From left: Councilmembers Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The two had co-sponsored a resolution establishing a task force to study the North Main Street and Huron River corridor. (Photos by the writer.)

In addition to the budget, the council efficiently dispatched with a fairly packed agenda of regular items, which are covered in this part of the meeting report. The item generating the most discussion was a follow-up to action taken at the council’s previous meeting on May 7, to establish a task force to study the North Main Street and Huron River corridor.

That resolution had provided for nine task force members representing different constituencies. At the May 21 meeting, a resolution was brought forward to add three members. A debate unfolded about whether to add a fourth member – from the Ann Arbor public art commission – to the mix. Ultimately that addition was approved narrowly on a 6-5 vote on the 11-member council.

While the North Main task force is meant to develop a vision for future land use in the corridor, the council took action on several current land use items too. Winning easy approval were a site plan for Allen Creek Preschool on Miller Avenue, and a rezoning and site plan for Michigan AAA on South Main Street. The council also quickly approved six routine rezoning requests associated with annexation from a township into the city of Ann Arbor.  And councilmembers gave initial approval to revisions of the planned unit development regulations for a Shell service station on Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway.

Associated with these land use items were a total of 10 separate public hearings. However, no one addressed the council during any of those hearings.

The city’s park system made it onto the agenda in a few different ways. First, a consent agenda item was pulled out for separate consideration to highlight the fact that renovations to South University Park were being funded with a $50,000 gift that had been made by a couple – Leslie and Michael Morris – who previously lived next to the park. The council also approved the lease of a 40-space parking lot near Argo Canoe liveries to meet additional demand for river trips that has been generated by construction of the Argo Cascades bypass around the dam.

Related to open space outside the city were the reappointments of two members of the greenbelt advisory commission – Peter Allen and Catherine Riseng. The commission overseas a portion of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

Financial issues considered by the council included initial approval to increase water, sewer and stormwater rates that will together generate an additional $1.7 million in annual revenue. The council also approved a tax abatement for Sakti3, a battery technology company in Ann Arbor that is looking to expand its operation here.

Other items on the agenda included receipt of a federal grant to develop a strategy for improved energy efficiency in rental housing, as well as a grant administered for laptop computers to be used as electronic pollbooks. The computers are used for election record-keeping, not for casting ballots. The council also gave initial approval to an ordinance revision that relieves homeowners of responsibility for maintaining sidewalks adjacent to their property for the duration of the sidewalk-repair millage, which voters approved in November 2011.

North Main Task Force Positions

On the May 21 agenda was an item adding three positions to a task force to study the corridor along North Main Street and the Huron River: a member of the city council, someone from the boating/fishing community of river users, and a representative from the Huron River Citizens Association. During the meeting, an amendment was offered to add a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC) to the task force, too.

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 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.

North Main Task Force Positions: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who had co-sponsored the initial creation of the task force, led off the discussion by saying that the council had been inundated with requests about the task force, and that had prompted the addition of three more categories.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he felt one segment of the community that should be included is the public art commission. It’s important to make the entrances to the city beautiful, he said, so he wanted a representative from the public art commission on the task force. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Derezinski for that suggestion. She noted that there truly are so many possible voices that could be heard on the task force.

But Briere worried that the task force could become overcrowded. The task force had been given very tight deadlines, she said. She reported that she’d encouraged interested people to attend the task force meetings and participate, even if they can’t vote. She said she lacked clarity on the parameters for public art – whether the money can be used for non-original decorative pieces, for example. So she hesitated to say where the role of the public art commission member could be on a task force that’s more visionary than practical at this point. Adding a representative from the public art commission would move it up to 13 voting members, which pushes the envelope of practicality, she felt.

Derezinski made a formal motion to amend the resolution to add a representative from the public art commission. If Briere was not clear about the parameters for public art, Derezinski said she should attend the commission meetings or read the annual report. To him the idea of making the entrance beautiful “sort of implies art.”

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Smith respected the idea of having art be a part of this, but said there is not necessarily a specific project the task force is meant to study – because their responsibility is much broader than a specific project. Later in the process, she felt, it’d be appropriate to bring in someone from the public art commission. However, she couldn’t support it now.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said there’s a continuing discussion about how to better integrate art into the city. He felt it’s possible that someone from the public art commission could help influence the visioning. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked if there are capital projects known to be a part of the task force effort. Briere responded to Hohnke, saying yes and no. She noted that the city staff will be applying for additional grants for 721 N. Main [from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund and from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission]. She felt that counts as capital improvement. However, the task force’s job is to talk about how best to use the site, not to build or approve a capital project. She imagined that capital projects would come out of this – for example, if there’s a tunnel or a bridge built to get across the railroad tracks, that’s a capital improvement.

Derezinski felt that Briere’s answer to Hohnke’s question was a yes. Derezinski contended that the task force had started off by looking at an entrance to the city. When you start to plan your vision, he said, art should be a part of the vision – and entrances to the city are critically important. The art should not be just an add-on. He said he would like Ann Arbor to be known as an art city. The resolution was already adding three additional members, he said, so he wanted to add one more.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that this was a case where she’d defer to the people who brought the resolution on the task force forward – and it appeared that they don’t want to add one more member at this time.

She noted that there are other corridor studies going on – for Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street –and no one from the public art commission is on those committees. She felt that the North Main task force is not yet at a point where it needed a member from the public art commission. She wouldn’t support the amendment, she told Derezinski, but she did support what he was trying to do.

Outcome on the amendment: The council voted 6-5 in support of the amendment to add a member to the task force from the public art commission. 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 Hieftje.

Mayor John Hieftje told Derezinski that it was now Derezinski’s task to find a member of the public art commission to add. [Derezinski serves on the public art commission. Two day's later, the public art commission met and recommended that Connie Rizzolo Brown be appointed to the task force.]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that there’d been a desire expressed by the Greenway Conservancy to be part of the task force, too. She worried that a group as large as 13 might be too large to be effective, and that’s why she had not voted for Derezinski’s amendment.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to add the four positions to the North Main/Huron River task force.

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. Later in the council meeting, Hieftje gave the following names, which will be formally appointed at the June 4 meeting: Darren McKinnon (Water Hill representative); David Santacroce (North Central neighborhood representative); Ray Detter (Old Fourth Ward representative); Tamara Burns (Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood representative); Julie Grand (park advisory commission representative); Erica Briggs (planning commission representative); Paul Ganz and Mike Martin (business & property owners of the affected area representative); Sandi Smith (councilmember); Rita Combest (Huron River/Newport neighborhoods representative); Cynthia Ives (boating/fishing/river users representative). Not yet determined is the representative from the Huron River Watershed Council. And the public art commissioners subsequently recommended Connie Rizzolo Brown to represent the commission.

Allen Creek Preschool Site Plan

The council considered a site plan for the Allen Creek Preschool, located at 2350 Miller Ave.

The site plan had been recommended unanimously for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its April 17, 2012 meeting. The commission also granted a special exception use for the project.

The project entails building a one-story, 929-square-foot addition onto the west end of an existing 3,111-square-foot preschool building, for a new total of 4,040 square feet. The preschool has an agreement with the Korean Methodist Church at 1526 Franklin Street to use eight parking spaces at the church lot. On-street parking is available on Miller Avenue and Franklin Street.

The special exception use is required because the project is located on a site zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district). According to a staff memo, the preschool includes programs for children up to 5 years old, with one or two afternoon enrichment classes serving children up to 8 years old. The programs will have a maximum of 14 students each (with 8 for young children attending with their parents) and one or two staff members teaching the programs. The preschool programs will be held mornings on Mondays through Thursdays, with enrichment classes held in the late afternoons. The number of children at the preschool will increase from 25 to 42, with a maximum of 50 in the future.

In December 2010, the planning commission had previously granted special exception use and recommended site plan approval for a project proposed by the preschool at a different location. That plan had called for demolishing the existing building and constructing a new 1,101-square-foot preschool building in a residentially zoned district at 1515 Franklin St. The preschool subsequently decided to pursue a different project.

The site plan (but not the special exception use) required approval by city council.

Outcome: Without deliberation, the council unanimously approved the Allen Creek Preschool site plan.

Shell Station Rezoning

The council gave initial consideration to a request to revise the zoning regulations associated with the parcel on the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway, where a Shell service station is located.

The city planning commission had previously voted unanimously to recommend approval of the zoning changes at its April 17, 2012 meeting.

Owners of the station are asking for revisions to the site’s planned unit development (PUD), which would allow them to build additions onto the existing 1,000-square-foot convenience store. The new additions would total 4,089 square feet, including 2,189 square feet to the north and east of the store. Their plan also calls for converting the 900-square-foot carwash area into new retail space. The existing access drive to the carwash would be landscaped, and the parking lot would be reconfigured for a new total of 16 spaces.

According to a planning staff memo, the PUD revisions were recommended because they are seen as providing an overall benefit to the city, by: (1) supporting the continued viability of retail options for the surrounding neighborhood; (2) creating job opportunities from this expansion; and (3) controlling the architectural design standards of this building as a gateway into the city.

Outcome: Without deliberation, the council gave unanimous initial approval to the Shell station PUD revision. Because changes to the PUD regulations are a change to the city’s zoning code, hence to the city’s ordinances, the initial approval by the council at its May 21 meeting will need to be followed by a second and final approval after a public hearing at a subsequent meeting.

AAA Site Plan, Rezoning

The council considered final approval of a rezoning request from AAA Michigan and the site plans for two separate parcels that are part of the same project on South Main Street. The council had given initial approval to the rezoning request at its May 7 meeting.

The rezoning request was to change half of a parcel located at 1200 S. Main to the P (parking) zoning designation.

The rezoning to P (parking) is part of a two-parcel site plan proposal – for which the city planning commission provided a positive recommendation at its March 6, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the commission took two votes on the 1200 S. Main parcel – the site plan and the rezoning proposal. And on both votes, the planning commission split 6-3. For the other, adjacent parcel at 1100 S. Main, the city planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the site plan for approval.

The two parcels, at 1100 and 1200 S. Main, are across from Michigan Stadium. An AAA branch built in the 1950s is located there. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces.

The two parcels are part of a 1.5-acre site containing four parcels owned by the auto club and all zoned O (office). Located on the 1200 S. Main parcel is the current one-story branch building with walk-out basement and 36 parking spaces, with exits onto South Main, Berkley and Potter.

The 1100 S. Main site is a surface parking lot, which has 72 spaces and exits onto both Potter and Keech. The owner is requesting to build a one-story, 5,443-square-foot new branch building on the northeast corner of that site, with parking for 21 spaces. A second phase of the project would include an eventual 2,230-square-foot addition to the south side of that building. There are six landmark trees on the site, and the plan would require removal of two that are located along South Main, near Keech. Other trees would be added elsewhere on the site.

After the new structure is completed, the old building at 1200 S. Main would be torn down and a 14-space parking lot would be put on that parcel. And to do that, the proposal asked that the northern 123 feet of that parcel – about half of the parcel – be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), so that parking could become the principal use for that site. A site plan for that parcel is also required.

The owner’s overall plan called for a total of 35 spaces – a reduction from the current parking on the site, which was approved in the mid-1970s but no longer conforms with existing zoning. The 35 spaces would be four more spaces than the 31 maximum number permitted under the O (office) zoning, based on the new building’s square footage in both phases. That’s why the owner requested that a portion of the overall site be rezoned for parking – in the P (parking) district, there is no maximum.

The council’s deliberations were brief. Margie Teall (Ward 4) got confirmation from city planning manager Wendy Rampson that the intent was not to build a parking structure on the site, but rather to have a surface parking lot.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved all three resolutions related to the Michigan AAA site.

South University Park Improvements

On the council’s consent agenda was an item to approve a $43,533 contract with Terra-Firma Landscape Inc. to make improvements to South University Park.

Photo from the June 21, 2011 park advisory commission meeting, when the Morrises announced their gift of $50,000 to rehab South University Park. From left: Michael Morris and Leslie Morris, and Colin Smith, the city's parks and recreation manager.

The work includes removal of trees and shrubs, replacement of the basketball court, removal of the bench and dilapidated kiosk, and installation of three new benches, installation of a new concrete walk that bisects the park, a picnic table, and native flowering trees and shrubs as well as extensive grading to the site.

Consent agenda items are moved and voted on as a group, but can be separated out at the request of any councilmember. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) pulled out this resolution for special consideration to review the list of improvements.

What’s noteworthy, Lumm said, is that they’re being funded by a $50,000 donation from Leslie and Michael Morris, who previously lived by the park and would like to see it improved.

Lumm also highlighted the past service of Leslie Morris on the Ann Arbor city council and the park advisory commission.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with Terra-Firma Landscape Inc. to make improvements to South University Park.

Supplemental Argo Livery Parking

The council considered a resolution approving a $2,500 lease with Huron River Holdings Inc. to use a parking lot near 416 Longshore Drive on weekends and holidays from May 26, 2012 to Sept. 3, 2012 to supplement parking for patrons at the Argo Canoe Livery. [Combined, the Argo and Gallup canoe liveries in Ann Arbor are the largest in the state of Michigan, according to livery manager Cheryl Saam.] It’s expected that the increased user fees at the livery, especially in connection with increased rentals due to the new Argo Dam bypass – called the Argo Cascades – will offset the cost of the lease.

Council deliberations consisted of Sabra Briere (Ward 1) remarking that she is glad more parking is being secured [the lot offers 40 spaces]. However, she ventured that still more parking in the area would be needed as the city had created additional demand through the construction of the Argo Cascades.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the lease to provide overflow parking.

Greenbelt Commission Reappointments

The council considered approval of the reappointment of Peter Allen and Catherine Riseng to the city’s greenbelt advisory commission. The group is responsible for overseeing a portion of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

The greenbelt advisory commission is one of the few boards and commissions for which the nominations to serve come from the city council as a body, not from the mayor. The item had been on the council’s agenda at its May 7 meeting – but only inadvertently. It had been intended only as a communication item. The council voted to postpone consideration of the reappointment until the May 21 meeting.

The commission’s membership is defined in terms of qualifications in different categories. Allen fills the slot on the commission designated for a real estate developer. Riseng fills a slot designated for a plant or animal biologist. According to her University of Michigan faculty profile, Riseng is an “aquatic ecologist with specific focus on fluvial ecosystems and benthic invertebrate ecology.”

The complete slate of membership positions include the following: two members to serve as representatives of environmental or conservation groups; one member who is an agricultural landowner or operates an agricultural business; one member who is a real estate development professional; one member who is a plant or animal professional; one member who is a plant or animal biologist; three members from the public-at-large; one member of the Ann Arbor city council.

The city council representative to the greenbelt advisory commission is Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). In re-introducing the reappointments, Hohnke noted that both Allen and Riseng have provided their substantial expertise in service of the commission.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to reappoint Allen and Riseng to the greenbelt advisory commission for three-year terms.

Water, Sewer Rate Increases

The council gave initial consideration to increased rates for drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater. According to a staff memo, the increases on an average single-family customer come to 3.21% across three different rate tiers – assuming the same level of consumption as last year. That 3.21% increase works out to $19.40 per year. [.pdf of water, sewer rates]

History of Ann Arbor water rates, showing the introduction of tiered rates. (Image links to Google Chart.)

Because the water and sewer rates are part of a city ordinance, the council will need to vote a second and final time on the rates, after a public hearing.

By way of illustration of the rates, the drinking water rate for the vast majority of residential customers is tiered, based on usage. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.27 to $1.31. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.64 to $2.74 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.50 to $4.69. For additional amounts more than 45 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $6.50 to $6.78 per unit.

One hundred cubic feet is 748 gallons. So a rate of $1.31 per unit translates to significantly less than a penny a gallon – $0.00175.

Ann Arbor’s tiered rate system was implemented in 2004. Before that, the rate for all usage levels was the same. In 2003, that was $1.97 per unit. In 2004, the lowest tier was dropped to $0.97. This year’s rate for the lowest tier is still less than what the general rate was in 2003.

Council deliberations were brief. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off by saying that Ann Arbor has always had some of the lowest rates compared to other communities. And she noted that those who use the least amount of water pay less.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) felt the council shouldn’t gloss over something that results in generating that much additional revenue. The rate increases are expected to generate $664,834 more for the water fund, $916,577 more for the sanitary sewer fund, and $184,064 for the stormwater fund. But the increases are in the 3-4% range, she said, which she felt is reasonable and she would support the changes. None of the councilmembers take this change lightly, she said. The rates are competitive. The additional revenues are necessary to fund debt service and new capital projects. The increases are not insignificant but are reasonable, she said. Mayor John Hieftje said he appreciated the mention of Ann Arbor’s rates as compared to other municipalities.

Outcome: Councilmembers unanimously voted to give initial approval to the rate increases.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement

The council considered a tax abatement for Sakti3 – a battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

The council had postponed their vote on the tax abatement at the council’s May 7 meeting – at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who wanted the matter referred first to the council’s budget committee.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the abatement would be on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. According to a memo from city financial staff, the value of the tax incentive to Sakti3 over three years totals $36,000.

