Jane Lumm (Ward 2) made air quotes around the word "approaching" as the council discussed the city's ordinance on crosswalks. (Photos by the writer.)

The current ordinance amendment maintains an existing requirement that motorists accommodate not just pedestrians who are “within” a crosswalk, but also those who are verging on entering a crosswalk. What’s different is the way the concept is expressed. In July 2010, the council chose to describe pedestrians who are about to enter a crosswalk as “approaching” the crosswalk. The version of the ordinance finalized on Dec. 19 requires motorists to accommodate “… a pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk …”

As part of the previous amendments made in 2010, the council also had removed language that specified a half of the roadway where drivers needed to accommodate pedestrians. This time around, the council restored similar language, which reads, “… when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.”

In other crosswalk-related business, the council approved an expenditure of $81,000 to install five rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) on existing pedestrian islands in the city. Four of the locations are along Plymouth Road, at Georgetown, Traver Village, Beal and Bishop. The fifth location is at Seventh and Washington.

Also at the Dec. 19 meeting, the council ended a long process of review by the city and negotiation with neighbors by approving a change to the zoning of the Hoover Mansion property on Washtenaw Avenue, which University Bank uses as its headquarters. The change will allow University Bank to build 13 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building, allowing the bank in accommodate expanded employment.

Towards the end of the council’s meeting, a relatively rare debate unfolded about a mayoral nomination to a city board. At issue was the nomination of a city employee – transportation program manager Eli Cooper – to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. He’s replacing another city employee on the board, public services area administrator Sue McCormick, who left her position with the city in mid-December. In the end, Cooper’s nomination was confirmed with dissent from two councilmembers. A separate vote on a general policy opposing nominations of city employees to boards and commissions received only four votes of support.

The council considered two compensation-related issues – one for its city attorney, Stephen Postema, and another for election workers who staff the polls. After a closed session to discuss Postema’s performance review, the council voted with dissent from one councilmember to award Postema the ability to cash out 250 hours of banked time. The council delayed its vote on pay increases for election workers, on the possibility that their pay could be increased more than what’s proposed, to match the amount specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

In other business, the council approved a bond re-funding, authorized reimbursement for a broken electromagnet at the materials recovery facility, accepted additional federal money for solar projects, and heard about a possible strategy for addressing vacant and dilapidated properties.

Crosswalks

Two pedestrian-safety-related items were on the Dec. 19 agenda. The first was final consideration of a change to the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The second was authorization of $81,000 for installation of flashing pedestrian crossing beacons at five different locations in the city, four of them on Plymouth Road.

Crosswalks: Ordinance Revision – Background

The section of the crosswalk ordinance given final approval now reads: ”… the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk, when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.”

The council struck from the ordinance an addition to which it had given initial approval on Nov. 10, 2011 that required motorists to stop for pedestrians “without regard to which portion of the roadway the pedestrian is using.”

This recent round of revisions to the ordinance comes after the council modified the pedestrian safety ordinance on July 19, 2010 to include an expansion of the conditions under which motorists must take action to accommodate pedestrians. Specifically, the 2010 amendments required accommodation of pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also “approaching or within a crosswalk.” The modification approved on Dec. 19 was intended to address a perceived ambiguity of the word “approaching.”

Besides the “approaching” phrase, the 2010 amendments also included two other key elements. The 2010 amendments included a requirement that motorists “stop” and not merely “slow as to yield.” And the 2010 amendments also eliminated reference to which half of the roadway is relevant to the responsibility placed on motorists for accommodating pedestrians. That eliminated phrase was restored in the version approved by the council on Dec. 19.

Crosswalks: Public Commentary

Kathy Griswold spoke during general public commentary as well as during the formal public hearing. She described the tremendous engagement of the community and the city council in the discussion of pedestrian safety. Now is the time for the community to come together, she said. She described how Boulder, Colorado’s sight distance ordinance supports pedestrian safety, by regulating vegetation along roadways, not just at intersections. Also, in 2009 Boulder had a full-time employee to make sure utility boxes are not placed to restrict sight distances, she contended. She questioned whether the goal in Ann Arbor is to try to improve safety, or rather to do something else.

During the public hearing, Griswold complained that the word “safety” doesn’t appear anywhere in the brochures the city uses to tout Ann Arbor’s walkability. She contended that passing this ordinance seemed like an attempt to be “cool” – but that’s not how safety works, she said. The local community is good at advocating for pedestrian “rights,” Griswold said, but she suggested that pedestrian “rights” are a different issue from pedestrian safety.

Griswold expressed frustration that the signage the city is using refers only to “within” a crosswalk when the ordinance includes additional conditions for stopping. To get alternate signage, she’d learned from city staff, would require submitting a request to “experiment” with alternate wording. She objected to the idea of experimenting with the lives of young children. She said we should not expect that young people who are not drivers to determine if it’s safe or unsafe to cross. “We can do better than this,” she said, and she hoped the focus could change to improving safety.

Tim Hull said he thought that defining stop conditions on the local level is a bad idea – it will result in an ordinance that is not recommended by the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC). People will see it as a revenue generation scheme, he feared. And pedestrians don’t feel more safe because of the ordinance – they don’t know if cars will stop. At Plymouth and Beal, Hull said he never knows if cars will stop. What’s safest for pedestrians is to use the UTC recommended standard, even if that code is not actually the state law. He suggested lobbying Ann Arbor’s representatives to the state legislature.

At the left is Larry Deck, who spoke about the pedestrian ordinance on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. He was chatting with the city's transportation program manager, Eli Cooper.

Larry Deck of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition told the council that change has to start somewhere. He agreed it’d be nice to see that change happen statewide. The WBWC supports the wording that the council approved at its first reading, he said. A transitional phase is needed in order to make the cultural change, he said. Of the principles of engineering, education, and enforcement, the initial step should be educational, he said. For the engineering step, the WBWC is starting to have a discussion about crosswalk design guidelines that would include advance stop bars and flashing beacons. On Plymouth Road, the beacons would help clarify the situation, Deck said.

Michael Benson introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident, speaking on behalf of the graduate student body at the University of Michigan. The changes to the crosswalk ordinance are a step in the right direction. Even though it’s not perfect, it’s a good start, he said. The proposed wording still leaves an incongruity between the city of Ann Arbor and the rest of the state. For a student who comes to study at UM from outside the city, what do the flashes mean on the proposed new signs? Benson suggested approving the changes and forming a working group to continue to review the ordinance.

An unidentified man spoke during the public hearing and made remarks couched in a general complaint that the city did not do a very good job of helping people who have problems – he’d spent three years trying to get help with Social Security and said he had called every information number that exists. The city should give serious thought to helping the elderly before coming up with an idea that will risk lives, he concluded.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a disabled senior citizen who had experienced near-accidents as a pedestrian. The city needs an effort involving driver education and a much more full and comprehensive approach to crosswalks and other areas of pedestrian safety, he said.

Stephen Ranzini introduced himself as a resident of downtown Ann Arbor. He drew the council’s attention to a poll that had run on AnnArbor.com about the pedestrian ordinance. He said he’d written a comment suggesting that one of the choices in the poll should have been the repeal of an ordinance that is incompatible with state law. He indicated that his comment had been well-received by other readers of AnnArbor.com.

Crosswalks: Ordinance Revision – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led off deliberations by saying that awareness of the issue had been the result of enforcement, not the specific language of the ordinance. As to the idea that the ordinance put young people in danger, Hieftje said that the previous version of the ordinance asked pedestrians to put themselves in danger in order to trigger the condition under which drivers should stop. The negative outcomes the city has experienced would have been the same if tickets had been written for drivers, based on the previously existing traffic code.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) echoed the comments made by Hieftje. Hohnke said it was important to understand the status of the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC), which people sometimes referred to as a state law or recommended ordinance. There is no state law, or a particular recommendation for a local ordinance, he said. Independent of the changes Ann Arbor adopts, he said, there will be a variety of ordinances in place across the state and the country.

Some mild confusion then resulted concerning what Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted to propose as an amendment to the language already initially approved on Nov. 10. Compared to the initially-approved language, what was eventually settled on in the way of amendments was as follows [added words in italics, deleted words in strike-through]:

”… the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk, without regard to which portion of the roadway the pedestrian is using. when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.”

Some of the confusion, which was resolved between Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Briere, stemmed from Briere’s initial reluctance to revise the phrasing involving the roadway half. She’d been hesitant because the flashing beacons the city plans to install will alert drivers in both directions, yet the existence of the beacons did not make the crosswalk a signalized crosswalk in terms of the traffic ordinance. She had contemplated just eliminating the “without regard” language addressing the roadway half, and not adding the “half of the roadway” phrasing.

What helped the council settle on the language above as the amendment to consider were remarks from transportation manager Eli Cooper, who indicated there were two reasons why the staff recommended the “half of the roadway” phrasing. As part of the UTC, it would help ensure consistency with other communities, he said. Also, the language is straightforward to understand as far as what constitutes a “stop condition.”

The issue relates to what a driver can readily see – that’s really what is along side of you, said Cooper. It’s not really possible to see what’s happening possibly five lanes away on the other side of the road. It was felt that it’s too onerous on the driver, Cooper said.

Responding to a question from Briere about the impact of leaving out all reference to a part of the roadway, Cooper said he would recommend specificity, because staff can “amplify that specificity.”

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) got confirmation from Cooper that what was proposed is consistent with traffic engineering. Cooper allowed that he is not a licensed engineer, but he said the staff working group is supported by traffic engineers, who supported the proposal.

With the proposed amendment in front of the council, Hohnke observed that he’d been comfortable with folks having to grapple with the word “approaching” in the phrase describing pedestrians who were verging on entering a crosswalk. Now, the word “approaching” has been eliminated in that place, but introduced elsewhere. With some hesitation, he said, he would support the change.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she appreciated the inclusion of the phrase that divides the roadway into halves. Motorists need to focus on the roadway in their immediate view, she said. No amount of education, she believed, would have helped the situation if motorists had been required to stop without regard to which half of the roadway a pedestrian was using.

