutes

The Feb. 20 agenda included approval of planning commission minutes from last year – for the Nov. 19 and Dec. 3 meetings – as well as for the special meeting on Jan. 14, 2014.

Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and city council, reported that she’s heard concerns during public commentary time at city council that minutes of many city boards and commissions are very late getting to the council. [Minutes from the city's various boards, commissions and committees are attached to city council agendas.]

Briere encouraged that minutes of the planning commission be done in a timely fashion.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Ken Clein, Paras Parekh, Wendy Woods.

Next meeting: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

If the city’s plan unfolds as it expects, then none of the $750,000 in general fund money would be needed.

The improvements to 721 N. Main have resulted from work done by a North Main corridor improvement task force that has been working at the direction of the city council since the summer of 2012 to make recommendations for the corridor.

Of the $1.2 million estimated cost for the planned trail and stormwater improvements to the site, the city plans to use $150,000 from the city’s stormwater fund. To cover part of the remaining $1.05 million, the city hopes to use $600,000 from a grant it it’s applied for from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) – through SEMCOG’s transportation alternatives program (TAP).

The council approved the application for the SEMCOG grant at its April 15, 2013 meeting. To cover the remaining $450,000, the city hopes to use $150,000 from a Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Connecting Communities grant and $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grant. The council approved the application for those last two grants at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

The council’s resolution passed on June 17 comes in response to an MNRTF grant requirement that the council commit the city to funding the other grants itself – from general fund money – if the grants fail to materialize. The $750,000 figure comes from adding the $600,000 SEMCOG grant to the $150,000 Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation grant.

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

Draft of a schematic showing the Ann Arbor public art commission's process, from ideas through implementation. Other steps include decision-making, task force work, artist proposals, and selection. The flow chart is being designed by Hannah Nathans, a University of Michigan undergraduate who's working as an intern with the city. (Photos by the writer.)

Ideas included public art at the planned South State and Ellsworth roundabout, projects in underserved neighborhoods, the traffic island at the Washtenaw split with East Stadium, the dog park at Ellsworth and Platt, the non-motorized path along Washtenaw Avenue, and the skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park. About $500,000 is available in unallocated Percent for Art funds, with an estimated $200,000 to $300,000 coming in to the program annually from upcoming capital projects.

The discussion led some commissioners to speculate on the possibility of changing the composition of AAPAC to increase the number of commissioners, so that more people would be available to handle the work. Another possibility  they discussed was making the public art administrator’s job a full-time position. Currently, the public art administrator’s job is defined as 20 hours per week, with additional hours added for management of specific projects. After some discussion, it seems unlikely that commissioners will pursue either of those options at this time.

The commission handled two action items during the May 23 meeting. Connie Rizzolo Brown was recommended to represent AAPAC on a new city task force for the North Main/Huron River corridor. The task force had been established by the city council at its May 7, 2012 meeting with 10 members, then expanded at the council’s May 21 meeting to include four additional members. The council vote to add an AAPAC representative had passed on a 6-5 split, with some councilmembers concerned that the group was getting too large.

At their May 23 meeting, art commissioners also voted to fully fund the mural project at Allmendinger Park for $12,000. Previously, an initial $10,000 budget later had been increased to $12,000, with $7,200 of that amount to be paid for with a grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. But the city council first must formally accept the grant, and that’s not expected to happen until its June 18 meeting. Meanwhile, Percent for Art funds will be allocated to the project so that a contract can be executed with artist Mary Thiefels. The foundation grant will eventually reimburse the program for this project.

Also discussed at Wednesday’s meeting were the upcoming Golden Paintbrush awards, which will likely be presented at the city council’s June 18 meeting. The awards recognize local contributions to public art. This year, former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker will be among those artists honored.

North Main/Huron River Task Force

At the Ann Arbor city council’s May 21 meeting, councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) lobbied successfully to add a member of the city’s public art commission to a task force that had been created by council to study the corridor along North Main Street and the Huron River. Derezinski is also a member of AAPAC.

The task force was established by the city council at its May 7, 2012 meeting, with 10 members in the following areas: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

At its May 21 meeting, the two sponsors of the resolution that created the task force – Ward 1 councilmembers Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith – proposed adding three additional representatives: a member of the city council, someone from the boating/fishing community of river users, and a representative from the Huron River Citizens Association.

Derezinski then proposed an amendment to add an AAPAC member to the task force, too. After some discussion – and concerns that the task force was growing too large – the AAPAC addition was passed by council on a 6-5 vote.

At AAPAC’s May 23 meeting, Derezinski told commissioners that “basically, we need someone at the table.”

Connie Rizzolo Brown, pictured here at AAPAC's April 2012 meeting, volunteered to be the commission's representative on a North Main/Huron River corridor task force.