Reasons given in the staff memo for the abatement include the need for Sakti3 to expand and add new equipment for the continually changing alternative energy business and the expected addition of five new employees due to the firm’s expansion. The memo concludes that the retention and expansion of such operations is consistent with the economic development goals of the city of Ann Arbor and of Ann Arbor SPARK.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council approved the establishment of that district.

The city is prohibited by state statute from abating taxes on any more than 5% of the total state equalized value of property in the city. Responding to an emailed query, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford wrote to The Chronicle that total SEV for the city for 2012 stands at $5,294,974,640, and the total SEV of abated property in 2012 is $8,935,974. That works out to 0.169% – well under 5%.

At the May 21 meeting, the council moved the item forward on the agenda so it could be considered early in the evening. The brief deliberations consisted of a report from Higgins, who noted that the council’s budget committee had met to discuss the abatement, and had recommended that the request be moved forward to the council for approval. Higgins chairs the budget committee.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Sakti3 tax abatement.

Sustainability Grant

The council considered authorizing receipt of $256,000 to create a community-scale energy strategy to increase energy efficiency improvements in rental housing.

The rationale for the project, according to a staff memo, is to address energy costs that are regressive, because renters often pay more on utilities due to the condition of rental housing stock. That is, higher energy costs affect poorer renters more. The grant will be used to develop a strategy to address inefficiencies in rental housing and thereby increase the affordability of rental housing stock.

The money was awarded to the city as part of a larger $3 million grant given last year to Washtenaw County through the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Community Challenge Planning Grant (CCPG). According to the city staff memo, the goal of the Washtenaw County grant is “to expand existing affordable and energy efficient housing options and connect them to job centers and healthy food through an enhanced multi-modal transportation corridor.”

The corridor in question is Washtenaw Avenue, between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

The $256,000 will be used by Ann Arbor for a rental housing energy efficiency project that is planned to last through December of 2014. Of the $256,000, $210,000 is budgeted for labor to hire a project manager and $46,000 is budgeted for marketing and outreach.

Matching funds totaling $370,000 have been pledged: $50,000 from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality grant supporting Michigan Green Communities; $60,000 from the Home Depot Foundation Sustainability Framework; and $260,000 from the city’s PACE/A2energy.org energy efficiency financing and community outreach efforts.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the receipt of the grant.

Electronic Pollbooks for All Ann Arbor Precincts

The council considered approval of a $32,850 grant from the state of Michigan, funded through the Help America Vote Act, to pay for 48 laptop computers and the peripheral devices needed to use the equipment as electronic pollbooks (EPBs).

The electronic pollbooks do not change the way voters cast their ballots; Ann Arbor voters will continue to use paper ballots. The electronic pollbooks are expected to make record-keeping at the precinct locations on election day more efficient and to reduce waiting time for voters.

The city had already accepted eight laptops and accessories, which were deployed at eight polling places for the May 8, 2012 election. That pilot program went smoothly, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

An added incentive to the city to participate in the state’s EPB program is that the state will fund 50% of the cost of the maintenance agreements for Ann Arbor’s voting tabulators – if EPBs are implemented in all 48 of the city’s precincts by the Nov. 6, 2012 election. For previous Chronicle coverage of the pilot deployment, see “New Technology for Tech Bond Election.”

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the state grant for electronic pollbooks.

Annexation Rezonings

The council considered final approval for six separate rezoning requests associated with annexation into the city of Ann Arbor from Scio Township. The zoning change in all cases is from the township to a residential category. The requests had received initial approval at the council’s April 16 meeting.

Five of the properties were annexed into the city on Oct. 3, 2011 – in connection with the expansion of a well-prohibition zone due to 1,4 dioxane groundwater contamination caused by the Pall Corp.’s Wagner Road facility, formerly owned by Gelman Sciences. Those five properties are: 305 Pinewood St.; 3225 Dexter Rd.; 427 Barber Ave.; 545 Allison Dr.; and 3249 Dexter Rd.

Annexation into the city allows the properties to connect to city of Ann Arbor water services. Pall has paid all petition filing fees as well as the connection and improvement charges for water and sanitary sewer service that are related to the annexations. The zoning for which the city council gave final approval is for R1C. [Google map of well prohibition zones and property locations] [.jpg of map with well prohibition zones and property locations]

A sixth parcel for which the council considered final rezoning approval – also due to annexation, but not related to the well-prohibition zone – is located at 1575 Alexandra Blvd. The parcel was rezoned from the township to R1A zoning.

No one spoke at any of the individual public hearings on any of the rezoning resolutions. The council did not deliberate on any of the parcels.

Outcome: On separate votes, the council unanimously approved the six rezoning resolutions.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance

The council gave initial consideration to a revision of the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance – in light of the voter-approved sidewalk repair millage, passed in November 2011. The basic idea is that for the period of the authorized millage – through fiscal year 2016 (which ends June 30, 2017) property owners will not be responsible for repairs to sidewalks abutting the property on which they pay taxes.

There are various wrinkles and contingencies in the revised ordinance for properties located within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment finance (TIF) district.

Ann Arbor voters authorized an additional 0.125 mill to be levied as part of the street repair millage, which was also renewed at that November 2011 election for 2.0 mills, for a total of 2.125 mills.

As part of the resolution passed by the city council to place the sidewalk millage question on the November 2011 ballot, the council directed the city attorney and other staff to provide the ordinance revision for the council’s consideration on or before Dec. 1, 2011. There was no comment at the council table about why the revision came to the council nearly half a year after the date specified.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the ordinance, and described the rationale for the part that deals with the DDA district. He said that because the DDA captures a certain amount of millage monies, the DDA was taking responsibility for repair of sidewalks in the DDA district. But on further reflection, the DDA had insufficient experience with the inspection and repair program, so DDA staff had worked with the city on a plan to have the city perform the repairs and have the DDA fund those repairs with a portion of the millage.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the sidewalk repair ordinance. As with all ordinance revisions, the council will need to vote a second time at a subsequent meeting, following a public hearing, in order for the ordinance to take effect.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: R4C/R2A Report

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) alerted his colleagues to the fact that a report from the advisory committee that studied the R4C/R2A zoning areas of the city has been referred to the planning commission’s ordinance review committee. The report is available on the planning commission website, he said. He noted that there are a lot of different views on it. [Derezinski is the city council's representative to the planning commission. For a detailed overview of the R4C/R2A report, see Chronicle coverage of the May 8, 2012 planning commission working session.]

Comm/Comm: Human Rights

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for everyone needing vital services. He told the council he is on the Democratic primary ballot for Michigan house of representatives, District 53. [The seat is currently held by Democrat Jeff Irwin.] Partridge said he was there to advance the cause of human rights and disability rights. He called for full funding of housing and human services in Ann Arbor. He called on the council to take an integrated approach, instead of a segregationist approach, and to do away with the old-boy network, and backroom decision making.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler updated the council on DTE smart meter installation. She reported that the Ypsilanti Township board had voted to enact a moratorium – because the board felt an opt-out provision was necessary. She told the council that citizens as well as representatives for DTE had spoken. She wanted the council to take action and let DTE know there’s a large number of people who will be affected by smart meter installation.

Helen Slomovits introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor. The benefits and safety of the devices are being misrepresented by utility companies, she contended. She urged the council to enact a moratorium on smart meter installation. The devices allow for time-of-day billing. She contended the devices don’t save energy or save customers money. In fact, she contended, they cause electric bills to go higher. She also contended that the meters are an invasion of privacy, because they collect more information than necessary. The utility companies also misrepresent the amount of RF radiation the meters give off. The data transmissions might be few per day, but because the devices are part of a mesh network there are about 10,000 transmissions a day to keep the network going, she said.

Responding later to the public commentary on smart meters, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that smart meters are on the agenda for the next environmental commission meeting. Mayor John Hieftje remarked that most communities aren’t fortunate enough to have an environmental commission.

Comm/Comm: Energy Farms

Kermit Schlansker spoke to the council about the challenges to achieving sustainable living. He described the inherent geometric advantages to bigger buildings – a better surface-area-to-volume ratio. He described a range of different energy systems, including solar systems, windmills, bio-digesters, and thermal reservoirs.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, June 4, 2012 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!

The rezoning request was to change half of a parcel located at 1200 S. Main to the P (parking) zoning designation.

The rezoning to P (parking) is part of a two-parcel site plan proposal – for which the city planning commission provided a positive recommendation at its March 6, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the commission took two votes on the 1200 S. Main parcel – the site plan and the rezoning proposal. And on both votes, the planning commission split 6-3. For the other, adjacent parcel at 1100 S. Main, the city planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the site plan for approval.

The two parcels, at 1100 and 1200 S. Main, are across from Michigan Stadium. An AAA branch built in the 1950s is located there. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces.

The two parcels are part of a 1.5-acre site containing four parcels owned by the auto club and all zoned O (office). Located on the 1200 S. Main parcel is the current one-story branch building with walk-out basement and 36 parking spaces, with exits onto South Main, Berkley and Potter.

The 1100 S. Main site is a surface parking lot, which has 72 spaces and exits onto both Potter and Keech. The owner is requesting to build a one-story, 5,443-square-foot new branch building on the northeast corner of that site, with parking for 21 spaces. A second phase of the project would include an eventual 2,230-square-foot addition to the south side of that building. There are six landmark trees on the site, and the plan would require removal of two that are located along South Main, near Keech. Other trees would be added elsewhere on the site.

After the new structure is completed, the old building at 1200 S. Main would be torn down and a 14-space parking lot would be put on that parcel. And to do that, the proposal asked that the northern 123 feet of that parcel – about half of the parcel – be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), so that parking could become the principal use for that site. A site plan for that parcel is also required.

The owner’s overall plan called for a total of 35 spaces – a reduction from the current parking on the site, which was approved in the mid-1970s but no longer conforms with existing zoning. The 35 spaces would be four more spaces than the 31 maximum number permitted under the O (office) zoning, based on the new building’s square footage in both phases. That’s why the owner requested that a portion of the overall site be rezoned for parking – in the P (parking) district, there is no maximum.

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.

Len Nadolski, left, talks with city councilmember Tony Derezinski before the start of the May 1, 2012 Ann Arbor planning commission meeting. Nadolski owns the Chalmers Place Retail Center on Washtenaw Avenue and hopes to add a parking lot behind the center. The proposal was rejected by the planning commission, on which Derezinski serves. (Photos by the writer.)

About half of those speakers came out to oppose a parking project for the Chalmers Place Retail Center on Washtenaw Avenue, located next to Paesano restaurant in the former Arbor Dodge lot. The owner – Len Nadolski of Howell – asked to rezone a vacant parcel behind the center to P (parking), from its current single-family residential zoning. He said the center has been unable to lease all of its stores because tenants are concerned about a lack of parking.

Commissioners expressed sympathy for the owner, but voted against recommending the rezoning. The majority of commissioners did not feel that the situation warranted overriding the master plan, which calls for that property to be zoned residential. Erica Briggs said the situation added urgency to plans to make the Washtenaw Avenue corridor more safe and amenable to walking and biking.

Eric Mahler cast the lone vote in favor of rezoning. He said he normally wouldn’t support a proposal that was essentially “spot zoning,” but in this case he voted for the plan because he didn’t see any viable alternatives for the owner.

Another project that drew public commentary had previously been recommended for approval by the commission: Maple Cove Apartments & Village development, located on North Maple near Miller Road. The commission had approved the project at its March 20, 2012 meeting. But that vote was rescinded when it was discovered that Scio Township residents on Calvin Street had not been included in an original public notice mailed out for the commission’s March meeting.

Nearby residents voiced several concerns about the project – including density, flooding, aesthetics, traffic and a lack of sidewalks from North Maple back to the seven houses. Those issues were echoed by some of the commissioners, who also complained about the lack of responsiveness from the property owner, Muayad Kasham of Dynasty Enterprises. He has not attended the commission’s meetings to address concerns.

But it was the two proposed entrances off of North Maple – separate entrances for the apartments and the single-family homes – that prompted the most discussion among commissioners, and ultimately the move to postpone. Wendy Woods pointed out that the city’s traffic engineer had advised that a single entrance would be preferable. The city code allows for two entrances, however, based on the property’s lineal frontage. The owner has indicated a commitment to two entrances in order to market the apartments and single-family homes separately, and the city code allows for two entrances based on the property’s lineal frontage.

No date has been set for when the project will next appear on the planning commission agenda.

The commission also approved the city’s 2013-2018 capital improvements plan (CIP), with only minor modifications from the previous year. But commissioners voted to postpone action on a master plan update – they’re expected to discuss it at a retreat set for Tuesday, May 29.

The final item of the meeting was dispatched quickly, as commissioners recommended rejecting a proposed revision to the city’s medical marijuana zoning ordinance. The proposal – recommended by the medical marijuana licensing board – was to strike one sentence from the zoning ordinance: “Medical marijuana dispensaries and medical marijuana cultivation facilities shall be operated in compliance with the MMMA (Michigan Medical Marijuana Act).” Commissioners expressed caution about the implications of eliminating the sentence, with Mahler stating that the change would authorize illegal uses, and would have severe consequences for the city.

Maple Cove Apartments & Village

The planning commission rescinded its previous action regarding a site plan for the Maple Cove Apartments & Village development and reconsidered the proposal at its May 1 meeting.

The commission had previously approved the project at its March 20, 2012 meeting. But that vote was rescinded because Scio Township residents on Calvin Street had not been included in an original public notice mailed out for the commission’s March meeting. There were no changes to the plan in the interim period.

The project is located on 2.96 acres at 1649 N. Maple, north of Miller Road between North Maple and Calvin Street on the city’s west side. At the March 20 meeting, Bonnie Bona and Eric Mahler had voted against the project. Bona was absent from the May 1 meeting.

Project area for Maple Cove is showed outlined in black. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf file)

The plan calls for combining two sites – 1649 N. Maple and 1718 Calvin – and demolishing an existing single-family home and detached garages there. Two 3-story apartment buildings would be built with a 64-space parking lot and eight bike spaces. The project also includes building a private street to serve seven new single-family houses near Calvin Street, but with an entrance off of North Maple. According to a staff memo, there will be no access to Calvin Street, which “is a private street with a checkered history regarding access rights.” The apartment complex would have a separate entrance, also off of North Maple.

Each apartment building would contain a total of 18 one-and two-bedroom apartments ranging from 745 to 1,057 square feet. The plan calls for each apartment building to have a rooftop patio for use by residents, with the possibility of a vegetated cover (green roof) for the remainder of the roof surface. The staff memo noted that the city has requested a $26,660 parks contribution, but the developer has declined to make that contribution.

The site has two zoning designations, which the project accommodates. The eastern half of the parcel, adjacent to North Maple, is zoned O (office), but residential uses are permitted as long as the project conforms to the area, height and placement regulations of office zoning. The maximum height allowed is 55 feet, and the proposed apartment buildings would be 44 feet tall. The western half of the site, where the single-family homes are planned, is zoned R1C (single-family residential).

Site plans for two previous projects had been approved by the city (in 2005 and 2008) but neither project was built. Planning staff had recommended approval of this current project.

Maple Cove Apartments & Village: Public Hearing

Several neighbors attended the May 1 meeting and six people spoke against the project for a variety of reasons, including density, flooding, aesthetics and traffic.

Alice Boss told commissioners that she lives on Calvin, directly across the street from the proposed development – she’s lived there 10 years. This is the second time that she’s come to the commission for a project that’s been proposed for the land, which she described as beautiful green space. It’s a flood zone that’s used by migratory birds, and she’s concerned about what would happen to those birds. The existing homes along Calvin are small, she said, and the larger homes proposed for Maple Cove would be incongruous with the neighborhood. In general, she’s concerned about over-density, noise, light, and crime. The development would substantially degrade her quality of life, she concluded.

Carole Starnes said her property abuts the part of the Maple Cove project that’s next to Calvin. She’s concerned about the density of the apartments, but said she’s more familiar with the situation on Calvin. The soil in that area is clay, and there’s always water – she doesn’t want to see more flooding. What guarantees do they have that the problem won’t worsen? She noted that most homes in that area are built on lots that are more than one acre, but the seven Maple Cove homes will all be built on less than two acres total. She was concerned about density. Will there be any buffer between the development’s back yards and existing homes – and is there any guarantee about it, or will it be left up to the developer? Starnes said she’d hate to be looking out her living room window and see a house right there. Most people who live in that area now chose the location because of its rural character, she said.

Cheryl Brown criticized the commission and planning staff, saying “shame on you” for not initially notifying all neighbors about the project and for infringing on their right to due process. She pointed out that Calvin is a private street, so people would need permission to use it as an entrance or exit. [There are no plans by the developer to connect the project to Calvin.] She said she’d prefer some type of fence between the existing homes and the development, and she wondered where the property’s easement was located. It seemed like it was all take and no give by the developer – she didn’t see that the developer was willing to do anything in exchange for the project. Brown suggested that instead of building one of the houses, a park could be added.