Outcome on amendment: The council unanimously approved the addition of “curb line” and the re-introduction of roadway halves as pertinent to defining the stop conditions for motorists.

Lumm made a motion to strike language in the ordinance defining stop conditions for motorists as anything except “within a crosswalk.” The motion died for lack of a seconding motion. When the motion died, Lumm mused, “That’s what I thought.”

Left to right: Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). Briere is demonstrating that councilmembers wait to be recognized before speaking during their meetings – they don't just blurt things out.

Smith felt that previously the problem had been that the council had approved changes to the ordinance, then let it sit. There’d been some education, she allowed, but then the city began with what some might say was “radical enforcement.” That’s what created the turmoil, she said. She asked that the city administrator talk with the police chief to take a softer approach to helping the community learn how to adapt to the ordnance.

Briere offered her own experience with a change in traffic rules – the installation of a new stop sign on Madison Street, when she previously lived in Ward 5. She said it’s a tough adjustment. Drivers are used to driving the way they’re used to driving. Briere advised that the council would continue to hear from people about the ordinance. She said she thinks more people are becoming aware of pedestrians.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got clarification from assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom that ordinance infractions would not result in points on driver’s licenses.

Lumm said she wants to protect pedestrians, but not at the expense of creating traffic hazards. So she said she supported the ordinance amendment, but looks forward to follow-up on appropriate signage to make sure it comports with the ordinance.

Cooper responded to Lumm’s concern about the signs used by the city, saying that they are in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – he emphasized the word “uniform.” The phrase “within a crosswalk” is not the full body of the ordinance, just as the speed limit sign is not the full text of the law, explained Cooper. Briere ventured that the signs “say what they need to say.”

Lumm still wondered how you enforce the ordinance, if the sign doesn’t say the exact same thing. City attorney Stephen Postema explained that the city would move to enforce it, but then then it’s up to a judge.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved changes to the crosswalk ordinance.

Crosswalks: Flashing Beacons – Background

The council was asked to authorize a budget modification, drawing on its major street fund to allow an expenditure of $81,000. The funds would be used to install five rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) on existing pedestrian islands in the city. Four of the locations are along Plymouth Road – at Georgetown, Traver Village, Beal and Bishop. The fifth location is at Seventh and Washington. [.pdf with schematic of intersections and an RRFB] [.pdf of map depicting locations]

The flashing function of an RRFB would not be continuous – it would be activated by a pedestrian pushing a button. The staff memo accompanying the resolution describes an RRFB as “similar in nature to the light bars on the top of emergency vehicles.” The flashing beacons do not count as traffic control signals for the purposes of the city’s pedestrian safety ordinance, which addresses motorist behavior “[w]hen traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation …” Otherwise put, the pedestrian safety ordinance will still apply at those crosswalks where RRFBs are installed.

Annual costs for operation and maintenance of the RRFBs are estimated at $160 per crossing. Installation of the new signs is scheduled to begin in February 2012, and to be completed by April 2012.

Crosswalks: Flashing Beacons – Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations saying that she’d heard concern expressed about the possible triggering of seizures and migraines by the flashing beacons. She explained that the flashes are random, not rhythmic, thus less likely to trigger those problems.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) questioned why the city’s alternative transportation fund was not being tapped instead of its major street fund. The city’s head of project management, Homayoon Pirooz, told Lumm the two funds have the same source of money – the state’s Act 51 appropriation, which is based on gas and vehicle taxes.

Lumm then proposed an amendment to remove from the proposal the two “low volume” crosswalks of the four on Plymouth – near Traver Village and Georgetown Boulevard. She contended that there are signalized intersections near enough to those locations that pedestrians could cross there.

Pirooz responded to Lumm by explaining that typical distances for which pedestrians are willing to walk in order to cross, based on the length of city blocks, are 500-700 feet. Based on that, the crosswalk locations for which the flashing beacons are proposed are in exactly right spots, Pirooz said. It’s not an excessive number, and he would probably recommend more, Pirooz concluded.

Briere clarified with Pirooz that two of the crosswalks where beacons are proposed are adjacent to bus stops. She noted that she’d seen Plymouth Road in action for years and years. The city had made some improvements to signage seven years ago and had used the best technology at the time – there’s better technology now, she said. Responding implicitly to Lumm’s concern about the relatively fewer number of pedestrians at two of the crosswalks, Briere ventured that instead of counting pedestrians, they should count the number of lanes a pedestrian has to cross.

Queried by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Craig Hupy, the city’s head of systems planning, said the city would likely use a combination of solar-powered and hard-wired beacons. Kunselman sought and received assurance that pedestrians who activated the beacons would not be blinded by them.

Lumm observed that nothing had happened as a result of the motion she’d made to eliminate two of the proposed beacons. She said she thinks the beacons seem like a reasonable solution – because they generate 75-80% compliance from motorists. Her issue, she said, is with the number of the beacons. It’s about balancing the safety of pedestrians and motorists, she said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved $81,000 for flashing beacons.

University Bank, Hoover Mansion Rezoning

Before the council for its consideration was final approval to alter the University Bank PUD (planned unit development) and site plan for the bank’s property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion. The bank wanted to revise the site’s existing PUD – originally approved in 1978 – to allow for an increase in the total number of employees and parking spaces permitted on the parcel. The site serves as the bank’s headquarters.

The change will allow University Bank to build 13 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 52 spaces on the site. The city planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the change at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting, after the proposal had been submitted to the city at least a year earlier. The council gave its initial approval to the change in the PUD at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

The long approval process could in part be attributed to opposition from immediate neighbors to specific elements of the plan, which was to some degree modified in response. A letter of opposition, attached to the council’s Dec. 19 agenda packet, made a more general objection to “the likelihood of further commercialization of the residential neighborhood.” [.pdf of letter of opposition][.jpg of aerial view with parcels]

Because the proposal was a change to the city’s zoning, it was a change to the city’s ordinances – a process that required a second approval by the council at a separate meeting, preceded by a public hearing.

Hoover Mansion: Public Hearing

Two separate public hearings were held – one for the zoning and the other for the site plan.

At the zoning hearing, Thomas Partridge complained that such agenda items are predetermined for approvals by the planning staff. All such items should recognize the need for civil rights, he said. At the public hearing on the site plan, he called for increased access to affordable housing and transportation.

Also speaking at both public hearings was the president of University Bank, Stephen Ranzini, who introduced himself as a downtown resident of Ann Arbor. He sketched the history of the bank now named University Bank, explaining that it was founded in 1890. After he led a investment group that bought the bank 23 years ago, its assets under management have grown from $35 million to $10.3 billion, he said. Today the bank has 280 employees, making it the 11th largest bank with its headquarters in Michigan, he said. In the last 90 days, the bank has hired 60 employees – all but five outside Ann Arbor. [More hires were not made in Ann Arbor, he indicated, because of the limited parking at the Hoover Mansion.] The bank has been a good neighbor, he said, and has won all the major awards a community bank can win.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, in his Milford Track jacket. He compared the difficulty of completing the New Zealand hiking trail to the city of Ann Arbor's approval process.

Ranzini calculated the value of the land on which the Hoover Mansion stands at $3.6 million. The cost of operating the 10,000-square-foot mansion is around $200,000 annually, he said. And its appraised value is only $2 million, due to its high cost of operation. Given the capital tied up in the building and its more than $20 per-square-foot operating cost, office space available elsewhere was actually cheaper, Ranzini said.

On-site parking is currently limited to 39 spaces, he said, and that limits the number of employees – especially because a certain number of the spots have to be set aside for the public. University Bank stepped up and bought the property in 2005, he said. To be sustainable in the long term [regardless of who owns the property], the parking needs to expand to accommodate something in the range of 60 employees. If the value of the building is not increased from $2 million, he warned, some future owner will pursue a different course. He said that if University Bank had not fought an intense legal battle, the mansion would not be standing today.

At the second public hearing, Ranzini laid out a complaint about the length of the approval process with the city, which he contended began 39 months ago, with a request for 28 additional parking spots. The result of that long process, which had included two neighborhood charrettes, would result in perhaps 13 additional spaces. Of the 19 adjacent property owners, 16 had supported the proposal from the very beginning, he said. The remaining three were now on board, he thought. However, he’d heard that two neighbors still have some concerns about lighting. Ranzini expressed some frustration that they would raise these concerns on the last day. In any case, he felt the concerns about lighting were not valid – the proposal met and exceeded lighting requirements. If the neighbors with objections based on lighting were present that night, Ranzini said, he could put their fears to rest.

Ranzini said that University Bank had committed to $150,000 in extra amenities for the site and $50,000 in engineering expenses. The public transportation benefits of the site, which he said his fellow citizen Thomas Partridge could use, included a bus stop in front, a walking path and new bike racks. Due to the delays in getting the plan approved, the bank relocated one of its divisions and eight jobs to Farmington Hills – those jobs will never come back, he said. Ranzini told the council he was wearing his jacket from the Milford Track because he wanted to compare that hike in New Zealand – which he’d enjoyed with his wife on their honeymoon – with the city’s approval process. It made completing the Milford Track seem easy, he said.

Hoover Mansion: Council Deliberations

City planner Chris Chang Cheng took the podium at the request of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). Cheng responded implicitly to Ranzini’s description of the process as taking 39 months by saying that he’d seen a submission made in December 2009, with revised plans submitted in July 2010. Cheng said that it had been around for approximately two years. About six months had elapsed between submission and revision. The original recommendation of the planning staff would have been to deny the approval, but the staff worked its way through it, and the eventual proposal had a smaller parking area.

The issue of lighting did come up, he said, in meetings with neighbors held over the last two years. University Bank has indicated that there are zero foot candles emitted from the property, he said, and if it turns out that there’s any light spillage, the bank has agreed to shield the lights and reduce the wattage.