The task force is charged with delivering a report to the city council more than a year from now (by July 31, 2013) that describes “a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway; …”

Earlier than the due date for the main main report is a Dec. 31, 2012 deadline for the task force to make recommendations on the use of the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin noted that several commissioners had expressed interest in being on the task force. Cathy Gendron, who’s been talking with developer Bill Martin about a possible public/private partnership along the North Main corridor, said she probably shouldn’t do it since her term ends later this year and she’s not seeking reappointment. Gendron has served on AAPAC since its formation in 2008.

Connie Rizzolo Brown, who has served on AAPAC since early 2009, noted that her term also ends in December 2012, but she wanted to volunteer for the task force. She is a principal of Rizzolo Brown Studio, an Ann Arbor architectural design firm. Chamberlin noted that Brown – who leads AAPAC’s projects committee – has been interested in gateway projects for a long time.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend that Connie Rizzolo Brown be nominated for a position on a task force to study the corridor along North Main Street and the Huron River. That recommendation will be forwarded to mayor John Hieftje. Appointments are expected to be made at the council’s June 4 meeting.

Funding for Allmendinger Mural

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, brought forward an item asking the commission to allocate full funding to the Allmendinger mural project from the Percent for Art program. AAPAC selected Ann Arbor muralist Mary Thiefels of TreeTown Murals for the project at its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting. An initial $10,000 budget later had been increased to $12,000, with $7,200 of that amount to be paid for with a grant from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

However, the foundation grant must first be formally accepted by the Ann Arbor city council, and that hasn’t happened yet, Seagraves said. It is expected to be on the council’s June 18 agenda. In order to move ahead with the project and execute a contract with Thiefels, Seagraves asked commissioners to approve full funding of the project from Percent for Art funds, with the understanding that $7,200 of the funding would be reimbursed with the community foundation grant after it’s accepted by the council.

Wiltrud Simbuerger, who leads the mural task force, said Thiefels has already started working on the project, even without a contract. Marsha Chamberlin noted that AAPAC had been contacted by the community foundation regarding the grant about a year ago – it’s taken a long time to process.

Thiefel’s project includes working with local schools and incorporating ideas from students into her design – creating  mosaics at the top and bottom of pillars on the building at Allmendinger Park. This is the first mural in a pilot program that AAPAC hopes will eventually create several murals in city neighborhoods. The commission’s annual art plan for fiscal year 2013 – which begins July 1, 2012 – allocates an additional $40,000 to fund two more murals. No locations or artists have been selected for those projects.

Outcome: Commissioners approved funding for the Allmendinger mural, with planned reimbursement from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation grant.

Communications: Golden Paintbrush Awards, Townie Party

During her report from the public relations committee, Cathy Gendron gave an update on plans for the Golden Paintbrush awards. The annual awards are presented at a city council meeting and recognize local contributions to public art. Though all of the winners have not been publicly announced, AAPAC’s discussion made it clear that one of the awards will be given to Margaret Parker, AAPAC’s former chair who left the commission when her term ended last year.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, indicated that he hadn’t yet been able to confirm that the awards were on the June 4 city council agenda. Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, told commissioners that Seagraves wouldn’t be able to attend the June 4 meeting because he’ll be out of town – he’s getting married on June 2. Commissioners discussed moving the awards to the June 18 meeting, to accommodate his schedule. He said he’d check with the award winners to see if they can attend on the 18th, and also if it’s possible to place the presentation on the city council agenda for that meeting.

After the city council presentation, a reception for the Golden Paintbrush winners is planned in the atrium of city hall, at 301 E. Huron. Commissioners discussed inviting others who’ve been instrumental in public art activities, including members of various AAPAC task forces.

Gendron also noted that the PR committee is preparing for this year’s Townie Street Party, held on Monday, July 16 at Ingalls Mall. It’s an annual event hosted by the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair prior to the art fairs, which this year run from July 18-21. Gendron hoped that other commissioners would help shoot video at the party, talking to people about why public art is important.

Bob Miller noted that he’d been recruited to AAPAC as the result of meeting commissioner Malverne Winborne at last year’s Townie Street Party.

Communications: Update from City Council

In addition to the discussion about the North Main corridor task force, Tony Derezinski told commissioners that the May 21 city council meeting had included a proposed budget amendment that would have “tickled” the public art commission’s work. But that amendment was defeated, he said. [For a close look at budget deliberations on this and other amendments, see Chronicle coverage: "Debate Details: Ann Arbor FY 2013 Budget."]