Pete Miller said he’s lived on Calvin Street for 25 years, and the sump pump in his basement runs continuously. There’s a huge water problem in the area, and when the developer starts digging, even more problems will be caused, he said. It scared him to know that the county is responsible for drainage in that area, because the county hasn’t done anything to address the problem in years, he said.

Some of the residents who spoke during public commentary against the Maple Cove development on Ann Arbor's west side.

Stephanie Raupp reminded commissioners that she had spoken at the project’s public hearing in March – she had been the only person representing neighbors at that hearing. She’s a homeowner who lives directly across North Maple from the proposed development, on Enclave Lane, and had presented a petition on behalf of other residents who were concerned about the apartments. Based on feedback at this meeting, though, she said it seems like people are concerned about the apartments and the houses.

The main issue is that it feels like a bait and switch, Raupp said. When the property was rezoned based on a previous proposal by a different developer, that project had been significantly different than the one that’s now proposed, she said. It had been mostly offices, with a lot of green space and just a few loft apartments. The rezoning was approved based on that plan, but the current plan is nothing like that. She pointed out that many homes in the area have families with children who attend Skyline High, but the developer refuses to put in sidewalks. He at least owes the neighborhood sidewalks and more green space, she said. The parking lot is huge, and water runoff is a problem. The project needs to be reexamined, she said.

Brian Biggs was the last speaker, and said he lived on Woodrow Street near Calvin. He urged commissioners to go out to North Maple in the morning between 6:45-8:45 a.m. and then tell him how that road would accommodate 100 more cars. There are already backups at the roundabouts north of the proposed development, he said – where are the extra cars going to go? Kids have to cross North Maple to get to Skyline High or the elementary schools, he noted. Biggs also told commissioners that the soil on the property, where a salvage yard was previously located, is still contaminated. The developer wants to make a buck, he said, but “we need to think past the dollar.”

Maple Cove: Commission Discussion

Commissioners spent about an hour discussing the Maple Cove project. This report organizes the discussion thematically.

Maple Cove: Commission Discussion – Site Contamination

Jamie Gorenflo with Midwestern Consulting was the only representative of the developer at the meeting. He said a phase 1 environmental assessment had been completed, and that remediation was done on the site – it’s been cleaned up, he said. This prompted several people from the audience to shout “No way!”

Wendy Woods observed that the neighbors seem to think the site hasn’t been cleaned up. She asked Gorenflo for more details. He replied that a phase 1 and phase 2 environmental study had been done as part of a requirement in the sale of the property to the current owner. However, he said he hadn’t been privy to the recommendations from those studies. Woods said that concerned her.

Kirk Westphal asked whether the city could get a copy of the environmental study results. City planner Matt Kowalski said he wasn’t sure if the information was confidential, but he would ask for it. Is it required by the city? Westphal asked. Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the only time the city requires that kind of information is if the developer is seeking brownfield status. Otherwise, it’s handled at the county or state level. The city has no regulatory authority, she said. The private sector typically deals with this kind of issue prior to a property sale, to determine who has responsibility in case there’s any litigation.

Westphal asked who the neighbors could contact for more information. Rampson pointed to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and said the planning staff would also follow up with the developer.

Maple Cove: Commission Discussion – Drainage, Flooding

Queried by commissioners, city planner Matt Kowalski confirmed that the project’s site plan must manage water on-site, and not allow runoff. He said the city staff and county water resources commissioner have reviewed the plan and given it preliminary approval. Excess water would be directed to an underground detention basin.

In response to a question from Evan Pratt, Jamie Gorenflo with Midwestern Consulting indicated that there’s no problem anticipated with groundwater. Pratt said it sounds like the site is wet, but that the project won’t make things worse. He noted that if there’s water on the surface, that usually means there’s water underground. It’s never a good idea to put basements in an area where there’s groundwater – you’ll end up with sump pumps that run continuously, he said.

Responding to another question, Gorenflo said he wasn’t sure if the single-family homes will have basements. The apartment buildings will have a small basement for mechanicals, but it won’t extend under the entire building.

Wendy Woods asked to clarify the term groundwater – she noted that groundwater is the term used to refer to underground water that’s been contaminated by Pall/Gelman Sciences with 1,4 dioxane. Gorenflo said he had been using the term only to refer to surface water – water that was on the ground.

Maple Cove: Commission Discussion – Developer Responsiveness

Several commissioners complained about the attitude of the developer. Wendy Woods said she was glad that more neighbors had come to raise their issues, and it seemed the project would cause a lot of concerns in the future. Even though she had previously voted in favor of the project, she said she didn’t think she could support it now. Hearing from the neighbors and seeing the unwillingness of the developer to address these issues were a big concern for her.

Erica Briggs observed that the developer was just coming in and doing what he wanted. The project isn’t consistent with the surrounding area, and there’s no discussion about meeting the basic needs of even the residents who’ll live in the new development, she said. Briggs noted that the developer hadn’t attended any planning commission meetings. The project reflects a problem with the city’s code, she said, or with the rezoning. Residents supported that previous project there, which was mostly offices, but this current development is nothing like that, she noted.

Briggs wondered if some of the minor issues could be addressed, at the least. ”Is there any way for these grievances to be answered?”

City planner Matt Kowalski replied that the planning staff had raised some of the same concerns as the neighbors and commissioners, but the project met the city’s regulations and code, so there was nothing the staff could do.

Briggs asked if there was any advice that could be provided to the neighbors. Nothing beyond speaking to the city council, Kowalski said. Planning manager Wendy Rampson suggested that neighbors could contact the developer directly and try to work something out.

Eric Mahler, the commission’s chair, pointed out that it’s not the staff’s role to be an advocate for the developer or anyone else.

Maple Cove: Commission Discussion – Density, Traffic, Sidewalks

Kirk Westphal observed that when people buy a home, they typically don’t look at the zoning of property around them – it usually only comes up when a project is proposed, like Maple Cove. He said there’s not much consolation for people who are debating the density of a project like this, other than to keep an eye on the process and contact their city council representative. But once the code is in place and follows the city’s master plan, there’s not much recourse. ”If code is something we want to change, we can always change that in the future,” he said.

Wendy Woods said she had raised concerns about a lack of sidewalks at the March 20 meeting, and she’s still not comfortable with that. Jamie Gorenflo with Midwestern Consulting said he couldn’t speak for the developer, but that the plan called for posting signs with a speed limit of 5 mph – a comment that prompted laughs from the residents. Other traffic-calming strategies would also be deployed, he said. Even if there were sidewalks from the single-family homes to North Maple, he said, there isn’t a sidewalk along North Maple to connect with. There will be a sidewalk in front of the development, but nothing on either side of it.

Tony Derezinski asked whether sidewalks can be required. Matt Kowalski clarified that sidewalks are required in the front of the development, along North Maple. Beyond that, sidewalks are only required for drives leading to developments with eight or more houses – this one had only seven houses. What about curbcuts? Derezinski asked. The developer is entitled to two curbcuts, Kowalski said, based on the project’s lineal frontage.

Derezinski said the problem is that a lot of people don’t like the city code, in this case – it’s a dilemma. The fact is, people are in a bind, but the city needs to follow the law, he said.

Westphal asked for clarification about why the decision was made that developments with less than eight houses did not require sidewalks. Kowalski said he didn’t know why the code was written that way, but that the planning staff had recommended sidewalks for this project. He noted that city code requires a sidewalk along the front of the property, along North Maple, but not on the drive leading back to the houses.

Maple Cove: Commission Discussion – Postponement

Evan Pratt noted that the city’s traffic engineer has stated that one driveway is preferable – there’s a reason for making that determination, he said. Pratt said he looked at it from a health, safety and welfare perspective, and he had concerns about two driveways onto North Maple. Pratt said he’d like to propose an amendment to approve the project contingent on it having only a single driveway. Otherwise, he said he’d like to postpone action until the developer could respond. He moved the amendment, which was seconded by Wendy Woods.

Tony Derezinski wondered whether such an action would violate the city’s zoning code. Wendy Rampson said the developer is entitled to two curbcuts, but the traffic engineer does have a certain amount of discretion. Pat Cawley was the city traffic engineer who prepared a report for this project.

Derezinski said the only hook for the city would be if the two driveways created a threat to public health, safety and welfare. That’s a fairly high standard, he noted, and the city is on tentative ground. For that reason, he said he’d prefer a postponement, not an amendment making the approval contingent on a single driveway.

Woods pointed to the summary of the traffic engineer’s report, as provided in the staff memo on the project:

The City Traffic Engineer has requested a consolidation of access points for the development in accordance with The City of Ann Arbor Transportation Plan Update, May 2009. In order to minimize potential conflicts along Maple Road, it is advised that the single-family and apartment buildings utilize the same access point.

“That speaks volumes to me,” she said. The access points – the two driveways – are close, Woods said, and create potential points of conflict. Citing the comments from neighbors and proximity of Skyline High, she said she’d like to take another look at requiring a single driveway. Woods joked that she was looking at the attorney across the room to get his response, but he wasn’t making eye contact. [Kevin McDonald of the city attorney's office was at the meeting, but did not comment on this issue.]

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Eric Mahler pointed out that if the commission amended the resolution, they’d be amending the developer’s site plan, and the developer hasn’t had a chance to rebut. He said it was more procedurally tasteful to vote down the project, ask the developer to revise the site plan, then reconsider it at a future meeting.

Derezinski agreed, saying the commission was on “very tender ground.” If commissioners amended the agreement because of the threat to public health, safety and welfare, that’s a high threshold and they need to ensure that there’s documentation to support it, he said. Derezinski said he’d vote for postponement in order to get that documentation, but otherwise, “we shouldn’t do it.”

Kirk Westphal also weighed in to support postponement, saying it was unfortunate that the developer wasn’t there to respond. Erica Briggs said she wouldn’t give too much sympathy to the developer, pointing out that he had just as much opportunity to attend the meeting as the neighbors did.

Pratt withdrew his motion to amend, and said he’d also support postponement.

Mahler noted that the developer is under no obligation to consider any changes to his proposal. Commissioners need to recognize that a postponement might not move the needle on this project. “We can only request it,” he said.

Jamie Gorenflo with Midwestern Consulting told commissioners that the owner was committed to two entrances in order to market the apartments and single-family homes separately. Gorenflo said he was 90% sure the owner wouldn’t change his mind on this issue.

Diane Giannola said she supported postponement in order to hear from the traffic engineer regarding how big of a concern the two curbcuts are. Woods again pointed to the summary in the staff report, and argued that if even one child could get hurt, that’s a big concern. She said her blood pressure was rising, and that if Gorenflo had indicated there was no need to postpone because the owner wouldn’t change his mind, then she would feel vindicated in voting against the project.

Pratt then formally moved to postpone in order to get clarification from the city’s traffic engineer. The motion was seconded by Eleanore Adenekan.

Derezinski noted that the postponement related only to the curbcut issue – all of the other issues that had been raised weren’t part of the postponement. Woods replied that there might be other issues that would cause a commissioner to vote against the project. She asked whether there would be another public hearing on the project.

Mahler indicated that the commission would re-open the public hearing when the project is taken up again.

Westphal asked whether having a single curbcut would eliminate the sidewalk issue. Rampson responded that the planning staff couldn’t make code reviews on the fly, but they could look at that.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to postpone action on Maple Cove, to get more information from the traffic engineer about whether the proposed two separate entrances to the property created a health, safety and welfare hazard. The vote to postpone was 7-1, with dissent from commission chair Eric Mahler. Bonnie Bona was absent. No date has been set for when the project will next appear on the planning commission agenda.

Chalmers Place Parking

Planning commissioners were asked to vote on three resolutions related to a proposal for Chalmers Place, at 2090 Chalmers Drive near the intersection with Washtenaw Avenue: (1) rezoning a vacant lot from R1B (single-family residential) to P (parking); (2) authorizing the disturbance of a 25-foot natural features open space; and (3) a site plan for the parking lot. The site is west of Arborland Mall.

Aerial map of the lot (outlined in black) that was proposed to be rezoned from residential to parking. The lot is located directly north of the Chalmers Place retail center at 3365 Washtenaw Ave. (Links to higher resolution .pdf file)

Chris Cheng gave the report of planning staff, which recommended denial of the proposal. Reasons for denial included the fact that the proposal did not conform to the city’s master plan for that area, and because a parking lot would cause greater disturbance to the site’s natural features than a single-family residential development would.

The plan called for building a 43-space parking lot on the .92-acre site, which is now vacant. Most of the parking would be used by employees of the Chalmers Place Retail Center at 3365 Washtenaw Ave., located south of this site. Len Nadolski, the owner of both the retail center and the vacant parcel, and his representatives argued that they can’t fully lease the stores at the center without additional parking. Ten to twelve spots would also be set aside for park-and-ride commuters using the AATA bus stop on Washtenaw Avenue.

Chalmers Place Parking: Public Hearing

There were 18 people who spoke during a public hearing on the project, which lasted about an hour. A summary of their remarks is presented in this report. The majority of speakers were residents from the neighborhood who opposed the project, but the first three speakers were affiliated with the owner.

Jeff Smith of Professional Engineering Associates in Howell told commissioners that the owner’s team had worked very hard over the past year. This parking project is a last resort to help the struggling retail center. It’s a plan that could be approved, he said, and there’s a desperate need for parking. One of the primary concerns that people have cited is the removal of trees, and there seems to be a perception that this property contains high-quality woodland. But it’s really an overgrown residential lot, Smith said, and 42% of the trees are invasive. It’s not pristine in terms of natural features.

Smith said they knew that the master plan would be a challenge, but their justification for the project is that parking provides a natural transition between the retail center and the residential neighborhood, and is not out of character. It’s a unique project because a portion of the spaces are dedicated for an AATA park-and-ride lot. That can be pointed to as a special use, he said, so it doesn’t set a precedent for other projects. Traffic won’t be increased as a result of the lot, Smith contended. And the topography – a steep incline – is such that the lot will be 18 feet below Chalmers. Combining that with the evergreens to be planted as screening, and residents won’t be able to see the lot, he said. Smith concluded by asking commissioners for their approval: “We really hope you can keep this retail center going.”

From left: Len Nadolski, owner of Chalmers Place retail center; property manager Kevin Travers; and David Sharp, manager of the Verizon store at the center.

Kevin Travers, the center’s property manager, noted that the first tenants moved into the center in 2006. So it’s not like this approach to parking was the first thing they tried – in fact, it’s the last thing they wanted to do, he said. They’ve struggled to make the center viable and fill the stores, but there’s still 7,200 square feet with dirt floors, and a total of 9,800 square feet of vacant space. He said the property has been shown to more than 100 potential tenants, but parking is always an issue. The owner is ready to spend $250,000 on this new lot – it’s absolutely needed to survive, he said. This business has paid taxes, improved the side road, kept the area neat and clean. They’ve been good neighbors, he said. The city owes it to taxpayers to stabilize the tax base now and in the future, he concluded.

Matt Berke, a principal with Keystone Commercial Real Estate, told commissioners that he didn’t have much to add, but he wanted to attest that he’s the third broker for the property. He’s handled the property for over a year, and virtually every potential tenant voices the same concerns over parking. He said he knows of at least two tenants who’ve leased at other locations in this market.

Michael Roddy, owner of Paesano at 3411 Washtenaw, noted that his restaurant is directly across Chalmers from the retail center – he remembers when Arbor Dodge was located there. Roddy said he’d previously spoken to the city council and planning commission members about other issues on behalf of his neighbors, and he was here to do the same again. Unlike the Maple Cove developer, Roddy said, the owner of Chalmers Place had met several times with neighbors and others in the area. It’s a wonderful development that has increased the value of property, improved the sidewalks and done everything a good neighbor should do. Roddy said they don’t need more vacant lots or stores along Washtenaw. He also has seen people park in the Paesano parking lot and walk over to Chalmers Place. There are two businesses there that have customers and employees who fill the retail center’s parking lot. Roddy said the parking project would beautify the area, and he urged commissioners to support it.

Michael Homel, a resident of Wooddale Court, identified himself as a board member of the Woodcreek Homeowners Association, and noted that several other people who live in the Woodcreek development were at the meeting. Homel said he supported the staff recommendation of denial for this project. The main issue is zoning, he said – keep the commercial activity on Washtenaw Avenue, and the residential on Chalmers. Nothing has changed since the owner built the retail center, Homel observed, and perhaps better planning would have been a better approach. Homel noted that the owner says the retail center is struggling because of parking – that assertion can’t be proven or disproven, yet there are many other vacant stores in the area. There are probably a lot of reasons for those vacancies, and it’s not the role of others to plumb into that, he said.

Homel reminded commissioners that the owner had previously tried to rezone the property on Chalmers from single-family to multi-family residential. He also noted that the decision to allocate spaces for AATA park-and-ride was not an AATA initiative, and if there are spaces to spare for AATA, it seems to disprove the assertion that parking is needed for employees and customers. Finally, Homel said that although it’s true that the owner held a neighborhood meeting and did other outreach, the residents don’t support it. The Woodcreek Homeowners Association board had voted unanimously against the project, he reported. They support the planning staff’s findings, and he hoped the commission would deny the rezoning.