Derezinski said that from his recollection seeing the project come before the planning commission, a lot of give-and-take was involved in the project. [Derezinski serves as the city council representative to the city planning commission.] Cheng confirmed for Derezinski that no parking would be allowed on the circular drive. He told Derezinski that he personally attended two meetings with neighbors and that there were other meetings. Cheng confirmed for Derezinski that the result of those meeting was a consensus on proposed solutions.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that over the weekend she’d fielded some questions about expanded commercial uses in a residential area. But she got clarification from Cheng that future alterations from current use would require approval. Lumm said she was impressed by how people had worked on the issues.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that the Hoover Mansion is a unique property, and that it shows what PUDs are about. His understanding of the purported public benefits to the alteration of the PUD were: (1) expanded employment, (2) an additional walkway to the bicycle parking spaces, and (3) a greater-than-required mitigation of the loss of trees due to creating more parking spaces.

Hohnke wanted to know if there was any contingency related to the first benefit. Cheng allowed that there’s nothing that forces University Bank to hire 10 additional employees. Hohnke got clarification that the walking path and the bicycle parking spots would be used by both employees and visitors. Hohnke wanted to know how the city planning staff evaluated the mitigation of any impact on the tree loss, if the impact wouldn’t have existed without the requested change. Cheng explained that the proposal made the least impact on woodland and natural features as possible.

Derezinski described the process that lasted over the course of a couple of years as the result of good people working on both sides. Obviously, he said, the bank wanted more parking spots and the neighbors wanted fewer. He called it a “grudging consensus.” He felt it was the best possible solution, given the circumstances.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Hoover Mansion PUD and site plan.

Mayoral Appointments of City Employees

The council’s meeting was bookended by discussion of mayoral appointments of various sorts. In Ann Arbor’s council-manager form of government, the mayor is also a member of the city council. One basic difference between the mayor and other city councilmembers is that the mayor is elected on a vote of citywide electors, whereas councilmembers represent just one of five wards.

But another key difference between the mayor and other city councilmembers is this: The mayor has the responsibility of making nominations to boards and commissions. [The other differences include the power of veto, status as the ceremonial head of the city, and responsibility for city management in states of emergency.]

Mayoral Nominations: Meeting Bookends

On the council’s agenda for its consideration were a number of mayoral appointments, as well as a resolution that opposed the appointment of city employees to city boards and commissions. When the agenda was approved at the start of the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) got support from her council colleagues to move a resolution about mayoral appointments to the end of the meeting, to the slot after votes to confirm mayoral nominations from the previous meeting. Briere had co-sponsored the resolution.

So the vote on the general policy was set to come after the vote on the appointment that prompted the policy – city transportation program manager Eli Cooper’s nomination to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Cooper’s nomination was opposed by Tim Hull, who introduced himself as a recent candidate for Ward 2 in the August 2011 Democratic primary. [The primary race was won by incumbent Stephen Rapundalo, who was then defeated in the November general election by Jane Lumm.] Hull also spoke in favor of the resolution that opposed the nomination by the mayor of city employees to serve on boards and commissions.

Hull said such appointments raise questions about conflict of interest, and he failed to see the benefit of adding a “city insider” to the AATA, especially someone who doesn’t live in the city itself. The AATA needs someone who has a stake in the community, Hull said, and the AATA board needs outside voices to ensure that the implementation of the AATA’s transportation master plan (TMP) will succeed. Hull also questioned the “haste” with which the appointment was made. He called for a transparent approach to appointments. Hull noted that he had nothing against Cooper, and that Cooper had helped him with a project when Hull was a student at the University of Michigan school of information.

Related to the general issue of appointments and vacancies on boards, during his communications early in the meeting Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) announced that the taxicab board had met recently and the board had been informed that it’s short one member. So the taxicab board is looking for someone to step up and serve, Kunselman said.

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, after the council deliberated and voted on all specific appointments and the general policy, Michael Benson thanked the council for adjusting its agenda at the start of the meeting to move the item on mayoral appointments. That way all councilmembers could be present. [Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) arrived late.] Benson noted that the city’s online Legistar system lists current vacancies. And earlier in the meeting, it had been announced that there’s a vacancy on the taxicab board, Benson said. But that vacancy is not listed, he noted – the only open spots listed are some for the housing and human services advisory board. Benson requested that vacancies on other boards and commissions be added.

Mayor John Hieftje responded to Benson’s request by venturing that the reason vacancies are not listed is simply because the appointments are made before the terms actually expire, so that the spots don’t ever technically become vacant. Hieftje offered the replacement of Margaret Parker with John Kotarski on the public art commission as an example, contending that her term was up at the end of 2011. Kotarski’s appointment was confirmed by nomination was presented to the council that night.

By way of background, Parker was actually appointed through 2012, so her departure was a year earlier than expected. As for the idea that vacancies are not listed only because the appointments are made before terms expire, it’s not uncommon that a mayoral appointment is made only after a term has expired, without a vacancy ever being listed on Legistar. For example, three vacancies currently exist on the seven-member local officers compensation commission, two of which have persisted for over a year – but those vacancies are not currently listed on Legistar.

Mayoral Nominations: Miscellaneous

Before the controversial AATA board appointment and the resolution on the general policy issue of appointing city employees to boards and commissions, the council handled some somewhat less controversial appointments.

Nominated to replace Margaret Parker on the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC) was John Kotarski. Kotarski has been a media consultant who previously worked for the Mount Clemens Schools.

Parker served for several years on the commission on art in public places (CAPP), the precursor to AAPAC. She was last re-appointed to AAPAC on June 15, 2009 for a three-year term, which would have ended Dec. 31, 2012. Parker served as chair of AAPAC from the enactment of the city’s Percent for Art ordinance in 2007 until the end of 2010. Marsha Chamberlin agreed to assume responsibility as chair in April this year.

Nominated to replace Dave Gregorka on the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) was Ben Carlisle. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who serves as the city council representative to the ZBA, said she would miss Gregorka, saying he was a ZBA member with some of the most knowledge about that body. She said she was also looking forward to working with Carlisle.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm Kotarski’s nomination to serve on AAPAC and Carlisle’s nomination to serve on the ZBA. The vote on Kostarski’s confirmation is scheduled for the council’s January 9 meeting.

Mayoral Nominations: Economic Development Board

Two nominations to the city’s economic development board touched on the issue that would be discussed in more detail in connection with Eli Cooper’s appointment to the AATA board.

The EDB is a body that is meant to assist the economic development of the city, and it enjoys the ability to issues tax-exempt bonds on behalf of private projects. Such a body is enabled by state statute – Act 338 of 1974. Nominated for the EDB were the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford (a re-appointment), and the city administrator, Steve Powers (to fill the vacancy left by former city administrator Roger Fraser).

The state statute explicitly contemplates the possibility of city employees serving on the EDB, but places a limit on their number at three:

(2) The board of directors of the corporation shall consist of not less than 9 persons, not more than 3 of whom shall be an officer or employee of the municipality. The chief executive officer and any member of the governing body of the municipality may serve on the board of directors. … [.pdf of Act 338 of 1974, Economic Development Corporations Act]

Outcome: The council voted to approve Crawford and Powers as members of the city’s economic development board, with dissent from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Mayoral Nominations: Eli Cooper to AATA Board

The council considered the nomination of the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Cooper is filling the vacancy on the AATA board left by Sue McCormick.

McCormick has left her post at the city of Ann Arbor as public services area administrator to take a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. McCormick’s last day on the job was Dec. 16. City administrator Steve Powers announced at the council’s Dec. 5 meeting that the city’s head of systems planning, Craig Hupy, will fill in for McCormick on an interim basis. Powers reported that Hupy had no interest in the permanent position.

McCormick’s last AATA board meeting was Dec. 15. On that occasion, she was presented the AATA’s traditional token of appreciation for board service: a mailbox marked up to resemble an AATA bus.

Cooper’s city position as transportation program manager falls under the city’s systems planning unit. The council previously appointed Cooper to serve on the AATA board on June 20, 2005. He served through June 2008, and was replaced on the board by current board chair Jesse Bernstein.

When Cooper previously served on the AATA board, his and McCormick’s service prompted an op-ed in The Ann Arbor News criticizing the appointment of city employees to citizen boards. [.pdf of "Let's Stick With Autonomous Appointees for Citizen Boards"]

Mayor John Hiefjte led off deliberations on Cooper’s appointment by noting that it’s preferred that members of city boards and commissions be city residents – but sometimes people have unique expertise, and he cited a member of the city’s energy commission as an example of that.

Hieftje said he believed Cooper fits that additional requirement – he doesn’t know of anybody who has a better understanding of mass transit than Cooper. He said he hoped councilmembers would look on the nomination favorably.

By way of background, the city charter stipulates the residency requirement for all city officers, but allows for the waiver of the requirement with a seven-vote majority on the 11-member city council [emphasis added]:

Eligibility for City Office–General Qualifications
SECTION 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

Though the charter stipulates a seven-vote requirement, it’s commonly believed throughout the city’s organization to be an eight-vote requirement. For example, Hieftje noted that the outcome on Cooper’s vote had satisfied the “eight-vote requirement,” even with two dissenting votes and the early departure from the meeting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Outcome: The council voted 8-2 for Cooper’s nomination to the AATA board, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) dissenting, and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) absent from the table.

Mayoral Nominations: Opposing City Employee Nominations

The council was asked to consider a resolution opposing the nomination of city employees to serve on boards and commissions. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying he wanted to bring forward the resolution as a separate policy issue from Eli Cooper’s nomination to the AATA board. Kunselman offered his perspective as a former township administrator – in Wayne County’s Sumpter Township from 1998 to 2003 – noting that he served as the employee of seven elected officials.

Kunselman noted that the definition of “office” includes the idea of a special duty, charge, or a position conferred for a public purpose. The AATA board appointment, he said, was not just any sort of appointment – members of that board vote on the hiring and firing of the AATA’s CEO.