The budget amendment, brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), would have eliminated $307,299 in transfers to public art. It was rejected on a 2-9 vote, with support only from Kunselman and Lumm. It stipulated that the transfers from various city funds into the public art fund would not take place, “notwithstanding city code” – a reference to the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. The Percent for Art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital improvement projects, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project, be set aside for public art. The amendment would have prevented the transfer of $60,649 out of the drinking water fund, $22,400 out of the stormwater fund, $101,750 out of the sewer fund, and $122,500 out of the street millage fund.

The council had re-debated its public art ordinance most recently at its May 7, 2012 meeting, in the context of a sculpture for the Justice Center lobby, which was ultimately approved.

At AAPAC’s May 23 meeting, Derezinski said he’d told his fellow councilmembers that this amendment was part of a continued way of “nibbling us by ducks” – alluding to other previous attempts to scale back the Percent for Art program. He said he would have used the expression “death by a thousand cuts,” but felt that was too bloody for the council.

Strategic Planning

Commissioners spent much of their May 23 meeting talking about strategic planning, picking up on a four-hour retreat they had held in April. [See Chronicle coverage: "Shaping Ann Arbor's Public Art Landscape."] They had originally intended to schedule a second retreat, but opted instead for tackling the topic at a regular meeting.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin began by saying that although the commission has previously talked about developing a master plan, she felt that the term “strategic plan” was more appropriate and was a better way to capture what AAPAC was trying to do. She brought a draft of a strategic plan, as a way to start the discussion. [.pdf draft strategic plan]

Wiltrud Simbuerger proposed thinking of the strategic plan in terms of a plan of action. That might include allocating a certain percentage of funds to particular types of projects – gateway projects, or public art in neighborhoods, for example. Another approach would be to allocate percentages of funding to large, medium or small projects, as defined by budget size. She’d also like to see a mix of long-term and short-term projects, and for AAPAC to be proactive in their work, not just responsive to proposals that are submitted by others.

Cathy Gendron expressed some concern about whether the allocation of funds to a certain type of project would dictate its size. Does that tie AAPAC’s hands? Simbuerger said the intent would be to guide AAPAC’s work generally, but that they could stray from those general strategies based on community input or when opportunities arise.

Bob Miller asked about the funding outlook – what are the projects for Percent for Art revenues next year? Theresa Reid pointed to the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), saying there are more than $1 billion worth of projects in that. She said AAPAC should be made aware of things like the CIP, which could directly impact their work. [While it's true that the most recent CIP – for the fiscal years 2013-2018 – identifies $1.13 billion in projects over that period, funding for a large portion of those projects has not been identified. To some extent, the CIP is considered a "wish list" of projects that city staff believe are needed. (.pdf of FY2013-2018 CIP)]

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, said that in general, he’d estimate the Percent for Art program would bring in between $200,000 to $300,000 annually. [The program currently has about $500,000 in funds that have not yet been allocated to specific projects. About $629,000 in additional funds are set aside for projects that are underway, as summarized in the annual plan that AAPAC approved at its March 2012 meeting. (.pdf of FY 2013 annual public art plan)]

Gendron cautioned that commissioners need to keep in mind the constraints of the funding sources. [A percent of the budget for each city capital project – up to $250,000 per project – goes toward public art. But money earmarked for the Percent for Art program must be used for public art that somehow relates to the original funding source. For example, the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall was paid for in part using Percent for Art funds from stormwater capital projects, because the city contends that the sculpture is "related to the purposes" of the stormwater fund.]

Commissioners spent a portion of the session brainstorming about projects they’d like to get started in the next three years. Suggestions included public art at the planned South State and Ellsworth roundabout, projects in underserved neighborhoods, the traffic island at the Washtenaw/East Stadium split, the dog park at Ellsworth and Platt, the non-motorized path along Washtenaw Avenue, and the skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park.

Also discussed was the typology of projects that AAPAC would like to pursue. Ideas included projects that are interactive, creative and connective with the community. Connie Rizzolo Brown cautioned that the commission shouldn’t be too specific in its direction, however. Development of specific projects should be the purview of task forces that are created for that purpose, and for the artists who are selected, she said.

Reid suggested that over the next month, commissioners should circulate more ideas via email to discuss at their June meeting. She also said she worried about capacity. With only nine commissioners and a part-time administrator, how much work could they shoulder? There was some discussion about the process of adding commissioners – it would require the city council to amend the Percent for Art ordinance, which sets forth the number of AAPAC members. Brown ventured that councilmembers might not be inclined to do that. [Tony Derezinski, who serves on both AAPAC and city council, had left the meeting early and was not part of the discussion at this point.]

Chamberlin noted that although the position of public art administrator is only a 20-hour-per-week job, Seagraves can also work additional hours as project manager for specific art projects. A project manager’s hours are funded from the Percent for Art dollars allocated to those projects. For example, Seagraves will be the project manager for the art installation at the Justice Center, which was approved by city council at its May 7, 2012 meeting.