Amir Mortazawi, who lives on Woodcreek, said that he and his wife both oppose the project. He held up photos of the current parking lot, when there was plenty of parking. Parking should have been part of the business plan when the project was built, he said. Asking for the zoning change seemed like a way to circumvent the rules. He hoped that wasn’t the case. Mortazawi said he and his wife moved there 10 years ago hoping that they could walk to the shops along Washtenaw. That’s what the city should promote, he said. But they no longer walk along Chalmers – that would be risking their lives. The drivers for Jimmy John’s – one of the Chalmers Place tenants – drive fast along Chalmers. “We don’t need more businesses like that,” he said. Mortazawi urged commissioners not to make a bad situation worse by adding more traffic and fast drivers.

Lois Kamoi, a resident of Chalmers, said her daughter lives in the house adjacent to the proposed parking lot. Her property was purchased from Nadolski and she knew at that time that the adjacent land was also zoned residential. She was concerned that strangers in the parking lot could look down and see her grandchildren playing outside. Kamoi noted that at the neighborhood meeting that Nadolski held, the neighbors were told that the parking lot would be for employees. But later, the spots for AATA riders were added. Kamoi also disputed the need for more parking, saying that she walks her dog past there every day and she’s never seen the employee spaces full. The Jimmy John’s drivers take up several spaces in front, so perhaps they could park in the lot behind the center, she suggested. She also raised concerns about adding 43 more vehicles exiting onto Chalmers, if the new lot were built.

Gwen Nystuen, a member of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, pointed to the master plan, which calls for that property to be residential. It’s appropriately zoned now, and keeping it that way would better protect the site’s natural features and the Mallets Creek watershed, she said. Nystuen also didn’t think it would be smart to add more traffic to that area, and she hoped commissioners would reject the rezoning.

Jane Heineken of Brian Court said there are already a lot of near misses as people pull out of Chalmers onto Washtenaw Avenue, as well as when people try to get in and out of Paesano, Chalmers Place and stores on the south side of Washtenaw. She’s a frequent AATA rider, and would applaud a park-and-ride lot in the area. But that would need to be accompanied by a crosswalk across Washtenaw. Currently, people try to dart across five lanes of traffic – it’s already a problem. As much as residents would like to see all the shopping centers along Washtenaw be successful, it’s important to look at the bigger picture, she said.

Danielle Gonzalez and her mother Madeline Gonzalez, who live across the street on Chalmers from the proposed parking lot, both spoke against it. The people who park behind the center now are loud, Danielle Gonzalez said, and a new lot would increase noise, traffic, and lights. It’s already difficult to turn onto Washtenaw, she said. Madeline Gonzalez asked commissioners to follow the planning staff recommendation, based on the issue of safety. Residents have the right for children to play in a safe area, but there are no sidewalks there and the cars drive fast. She also noted that residents weren’t told about the AATA park-and-ride spaces when they met with the owner, adding that AATA brings in “different elements.” She observed that Roddy likely supports the project because his customers use parking at Chalmers when the Paesano’s lot is full. Gonzalez said she wants the shops to succeed, but not to impact the quality of life in the neighborhood.

Jan Ulrich, an Oakwood resident, talked about the traffic along Washtenaw Avenue between Carpenter and Huron Parkway – “it’s a mess.” She had concerns about how the development got approved in the first place, given the traffic. It’s quite dangerous there, and she was pleased to see the planning staff’s recommendation for denial. Ulrich also raised environmental concerns for the project’s impact on Mallets Creek, and about the quality of life for residents. Pointing to the addition of parking for AATA, she noted there was an aspect of deception involved, too.

Two managers of tenants at the center spoke in support of the new lot. David Sharp, Verizon store manager, said there’s no one better than him to attest to the need for parking. He spends most of his day standing near the window that overlooks the lot. Between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. there are few available spaces – he’s seen customers drive up and then leave because they can’t find parking. When tenants move into the four vacant stores, the problem will be even worse. He also noted that the types of businesses are a factor, too. Customers for some stores – like Verizon, and the nail salon – spend a long time at the business, so there’s not frequent turnover in parking. He strongly encouraged approval of the rezoning.

The manager of LUV Manicures & Pedicures also spoke in support of rezoning. She said the front parking lot is frequently full, and customers complain. She’d like to see more businesses in the center, which would help all the stores, but when that happens the parking will be worse. Customers will start to go elsewhere. Approving the project would benefit the entire center, she said.

From left: Michael Homel and Amir Mortazawi, residents of the Woodcreek subdivision, at the public hearing for the Chalmers Place parking project. Homel is a board member of the Woodcreek Homeowners Association. They were among the 10 residents who spoke in opposition to the project at the May 1 hearing.

Jim Sweetnam said there are people who are beloved to him that live in the neighborhood. It seemed that the most contentious issue relates to where the employees park. He said he’s in favor of park-and-ride – just not at that location. He suggested that employees could park elsewhere and take the bus to the center, which would save a lot of money and grief.

Marsha Brashears lives on Chalmers and said her biggest concern is the AATA park-and-ride. She couldn’t imagine the large AATA buses going up and down Chalmers, with families there. [The parking lot project would not entail any changes to AATA routes.]

Len Nadolski made a final plea for the project. He said he and the project team respect the watershed and don’t want to degrade or pollute it. The property is unique, and their plan is designed to reduce the impact on the neighborhood. He pointed to aspects of the plan that he said would improve the area and make it safer – including fencing, lighting, and security cameras. Vehicles would be towed if they don’t belong to employees, he said.

He argued that they haven’t been able to attract tenants because of the parking concern. Now, the project isn’t meeting the ratios required by its lending institution, he said. [Nadolski didn't specific what those ratios entailed. Common ratios are loan-to-value ratio, debt ratio, and debt service coverage ratio.] Nadolski said he wouldn’t invest in the parking lot unless he had to, but “we’re at a crossroads right now.” The center is at a desirable location, but parking is the problem. Referring to the city’s master plan, he said that every plan has the opportunity for exceptions, and he hoped the commission would take that into consideration.

Chalmers Place Parking: Commission Discussion

Erica Briggs said she felt for the petitioners, because the issue they’re facing is real. But the issues that planning staff raised are real, too, she said. It’s important to respect the fact that this proposal isn’t consistent with the city’s master plan or with the needs of the neighbors. Transportation demand management provides solutions beyond just the addition of parking space, Briggs noted, and a lot of TDM strategies are being deployed downtown. Washtenaw Avenue has been facing these challenges a long time, she said, and businesses should work together to find solutions. One possibility is to find another way to get employees to their work sites. Discounted bus passes would be one example, she said. This is a really significant issue that needs to be solved, but a parking lot isn’t the answer.

Kirk Westphal clarified with city planner Chris Cheng that it wouldn’t be a hardship to develop the property as it’s currently zoned – that is, it would be possible to develop the land for residential use. That’s correct, Cheng said. Westphal noted that unlike the Maple Cove site, this is a case where the zoning of the property meets the neighbors’ expectations, either as vacant property or as single-family residential. To him, that was a compelling reason to keep the zoning as it is. He said it’s not the planning commission’s place to speculate on why the retail center isn’t able to lease its stores.

From left: planning commissioners Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal.

Wendy Woods agreed with Briggs and Westphal. She urged the owners to look for creative alternatives – perhaps an AATA shuttle from a remote parking lot. But that’s obviously not an issue that commissioners can solve now, she said. Woods expressed sympathy to the parking issue, but said it doesn’t rise to the level of rezoning.

Woods then smiled and said, “Let me just speak for the trees,” a remark that elicited laughter from her colleagues. Even though the trees are considered invasive or non-native, she said, “they still need to be respected.”

Tony Derezinski also spoke about possible parking alternatives, pointing to the large parking lot on the other side of Washtenaw Avenue where he said there always appears to be plenty of available parking. He alluded to the Reimagine Washtenaw Avenue project, saying that he hoped it would eventually improve walkability along that corridor. It was a tough situation, but he felt that deference should be give to the planning staff’s assessment.

Diane Giannola wondered if the retail center’s parking lot was used by commuters who parked there and then took a bus into town. Kevin Travers, the center’s property manager, noted that there was an AATA bus stop in front but that he didn’t think commuters parked there.

Giannola asked whether the planning staff had looked at other areas for parking. Cheng said it might be possible to restripe the existing lot for smaller spaces, and maybe reduce the setback along Chalmers. They might be able to gain at most 10 additional spaces by doing that.

Briggs noted that both the owner and the neighbors describe Washtenaw Avenue as uncomfortable for biking and walking, and it’s unsafe to cross the street. The city needs to work rapidly to improve that area, she said. If this owner is willing to invest $250,000 to build a parking lot, Briggs wondered how many other businesses would invest in improvements, like pedestrian-activated crossing signals (HAWK) or other changes to make it more pedestrian friendly. Instead of leaving it entirely up to the owners, perhaps the city could partner with them to find solutions, she said.

Eric Mahler said it comes down to a case of spot zoning against the master plan. The commission has been consistent in not doing that, he said, nor is it their place to look at financial data or forecasts. However, Mahler said he empathized with the owner, and had to give him the benefit of the doubt that potential tenants are being chased away because of the parking situation. It’s one thing to generalize and say that people should work together to come up with a solution, he said. But he had to assume that if there was another solution, the owner would have pursued it. Mahler said he had to support the project because he didn’t see any other option for the property owner.

Outcome: In three separate votes, planning commissioners voted 1-7 to recommend denial of the Chalmers Place proposal. Commission chair Eric Mahler cast the only votes in support of the resolutions. Neighbors in the audience applauded after the final vote was taken.

Medical Marijuana Zoning Revision

The planning commission was asked to weigh in on a proposed change to the city’s zoning code for medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities.

Earlier this year, the city’s medical marijuana licensing board had recommended one change – to strike the following sentence from the zoning ordinance: “Medical marijuana dispensaries and medical marijuana cultivation facilities shall be operated in compliance with the MMMA (Michigan Medical Marijuana Act).” [.pdf of the recommended zoning ordinance change]

The board’s recommendation had been sent to Ann Arbor city council. But at their April 2, 2012 meeting, councilmembers voted 9-1 instead to direct the planning commission to review the medical marijuana zoning ordinance. The councilmember voting against that direction was Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who also serves as a planning commissioner.

In a staff memo to planning commissioners, planning staff had recommended denial of the ordinance change. From the memo:

Without this provision in the City’s ordinance, there would be no way for staff to distinguish between a use legally allowed under the MMMA and a clearly illegal one. For instance, if the provision is removed, an applicant claiming to be a medical marijuana dispensary could comply with zoning, but actually be an illegal drug operation. Finally, keeping this provision in the list of requirements for the establishments for a medical marijuana dispensary or cultivation facility serves to clarify for potential applicants that the City will not approve a facility that is inconsistent with state law.

At the May 1 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reviewed this history of the ordinance and the staff’s position. She noted that Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s staff was present at the meeting and available to answer questions.

This proposed zoning ordinance change was one of three medical marijuana-related items that city council considered at its April 2 meeting. The other items were (1) revisions to the city’s medical marijuana licensing ordinance; and (2) direction to the city attorney to delay enforcement action against those dispensaries for which the city’s medical marijuana licensing board has recommended licenses. The council had unanimously postponed consideration of the licensing ordinance revisions until the council’s June 18 meeting.

And on a 6-4 vote, the council had tabled the resolution directing the city attorney to delay enforcement activities until the revisions to the local ordinances have been either adopted or rejected. A tabled resolution will demise if it’s not brought back off the table in six months.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Tension Grows in Medical Marijuana Debate,” and “Ann Arbor Marijuana Licenses: Who Decides?”

Medical Marijuana Zoning Revision: Public Hearing

The only speaker during a public hearing on the proposed zoning revision was Dennis Hayes. He began by noting that he had submitted a letter to the commission on behalf of a group of dispensaries operating in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of Hayes' letter]

Chuck Ream and Dennis Hayes pick up agendas prior to the start of the May 1 planning commission meeting. Hayes later spoke during a public hearing for the proposed changing to a zoning ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries.

He asked that the sentence be removed from the zoning ordinance. He argued that McQueen decision was very narrow, and the case is literally up in the air, he said. [This was a reference to the lawsuit Michigan v. McQueen (Compassionate Apothecary). An Aug. 23, 2011 court of appeals ruling on the case has been interpreted by many authorities to mean that no medical marijuana dispensaries are legal. The McQueen case has been accepted for review by the Michigan Supreme Court, which means that it’s not yet settled case law.]

Hayes noted that nine dispensaries in Ann Arbor have been recommended for licenses. As part of that process, the dispensaries are required to get zoning compliance permits. That’s been done, he said. [Rampson later clarified that zoning compliance permits have not, in fact, been issued yet.]

The issue, Hayes said, is that the city desires to interpret the zoning ordinance in a way that’s inappropriate and unnecessary. The medical marijuana dispensaries are already zoning compliant, he argued, and have business models that they believe are compliant with state law.

When the three minutes allotted to speakers during public commentary elapsed, Hayes indicated that because he was speaking on behalf of a group, he should be given a five-minute speaking turn. Rampson replied that he wasn’t speaking on behalf of a recognized group, such as a homeowners association, so his speaking turn was limited to three minutes.

Medical Marijuana Zoning Revision: Commission Discussion

There was only brief discussion of the resolution, and all commissioners seemed in agreement.

Diane Giannola noted that if she were asked to insert the sentence, she’d argue that it wouldn’t be necessary – it’s implied that state law should be followed. But deleting the sentence would indicate that people don’t have to comply with state law, she said, and that bothered her.

Giannola also observed that it’s difficult to talk about zoning for medical marijuana dispensaries when the issue is so political. Should the city remove the sentence from its zoning ordinance so that someone can get a license from the city for something that’s illegal? she asked. The McQueen ruling might be overturned, but does that mean the city should remove the sentence? It bothered her, she said, and she didn’t think the commission should have been asked to make a recommendation on this. She didn’t see how she could ever support it.

Tony Derezinski said he had similar thoughts. This zoning change was one of three resolutions that had been brought forward to city council, he said, to ameliorate the medical marijuana ordinances that had recently been passed after a hard-fought debate. He had a real problem procedurally with putting a burden on the planning commission to act. He didn’t like the process, and would vote against the resolution.

Evan Pratt said he didn’t think there was any dispute that state law must be followed. When the city wants to make that clear, then it is stated explicitly. If they want to be ambiguous, they would take it out. So leaving the sentence in place makes the ordinance less ambiguous, he said, and that speaks for keeping it in.

Kirk Westphal also opposed changing the ordinance, and said he echoed the staff report’s comment that removing the sentence would make it more difficult to differentiate between legal and illegal operations.

Erica Briggs pointed out that this zoning change is a separate issue from the one regarding whether zoning compliance permits should be issued. It may be that the city is denying permits unnecessarily, she said, but that’s unrelated.

Eric Mahler said he’d be extremely uncomfortable recommending the proposed change. That would result in authorizing illegal uses, and it would have severe consequences for the city, he said. Mahler said he wouldn’t want to explain to the state’s attorney general or anyone else why the city had taken out that sentence.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously against recommending the proposed zoning ordinance revision.

Capital Improvements Plan

Cresson Slotten, manager for the city’s systems planning unit, was on hand to brief commissioners about proposed adjustments to the capital improvements plan, known as the CIP. The city code requires that the CIP be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon.

Slotten noted that the CIP process mirrors the city’s two-year budget process. Last year, the city developed a CIP covering the fiscal years 2012-2017 – planning commissioners had approved it at their Jan. 4, 2011 meeting. It included a list of major capital projects, those that were funded as well as for those for which funding hadn’t yet been identified.

This is the second year of the two-year cycle, and Slotten described the changes as tweaks based on getting more information about a project’s scope, cost, schedule or other details. A more major effort will get underway later this year, as city staff prepare a new six-year CIP.

According to a staff memo, there are 345 projects or needs in the current CIP, including 131 for fiscal 2012 and/or 2013. For the update, there are 20 new projects that are proposed to be added and 17 projects deleted from the plan, resulting in a net total of 134 projects for fiscal 2013. [.pdf of proposed FY2013-2018 CIP]

Funding needs for fiscal 2013 – which begins July 1, 2012 – total $108,038,780. Of that total, 85.3% ($92,110,480) are projects for which funding is identified. The total funding need is roughly $16.637 million more than what was included in the FY 2012 CIP, an increase of 18.2%. The major adjustments summarized in the memo are:

1. Adjusting project schedules in city-owned buildings and the municipal airport from FY 2012 to FY 2013 (approximately $2.3 million shifted from FY 2012 to FY 2013)

2. Delaying the Washtenaw Avenue/US-23 underpass shared use path to FY 2013 – a delay due to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation ($2.8 million)

3. Shifting some new street projects related to private development from FY 2012 to FY 2013 ($1.5 million)

4. Adjusting the other street project schedules: resurfacing/reconstruction of the Ann Arbor-Saline Road from Eisenhower to the city limits ($1.05 million) and a new project for the South State Street/Ellsworth intersection roundabout ($1 million)

5. Increasing the funding schedule for renovation at the city’s wastewater treatment plant (approximately $4 million)

Slotten also introduced Devorah Gosselin, a recent hire as systems planning engineer who would be handling oversight of the CIP process in the future.