Kunselman cited a city charter provision that appears to define what an employee is: “The personnel of the City, other than the elective and appointive officers, shall be deemed City employees.” For an employee who is also an appointed official, Kunselman wondered – if he wanted to communicate with that person – whether that person was a political appointee or an employee.

Kunselman said it was important because of an administrative policy signed back in 1993 by then-assistant city administrator Robert Bauman, which addresses the issue of employee contact with elected officials. The point of the policy, Kunselman said, is: “To ensure accountability, consistency and accuracy of information provided to elected officials.” Kunselman read aloud most of the document, which addresses how responses to requests for information from elected officials to city employees should follow the chain of command:

4. Procedure
…
4.4 Requests for policy-related information from elected officials or their staff should be submitted through the City Administrator’s Office.

Kunselman then read the resolution in its entirety. [.pdf of resolution as presented on Dec. 19, 2011]

When Kunselman, as an elected official, wanted to communicate with Eli Cooper, wondered Kunselman, would Kunselman interact with him in Cooper’s guise as a “political appointee” or as a city employee? Kunselman wanted to know if he would need to go through the city administrator in order to talk to Cooper. Kunselman then caught himself, and recalled that he had not wanted to talk about Cooper’s appointment specifically.

Kunselman noted that previously there’d been a city employee [Sue McCormick] who served on the AATA board when six feet of land was purchased from the city by the AATA. He wondered if that employee had recused themselves from the discussion – Kunselman said he didn’t know because he wasn’t there and didn’t know if it was reported on. He wondered if the employee had insider information on the purchase price? [It does not appear that the AATA board actually voted on the land acquisition. The Chronicle has no record of it in its reporting and a vote is not reflected in a search of the AATA website for all board resolutions. The cost of the strip of land was $90,000, which falls under the $100,000 amount that the board is required to vote on.]

At the left is Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager, seated next to Craig Hupy, head of systems planning and interim public services area administrator. Obscured behind the two men is Tom McMurtrie, the city's solid waste manager.

Kunselman acknowledged there are certain positions that allow for staff to be appointed – as with the economic development board. He said he was willing to amend the resolved clause to read, “except where authorized by statute.”

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wanted to know why Kunselman had read aloud the entire resolution. Kunselman explained that he’d read the most recent version – it had been changed since its initial online publication.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who co-sponsored the resolution, expressed the concern that this type of appointment is not sound government practice. The basis of the objection, she said, is similar to the concern that a blue ribbon commission had expressed about the makeup of the city’s pension board. Employee members, the blue ribbon commission had concluded, had undue influence on the pension board. [Ann Arbor voters approved a charter amendment this past November altering the composition of that board in response to the recommendation of the blue ribbon commission made six years ago.]

Lumm allowed that there could be instances where having a staff member with relevant expertise could be beneficial to a board – she wouldn’t be opposed to having such a person as an ex officio non-voting member. But when someone opines on an issue, that’s advocacy, and that poses a potential conflict of interest, she said.

But the bottom line for Lumm was that for every city employee who is appointed to a board or commission, that’s one less citizen who’s engaged. The city should be trying to create more engagement, more independence, a “fresh-eyes” approach. Appointing city employees fosters a like-minded group think, she said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she couldn’t support the resolution. She couldn’t see the conflict of interest or even an appearance of one. She questioned the last “whereas” clause – “Whereas, Mayoral nominated City of Ann Arbor employees serving as appointive officers are not granted the same rights, privileges, and protections as their co-workers;” – and wondered how the concern could be wrapped in the guise of protecting the employees who might be appointed. She asked Kunselman to explain that, but was emphatic about the fact that she was not relinquishing the floor – rather just allowing Kunselman to comment.

Kunselman explained that elected officials are supposed to work with staff through a chain of command. When an employee is taken out of that chain of command, Kunselman wondered if the employee could be subject to disciplinary action. Kunselman noted the council-manager form of government under which the city is run by a city administrator, not the mayor. Kunselman said he’d been challenged in the past as an elected official – a city councilmember – about whether he was telling a staff member what to do. He contended he had not told a staff member what to do, but wondered if an employee would enjoy protection from the direction of elected officials if they were an appointee to a board or commission. Smith did not seem impressed, telling Kunselman, “That’ll do.” She said she didn’t find Kunselman’s explanation convincing.

Smith also wondered how many such appointments – of city employees to boards – were actually made. Alluding to the appointment of CFO Tom Crawford and city administrator Steve Powers to the economic development board and to Eli Cooper’s appointment to the AATA board, Hieftje said he thought the council had just voted for all three such appointments. From the audience, Craig Hupy – head of systems planning for the city, and interim public services area administrator – noted that he’d sat as treasurer on the board of the Huron River Watershed Council as a mayoral appointment.

Smith noted that the resolution was written to apply to all boards and commissions, so it would in any case need to be modified. There are good opportunities that would otherwise be lost to have expertise added to a board. She didn’t want to lose that opportunity through the resolution. Smith concluded that she couldn’t even begin to think about supporting the resolution.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said the resolution raises some interesting issues. He contended that “conflict of interest” is a loaded phrase – that’s a term of art in the law. The word “office” is also an important term, he said. For the first term, the state has a conflict of interest statute and for the second the state has an incompatibility of public office statute, he noted. Derezinski said he’d like to have an opinion from the city attorney on the question of whether either statute is applicable – the council should comply with state law, he said. [.pdf of conflict of interest statute] [.pdf of incompatible public offices statute]

City attorney Stephen Postema was not able to provide a view on the matter at the meeting, and said he would have to review it further.

Derezinki noted that there are also hundreds of attorney general opinions on the subject, and it would be worth looking at those opinions. He reiterated his view that “conflict of interest” is a loaded term, saying it’s pejorative. For that reason, he said, he wanted to be very careful in using that term, and he couldn’t vote for the resolution.

Kunselman responded to Derezinski by citing a book chapter on the subject written by some local Ann Arbor attorneys. Kunselman ventured that the council would never get a straight answer right now about whether there is a conflict of interest, and he noted that the phrasing of the resolution uses “appearance” of a conflict. Kunselman then read aloud the passage from Chapter 52 of “Michigan Public Employment and Labor Relations Law.”

Public officials and employees are often faced with competing demands for their time and energy. Regardless of the number of directions in which such individuals are pulled, however, it is crucial that they strive to maintain high ethical standards when carrying out the duties of their offices. … Because each situation is unique, however, it is impossible to provide specific guidance for every possible situation that may arise, and it is important to consult with a knowledgeable and experienced attorney if it appears that the potential for a conflict of interest exists. [.pdf of Chapter 52]

Based on his experience working in Wayne County, Kunselman said, what is unethical isn’t always illegal. Kunselman said he’s specifically concerned about appointments to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, because they’re taxing authorities or receive federal funds. [The DDA is not technically a taxing authority, but rather is enabled to capture a portion of the taxes of other taxing authorities. The transportation millage that benefits the AATA is levied by the city of Ann Arbor and is "passed through" to the AATA.]

Kunselman wondered what would happen if there’s a labor disagreement – what if a city employee is a member of the AATA, and there’s a disagreement with the director of the AATA? Will an employee of the city be allowed to vote on the four-party agreement, to which the city and the AATA are both parties? Kunselman said these issues require serious review so that there are no concerns. The best way to have no concerns is to have arms-length nominations, he said. Kunselman said he was risk averse and therefore he opposed city employees as nominees to boards and commissions.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he was supportive of the resolution because of the term “appearance” of a conflict of interest. He noted that he’d voted for Cooper’s appointment, because he knows Cooper personally. If it had been someone else, he said, he may not have voted that way. He observed that he serves on the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) but that his position is non-voting. Still, he said, he thinks he influences people in that ex officio capacity.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she’d previously opposed the appointment of a country transportation planner to the AATA board. [She voted against the appointment of Anya Dale on May 17, 2010.] Briere explained that she’d voted that way because she believed it would be difficult to wear multiple hats – as a member of the AATA board and as a member of the county planning staff. It’s difficult not to want to appoint qualified people, she said, but she concluded that to her it was clear that at least four members of the council [those who'd co-sponsored the resolution] would like the mayor to broaden his scope in selecting nominees.

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) was visibly annoyed during remarks made by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) about the possible appearance of a conflict of interest.

Lumm again noted that the conflict of interest issue is a concern, but for her it’s about engaging more citizens. During her election campaign, she said, she spent a lot of time knocking on doors and she was asked about the AATA board at a fair number of residences. Lumm said she was not sure that residents know how to apply for boards or commissions.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who had shown outward signs of irritation as his wardmate Kunselman had spoken earlier, then began to deliver some prepared remarks of his own. The best that can be said about the resolution, Taylor contended, is that it’s a solution in search of a problem. The resolution speaks of conflicts of interest, but does not identify any, he said.

Each nomination deserves to be considered on its own merits, Taylor said. There’d been an effort to extricate this policy issue from Cooper’s nomination, but Taylor contended it’s inappropriate to do so. Cooper’s nomination is what puts it into focus, he said, and the effect of the resolution would have meant the loss of Cooper to AATA board and that loss would have been substantial. In the era of government cooperation, someone with subject matter expertise is not just good for AATA, he said, it’s good for the city of Ann Arbor. Cross-pollination, Taylor said, is good.

While all that is the best that can be said about the resolution, continued Taylor, that’s not all that should be said. Taylor claimed there’s a tendency in Ann Arbor to make vague and false assertions of unethical behavior. That discourages participation and cheapens public discourse, he said. It causes us to focus on false issues – on hypothetical failings. Instead, he said, we should focus on our challenges and fulfilling our aspirations. He concluded that it’s a misguided resolution and said he’d be voting no.

Hieftje took exception to Kunselman’s characterization of the appointment to the AATA board as a “political appointment.” Hieftje stated that this is just the way the city charter reads and that the appointment to the AATA is no more a political appointment than an appointment to the ZBA.