Miller asked whether it would be possible to make the public art administrator’s job a regular 40-hour-per-week position. Chamberlin said it would take a lot of politicking and lobbying of city council, and it’s not likely something AAPAC should pursue at this point. However, as more projects are completed and councilmembers view the program as successful, she said, the council could probably see a rationale for making it a full-time job. Miller noted that if the administrator works more hours, AAPAC can get more accomplished.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, Bob Miller, Theresa Reid, Wiltrud Simbuerger. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The task force was established by the city council at its May 7, 2012 meeting, with membership to include the following: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

At its May 21 meeting, the two sponsors of the resolution that created the task force – Ward 1 councilmembers Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith – proposed adding three additional representatives: a member of the city council, someone from the boating/fishing community of river users, a representative from the Huron River Citizens Association. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who also serves on AAPAC, then proposed an amendment to add an AAPAC member to the task force. The AAPAC addition was passed by council on a 6-5 vote. [See Chronicle coverage: "Positions Added to North Main Task Force"] Appointments are expected to be made at the council’s June 4 meeting.

At AAPAC’s May 23 meeting, Derezinski told commissioners that “basically, we need someone at the table.”

The task force is charged with delivering a report to the city council more than a year from now – by July 31, 2013 – that describes “a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway; …”

Earlier than that – by the end of 2012 – the task force is to make recommendations on the use of the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel.

Brown has served on AAPAC since early 2009, and has chaired the commission’s projects committee. She is a principal of Rizzolo Brown Studio, an Ann Arbor architecture firm.

This brief was filed from the basement conference room of city hall at 301 E. Huron, where AAPAC held its meeting. A more detailed report will follow.

The member from AAPAC was added by a 6-5 vote that amended the original resolution. Voting for the additional member were Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and mayor John Hiefjte.

When the task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, the membership had included the following: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

The appointment of actual members to the task force has not yet been made. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated that the complete set of names might be expected by the council’s June 4 meeting.

The task force is charged with delivering a report to the city council more than a year from now – by July 31, 2013 – that describes “a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway; …”

Earlier than that – by the end of 2012 – the task force is to make recommendations on the use of the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel.

The creation of the task force comes in the context of the city’s application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funds to demolish two former maintenance yard buildings on the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel. The application has been approved by FEMA, but is pending the update of the city’s All-Hazard plan, which had expired and is being updated. FEMA is willing to help fund the demolition, because the two buildings are located in the floodway. The city council’s eventual acceptance of the FEMA grant will require a deed restriction on development in the floodway portion of the parcel.

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

The creation of the task force comes in the context of the city’s application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funds to demolish two former maintenance yard buildings on the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel. The application has been approved by FEMA, but is pending the update of the city’s All-Hazard plan, which had expired and is being updated. FEMA is willing to help fund the demolition, because the two buildings are located in the floodway. The city council’s eventual acceptance of the FEMA grant will require a deed restriction on development in the floodway portion of the parcel.

At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, on May 2, 2012, mayor John Hieftje expressed his view that the 721 N. Main property should become a city park as part of an Allen Creek greenway. At that meeting, he spoke of a possible grant from the state’s Natural Resources Trust Fund and matching funds from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation to support the construction of such a park, with connections to the Border-to-Border Trail, which runs along the Huron River, on the opposite side of Main Street from the 721 N. Main property.

The memo accompanying the resolution includes the MichCon property – between the Amtrak station and the Huron River – as part of the task force’s scope: “This task force’s efforts should create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increased public access to the river-side amenities of existing park in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use for MichCon property at Broadway.” [For discussion of MichCon's planned environmental cleanup work on the site, see previous Chronicle coverage of the March 20, 2012 meeting of the city's park advisory commission.]

The task force is supposed to conduct a series of public workshops, and consult with independent professionals and city staff. By July 31, 2013, the task force is supposed to provide a report. The task force is also supposed to provide a recommendation on the use of the 721 N. Main parcel by Dec. 31, 2012. That earlier deadline is there to facilitate the city’s application to the state for the Natural Resources Trust Fund, which has a deadline of April 2013.

The city’s 2007 Non-Motorized Plan shows a long-term vision for pedestrian and cycling amenities on the west side of the Huron River, including an underpass for the railroad tracks that would essentially extend a shared-use path from Fifth Avenue at Depot Street under the tracks across Riverside Park the MichCon property, where it could eventually connect with the Border-to-Border trail. [.pdf of map from 2007 Non-Motorized Plan] Responding to an emailed query, transportation program manager Eli Cooper wrote to The Chronicle that the Non-Motorized Plan is currently being reviewed for its regular update.

The specific members of the North Main Huron River task force have not been named, but the makeup of the group set forth in the resolution is as follows: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

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