Commissioners held a public hearing on the plan, but no one from the public spoke during the hearing.

Capital Improvements Plan: Commission Discussion

Diane Giannola said it was her understanding that the CIP is a list of all possible projects, not just those that are approved. Yet when the city council removed the airport runway project from the CIP last year before approving the plan, that made it seem as though approving the plan was the same as approving all of the projects. She asked Slotten to clarify.

Slotten explained that the CIP is a list of identified needs, funded and unfunded. Technically, he said, the airport runway wasn’t removed from the CIP but was eliminated from the city’s capital budget. [The project – called the "runway safety extension" – remains in the proposed CIP, with funding in FY 2013 at $1.667 million.]

Giannola ventured that it’s not standard practice to remove items that are politically controversial. That’s right, Slotten replied, adding that the CIP is a list of key needs. Giannola noted that just because a project is included in the CIP doesn’t mean that it will be undertaken. That’s correct, Slotten said.

Tony Derezinski observed that there had been a lot of opportunity for public input. Slotten said that the proposed CIP had been posted on the city’s website for about a month, and sent to representatives of homeowner associations in the city. Derezinski confirmed with Slotten that to date, no public comment had been received on the CIP.

Wendy Woods asked about the roundabout at South State and Ellsworth. Many people were surprised when the project came up and a roundabout was proposed, she said. Now it seems that the project is funded and on a fast track.

Slotten noted that the intersection is at the city’s boundary with Pittsfield Township, and the Washtenaw County road commission is responsible for the portion of South State that’s south of the intersection, and for Ellsworth west of the intersection. The project is also keyed to the Costco project, which is expected to increase traffic to that area. The store is expected to open this summer.

Responding to a query from Woods, Slotten explained that the city was responsible only for a portion of the $2.6 million in funding listed in the CIP, but he wasn’t sure how much the city would pay. [The Ann Arbor city council subsequently approved that project at its May 7, 2012 meeting. The city will pay $350,000 for a water main improvement it wants to do anyway, and contribute an additional $135,000 to the intersection improvement.]

Erica Briggs noted that 90% of the unfunded projects were in the category of alternative transportation. Why is that percentage so high? she wondered. Slotten said that until recent years, the budget and the CIP were linked, and the CIP included only projects that had a funding source. It eventually evolved that for planning purposes, the CIP should include all projects that are identified as a need – funded and unfunded.

A lot of the alternative transportation projects are long-term and expensive, he noted. At this point, the major implementation expenses are unfunded. [Some of the major alternative transportation projects in the CIP are construction of a transit connector ($300 million) and the Fuller Road Station Phase II ($43.277 million).]

Eric Mahler asked about the 18.2% increase in total funding needed for the CIP, and noted that one of the main items related to the renovation of the wastewater treatment plant. He asked for more details about that $4 million increase.

Slotten said he couldn’t provide much more detail on the costs for that project. He noted that it’s the largest capital project the city has ever undertaken, at $136 million. [The city council approved award of the major construction contract for that project at its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting.] As it has evolved, $4 million as a percentage of the total isn’t very much, Slotten said. One key piece of that project was the city’s ability to obtain funding through the state’s revolving fund loan program. So instead of bonding, the city can get low-interest loans, which will save millions in financing expenses, he said.

Mahler said he was glad to see the wind project at the drop-off station on the list. [The funded needed for that project in FY 2013 is $250,000 with an additional $260,000 in FY 2014.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved adjustments to the city’s capital improvements plan for FY 2013-2018.

Master Plan Review

The planning commission’s bylaws require that the commission review the city’s master plan each May.

The resolution considered by commissioners affirmed the existing master plan, which consists of (1) Land Use Element (2009); (2) Downtown Plan (2009); (3) Transportation Plan Update (2009); (4) Non-motorized Transportation Plan (2007); (5) Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan (2011); and (6) Natural Features Master Plan (2004). These documents can be downloaded from the city’s master plan website.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the staff likes to keep the master plan fresh. She hoped that commissioners would spend some time reviewing the elements of the master plan to identify anything they’d like to add to the official master plan that state law requires.

The resolution presented to the commission stated that the group will continue to develop comprehensive plans for the Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street corridors. In addition, three minor changes were proposed:

• Adding the city’s park advisory commission, housing commission, and housing & human services board to the list of groups that are developing a sustainability framework for the city. Initially, only the planning, energy and environmental commissions had been involved.
• Stating that the planning commission will assist in updating the Non-motorized Transportation Plan, which was adopted in 2007; and
• Stating that the planning commission will update the land use element of the city’s master plan to include land use recommendations from the Huron River and Impoundments Management Plan (HRIMP). This had been discussed at a March 2012 meeting of the commission’s master plan revisions committee.

No one spoke during a public hearing on the proposed revisions, nor did commissioners have any commentary.

The planning staff had recommended postponing the resolution until the commission holds its annual retreat on May 29. Evan Pratt made a motion to postpone.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone action on the master plan review.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Bonnie Bona

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to plan on doing the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The city’s planning staff had also recommended denial of the proposal because it did not conform to the city’s master plan for that area, and because a parking lot would cause greater disturbance to the site’s natural features than a single-family residential development would. The city received seven letters from nearby residents – including one from the Woodcreek Homeowners Association – opposing the proposal, citing safety and other concerns. Eighteen people spoke during a public hearing on the proposal, including the owner, Len Nadolski of Howell; two managers of stores in the complex; and 11 residents who opposed the project.

The plan called for building a 43-space parking lot on the .92-acre site, which is now vacant. Most of the parking would be used by employees of the Chalmers Place Retail Center at 3365 Washtenaw Ave., located south of this site. Nadolski and his representatives argued that they can’t fully lease the stores at the retail center without additional parking. Ten to twelve spots would be set aside for park-and-ride commuters using the AATA bus stop on Washtenaw Avenue.

Several commissioners expressed sympathy for the owner, but did not feel that the situation warranted overriding the master plan, and that it wasn’t in the best long-term interests of the neighborhood. Erica Briggs said the situation highlighted the need for the city to partner with businesses and find a better solution to this problem. She said it added urgency to plans to make the Washtenaw Avenue corridor more safe and amenable to walking and biking.

Mahler said that he normally wouldn’t support a proposal that was essentially spot zoning, but in this case he supported the plan because he didn’t see any viable alternatives for the owner.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Wall Street resident Eliana Moya-Raggio, right, talks with architect Neil Martin after the April 26 meeting at the Kellogg Eye Center. The meeting focused on a University of Michigan parking structure to be built in that neighborhood. Moya-Raggio argued for the right of neighbors to be closely involved in the project's design. (Photos by the writer.)

On April 26, 2012 about 15 residents heard from UM representatives about plans for the $34 million structure, which university regents approved on April 19. The purpose of the meeting was to get input from neighbors that will inform the structure’s design. Roughly 2,000 people live in that general area.

They offered a lot of input, expressing concerns and giving specific suggestions related to noise pollution, traffic congestion, lighting and more. Ideas from residents included putting a green roof on the top of the structure, which will likely be at least 4-5 levels tall; placing the structure as far west on the site as possible, further away from residential buildings; making the structure pedestrian friendly; and encouraging the use of alternative transportation.

Tim Mortimer, president of the Riverside Park Place Condominium Association, criticized UM for a lack of leadership in its approach to parking. While UM officials like to refer to the university as the Harvard of the Midwest, he said, it’s actually more like the Southeast New Jersey Junior College of the Midwest, in terms of environmental sustainability and design. He urged the university to do more, and presented a letter from the condo association’s board that included 11 detailed suggestions for the project – ranging from architecture to entrance/exit configuration. [.pdf of Mortimer's letter]

Jim Kosteva, UM’s director of community relations, defended the university’s efforts in encouraging alternative transportation. And Tom Peterson, associate director of operations and support services for the UM Hospitals and Health Centers, provided details on a range of programs offered by UM in that regard – including vanpools, Zipcars, free bus service through MRide, and shuttle service from outlying parking lots.

But Peterson also presented the university’s case for needing more parking at the Wall Street location, pointing to employment growth at the nearby UM medical campus. Since 2009, employment at the UM medical school and hospital complex has grown from about 19,000 to nearly 21,000 employees. Even more staff will be added when a major renovation of the former Mott children’s hospital is completed, he said.

The Wall Street parking project was revived after the university pulled out of the proposed Fuller Road Station in February. The joint effort with the city of Ann Arbor would have included a 1,000-space parking structure and, some hoped, an eventual train depot. When asked about it at Thursday’s meeting, Kosteva said the university still shares the city’s vision for that Fuller Road site as a good location for intermodal transportation. When the city receives the federal support it needs for this project, he added, the university is prepared to be re-engaged about its potential role.

Kosteva was also asked about future plans for even more parking on Wall Street. He noted that the master plan for the medical center, including the Wall Street area, was approved by regents in 2005 and remains in place. The master plan anticipates adding 700,000 to 900,000 square feet of clinical and research space in the area, as well as two parking structures. That plan is guiding decision-making, he said. [.pdf of 2005 medical center master plan]

The bulk of the 90-minute meeting focused on design aspects of the Wall Street structure, in a discussion led by university planner Sue Gott. Several people pointed to the city’s Fourth & Washington parking structure as a model. Wall Street resident Elizabeth Colvin said she refers to it as the “Sue Gott parking structure,” because of Gott’s instrumental role in soliciting public input that helped shape the design. At the time, Gott worked for JJR and was a consultant on that project.

Gott, who grew up in Ann Arbor, replied by saying she knew UM had to deliver something that was worthy of this city, and something they can all be proud of.

Context: UM Health System Growth

Near the start of the April 26 meeting, Tom Peterson – associate director of operations and support services for the UM Hospitals and Health Centers – gave an overview of the health system to provide some context for the Wall Street parking project. “We’re in a growth mode,” he said.

In-patient beds have increased about 20% over the past five years, from 848 to 1,009. In addition to in-patient care, the university opened a medical observation unit in 2008 with 18 short-term, out-patient beds. In 2010, the hospital did something similar for its surgical observation unit, adding 13 beds.

In 2011, a major expansion of the emergency room added 27 treatment bays, Peterson reported. Over the past 8-10 years, the hospital has added 18 operating rooms and expanded its diagnostic imaging services. These are just a few of the obvious signs of growth, he said.

Tom Peterson, associate director of operations and support services for the UM Hospitals and Health Centers, talks to residents about the growth in employment and patient services at the UM medical complex, which is driving the need for more parking. In the background are Paul Green of the Broadway Neighborhood Association and Sabra Briere, Ward 1 city councilmember who lives on Broadway.

The next activity that will spur additional growth is the $163 million renovation of the former C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, which was approved by UM regents at their April 19, 2012 meeting. The new C. S. Mott Children’s and Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital opened late last year. The renovation project, to be completed in two years, will add another 120 beds, mostly for neuroscience patients. Hundreds of employees will be hired for that facility, Peterson said.

In 2009, the UM medical school and hospital complex employed about 19,000 people. Today, there are nearly 21,000 employees. “That’s pretty significant employment growth,” Peterson said.

With that growth comes demand for parking, he said, but the university hasn’t simply been adding on-site parking. The UM has been promoting alternative transportation approaches, too, he said. About 570 employees use a vanpool program, for example, and the university hopes to expand that number. The MRide program began in 2004, allowing faculty, students and staff of the university to board AATA buses without paying a fare. The cost for the service is paid by UM to the AATA, and fiscal year 2011 was a record-setting year for the program, with 2.43 million rides taken.

In another partnership with AATA, the university is subsidizing express routes between Ann Arbor and Chelsea, and Ann Arbor and Canton. Peterson noted that he’s one of the people featured in AATA’s ad campaign, and he’s happy to support public transportation.

The university joined the Zipcar car-sharing program in 2006, and now over 3,000 people have signed up to use the system’s 21 cars in Ann Arbor.

UM’s GreenRide website was launched to help people find alternative transportation options, Peterson said. Through that, 23 new car pools and 19 vanpools have been started.

In addition, the university has also expanded its off-site parking, Peterson said. In 2010, following the acquisition of the former Pfizer facility – now called the North Campus Research Complex (NCRC) – about 300 spaces were added to the parking system. Last year, another 265 spaces were opened at an adjacent lot. That’s a temporary solution, however, because employment at NCRC is expected to grow, he said.

A UM lot on Glazier Way has been expanded by about 100 spaces. And the university added a medical express bus service between outlots and the medical campus, as well as a research link bus between NCRC and the biomedical engineering building to the medical campus.

Peterson concluded by saying that UM is trying to deal with the transportation issue in many ways. They have limited land, so they’re taking a blended approach. To some extent, it does include additional parking spaces. In 2006, the Ann Street lot was opened, adding about 525 spots. In 2007, about 450 spaces were added in a structure at the Cardiovascular Center, including about 200 spots for staff. But when the new Mott Children’s Hospital opened last year, UM converted about 300 former employee spaces for use by patients and visitors. There are multiple ways that the university is addressing its parking needs, he said.

Fuller Road Station: Still on the Table

Ray Detter, a community activist and chair of the city’s Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, noted that part of the university’s previous plan had focused on building the roughly 1,000-space Fuller Road Station. For many, Detter said, it had been a preferable alternative to building a parking structure on Wall Street. His understanding was that the project was suspended but not necessarily cancelled, and he asked for clarification of that.

Jim Kosteva replied by briefly recapping the history of Fuller Road Station, noting that the project had been “paused” this February. [See Chronicle coverage: "UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project"] The university had been trying to address the demand for parking prior to 2008 with its Wall Street parking project, Kosteva said, but suspended that effort when UM staff began talking with the city about the possible joint project on Fuller Road.

By way of additional background, university staff held a neighborhood meeting in December 2008 about the possibility of constructing an office building, parking structure and transit center on Wall Street, just down the street from UM’s Kellogg Eye Center. That  $48.6 million project, which had been approved by regents at their September 2008 meeting, was met with considerable resistance from neighbors.

But at another meeting in January 2009, city staff and some councilmembers met with Wall Street area residents and talked about the city’s relationship with the university, both on that parking project and more broadly. At the time, city planners said the university was proceeding on parallel tracks with both the Wall Street parking structure and possible interest in a Fuller Road transit station.

Then at a June 2009 meeting of the UM regents, Tim Slottow, the university’s chief financial officer, reported that UM’s purchase of the former Pfizer property resulted in enough additional parking spaces to meet their demands for the medical campus at that time. Slottow also indicated that he was encouraged by talks that the university was having with the city of Ann Arbor about a possible transit station on Fuller Road. Those two factors resulted in the university putting the Wall Street parking project on hold.

Jim Kosteva, UM's director of community relations.

Fuller Road Station moved ahead, and a memorandum of understanding between the university and city was signed in November 2009 that laid out the responsibilities for shared costs, a timetable for completion and other details. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] The MOU called for the estimated $46.55 million project to be shared between UM and the city in proportion to the number of parking spaces available to each (78% and 22 % respectively), making the university’s share of the project an estimated $36.309 million. The target date for completing the parking structure piece of the project was June 15, 2012.

Regents formally authorized the project at their January 2010 meeting. A site plan was designed and received approval from the Ann Arbor city planning commission – on a 7-2 vote – in Sept. 21, 2010, but the plan was never moved forward to the city council for consideration.

At the April 26, 2012 neighborhood meeting, Kosteva told residents that it became clear that the city couldn’t meet its level of participation and timetable as outlined in the MOU, and in February the project was halted. However, he said, the university still shares the city’s vision for that Fuller Road site as a good location for intermodal transportation. UM officials are hopeful and supportive of the city’s efforts to gain the federal funding it needs to realize that vision, he said. When the city receives the federal support it needs for this project, he added, the university is prepared to be re-engaged about its potential role.

But given the needs of UM employees, Kosteva said, the university had to address those real demands for parking. That’s why regents were asked to authorize this Wall Street parking project, he concluded.

Future Plans for Wall Street: Even More Parking?

Jim Koli, owner of the Northside Grill on Broadway near the intersection with Wall Street, observed that there was previously a real neighborhood in that area. But over the years the property has been slowly bought up by UM and houses have been leveled, he said. At one point, he noted, there had been plans to build two parking structures on Wall Street. What was the university’s long-term intent? If more parking structures are built, it will add to the problems that have been mentioned. Koli wondered whether anyone could comment with some certainty about the plans of the “regental overlords.”

Jim Kosteva replied that the master plan for the medical center, including the Wall Street area, was approved by regents in 2005 and remains in place. It anticipated adding 700,000 to 900,000 square feet of clinical and research space in the area, as well as two parking structures. That plan is guiding decision-making, he said. [.pdf of 2005 medical center master plan]

Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 city councilmember who lives in that neighborhood, noted that the plan doesn’t specify the size of the parking structures. But she recalled that the last plan had included two 600-space structures, plus an office building.