Hieftje said he doesn’t see the difference between the appointment of a city employee to the AATA, and other appointments where a statute might explicitly allow an employee to serve. As an example, he noted that the state enabling legislation for downtown development authorities requires the mayor or city administrator to serve on the DDA board. [Hieftje serves on the DDA board.]

At the May 5, 2010 Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting, because of the opinion rendered by DDA legal counsel Jerry Lax, mayor John Hieftje took a seat in the audience between former DDA board member Bob Gillette and Adrian Iraola, of Park Avenue Consulting.

Last spring, Hieftje said, as the city and the DDA went though protracted negotiations, he had voted a couple of times on issues involving the city’s finances as well as the DDA’s. Hieftje then claimed that at no time was he determined by the city attorney or the DDA attorney to have a conflict of interest – because he was required to be on the board by state statute.

By way of background, Hieftje did participate in all the votes in the spring of 2011. However, a year earlier he was recused for one vote – against his own wishes. While Hieftje accurately depicted the opinion of the Ann Arbor city attorney for the votes in 2010, the opinion expressed at the May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting by the DDA’s legal counsel, Jerry Lax, was that for one particular vote, Hieftje needed to recuse himself. And Hiefjte left the board table to sit out that one vote as a member of the audience.

Outcome: The resolution failed, with support only from Lumm, Kunselman, Anglin and Briere.

Pay Increase for Poll Workers

On the agenda was a resolution to increase the pay for election inspectors – those who work at the polls on election day to verify the registration of voters and to handle all other duties associated with ensuring compliance with election laws at each precinct.

The proposed increases are as follows: election inspector from $8 to $9/hour; floater from $8.50 to $9.50/hour; chairperson from $11.25 to $12/hour; and absent voter count board supervisor from $14 to $14.50/hour. According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, prepared by the city clerk’s office, the increase in pay is expected to cost $2,000 in a local election and $8,000 in a presidential election. For the upcoming 2012 presidential election, the increase would total $5,000 – a cost that will be reimbursed by the state.

The justification for the increase in pay for Ann Arbor’s election inspectors was based on comparative pay with other nearby jurisdictions. For example, the raise for election inspectors from $8 to $9 now matches what the city of Ypsilanti pays.

After the raise, however, the proposed compensation for election inspectors would still fall short of the amount set forth in Ann Arbor’s living wage policy, which the city itself is not obliged to follow. By ordinance, the wages paid by city contractors to their workers must meet minimum thresholds that are adjusted each year, based on federal poverty guidelines. In May of 2011, the new living wage minimums were set at $11.83/hour for those employers paying health insurance, and $13.19/hour for those employers not paying health insurance.

When the council deliberated on the issue, the living wage factored into the council’s decision to postpone the election inspectors’ pay raise.

When the council came to the item on its agenda, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered why the increase did not go all the way to the level of the living wage? The microphone-less city clerk’s comments in response to Briere weren’t easily audible, but seemed to address the issue of why any increase was being proposed at all – it had been several years since one had been given.

Briere first suggested that the resolution be altered to reflect the living wage. At mayor John Hieftje’s suggestion, she agreed to change her motion to a postponement. The council will receive a budget impact calculation for the additional increase to the living wage level before it votes.

Outcome: The council unanimously postponed the vote on the increase in poll worker compensation.

City Attorney Performance Review, Contract Amendment

In a closed session held toward the end of the meeting, the council reviewed the purchase of land and conducted a performance review for 2011 for the city attorney, Stephen Postema.

From the left: Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) chats with city attorney Stephen Postema.

Personnel evaluations and the purchase of land are each permissible reasons for a closed session under under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The position of city attorney is one of two positions that report directly to the council – the other is the city administrator. Under Michigan’s OMA, reviews of personnel are allowed to be conducted in a closed session on request from the employee, but are not required to be. However, Postema’s contract contains a clause specifying that: “The results of the evaluation shall be in writing and shall be discussed with the Employee in closed session.”

Around 10 minutes into the closed session, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) emerged from the council workroom adjoining the chambers where the council holds such sessions, and took her seat at the council table. Asked by The Chronicle if the session was done, she indicated that she was done, but the other councilmembers were not – she had felt “blindsided” by what she was asked to consider and did not choose to participate in the closed session discussion.

When the rest of the councilmembers eventually emerged from the closed session, Margie Teall (Ward 4) read a resolution amending the city’s contract with Postema, which allows him to cash-in up to 250 hours of accrued banked time before June 30, 2012.

Briere asked how the resolution differed from the one approved by the council just two months previously, when the council also held a closed session to review Postema’s performance. The explanation offered to Briere was that the performance review conducted at the Oct. 24, 2011 meeting had been just for 2009-10. That review also did not result in any adjustment to Postema’s base salary, but also allowed him to cash-in up to 250 hours of accrued banked time before the end of 2011.

Briere then questioned whether the council’s administration committee had provided other councilmembers with an opportunity to offer feedback on Postema’s performance since the Oct. 24 review. [The council's administration committee, which by custom reviews the input of other councilmembers on personnel evaluations, met earlier that day. The committee consists of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), mayor John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) sat alone at the council table as her colleagues conducted a closed session on the review of the city attorney's performance. The door to the workroom where the council conducts its closed sessions is visible behind her.

Briere noted that councilmembers not on the administration committee had been given an opportunity to provide their view on Postema’s performance before the Oct. 24 review, but that review had specifically been just through 2010. And Briere did not recall being given an opportunity to provide additional feedback since October for the current review – which included 2011. When Briere asked if she had simply not seen the solicitation for feedback, none of the members of the council’s administration committee could point to an occasion when feedback had been solicited during that time period. Hieftje offered that sometimes all the forms are confusing.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wondered whether she should participate in the vote, given that she was newly elected to the council in November – she had not been a part of the council for much of the period of Postema’s review. Postema told her that the vote was on his contract going forward. Lumm participated in the vote.

Outcome: The council voted, with dissent from Briere, to approve the contract amendment for Postema, which allows him to cash in 250 hours of banked leave time before June 30, 2012.

Drop-Off Recycling Contract

The council was asked to consider approval of a contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to continue the operation of the drop-off recycling center on the city-owned property at 2950 E. Ellsworth Road, with no financial support from the city.

Previously, the drop-off station was supported by three municipalities: the city of Ann Arbor ($30,000), Washtenaw County ($50,000) and Pittsfield Township ($7,500).

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, when Washtenaw County withdrew its support in 2009, Recycle Ann Arbor declined support from the other governmental units – because it would have required tracking where users lived in order to determine the appropriate use charge. Roughly 60% of the users of the facility live outside Ann Arbor. Recycle Ann Arbor now charges a $3 entry fee, in addition to the specific drop-off charges for specific kinds of items. For example, the charge for dropping off a car tire is $5 – with the $3 entry fee, it would total $8.

The previous contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to operate the drop-off facility expired nearly two years ago, on Jan. 1, 2010. The new contract is retroactive to that date.

The staff memo for the agenda item notes some significant sinking of the southeast corner of the building at the facility, but indicates there is no immediate danger. Still, building repairs are recommended.

During the brief council deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said the contract sounds fine, but contended that the city is subsidizing other municipalities. She asked for cost estimates for the recommended building repair – less than $10,000, said Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste manager. McMurtrie said he was not aware of any other needed capital repair expenses associated with the drop-off station.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to operate the drop-off station.

Solar Money

The council was asked to vote on a resolution accepting an additional $20,000 in federal funds from the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). Of that amount, $17,500 will be applied to a contract with the Clean Energy Coalition for its XSeed Energy community solar program. The remaining $2,500 will go to the city of Ann Arbor to cover grant administration and oversight costs.

The original grant from the USDOE, as part of the Solar America Cities Project, was made in July 2007 for $200,000. According to a staff memo, Ann Arbor has secured commitments from 11 local organizations for various matching funds for an additional $355,008.

The city’s energy coordinator, Andrew Brix, was invited to the podium to give a brief overview. He highlighted the solar panels on top of city hall and the justice center, as well as the solar thermal hot water units, which he said a lot of people are not aware of.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the acceptance of the additional grant money.

Reimbursement for MRF Magnet

Before the council for its consideration was authorization of a reimbursement of $94,788 to the company that operates its materials recovery facility (MRF) for costs of replacing an electromagnet that failed back in February 2011.

RRS Inc. made the request for reimbursement in September. The electromagnet is used to separate metal from other material. The reimbursement will be made from the city’s MRF capitalized renewal and replacement account.

During deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) got clarification from the city’s solid waste manager, Tom McMurtrie, that of the $230,000 in the MRF capital fund, the city had contributed $22,000 and RRS had put in $207,000. He explained that the contributions are based on a per-ton basis for material brought into the center. The city contributes $2/ton for its material, and RRS puts in $4/ton for the non-city material that it brings in.

Lumm wanted to know if the $230,000 will be sufficient for the coming year. Yes, said McMurtrie. Lumm said she applauds trying to save money by using the old magnet in the new single-stream system. McMurtrie said that when the switch was made to the single-stream system, extensive testing of the magnet had been done, but it developed a leak from a weld that was not visible during testing. Once the magnet was installed, it was expensive to get it out of the building – it had to be lifted through the roof with a crane, McMurtrie said.

Bond Re-Funding

The council was asked to consider approval of issuance by the city of re-funding bonds in the amount of $2,400,000 in order to refinancing the $2,230,000 outstanding principal amount on bonds issued to pay for the Fourth and William parking structure project. The refinancing is estimated to yield a savings of approximately $195,000 over the next 10 years.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that she’d support the resolution but asked that the word “refund” be spelled with a hyphen.

City treasurer Matt Horning explained that the reason the resolution had to come quickly was that municipal bond interest rates had fallen, and the city needed to initiate the 45-day referendum period. The process was compared to refinancing a mortgage on a house.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) confirmed with Horning that the city is not extending the maturities of the bonds. Said Horning, “That’s against the law.” Lumm thanked Horning for identifying the opportunity to save the city some money.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the re-funding of the bonds.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Vacant Properties

Mayor John Hieftje reported that he’d had a meeting with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and they’d be bringing legislation forward in January to address some of the frustration with abandoned and boarded-up properties. One problem is that the city needs a funding source, in order to take action. In October of 2012, Hieftje said, it was expected that a fund could be established as a result of the resolution of the Michigan Inn situation. Hieftje said he expected to bring a resolution to front load a fund to take care of dilapidated properties, and then pay the general fund back in October. Hieftje said he expected it would be enough to deal with 8-10 problem properties.

Comm/Comm: Property Tax

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she wanted to plant the seed of changing the requirement of when residents must pay their property taxes. In other communities, there’s usually an option to do it at the end of a year or early the following year. City treasurer Matt Horning and the city’s CFO Tom Crawford discovered that there’s really no downside for the city to allow people to pay their taxes early in the following year – the only loser on this is the IRS, Lumm said. However, she said it would require a charter amendment to change the requirement. Nevertheless, she said, she’d be pursuing it.

City administrator Steve Powers, left, and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) shared a light moment before the Dec. 19 meeting started.

During his communications, city administrator Steve Powers noted that this year, because Dec. 31 falls on a Saturday, the deadline for winter taxes is Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2012.

Comm/Comm: Immigration

Lourdes Salazar Bautista appeared before the council to thank councilmembers for their support in her fight to stay in the U.S. She had faced deportation on Dec. 27. She reported that on Dec. 13 she’d received word that her deportation had been delayed for one year. Laura Sanders of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR) also spoke in to the council on the issue.

Sanders told the council that it was not clear what action had been persuasive enough to achieve the delay, but so many pancakes were thrown against the wall that one finally stuck, she said. Sanders said she was pleased that Bautista’s case has spurred further action to oppose trumped-up immigration charges. Ann Arbor’s close proximity to Canada means that the immigrant population is vulnerable, she said. However, she ventured that “we can be a very sticky syrupy pancake and throw ourselves against the wall of injustice.” Ann Arbor can repeatedly send Washington D.C. the message that it opposes excessive enforcement. She asked the council over the holidays to look at a draft of a resolution that they’ll be asked to support related to this issue.

Mary Anne Perrone introduced herself as a longtime resident of Ann Arbor. She noted that she’d addressed the council before opposing Arizona’s immigration law. As a member of her worshiping community, she thanked the council for its support. She attributed the problem not to any failure to secure U.S borders, but to an insatiable demand for drugs in the U.S.

Comm/Comm: Spirit of Christmas

Thomas Partridge told the council to let the spirit of Christmas give rise to responsive government. There are too many residents without housing, transportation, healthcare and jobs – the things that make life rewarding and give it purpose. He called on everyone to put forward good will and eradicate discrimination.

At the end of the meeting, Partridge returned to the podium to deliver a general rebuke of the council, saying there is the appearance of corruption and evil.

Comm/Comm: Coordinated Funding

Lily Au introduced herself as an Ann Arbor resident. She asked the council two questions: (1) Is government a business or a mission? (2) Do we live only for ourselves or do we also give back? Au said that it is possible to do more than we are. She criticized the coordinated funding approach for human services that the city uses, saying that Washtenaw County, which is a partner in coordinated funding, shortchanges the city.

During her communications time, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the council had heard a number of times from Au about coordinated funding and Au’s contention that the city might be getting the short end. Smith said she’d worked with Margie Teall (Ward 4) on the coordinated funding process. Smith said it’s allowed the strongest nonprofits to do capacity-building and she characterized it as a “wild success.”

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, Jan. 9, 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!

From left: Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting talks with Jeff Kahan of the city's planning staff about proposed changes at Traver Village. (Photos by the writer.)

The owner, First Martin Corp., plans to reconfigure retail space that the Blockbuster video store previously occupied, at the southern part of the complex near Plymouth Road, converting it into three smaller retail spaces.

Plans call for adding a new 25-space parking lot to serve that location, between the south side of the building and Plymouth. Elsewhere within the complex, 128 parking spaces will be removed – primarily in the northwest area behind the Kroger grocery. More bike spaces and landscaping are part of the plan as well, which was approved unanimously by commissioners after brief discussion. It will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Communications during the 30-minute meeting included a reminder of a series of public forums on sustainability starting early next year. The first one, on Thursday, Jan. 12, will feature a panel of city staff on the topic of resource management. All forums will be held at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building, 343 S. Fifth Ave., beginning at 7 p.m. It’s part of a broader sustainability initiative that began earlier this year, funded by a Home Depot Foundation grant.

Traver Village Site Plan

The only action item on Tuesday’s agenda was a site plan for changes at Traver Village, a shopping center owned by First Martin Corp. at 2601 Plymouth Road, on the northwest corner of Plymouth and Nixon.

The southern-most store in the complex, nearest to Plymouth Road, formerly housed a Blockbuster video outlet but has been vacant for more than a year. The owners plan to convert it into three smaller retail spaces, with entrances from the south side of the building. As part of that change, they want to build a new 25-space parking lot between the south side of the building and Plymouth.

In addition, the plan calls for removing 128 parking spaces in other parts of the site, mostly in the northwest area behind the Kroger grocery, where a shallow bio-retention area will be built instead. Other parking spots will be removed and replaced with landscaped islands. Overall, the number of parking spots will be reduced from 609 to 506 – closer to the city’s maximum parking requirement of 492 spots for that development, according to a staff report.

The site plan for changes at Traver Village indicate where parking will be added and removed. Plymouth Road runs along the right side of this map, with Nixon Road at the top. (Links to larger image.)

The new parking area will cover 9,530 square feet, but 16,334 square feet of impervious surface elsewhere in the complex will be eliminated. The result is a net reduction in impervious surface of 6,804 square feet. To build the new parking lot, 13 evergreen trees will be removed. The plan calls for planting 46 new trees, and adding new landscaping between the edge of the new parking lot and Plymouth Road.

More bike spaces will also be added. Currently there are 38 uncovered bike spaces throughout the complex. The plan calls for adding 22 covered bike spaces and 26 more uncovered spaces.

The staff report on this proposal notes that the developer is required to pay $3,075.15 into a street tree escrow account, to conform with Chapter 57 Attachment C of Ann Arbor’s city code. The escrow fund is for the planting and maintenance of trees on the public street right-of-way abutting a development. The fee must be paid before the city issues building permits.

Eric Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting and Chris Grant of First Martin Corp. attended the Dec. 20 meeting. No one spoke at a public hearing on the plan.

Traver Village Site Plan: Commissioner Discussion

Bonnie Bona clarified with city planner Jeff Kahan that new trees would be located on the northern side of the sidewalk – Kahan indicated that the city’s forester preferred that location so that the trees wouldn’t interfere with utility lines. Bona noted that from a pedestrian’s perspective, it’s preferable to have trees between the sidewalk and the street. Placing trees so that there’s no conflict with utility lines does not comply with the concept of “complete streets,” she said.

By way of background, at its March 7, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council adopted a resolution expressing its commitment to the concept of “complete streets” – the idea that streets should be constructed to accommodate a full range of users, from pedestrians, to bicyclists, to public transit vehicles, to privately owned automobiles. The impetus for the city’s proclamation came from the state of Michigan’s enactment in 2010 of Public Acts 134 and 135, which amended the state’s planning enabling statute and the transportation funding law. The city’s resolution was meant to ensure that Ann Arbor continued to qualify for state transportation funding.

Bona said she hoped that in the future, the city can head in the direction of the “complete streets” approach.

Tony Derezinski noted that the staff report mentioned the owner had mailed out 786 postcards to nearby residents, but that no one had responded. “That says a lot,” Derezinski said, adding that the complex is located in Ward 2, which Derezinski represents on city council.

Ophoff said most of the residents live in multi-family complexes, and getting no response is not uncommon.

Derezinski also wondered whether the Traver Village entrance onto Nixon Road was near the roundabout there. It is, Ophoff said, but the reconfiguration and new parking in the complex isn’t expected to change the traffic patterns there. The entrances off Plymouth Road are used the most.

Diane Giannola asked where the new bike spots will be located. The bike spaces will be spread along the eastern and southeastern frontage of the shopping center, Ophoff said.

Outcome: Planning commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Traver Village site plan. It will now be forwarded to city council for approval. No further approval is required.

Misc. Communications

There are several opportunities for public commentary and communications from staff and planning commissioners during any meeting. On Tuesday, no one spoke during public commentary.

Misc. Communications: Sustainability Forums

Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff reminded commissioners of the upcoming series of public forums on the topic of sustainability. All will be held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library building, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

• Jan. 12, 2012: Resource Management – including natural areas, waste reduction, recycling, compost, local food systems, water and air quality. Panelists will include Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator; Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resource planning coordinator; Tom McMurtrie, Ann Arbor’s solid waste coordinator; and Dave Borneman, manager of the city’s natural area preservation program.
• Feb. 9, 2012: Land Use and Access – including transportation designs, infrastructure, land uses, built environment, and public spaces.
• March 8, 2012: Climate and Energy – including an overview of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, climate impacts, renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation.
• April 12, 2012: Community – including housing, public safety, public art, recreation, outreach, civic engagement, and stewardship of community resources.

The four forums reflect categories in a framework that the city is developing to organize its existing goals as they relate to sustainability. The project, which began earlier this year, is being led by Jamie Kidwell and funded by a $95,000 grant the city received from the Home Depot Foundation. Four city commissions – park, planning, energy and environmental – participated in a Sept. 27, 2011 joint working session focused on prioritizing existing goals for the city that touch on sustainability issues. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage of Kidwell's briefing at the Nov. 15 park advisory commission meeting.]

Misc. Communications: Public Notice of Land Division

As an item of information, planning commission chair Eric Mahler read a public notice of a request to divide a 2.8-acre parcel at 500 Huron Parkway into two parcels. Access to both parcels is to be provided via a shared driveway from Huron Parkway. Public input on the land division can be made by calling the planning staff at 734-794-6265, or emailing planning@a2gov.org. The deadline for feedback is Jan. 11, 2012.