Tim Mortimer, president of the Riverside Park Place Condominium Association, said he’d also seen the 2005 master plan, and he asked Kosteva if residents should expect a second structure in the future. That’s what the master plan reflects, Kosteva replied, adding that employment would be the driver for future parking needs.

Mortimer said there’s a general recognition that the leadership of UM hasn’t done a good job in educating its staff about the need for alternative transportation or off-site parking to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. UM leaders don’t have the courage to tell staff that if they don’t want to accommodate a sustainable, environmentally sensitive approach to transportation, they can work somewhere else.

Tim Mortimer, president of the Riverside Park Place Condominium Association's board of directors.

UM officials like to refer to the university as the Harvard of the Midwest, Mortimer noted. In terms of environmental sustainability and design, it’s actually more like the Southeast New Jersey Junior College of the Midwest,  he contended. The neighbors hope that someone can exert some kind of leadership that will result in less need for parking in the area.

Kosteva responded, saying that the alternatives outlined by Tom Peterson earlier in the meeting did demonstrate leadership. A wide variety of transportation alternatives are provided to employees, he said, and there is strong financial encouragement as well. While Kosteva said he appreciated that there’s room for improvement, the objective is to continue to support these alternatives. Kosteva said it was that kind of leadership that caused UM to get involved in Fuller Road Station, and the university continues to try to support that vision.

Another structure would be the worst of both worlds, Mortimer said. It would require people to drive in to the structure, then take a shuttle to get to their final destination.

Peterson told Mortimer that he heard and understood those concerns, but that he also hears from UM employees that there’s not enough parking. The hospital leadership has consistently told its employees to “get over it,” Peterson added – there will never be enough parking for every employee. The university needs a blended approach, he said.

Brenda Giers, who lives in the only remaining single-family home on Wall Street – owned by her brother-in-law, Harry Hawkins of West Hawk Industries – said she worried about what would happen to her home. She said she feels like she’s in the middle of nowhere, and is worried because she’s retired. If the university bought the house it would put her in a jam, she said.

Kosteva noted that development of the Wall Street area has been in the university’s master plan since 1988. Yet the university has never aggressively sought to acquire property, he said. When individual property owners approach UM indicating a willingness to sell, the university makes an offer, Kosteva said. As long as Giers’ brother-in-law doesn’t want to sell, he added, the university can’t buy that property.

Design Considerations

Sue Gott, university planner for UM, led the discussion to solicit input on the parking structure’s design. She began by noting that the regental authorization had been given just a week ago, at the regents’ April 19 meeting. The staff thought it would be best to meet with neighbors early in the process, she said, but the challenge is that there’s no design work to share yet.

A map of the Wall Street area, with the proposed parking structure – located between Wall Street and Maiden Lane – indicated in yellow. (Links to .pdf of full map.)

Gott displayed the graphic of the area that had been shown to the regents, and said she wanted to get input from the residents before they launch into the design. Doug Koepsell of the university architect’s office was on hand to record input from the evening, Gott said, and that input would inform the site’s design.

Gott told residents that she had reviewed her notes from the meeting in 2008, but noted that the project has changed since then. [Most notably, the current plan calls for one parking structure – the plan in 2008 included an office building, parking structure and transit center on Wall Street.]

One consideration is the importance of maintaining pedestrian circulation, she said. In the past, there had been a strong desire to have street trees, she noted, so one possibility is to have street trees as a buffer between the sidewalk and Maiden Lane. That might make sense along the Wall Street side, too, she said. There will likely be space at the east and west ends of the site that could be used for stormwater management, but also for green space that could be used by residents, she said. Perhaps people would like to have benches or some other kind of seating there. These are the kind of things they were hoping to get feedback on, she said.

Later in the meeting, the project’s architect – Neil Martin of the S/L/A/M Collaborative (Stecker Labau Arneill McManus) – described his initial thoughts on the structure.  He talked about inspirations from the neighborhood and the university, including the historic DTE building on Broadway, with its warm brick and mortar, and Hill Auditorium, designed by Albert Kahn. The thing that’s striking is the sense of craft that these buildings display, he said. He hopes to bring that sense of craft to the parking structure, too. In part it will involve selecting the right kind of brick, he said.

Martin also talked about the scale of the project, saying it was his mission to create a structure that doesn’t feel enormous and that is pedestrian friendly. It was important to design a building that doesn’t look like a parking structure, he said, and to make the rhythm of the building pleasing both from the perspective of people walking down from the bridge over the Huron River, as well as for people walking close to the structure.

Throughout the meeting there were a wide range of suggestions and issues raised by residents and addressed by Gott and Martin. The following report presents a summary of that discussion, organized by topic.

Design Considerations: Green Space

Randall Jacob, who lives on Jones Drive, asked about the status of a cluster of mature trees at the east end of the site. Gott replied that a tree assessment will be conducted to look at the types, health and quality of the trees there, but she couldn’t guarantee that all would be saved.

Tim Mortimer noted that to the east of that tree cluster is a small area of city parkland with a path running through it to primarily handle pedestrian flow, he said. It might be nice to have an adjacent green area between there and the parking structure for people to sit or play Frisbee or use for things other than a walkthrough, he said.

Looking down from a 7th floor meeting room in the Kellogg Eye Center, a view of the parking lot on Wall Street where the new 700-space parking structure will be built. In the right foreground is Wall Street. Parallel to Wall Street on the left is Maiden Lane. The white buildings are the Nielsen Square condominiums.

Gott replied that this was useful feedback, and that the UM staff also will be talking to staff at the city – including parks planner Amy Kuras – about what kinds of features might contribute to the neighborhood experience.

City councilmember Sabra Briere said she hoped the designers would think of a creative use for the top of the structure, so that it doesn’t become a major heat source. She observed that some cities have made parking structures with green roofs, but that hasn’t happened in Ann Arbor. Gott replied that UM’s parking structure at the Cardiovascular Center has a green roof.

A green roof would address several issues, Jim Koli observed. It would help with stormwater management, make it visually more pleasing, and eliminate the need to plow. He suggested asking people at UM’s School of Natural Resources and Environment for advice.

One resident requested a good mix of evergreens and shade trees, noting that shade trees “turn into sticks” for six months each year. Gott said evergreens are used selectively, because of security concerns – such trees can become hiding places.

Eliana Moya-Raggio suggested that instead of having green areas on each end of the structure, the building could be pushed to the west and have a larger green space on the east end, closer to the majority of residents. Gott said they’d look at placing the structure as far west as possible.

Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, urged UM to use flowering trees in the landscaping. “Bloomerang” lilacs, for example, will flower throughout the season and are salt resistant, she said. Crockett hoped the landscaping wouldn’t just be stark, green and boring. “I hope you let your color sense get carried away,” she said.

Design Considerations: Pedestrians

Tim Mortimer urged the design to allow for pedestrian paths and crosswalks all the way from the Nielsen Square condos across Maiden Lane, Wall Street, Canal Street and into Riverside Park. He indicated that if they had to choose, the residents of Nielsen Square would likely prefer a tree buffer on the north side of the parking structure, rather than a sidewalk. Gott said the design would aim for both, but she noted that Maiden Lane is relatively narrow, so that might be a factor.

Elizabeth Colvin pointed out that there’s quite a bit of pedestrian traffic on both sides of Maiden Lane. A resident of Long Shore Drive observed that many people walk their dogs along that stretch, heading to Island Park. It would be great if there were green areas for dogs to take “breaks,” she said – and a trash can would be nice, too.

Design Considerations: Noise

Sabra Briere, who lives on Broadway and represents Ward 1 residents on city council, said she’s heard concerns from residents about noise pollution from a new parking structure. Lighting systems make a constant noise, as do air circulation systems. It would add yet another “major hum” to a neighborhood that already has a lot of other major hums, she said. Briere hoped that designers would think about mitigating that kind of noise, as well as the noise from the cars themselves.

Later in the meeting, Briere observed that in the past, there has been a difference between the city’s ordinances and the university’s expectations for construction projects on UM property. She asked that UM not schedule the arrival of trucks or the start of construction before 7 a.m. under any circumstances, and that the work be concluded at a reasonable time at night. It’s important for residents to have the ability to enjoy the outdoors in their neighborhoods, she said.

Kittie Morelock, who lives on Wall Street, noted that speed bumps within the structure also cause noise when vehicles hit them, and she asked that speed bumps not be included. She also said that snow removal on the surface lots was already loud, with the beeping of trucks as they back up. Sometimes the work takes place between 2-6 a.m., and is very disruptive. Any way to mitigate that noise – especially at the top of the structure – would be good for the community of 2,000 people who live in the area, she said.

Design Considerations: Traffic, Congestion

Several comments focused on the already-congested Maiden Lane traffic, and the impact that bringing in an additional 500 vehicles will have.

Sue Gott reported that a traffic study will be conducted before the structure is built. They’ll look at the number of employees that will be working in Wall Street buildings, as well as how many will be walking to the hospital or taking a shuttle. Not all of the traffic will be new, she noted – although the structure is planned for 700 spaces, it’s a net increase of 500 spaces.

Ward 1 city councilmember Sabra Briere was knitting socks. Behind her to the left is Jim Koli, owner of Northside Grill, with his son Josh. Behind Briere to the right is Doug Koepsell of the university architect's office.

Tim Mortimer suggested placing entrances and egresses toward the west side of the structure, away from the more residential areas. He also wondered if it would be possible to accommodate shuttles within the parking site, rather than having them idling on the street. Gott said they could look into that, although they’re hoping to keep the footprint tight so that it doesn’t become a huge, long structure. It’s a balancing act, she said.

Ken Koral noted that Wall Street is primarily used by UM employees, while Maiden Lane is the real traffic corridor, leading directly to the bridge over the Huron River. He suggested it might be better to put the entrances and egresses to the structure on the Wall Street side, with possibly a new traffic light at Broadway and Wall Street.

Elizabeth Colvin, who lives in the Nielsen Square condos facing Maiden Lane, said there are already a lot of vehicles that idle on that street, including school buses and AATA buses. It’s very stop-and-go, she said, and she hoped that the design would keep that issue in mind.

Mortimer suggested shooting a video from the vantage point of the meeting room they were in – on the 7th floor of the Kellogg Eye Center, overlooking the parking lot. They could learn a lot about traffic flow from that, he said.

Jim Koli pointed out that four years ago when this project was initially being discussed, it was noted that Wall Street is wider than Maiden Lane because the original bridge across the Huron River was at Wall Street. The bridge was later moved to Maiden Lane, bringing more traffic to that narrower street. Now, 500 additional cars might be dumped onto Maiden Lane, he said. Perhaps putting an entrance/exit from the structure onto Wall Street, on the side closest to the bridge, would help ease the traffic onto Maiden Lane, he suggested.

Mortimer noted that there are residents on that east end who wouldn’t be happy about that strategy. Kosteva suggested then perhaps the entrance could be at the west end of the structure, away from residences and closer to the Kellogg Eye Center.

Design Considerations: Lighting

Brenda Giers, who lives in a single-family home on Wall Street, stressed the need for adequate street lights. Gott replied that designers are sensitive to lighting issues, including concerns about light spilling into the neighborhood from cars at the structure. There are also safety and security concerns about the need for adequate lighting within the structure. There could be motion-sensitive controls in the structure that would dim the lighting if no one is there, she said, but that would turn brighter when cars or people move through.

The design will also be sensitive to the need for pedestrian lighting outside the structure so that people will feel safe, Gott said, while trying to keep light contained on the site.

Design Considerations: Height

Paul Green of the Broadway Neighborhood Association asked what the range of levels might be for the structure – how tall would it be? There was some reluctance to speculate. The architect, Neil Martin, said they hadn’t figured it out yet, but it would likely be in the range of 4-5 stories. Sue Gott added that it will depend in part on the footprint. If they keep the structure on a smaller footprint, it would need to be taller.

Design Considerations: Public Art

Ray Detter noted that there’s been a lot of discussion in Ann Arbor about public art. He felt that generally, the university does a better job at this than the city, so he hoped it would be an element of the parking structure.

Sue Gott said that the designers had wondered whether Detter would like to include some historic markers regarding Lower Town. [Detter spearheaded the Downtown Ann Arbor Historical Street Exhibit Program, which includes permanent sidewalk exhibits at more than a dozen sites in downtown Ann Arbor and on the UM campus.]

Detter said the area had an interesting history, and he indicated a willingness to explore adding markers there. Gott said now would be the time to start talking about that, so the university could possibly provide a backdrop for that.

Design Considerations: Letter from Riverside Park Place

Tim Mortimer read aloud a two-page letter from the Riverside Park Place Condominium Association – he’s president of the association’s board. The letter made 11 specific design suggestions to mitigate the structure’s negative impact on the neighborhood:

1. Incorporate an architecturally detailed facade that minimizes the building’s apparent identity, hides its structural skeleton, and gives it an attractive appearance. Design the building to provide a net positive contribution to the streetscape. (Possible means include: careful selection of materials; visual articulations; reducing horizontal lines as the dominant theme in the facade.)

2. Afford special consideration to the experience of pedestrians walking along the structure’s perimeter. If at all possible: Avoid completely blank walls at the street level; make sidewalks sufficiently wide to accommodate two-way traffic comfortably; include pedestrian comfort as a criterion for building setback. Incorporate devices that animate the street frontage and provide visual interest.

3. Arrange vehicular entrances and access control points to permit sufficient stacking of arriving vehicles within the structure to avoid back-ups into the street during peak arrival times.

4. Locate the vehicular entrances and exits to utilize the existing Maiden Lane/Nielsen Court intersection to the maximum extent feasible to minimize the impact of traffic on adjoining residential uses and to minimize vehicle idling time.

5. Accommodate shuttle bus service at the west end of the structure, and manage the service to minimize bus idling on site.

6. Minimize the structure’s total size relative to its desired capacity by incorporating smaller stall spaces for a substantial portion of the parking capacity.

7. Design the structure to be LEED certified at least to the Gold level.

8. Design and select lighting to minimize glare and other impacts on homes in the area. (Example: High pressure sodium lighting is very harsh.) Minimize the light shining laterally away from the structure and off the top of the structure towards local homes.

9. Include a roof or screening on the top floor to minimize the eyesore of open parking when viewed from taller buildings in the area (both residential and Kellogg).

10. Minimize noise projected by infrastructural elements (transformers, light ballasts, fans, etc.) through optimal selection, placing, mounting and muffling of components.

11. Locate the structure as far as possible to the west to enable the open land east of the structure and adjacent to a small, existing area of city parkland to be as large as possible.

Neil Martin of S/L/A/M, the project’s architect, told Mortimer that the notes were helpful and that he agreed with many of the suggestions.

Design Considerations: General Design Features

Several residents pointed to the city’s Fourth and Washington parking structure as a successful design, that doesn’t look like a typical parking garage. Elizabeth Colvin said she called it the “Sue Gott parking structure,” and that it’s generally considered the gold standard of structures in Ann Arbor. It’s pleasant to look at, Colvin said, and doesn’t seem like a parking structure. The Wall Street structure wouldn’t need to look exactly like that, Colvin said, but it’s an example of design that works. [In the 1990s, Gott worked for the architecture and urban planning firm JJR and was hired by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – which managed the Fourth & Washington project – to help solicit public input. The design itself was done by the Ann Arbor architecture firm Mitchell & Mouat.]

University planner Sue Gott talks to Ken Koral, a resident of the nearby Broadway neighborhood, about the proposed parking structure on Wall Street. They are overlooking the current surface lot from a meeting room on the 7th floor of UM's Kellogg Eye Center.

Sabra Briere echoed those comments, saying that some people want to park at Fourth & Washington even though other structures might be closer to their destination. They like the way it feels to enter that structure, even though there are complaints about the tight turns between levels, she said. The stairwells are clean, and it’s not viewed as a hostile environment – compared to other structures like Ann Ashley or Fourth & William. Even people who generally hate parking structures don’t hate the one at Fourth & Washington, Briere said.

Kittie Morelock described it as a calm, quiet presence. Colvin noted that a design of that kind would result in allies for the Wall Street structure. Tim Mortimer joked that they shouldn’t make it too attractive, because they wouldn’t want to entice more people to use it.

Gott responded by saying that Fourth & Washington’s design resulted from the kind of community discussion that she wanted to have with residents for the Wall Street project, too. It was a discussion that was specific about aspirations for the building. There are many subtle cues in the Fourth & Washington structure that contribute to how people experience it, she said.

Gott recalled that Christine Crockett, at a previous meeting years ago, had used the term “humanity” to describe a design concept, and that word had resonated with her. Gott talked about how others in the room were influencing her approach too. She said she goes back years with Ken Koral, who lives on Broadway and has attended neighborhood meetings for other projects, advocating for the university to honor the experiences of neighbors. And Ray Detter “is like my conscience,” Gott said – she knows she has to deliver something that’s worthy of Ann Arbor.

Residents want to see something great happen on Wall Street, Gott said, and that’s why she and others involved in the project want to listen and work with them. There are obviously limitations, she added – they have to work within their budget. But the university wants to do something that’s great. Neil Martin was chosen as the architect on the team because they want to do a design that’s contextual to the neighborhood, appropriate, and something that they can all be proud of, she said.