Land division requests are handled administratively by the city planning staff, and do not require planning commission action.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Erica Briggs, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Thursday, Jan. 5, 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 do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces.

According to city planning staff, there are several changes in the plan since the commission last considered it. The developer is working with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Washtenaw and Platt. MDOT has signed a letter stating that it is supportive of the signal, but details of design and financing haven’t yet been worked out. In addition, the developer has indicated willingness to locate a bus pullout on property along the west side of Platt Road – the location preferred by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

The developer is also working to obtain a letter from the property owner south of the site, granting permission to extend the curb radius of the Platt Road driveway within 4.5 feet of the neighbor’s property. The site plan will not be forwarded to city council for approval until that permission is granted, according to city staff.

The city’s brownfield plan review committee has recommended that the project’s brownfield plan be approved by city council. The brownfield plan involves cleaning up three areas of contaminated soil on the site.

The site plan and brownfield plan will now be forwarded to the Ann Arbor city council for approval.

This brief was filed from city hall’s council chambers at 301 E. Huron St., where the planning commission meets. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Stephen Ranzini looks up at the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl, during a public reception and dedication for the piece at city hall on Tuesday evening. Ranzini, president of University Bank, later attended a planning commission meeting inside city hall, where he told commissioners that No Parking signs are ugly. It's not clear what he thought about the sculpture.

Changes to a University Bank site plan for property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion, were approved unanimously, despite some concerns voiced by neighbors during a public hearing on the proposal. The changes – which primarily relate to creation of a new parking lot – required amending the supplemental regulations of the site’s planned unit development (PUD) zoning district originally approved in 1978.

Also back for review was The Varsity, a proposed “planned project” consisting of a 13-story apartment building with 181 units at 425 E. Washington, between 411 Lofts and the First Baptist Church. Intended for students, it’s the first project to go through the city’s new design review process. Only minor changes had been made since the proposal was first considered at the planning commission’s Sept. 20 meeting.

Fourteen people spoke during a public hearing on The Varsity, including several residents of the nearby Sloan Plaza who raised concerns about traffic at the Huron Street entrance, as well as aesthetic issues with the building’s facade facing Huron. The project was supported by a paster pastor at the First Baptist Church and the head of the State Street merchant association.

In addition to public hearings held on these two projects, one person spoke during public commentary at the start of the meeting. Rick Stepanovic told commissioners that he’s a University of Michigan student, and that Wendy Rampson – head of the city’s planning staff – had spoken to one of his classes last year. Among other things, she’d mentioned the city’s need for more student input, he said. Since then he’s been elected to the Michigan Student Assembly, and was offering to provide that input, either as a resident – he lives in the neighborhood near Packard and Hill – or by taking an issue back to MSA for broader student feedback.

Stepanovic indicated his intent to attend future planning commission meetings, but noted that MSA meetings are held at the same time – on Tuesday evenings.

University Bank PUD

The planning commission first reviewed University Bank’s proposal at its Oct. 19, 2010 meeting. Bank officials had requested approval to revise a planned unit development (PUD), allowing an increase in the total number of employees and parking spaces permitted at the bank’s headquarters at 2015 Washtenaw Ave. – the site known as the Hoover Mansion. The proposal included a request to build 14 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 53 spaces on the site. At the time, planning staff recommended denial, stating that the project impacts natural features and doesn’t offer an overall benefit to the city, as required by a PUD.

Rather than denying the proposal, planning commissioners voted to postpone it and asked staff to work with the bank in finding an alternative parking option.

Nearly a year later, a revised proposal was on the agenda for the commission’s Sept. 8 meeting, reflecting a consensus that had been reached among planning staff, neighbors and bank officials. However, commissioners ended up postponing a recommendation again, because the final site plan had not yet been submitted by the bank.

By the Oct. 4 meeting, all pieces were in place. The proposal would increase the number of allowable employees from 50 to 59 at the bank’s headquarters and add a new parking lot on the site, with a setback of 24 feet from the eastern property line. That’s an additional nine feet away from the property line than originally proposed.

A continuous six-foot-high wall is proposed along the eastern and southeastern property lines, to screen the parking lot from 2021 Washtenaw Ave. and 2107-2109 Tuomy. Two landmark trees and 19 woodland trees totaling 186 caliper inches will be removed as part of the project, but the bank has proposed planting trees throughout the site totaling 223 caliper inches – more than is required.

The changes require amending the supplemental regulations of the site’s planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, which was originally approved in 1978.

University Bank: Public Hearing

Five people spoke during a public hearing on the proposal, including two representatives from the bank.

Dan Dever introduced himself as an attorney representing the Serwers, a couple who own a home that’s the closest residential property to the bank. He thanked planning staff for their work, but noted that there are two issues that are of serious concern to the Serwers. Nowhere in the supplemental regulations does it state that bank employees “shall not park on the driveway.” [The driveway into the Serwers' property is accessed via the bank's driveway.] He noted that for the past year, bank employees have been parking along the driveway leading to the bank building. Dever then read an excerpt from a letter that Ranzini had sent to the planning commission on Oct. 21, 2010, following the Oct. 20 planning commission meeting. From Ranzini’s letter:

We HATE the alternative proposal of building up berms that encroach into the lawn and parking spots alongside the driveway. This was foisted on us by the planning staff and at the suggestion of Kem-Tech, since it is the second least worst alternative to the proposed 13 unit parking lot. To illustrate to you and the neighbors how impractical the planning staff’s suggestion of parking alongside the driveway is and how this will damage the view shed, we will conduct the following experiment until the parking lot is approved: While previously we had taken a variety of measures to actively discourage our employees, visitors and bank examiners from parking in the driveway, we will remove those restrictions and encourage them to park there. I hope you have the opportunity to drive by over the next few weeks and take a look and how unsightly the cars in the front lawn area are.” [.pdf of Ranzini's letter]

Dever asked commissioners to add stronger language in the supplemental regulations: (1) adding that vehicles can’t be parked on either side of that driveway, and (2) requiring more than just one No Parking sign along that stretch. It’s important, he said, because bank officials “do not historically observe the written word.”

Ken Sprinkles of University Bank said he’s been working on this project for three years. The reason that cars are parked along the driveway is that there’s insufficient parking, he said. If the city approves additional parking, the bank would enforce a no-parking requirement along the driveway. The bank also plans to start issuing parking permit stickers for employee vehicles – that’s something they don’t currently do, Sprinkles said.

Gerald Serwer, who owns the home with a driveway that’s accessed via the bank’s driveway, told commissioners that changes to the bank’s site plan would affect the financial value of his home, as well as his ability to enjoy living there. If the bank has no intention of parking along the main driveway, he said, then it didn’t seem like bank officials should object to adding more No Parking signs. He also wanted to ensure that there’d be no parking along that driveway during construction of the new parking lot. Serwer also noted that he’s asked the bank to use stone veneer on the side of the 6-foot-high wall that faces their house, to match the house’s exterior. But the main issue is parking, he concluded.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, began by noting that the bank began this process 36 months ago. Since September, the bank has hired 30 people, he said, but only one of those is working in Ann Arbor. University Bank is the 11th largest employer of any bank in Michigan, he said, but job growth is happening at the bank’s offices in Farmington Hills and Clinton Township, instead of Ann Arbor, in part because of delays with this project.

Regarding No Parking signs, Ranzini said his preference is for one sign, because signs are ugly and affect the viewshed. In reference to the removal of trees, he noted that 100 years ago, the site was a sheep farm – every tree on the property is less than 100 years old. Regarding parking on the driveway, the bank started its “experiment” in having employees park along the driveway after the city requested alternatives to a new parking lot, he said. He wanted everyone to see what that would look like. And because the process to get approval has been so slow, he said, the experiment has lasted a year.

Ranzini urged the commission to approve the project, so that it can be considered by the city council. He hoped commissioners would do their part to help preserve an historic building, which he said is expensive to maintain. One of the biggest problems since the building was converted to offices in 1978 has been inadequate parking, he concluded.

Sheryl Serwer noted that it’s also been three years that she and her husband have been dealing with this issue – she first heard about it on her birthday three years ago. “Now I’m three years older and still worrying about it.” She said she’s come to accept the loss of trees on the site. But she’s still concerned about the parking – she’d like to get out of her driveway safely. In the winter, if it’s icy and there are cars parked on both sides of the entrance to her driveway, she said she’s afraid her car might slide into the parked vehicles. No Parking signs should be posted, she said, and parking shouldn’t be allowed there. She concluded by congratulating Ranzini for the growth of his business, and the recent birth of his child.

University Bank: Commission Discussion

Tony Derezinski began by asking planning staff to respond to the questions raised during public commentary, related to parking. How would the supplemental regulations be enforced? He said he thought the parties had reached an agreement – was this a new item?

Alexis DiLeo noted that this isn’t a public street – it’s not even a private street. It’s a driveway. The number of signs is discretional, she said, and the bank’s preference is for one sign.

If it meant that the project wouldn’t otherwise be approved, would the bank be willing to add another sign? Derezinski wondered. Ranzini said he wanted to make clear that bank employees didn’t start parking along the driveway until the planning staff suggested there might be a more viable alternative to the new parking lot. Parking in the driveway is ugly, he said. The experiment is done, so there won’t be parking there any longer. The bank might reluctantly put up another sign, he added, but signs are ugly.

Derezinski asked whether it would be possible to add the requirement of an additional sign in the supplemental regulations. “A beautiful one,” he quipped.

DiLeo suggested a possible place within the supplemental regulations to insert a sign requirement, and Derezinski made a motion to do that. Kirk Westphal clarified with DiLeo that previously, there was no mention of a sign at all. When asked about enforcement, DiLeo said a violation would be handled just like any other zoning violation – for example, if the bank removed a tree that had been stipulated to be preserved by the PUD’s supplemental regulations.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said the city wouldn’t ticket or tow cars parked on private property. If someone complained about a violation, the city could fine the property owner. She indicated that adding something like the sign requirement was highly unusual.