Koral referred to Martin’s desire to incorporate aspects of existing buildings, and noted that there’s a hodge-podge of design in the neighborhood. He said it sounded like Martin was set on using brick, but there might be other materials that would better integrate. Fourth & Washington, which has a brick exterior, is a good design for its location, Koral said, but might not be the best choice for Wall Street. Mortimer noted that some of the nearby buildings, like the Riverside Park Place condominiums, aren’t exactly models of good design to emulate.

Eliana Moya-Raggio, a resident of Wall Street.

Paul Green observed that since many of the questions related to how the structure would look, residents should simply take a photo of a structure that they like, and send it to the designers. “It’s easy to do,” he said.

Tom Peterson pointed to a parking structure on the campus of Michigan State University, on Grand River Avenue, that does a good job of integrating the older architecture on that campus.

Eliana Moya-Raggio noted that parking structures are inherently dead spaces, so anything that can be done to enliven the building would be welcome. Because the university is not building on campus, but is building in a neighborhood, they need to listen to residents and incorporate feedback as much as possible. “I think it’s our right,” she said.

Short-Term Parking Plans

Sabra Briere raised a question that she characterized as a short-term issue. When construction on the site begins, 200 parking spaces will be temporarily displaced. Already she routinely gets complaints from people who live nearby because some UM employees park all day at Island Park, along Traver Road, or in the free spaces near the Amtrak station. She wondered where the people will park who currently use the Wall Street surface lot.

Steve Dolen, executive director of UM parking and transportation services, said that when new patient parking is completed next to the Kellogg Eye Center, that will open up more spaces at a nearby lot for employees. They are also planning to use shuttles to north campus, and encourage alternative modes of transportation. He told Briere that this was the first time he’d heard about employees parking at Island Park or along Traver Road.

Tom Peterson noted that there is still excess parking capacity at the North Campus Research Complex (NCRC) – the former Pfizer site. About 200 spaces are unused there, and some people from the Wall Street lot will likely migrate there.

Briere observed that because parking in the neighborhood is free and no residential parking permits are required, employees tend to like that option. She regularly sees people wearing scrubs walking toward the UM medical center, and when she asks them, they are very comfortable telling her where they park. The fact that UM employees park all day at city parks is not something she views with pleasure, Briere said.

Jim Koli added that since the city added parking meters along Wall Street, some of the more “frugal” UM employees have taken to parking in the neighborhood where there are no meters.

Next Steps

Elizabeth Colvin asked for a timetable on this project, and whether there would be additional meetings. Sue Gott replied that it’s too soon to know the schedule, but they’ll be working quickly because the demand for parking is great. She said Jim Kosteva will be a point person for neighbors. Kosteva encouraged people to contact him and he would add their names to an email list for notifications about the project. [Kosteva's email is jkosteva@umich.edu.]

Eliana Moya-Raggio asked when residents can expect to be included in the process. Gott promised that there would be more meetings, as soon as they determine the design schedule. Meetings with neighbors would typically occur through the design and construction process, Gott said.

At the end of the meeting, Tim Mortimer – president of the Riverside Park Place Condominium Association board – thanked the university staff for meeting with residents as soon as possible. Based on Gott’s leadership and the description offered by the architect Neil Martin, Mortimer said “I’m very optimistic.”

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the University of Michigan. Since you’re already parked in front of a computer, click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to support The Chronicle, too!

The history of parking in that section of town – near the massive UM medical campus – was laid out in a cover memo provided to regents. A similar project had been previously approved by regents in September 2008 to address parking needs in that area. It had been opposed by residents, who attended public meetings held by UM to argue against the location. [See Chronicle coverage from December 2008: "Neighbors Weigh In Again on Wall Street Project."]

Subsequently, the project was cancelled in mid-2009 and the university entered into a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor to build the Fuller Road Station, a controversial project proposed on city-owned land in Fuller Park that had been used for nearly two decades as a surface parking lot. In addition to parking, the project was intended to include a bus depot and eventually a train station. It was approved by regents in January 2010. However, UM pulled out of the project earlier this year, in February. [See Chronicle coverage: "UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project."]

Demand for staff and faculty parking is expected to increase According to the staff memo from UM chief financial officer Tim Slottow, about 300 prime UM employee parking spaces were reallocated to patients after the opening late last year of the new C. S. Mott Children’s and Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital. The memo states: “More employees are parking remotely and traveling by bus to work. On a typical day, we estimate that 2,500 employees are parking in remote lots and taking a bus or shuttle to the medical center. Additionally, there are about 1,500 employees utilizing alternative means of transportation, including riding the bus from home, ridesharing, or van pooling.”

Slottow told regents that staff would be moving very quickly on construction, but would update various studies that had been originally conducted in 2008 – including traffic and environmental studies. The university also plans to hold public forums about the project and work to give the design a neighborhood feel through open space and architectural details, he said.

The action by regents on April 19 included selecting Walker Parking Consultants and the Stecker Labau Arneill McManus (S/L/A/M) Collaborative architectural firm to design the project.

This brief was filed from the Michigan Union’s Rogel ballroom, where the board held its April meeting.

The rezoning to P (parking) is part of a two-parcel site plan proposal – for which the city planning commission provided a positive recommendation at its March 6, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the commission took two votes on the 1200 S. Main parcel – the site plan and the rezoning proposal. And on both votes, the planning commission split 6-3. For the other, adjacent parcel at 1100 S. Main, the city planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the site plan for approval.

In front of the city council on April 16, however, was just the resolution to rezone a portion of the 1200 S. Main parcel to P (parking). The council’s initial approval of the rezoning was unanimous.

The two parcels, at 1100 and 1200 S. Main, are across from Michigan Stadium. An AAA branch built in the 1950s is located there. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces.

The two parcels are part of a 1.5-acre site containing four parcels owned by the auto club and all zoned O (office). Located on the 1200 S. Main parcel is the current one-story branch building with walk-out basement and 36 parking spaces, with exits onto South Main, Berkley and Potter.

The 1100 S. Main site is a surface parking lot, which has 72 spaces and exits onto both Potter and Keech. The owner is requesting to build a one-story, 5,443-square-foot new branch building on the northeast corner of that site, with parking for 21 spaces. A second phase of the project would include an eventual 2,230-square-foot addition to the south side of that building. There are six landmark trees on the site, and the plan would require removal of two that are located along South Main, near Keech. Other trees would be added elsewhere on the site.

After the new structure is completed, the old building at 1200 S. Main would be torn down and a 14-space parking lot would be put on that parcel. And to do that, the proposal asks that the northern 123 feet of that parcel – about half of the parcel – be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), so that parking could become the principal use for that site. A site plan for that parcel is also required. The rezoning to P (parking) is what the city council considered on April 16.

The owner’s overall plan called for a total of 35 spaces – a reduction from the current parking on the site, which was approved in the mid-1970s but no longer conforms with existing zoning. The 35 spaces would be four more spaces than the 31 maximum number permitted under the O (office) zoning, based on the new building’s square footage in both phases. That’s why the owner requested that a portion of the overall site be rezoned for parking – in the P (parking) district, there is no maximum.

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 requests relate to 1100 and 1200 S. Main, across from Michigan Stadium. An AAA branch built in the 1950s is located there. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces.

The two parcels are part of a 1.5-acre site containing four parcels owned by AAA and all zoned O (office). Located on the 1200 S. Main parcel is the current one-story branch building with walk-out basement and 36 parking spaces, with exits onto South Main, Berkley and Potter.

The 1100 S. Main site is a surface parking lot, which has 72 spaces and exits onto both Potter and Keech. The owner is requesting to build a one-story, 5,443-square-foot new branch building on the northeast corner of that site, with parking for 21 spaces. A second phase of the project would include an eventual 2,230-square-foot addition to the south side of that building. There are six landmark trees on the site, and the plan would require removal of two that are located along South Main, near Keech. Other trees would be added elsewhere on the site.

After the new structure is completed, the old building at 1200 S. Main would be torn down and a 14-space parking lot would be put on that parcel. To do that, the parcel would need to be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), because parking would become the principal use for that site.

The owner’s overall plan called for a total of 35 spaces – a reduction from the current parking on the site, which was approved in the mid-1970s but is no longer conforming with existing zoning. The 35 spaces would be four more spaces than the 31 maximum number permitted under the O (office) zoning, based on the new building’s square footage in both phases. That’s why the owner requested that a portion of the overall site be rezoned for parking – in the P (parking) district, there is no maximum.

Planning staff had previously recommended postponing action on the request, so that the owner could include the possible future addition as part of the site plan, to reflect parking needs better. However, because the planning commission did not achieve a quorum for its Feb. 23 meeting, no action was taken. Revised plans were subsequently submitted, and the planning staff recommended approval.

Commissioners Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs and Kirk Westphal expressed concerns about rezoning an area along Main Street for parking. They also wondered whether 35 spaces were necessary, especially when there are alternative parking options – at a park-and-ride at Pioneer High, and in the nearby neighborhood. Briggs noted that it ran counter to the city’s efforts to encourage alternative transportation.

Three separate votes were taken. The vote to recommend rezoning of 1200 S. Main to P (parking) passed on a 6-3 vote, with dissent from Bona, Briggs and Westphal. Those three commissioners also voted against the site plan for 1200 S. Main, but that resolution also passed on a 6-3 vote. The site plan for 1100 S. Main was unanimously approved.

The proposal will be considered for final approval by the city council.

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

The mid-January and early February rate changes are estimated to generate a total of $133,000 in additional revenue annually. Increases and anticipated revenues are: raise meter bag rates by $5/day ($68,800); increase the premium parking rate by $5/month ($3,300); increase Ann & Ashley and Liberty Square structure evening/Saturday rates by $1/entry ($41,500); increase 415 W. Washington lot entry by $1 and increase permit rates by $5/month ($14,400); increase First & William lot permits by $10/month ($5,000). The change of the effective start date for the early-year rate changes (to Jan. 21 instead of Feb. 1) will apply only to the meter bag rates. The other set of early-year changes will be implemented starting Feb. 1.

Highlights of the more significant changes – to be enacted in September 2012 – include predominantly $.10/hour increases: hourly parking structure rates would increase from $1.10/hour to $1.20/hour; hourly parking lot rates would increase from $1.30 ($1.50 after 3 hours) to $1.40 ($1.60 after 3 hours); hourly parking meter rates would increase from $1.40/hour to $1.50/hour; and monthly parking permit rates would increase from $140/month to $145/month.

Of the categories of parking, monthly permits will increase percentage-wise the least (3.57%), while hourly structure rates will increase the most (8.33%).

The rate increases were the subject of a public hearing that started at the DDA board’s Nov. 2, 2011 meeting and continued through its Dec. 7, 2011 meeting.

[.jpg of Ann Arbor public parking system revenues since Aug 2009][.jpg of Ann Arbor public parking system hourly patrons since August 2009]

This brief was filed from DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave. A more detailed report of the board meeting will follow: [link]

Occupy UM protesters walking toward the Fleming administration building prior to the Dec. 15 regents meeting, where they protested against the high cost of public education. Flyers taped to The Cube repeated the same theme. (Photos by the writer.)

As UM president Mary Sue Coleman began her opening remarks to start Thursday’s meeting, about two dozen “Occupy UM” protesters, who’d been sitting in the boardroom, stood up and shouted, “Mic check!” For the next five minutes, in a call-and-response delivery, protesters outlined their grievances against the university’s leadership – primarily, that once-affordable public education has been turned into an expensive commodity. [A video of the protest is posted on YouTube.]

When the group finished, they left the boardroom chanting “Instruction, not construction!” Neither the regents nor Coleman responded to them or alluded to the protest during the rest of the meeting.

Another group of students gave a decidedly different performance just minutes later. The a cappella group Amazin’ Blue sang five holiday songs, prompting board chair Denise Ilitch to don a blue Santa’s hat – embroidered with “Michigan” – and sing along.

The meeting included two issues related to the Ann Arbor community and parking. During public commentary, Chip Smith of the Near Westside Neighborhood Association highlighted problems with a UM parking lot that’s surrounded by homes on the Old West Side. And in a staff memo accompanying a resolution to issue bonds for capital projects, Fuller Road Station was on the list in the category of projects that would require final approval by regents prior to being funded with bond proceeds. The regents had approved the controversial project – a joint UM/city of Ann Arbor parking structure, bus depot and possible train station – in January 2010, but a formal agreement between the city and university has not yet been finalized.

Other items on the Dec. 15 agenda included: (1) presentations by three UM faculty who were named MacArthur Fellows this year; (2) approval of the Michigan Investment in New Technology Startups (MINTS) initiative; and (3) approval of several renovation projects, including work on the Law School’s historic Charles T. Munger Residences in the Lawyers’ Club and the John P. Cook Building.

Occupy UM “Mic Check”

Occupy UM is one of several local groups formed since the Occupy Wall Street movement started earlier this year. [Other groups include Occupy Ann Arbor and Occupy For All – described on its website as a "merry band of roving peaceniks based in Ann Arbor."]

This Occupy UM protester read a statement to the regents that was repeated in unison by other protesters in the boardroom.

Before the regents meeting, Occupy UM held a rally at The Cube, located in the plaza next to the Fleming administration building, where the regents meet. After the rally, Occupy UM supporters entered Fleming and took seats throughout the boardroom before the start of the meeting.

The agenda begins with remarks from UM president Mary Sue Coleman, and as soon as she began speaking the protesters stood and shouted “Mic check!” – which launched the start of a technique used by Occupy protesters nationwide to propagate a message to a crowd without the aid of a microphone.

The five-minute call-and-response recitation – shouted by a leader in short phrases, and repeated in unison by the other two dozen or so protesters – sharply criticized the regents and university leaders for a range of actions and inactions that have resulted in a cost of education that’s inaccessible for many. They referred to the meeting’s agenda, saying it reflected the values of funding start-up businesses and construction projects rather than accessible education.

An excerpt:

There was once affordable public education. / Today / there is only an expensive commodity. / You sell this commodity to wealthy students. / To the rest of us you offer / a more ominous exchange: / an education / for a lifetime of student debt.

…

You endeavor to attract the richest and whitest / not the best and brightest. / You support construction not instruction. / We have another vision. / Job security and intellectual freedom / for faculty and staff; / a student body without student debt; / and a community that shatters race and class divisions / instead of reproducing them./

This university claims to be / an institution of inclusion and equality. / Our vision works for the future / when this may be true. / Your vision ensures / a public forever divided. / We reject your vision! [.pdf of full Occupy UM statement]

When they finished, the protesters continued chanting “Instruction, not construction!” as they left the room. Their chants could be heard as Coleman resumed her opening remarks, which highlighted the Dec. 18 winter commencement on Sunday, where New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson would give the keynote speech. Coleman also noted several faculty achievements, and gave well wishes for students during finals and for the UM football team at the Sugar Bowl. The meeting continued without any mention of the protesters by regents or UM executives.

However, the following day – Friday, Dec. 16 – a letter from Coleman to President Barack Obama was released, addressing the same issue of affordable education. The letter was tied to Obama’s recent meeting with university presidents at the White House, which Coleman did not attend. From the letter:

By bringing together higher education leaders to discuss college affordability, you have elevated a thorny issue that demands a national conversation because of its impact on all sectors of society. The cost of attending college is one of the most serious matters facing a country that seeks to strengthen its global competitiveness. How we resolve this dilemma requires collaboration, sacrifice and hard choices.

…

Higher education is a public good currently lacking public support. There is no stronger trigger for rising costs at public universities and colleges than declining state support. The University of Michigan and our state’s 14 other public institutions have been ground zero for funding cuts. The state’s significant disinvestment in higher education has been challenging: a 15 percent cut in the last year alone, and a reduction of more than 30 percent over the last decade.

We have worked extremely hard to mitigate the impact of these cuts on students and families. We must and will do more, but also offer recommendations that may benefit all of higher education.

Recommendations in the letter included: urging states to reinvest in public colleges and universities, asking the business community to lobby for increased government funding of higher education, increasing private support, and cutting costs.

Student, Faculty Awards

Provost Phil Hanlon gave a presentation about the various awards and other honors that UM’s faculty have received, as well as introducing and congratulating Alex Carney, a UM senior who recently was named a Marshall Scholar – one of only 36 students in the U.S. awarded the scholarship to study in Oxford and Cambridge. Carney – a mathematician, violinist and cross-country runner – received a round of applause.

Tiya Miles, chair of UM's department of Afroamerican and African studies and a 2011 MacArthur Fellow.

After cataloguing the range of honors for UM faculty – including Guggenheim Fellowships, the Carnegie Foundation’s U.S. professors of the year, and election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, among others – Hanlon introduced three faculty members who had been named MacArthur Fellows this year: Tiya Miles, Melanie Sanford, and Yukiko Yamashita.

Each of the three professors spoke to the regents, describing their work and the support they’ve received at UM. Miles, chair of UM’s department of Afroamerican and African studies, talked about the interdisciplinary nature of her research, working in the program in American culture, the department of Afroamerican and African studies, the department of history, and the Native American studies program. She recalled a challenge several years ago when she was pregnant with twins and needed to take medical leave. A book she’d been working on wasn’t completed, and she said she could imagine a scenario in which she’d be left to fail. But she had wonderful department chairs, Miles said, and senior women faculty who reached out to her. Thanks to that support, her book was eventually published and received awards, and her daughters are now eight years old.

Sanford, an Arthur F. Thurnau professor of chemistry, described her work as developing new ways to make common chemicals in a more environmentally friendly fashion, with less waste. The research has potential to impact a range of industries, from pharmaceuticals to beauty products. She said she couldn’t do the work without the amazing undergraduate and graduate students that UM attracts. “That is really the strength of this university,” Sanford said. She also praised UM’s efforts to recruit and retain women in traditionally underrepresented fields, like chemistry. There’s tremendous diversity in the chemistry department, she said, making it a dynamic and exciting place to work, with fantastic research being conducted.

After Sanford’s remarks, regent Andy Richner asked how to make a plastic cup out of corn. “That’s easy,” Sanford quipped, and quickly described how to do it. She said her lab is working on ways to do this kind of thing more efficiently, with less energy.

Yamashita spoke next, saying that she’s a stem cell biologist but “that’s not as controversial as it sounds.” That is, her work uses adult – not embryonic – stem cells. The research is very, very basic, Yamashita said, using fruit flies. But it lays the foundation to find cures for degenerative diseases, for example, or cancer. She described basic research as like a baby: You don’t get rid of a baby because it can’t yet walk or talk. The university is very supportive of her work, Yamashita said. There are great mentors, she said, who know just the right amount of leash to use on junior faculty – not too much, nor too little.

Start-Up Tech Investment

A new initiative – the Michigan Investment in New Technology Startups (MINTS) was on the agenda for approval by regents at the Dec. 15 meeting. Plans for the initiative had been announced in early October by UM president Mary Sue Coleman in her annual address to campus.

Managed by UM’s investment office as well as the technology transfer office, the program involves investing in start-up companies formed using UM technology. It’s estimated that over 10 years, the program will invest about $25 million from the university’s long-term portfolio. According to a staff memo, the investments would be part of the portfolio’s venture capital sub-portfolio. A limit of up to $500,000 would be made in any single round of financing.

In addition to approval for the overall program, regents also were asked to approve guidelines for MINTS. [.pdf of MINTS guidelines]

Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, praised Erik Lundberg, the university’s chief investment officer, and Ken Nisbet, executive director of UM’s tech transfer office, for their work in putting together this program. Slottow described it as a breakthrough type of funding that doesn’t exist at any other university. With regental approval, the university will begin investing “as soon as we can,” Slottow said.

Outcome: Regents unanimously approved the MINTS initiative and guidelines.

Building & Renovation Projects

Regents were asked to approve several items related to building and renovation projects on the Ann Arbor campus, including renovations of the law school residences, an overhaul of the University Hospital’s Trauma Burn Unit, and issuance of bids for an addition to the G.G. Brown building on north campus.

Building & Renovation Projects: Law School Residences

Regents were asked to approve the schematic design for a renovation of the Law School’s historic Charles T. Munger Residences in the Lawyers’ Club and the John P. Cook Building. The residences house about 260 students and were built in the early 1920s.

Lee Becker of Hartman-Cox Architects describes the schematic design for the UM Law School residences.

Regents had previously authorized the overall project at their March 2011 meeting. That meeting had included  a unanimous vote to name The Lawyers Club dormitory in honor of Charles T. Munger, who gave the university $20 million toward renovations of the building. The March 2011 meeting also included a vote to approve a $39 million renovation of The Lawyers Club and the John P. Cook buildings – part of a larger expansion and renovation effort at UM’s law school.

Washington, D.C.-based Hartman-Cox Architects, working with SmithGroup, is handling the project’s design. Lee Becker of Hartman-Cox attended the Dec. 15 meeting and showed regents examples of the renovation work they’ve planned. Most of the work will be interior changes to the residences – such as opening up connections between the townhouse-style dorms so that hallways will run through all the units. One of the main goals is to build better community among the law school students, he said.

Becker noted that the renovations will allow the university to skip roughly $30 million in maintenance it would otherwise need to perform in the dorms. Other work will include removing the fireplaces, adding air conditioning, installing elevators, replacing the roof, restoring masonry and refurbishing leaded glass windows.

Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, mentioned that the renovations would bring the buildings up to the same energy efficiency standards as other UM facilities. Examples of specific changes addressing energy efficiency include low-flow fixtures to conserve water, insulation, energy-efficient light fixtures and thermostat setback controls in each room.

Regent Libby Maynard asked where the students will live during the renovations, which will take about 18 months and be finished in mid-2013. Hank Baier, UM’s associate vice president for facilities and operations, reported that the university is leasing space in several apartment complexes that are close to central campus.

Regent Andy Richner noted that he had lived there when he went to law school, and he supported the project. Mary Sue Coleman said she couldn’t be more pleased with the new design, calling it one of the most precious buildings in the country.

 Outcome: Regents voted to approved the renovations at the Law School dorms.

Building & Renovation Projects: Trauma Burn Unit

A $3.33 million renovation for the University Hospital’s Trauma Burn Unit was on the agenda for approval. Renovations of the roughly 6,600-square-foot facility include improved lighting for care within the patient rooms, improved treatment rooms, creation of a dedicated physical therapy and occupational therapy room, and creation of a faculty on-call room.

Project and Design Management LLC, an architectural firm based in Ferndale, will design the project. According to a staff memo, a phased construction schedule is planned to minimize disruption to operations and patient care, with construction to be completed in the fall of 2012.

Outcome: Regents approved the trauma burn unit renovations.

Building & Renovation Projects: G.G. Brown

On the agenda was an item that would authorize university staff to issue bids and award construction contracts for a $46 million addition to the  G.G. Brown Memorial Laboratories Mechanical Engineering building on UM’s north campus.

A schematic design for the 62,500-square-foot addition was approved by regents a year ago, at the board’s Dec. 17, 2010 meeting. Construction is expected to be complete by mid-2014. The addition will house research labs, and faculty and graduate student offices for emerging research areas, including bio-systems, energy systems, and nano-systems.

Outcome: The board voted to authorize the issuance of bids and the awarding of construction contracts for the G.G. Brown addition.

In addition, as an item of information, regents were presented with UM’s annual capital outlay request to the state for fiscal 2013. For the Ann Arbor campus, that request included funding for renovations of the existing G.G. Brown building – a separate project from the planned addition. At previous meetings, Tim Slottow – UM’s chief financial officer – has said that UM expects to receive $30 million in funding for the renovation as part of the state capital outlay bill. At the Dec. 15 meeting, he didn’t specify any anticipated dollar amount, but said he hopes the state will help with this project and two others at UM’s Flint and Dearborn campuses.

Long-Term Bonds

Regents were asked to authorize the issuance of up to $280 million in general revenue bonds to fund a variety of capital projects. Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, briefly introduced the item, saying that UM needs to refinance some of its existing $200 million in commercial paper and provide longer-term financing for authorized capital projects.

A staff memo included a list of projects that require financing:

• Alice Crocker Lloyd Hall renovation
• Crisler Arena expansion and renovation
• C.S. Mott Children’s and Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospitals, and related projects
• Institute for Social Research addition
• Vera B. Baits Houses II renewal
• Seven projects for the UM Hospitals and Health Centers: (1) Simpson Circle parking structure improvements; (2) University Hospital accelerator replacement; (3) University Hospital computed tomography angiography; (4) University Hospital kitchen renovations for room service protocol; (5) University Hospital medical procedure unit expansion; (6) University Hospital radiation oncology simulator replacement; and (7) University Hospital Trauma Burn Unit renovations.

In a separate category, three projects were listed as requiring final approval by regents prior to being funded with bond proceeds:

• Fuller Road Station
• UM  Hospitals and Health Centers – A. Alfred Taubman Health Care Center internal medicine renovations
• UM Hospitals and Health Centers – A. Alfred Taubman Health Care Center Levels 1 and 2 backfill renovations

Regents had approved the Fuller Road Station project at their January 2010 meeting, when they had also authorized appointing an architect. From the staff memo provided to the regents at that 2010 meeting:

The first phase of the development of this major intermodal transportation complex is the Fuller Road Station project which includes site preparation and construction of an intermodal facility that includes: four covered bus loading/unloading zones and waiting areas; a covered area for bike hoops and lockers; parking for 1,000 vehicles (78 percent for university and 22 percent for city use); improvements to Fuller Road immediately adjacent to the site for vehicle access; and upgrades to the multi-use path along Fuller Road.

The university will manage the construction of the Fuller Road Station project. That includes building the facility on city property, following city code review and inspection, and collaborating with the city for their approval of design. This project is unique since we would be constructing the facility on city-owned property and following city building codes. We will also need approval for the lease on city-owned land since it would be for a period of greater than ten years. We will seek approval of the lease at a later date, but prior to seeking bids or awarding construction contracts for the project. A parking structure operation and maintenance agreement will be developed concurrently with design of the project. The City of Ann Arbor will manage the site preparation at an estimated cost of $3,000,000. In addition, at the City’s expense, they will undertake an environmental assessment of the property. Although there will be a temporary loss of some leased parking spaces during construction, there will be an increase of approximately 780 university parking spaces as a result of this project.

The estimated cost of the project is $46,550,000. Costs will be shared between the University of Michigan and the City of Ann Arbor in proportion to the number of parking spaces available to each (78 percent and 22 percent respectively). Total university funding, not to exceed $36,309,000 (78 percent), will be provided from Parking resources. The construction cash flow may be provided, all or in part, by increasing the commercial paper issuance under the commercial paper program, secured by a pledge of General Revenues, and authorized by the Board of Regents. The parking structure consulting firm of Walker Parking Consultants will design the project. Design is scheduled to begin immediately, and we will return with a construction schedule when we seek approval of schematic design.

At that January 2010 meeting, James D’Amour – a member of the executive committee for the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club – spoke out against the project, objecting to it being built on city-owned property that had been designated as parkland. He and other community members have been vocal in their objections to the structure, primarily at public meetings of the Ann Arbor city council and the Ann Arbor park advisory commission – most recently at PAC’s November 2011 meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "More Concerns Aired on Fuller Road Station"] Regents have not discussed the project at their board meetings since the January 2010 vote.

Outcome: Without discussion, regents authorized the issuance of general revenue bonds. 

Annual Lease Report

As an item of information, regents were provided with an annual report on leases held by the university that exceed 50,000 square feet. Tim Slottow, UM’s chief financial officer, noted that there was very little change from the 2010 report, made at the regents’ Dec. 17, 2010 meeting.

There are currently five leases for space over 50,000 square feet:

• 222,775 square feet at the Domino’s Farms complex, used by various UM Health System departments.
• 125,815 square feet at the KMS Building on South State Street, used by UMHS and leased from Kosmos Associates.
• 65,693 square feet at 325 East Eisenhower Parkway leased from Burlington Property LLC for use by Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spine Rehabilitation and the Dental School.
• 63,920 square feet at 2301 Commonwealth Boulevard, for use by UMHS and leased from First Properties Associates.
• 51,534 square feet at 1051 North Canton Center Road in Canton, leased from Saltz Center for the UMHS Canton Health Center.

Appointment of UMHS Development Officer

As a supplemental agenda item, regents were asked to approve the appointment of Brian Lally to a newly created position: associate vice president for medical development and alumni relations for the UM Health System. Jerry May, UM’s vice president for development, told the regents that the university had been doing a search to fill this new position for more than a year, with the goal of dramatically increasing fundraising for UMHS. Lally will report jointly to May and Ora Pescovitz, UM’s executive vice president for medical affairs.

Lally most recently has served as vice president of development and alumni relations for Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and Dartmouth Medical School.

Outcome: Regents unanimously approved Lally’s appointment.

Conflict-of-Interest Items

At each monthly meeting, regents are asked to authorize items that require disclosure under the state’s Conflict of Interest statute. The law requires that regents vote on potential conflict-of-interest disclosures related to university staff, faculty or students.

The items often involve technology licensing agreements or leases. This month, the eight separate items included four research agreements, one subcontract agreement, one licensing agreement, one licensing option agreement, and one business transaction. Companies involved are: ONL Therapeutics; Emerging Micro Systems Inc.; CytoPherx Inc.; CSquared Innovations; Arbor Ultrasound Technologies; ISSYS Inc.; and Red Poppy Floral Design.

Outcome: Without comment, regents unanimously authorized the conflict-of-interest disclosures.

Student Government Report

In his regular report to the board, DeAndree Watson – president of the Michigan Student Assembly – explained the reasoning behind the organization’s upcoming name change. As of Jan. 1, the MSA will be called the Central Student Government. In 2010, students had voted to change the constitution of their student government, creating three separate branches that mirrored the federal system: executive, legislative and judicial. The legislative branch is known as the Assembly, and the overall government name was changed to distinguish itself from that branch. The name will also serve to distinguish the central student government, which represents students campuswide, with the various student governments for each school or college within UM.

Regent Andrea Fischer Newman asked Watson if he’d considered possible confusion with Central Michigan University. Watson replied that he had been part of the group that had rewritten the constitution, and that had settled on the new name. The word “Central” had been meant to signify a “central voice” for all students, he said. The only concern they’d heard about it was from one student who felt it might disenfranchise students on UM’s north campus. The official name will be the University of Michigan Central Student Government, he said.

Misc. Communications

Stephen Forrest, UM’s vice president for research, told regents that the university’s formal policies and procedures had been completed for the return of Native American human remains and associated materials in UM’s collections under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, David Lampe – executive director of research communications – reported that the 75-page document formally specifies details of all of the policies and procedures that UM has adopted to handle the requirements of the act. It has been submitted to UM’s Office of the General Counsel for final approval – it will eventually be posted online.

Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Chip Smith introduced himself as a UM alum and donor, and a representative of the Near Westside Neighborhood Association. The association consists of 24 historic homes – all built in 1930 or earlier – that border a UM parking lot off of Krause Street, known as Lot W11, between West Washington and West Liberty. [.jpg of map showing location of the NWNA and the lot] The neighborhood group was recently formed in response to construction at the lot, which has caused issues related to noise, lighting and stormwater runoff, among other things.

Chip Smith spoke to regents about problems in a UM parking lot off of Krause Street affecting neighboring homes. He represents the recently formed Near Westside Neighborhood Association.

Smith thanked Jim Kosteva – UM’s community  relations director – for his help, and provided a handout to regents that included a Nov. 23 letter that the association had sent Kosteva about Lot W11 issues.

A packet of materials distributed to regents by Smith listed several issues related to the parking lot, including the impact of construction activities, traffic, vandalism, and a lack of communication with neighbors. One of the handouts stated that “UM Lot W11 has been a bad neighbor for 20+ years.”

During his remarks, Smith focused on two main concerns: (1) implementing best management practices for stormwater control, and (2) lighting at the lot, which is outdated and intrusive for surrounding homes.

He praised UM’s sustainability initiative, and asked regents and the administration to hold the project group’s feet to the fire in terms of implementing stormwater best management practices that the university has adopted. [Among the sustainability goals outlined by Coleman in September was this one related to stormwater: "Protect the Huron River through best-in-class stormwater control strategies and by applying 40 percent fewer chemicals to campus landscapes, and ensure that at least 30 percent of stormwater runoff does not flow into the Huron River."]

Referring to construction on the lot that’s planned in 2012, Smith said the main issue is lighting. It’s unclear whether the current lights – which Smith said are extremely bright – will be replaced, but he asked that UM staff work with representatives of the neighborhood to find an acceptable solution.

In addition to these specific issues, the problem is the way in which the residents are treated, Smith said. Of the 24 houses surrounding the lot, 21 are owner-occupied. “This is our neighborhood,” he said, adding that he looked forward to working with UM to minimize the impact of future construction. He thanked regents for the opportunity to address the board.

After Smith’s remarks, regent Larry Deitch called the presentation “refreshing” – presumably because the tone had not been combative, as is often the case with remarks made during public commentary. Regent Andrea Fischer Newman said it would be helpful if Smith could bring a map. [A map of the lot, as well as photos of that location and other UM parking lots, were part of a packet of materials distributed to regents at the start of Smith's remarks.]

Present: Mary Sue Coleman (ex officio), Julia Darlow, Larry Deitch, Denise Ilitch, Olivia (Libby) Maynard, Andrea Fischer Newman, Andy Richner, Kathy White.

Absent: Martin Taylor.

Next board meeting: Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012 at 3 p.m. at the Fleming administration building on UM’s central campus. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the University of Michigan board of regents. 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!

A Santa sock worn by regent Libby Maynard at the final board meeting of 2011 was a subtle reflection of the holiday season.

Students from the Amazin' Blue a cappella group sang Christmas carols at the Dec. 15 regents meeting.

Board chair Denise Ilitch wore a UM Santa's hat during the performance by Amazin' Blue. The front of the hat was embroidered with "Michigan."