Derezinski then expressed frustration, saying ”it’s too bad we’re getting formal.” This shouldn’t be a problem, he said, but there’s been a lot of history regarding this project. He thought the parties had moved past that, but now they’re quibbling over a small thing.

Derezinski said he’d made a motion to amend the supplemental regulations so that everyone could reach resolution. But now he felt there’s a clear understanding of expectations, so he was withdrawing the motion to amend.

Evan Pratt hoped that people felt all of the issues were being addressed. When changes to a PUD are requested, it requires give and take, he observed. He applauded the bank’s parking experiment. The original thinking was that it would be good to avoid adding more pavement, he said, and the experiment tested whether other parking options were viable. It’s taken a year, but it sounds like they now have a good outcome, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of changes to the bank’s site plan and supplemental regulations. The project will now be forwarded to the city council.

The Varsity at Ann Arbor

At their Sept. 20, 2011 meeting, the planning commission had made an initial review of The Varsity, a 13-story building at 425 E. Washington, stretching from East Washington to East Huron in the block between South State and South Division. The proposed development is located east of the 411 Lofts building and west of the First Baptist Church, and is currently the site of a two-story office building that formerly housed the Prescription Shop. Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff told commissioners that the design hasn’t altered significantly since that meeting.

Minor modifications include narrowing the walkway on the building’s east side, mounting lights on the building instead of poles along the east side of the path, and removing decorative pillars at both ends of the walkway, previously proposed on the east side of the path and on the First Baptist Church property. Because the church is located in an historic district, any changes on its property would have required approval by the city’s historic district commission.

The main features of the project are unchanged. The 177,180-square-foot apartment building is to include 181 apartments with a total of 415 bedrooms, to be marketed to university students. The plan also calls for 70 parking spaces, both underground and on the street level, with entrances off of East Huron and East Washington. In addition, two spaces would be provided on adjacent property (owned by the same developer) to use for a car-sharing service like Zipcar. A total of 121 bike spaces are also proposed for the project.

The Varsity at Ann Arbor: Public Commentary

Fourteen people spoke during a public hearing on The Varsity.

Hugh Sonk spoke on behalf of the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association, and restated many of the concerns that he raised at the commission’s Sept. 20 meeting. Sloan Plaza is located at 505 E. Huron, just east and across the street from The Varsity site, and residents are concerned about the development’s impact on their quality of life. Specifically, they are concerned about increased traffic congestion as vehicles turn into the building’s Huron Street entrance.

People who currently have monthly parking permits at the existing site will be displaced, Sonk said, potentially causing parking problems in the area. Sonk’s final concern related to the Huron Street facade, which he described as bland. It doesn’t reflect the character of the adjacent historical buildings, he said, and it needs to be treated as an important front to one of the city’s major thoroughfares. The current design doesn’t do that, he said.

Ethel Potts, a former planning commissioner, described the public hearing as an important one, since it’s a new major building downtown and the first one that’s gone through the city’s new design review process. She noted that city officials have said the recent downtown zoning changes and design review process will be reviewed next spring, to see if it’s delivering what residents want.

This building and its review show some flaws in the process and in the city’s ordinances, she said. For one thing, the design review doesn’t deal with height and mass, Potts noted – and The Varsity isn’t compatible with the scale and character of surrounding buildings. How will the small, elegant, historic church live with a tall, broad wall along its lot line? Potts also pointed to a lack of green space in the design. “Weren’t we seeking downtown livability?” she asked.

Christine Crockett introduced herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and a member of the committee that helped write the city’s design guidelines. The design review board, neighbors and people who’ve spoken during public commentary have all been emphatic that design of The Varsity’s north facade is unacceptable, Crockett said. It’s been tweaked a little, but is essentially 13 stories of yellow brick that’s unrelieved by pattern, texture or sympathy with the surrounding character district, she said.

The building will be there for decades, Crockett noted, so it’s important to make it as attractive as possible, adding that the architect should be ashamed. The Varsity developer and design team have the chance to make that block of Huron Street better and more pedestrian friendly, she said. “There are ways they can do it, but they won’t.”

Another issue is the walkway on the building’s east side, Crockett said. The design review board had indicated this summer that the walkway is too narrow, but now the developer has narrowed it even more, she said. It’s going to be like a tunnel – unattractive and dangerous, she said.

Stephan Trendov, an urban planner, said he’s in favor of the project. This summer he had attended a 2.5-hour meeting about The Varsity at the Michigan Union, and the group there had spent time talking about the building facade and pedestrian walkway. The vision is to move pedestrians from Huron all the way to East Liberty, he said, but this walkway doesn’t do that. There are opportunities for improvements, like adding a pergola or landscaping. The community is watching, he said, and so far, the reaction to what’s been discussed hasn’t been impressive. There haven’t been enough changes.

Donnie Gross, the project’s developer, told commissioners that he’s proud of the project. He could have designed a box-like by-right project, he said, but they’ve done more than that. Despite what people during the public hearing have indicated, Gross said, he and the design team have listened to input and changed the design 20-30 times. Turning to some of the previous speakers, Gross told them that just because they didn’t get everything they want doesn’t mean he hasn’t listened and made changes.

One of the first things his team did was to meet with the neighboring church, Gross said. It’s important to get the church’s approval, because they’ll be neighbors for the next 100 years. They’ll also be asking the church for an easement, so that the walkway on the east side of The Varsity can be widened, he said.

Gross said he’s not opposed to retail in the building, but he’s seen the difficulty that the neighboring 411 Lofts has had in finding tenants. “I’m opposed to retail that’s empty.” Instead, The Varsity is designed so that residents of the building will be like a “3-D billboard,” using a fitness area and lounge in the lower levels. The building would look naked and drab if the first floor were dark, but as long as there is light and activity, it doesn’t matter if the activity is someone getting a pizza or using a computer. The Varsity will add life to East Washington, he said. He noted that the plaza area on East Washington will include a green roof.

Noting that he owns the historic house next to The Varsity site, Gross told commissioners that even the soil beneath the house is declared historic, so he’s unable to excavate it. If he could excavate, he could add more underground parking and have only one entrance – but that’s not possible. He concluded by noting that citizens can say anything to make developers look bad, but there are reasons behind these decisions.

Maurice Binkow, another Sloan Plaza resident, said he joined others in objecting to the unsightly design of The Varsity’s Huron facade, along a road with so many distinguished buildings. He also expressed concern about the Huron entrance into the parking garage, noting that cars would likely be backed up onto Huron as they wait to enter. It would also be a problem for cars coming out onto Huron, if they were making a lefthand turn. He asked that the developer put a lease restriction in place that would prevent left turns onto Huron.

Noting that she is Maurice Binkow’s wife, Linda Binkow said that some of the city’s greatest assets are the properties along Huron Street– they are an exceptionally attractive and valuable part of the city. The city collects tax revenues from those properties, she added. Putting a building like The Varsity on Huron will cause traffic problems and greatly decrease the value of property in that area, she said. It’s not in the city’s interest to do that. She suggested that the building could be designed with a setback, and additional stories.

Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, observed that The Varsity could be built by-right, and that although the design review is mandatory, compliance is voluntary. He said he respected the views of neighbors in the area and residents of Sloan Plaza, but noted that the association’s board has reviewed the building plans and had voted unanimously in support of it. The association has been told that parking spaces will be freed up in Tally Hall [Liberty Square] as soon as the underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue is completed. That should help the parking situation.

The plaza on the East Washington side is an essential buffer for the church, Heywood said. And while the association would prefer retail on the first floor, that can’t be mandated – and the association doesn’t want to see empty space there, like it’s been for 411 Lofts. He noted that the space could be easily convertible into retail or commercial use, if a good proposal comes forward in the future. The association board respectfully requests approval of The Varsity, he concluded.

Ray Detter of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) told commissioners that he appreciated the building’s green roof – this was the first time he’d heard about it. This whole design review process is new, he said, and it’s an educational process too. Everyone’s had a chance to discuss the design, even though changes aren’t compulsory. He noted that CAC supports the plaza setback on East Washington, and the mews on the east side. The developer didn’t have to do those those things. The CAC would like to see the first-floor parking moved underground, and wants the mews walkway expanded even more, Detter said. That walkway, leading to a crosswalk across Washington and into the alley next to Tally Hall, would result in improving the alley, he said, so that it’s ”not the dump it is now.”

Stacey Simpson Duke, co-pastor of the First Baptist Church, handed out a letter she’d written in support of the project. [.pdf of Simpson Duke's letter] She said she never wanted a high-rise building next to the church – she liked seeing the sun set from the church – and she had spoken against the A2D2 zoning changes for downtown that were ultimately approved.

However, the people involved with The Varsity have been the best neighbors they could possibly be, Duke said. The design team has met with church representatives monthly, have listened to input and have explicitly incorporated design elements to address the church’s concerns. Simpson Duke said she’s especially excited about the walkway and the plaza next to the church. She’s also excited about the 400 students who’ll be living there, and the increased foot traffic in that area. She thanked the developer and his team for being good neighbors.

Joan French, a resident of Sloan Plaza, urged commissioners not to allow the Huron Street facade to be a back door. People along Huron can see the beautiful buildings like Campus Inn and the University of Michigan’s new North Quad. She supported the project, but wanted to see details on the Huron entrance that will make people say “wow.”

Brad Moore, an architect on The Varsity project, brought up a panel with samples of the materials that would be used on the building. The renderings of the building that were projected on-screen during the meeting showed a color of brick that was more yellow than it actually would be, he said. The brick evokes the exterior of UM’s original chemistry building, and is intended to be distinctive from the bright red brick of 411 Lofts.

There will be architectural detail, Moore said. Regarding the walkway, there’s no objection to widening it, Moore said, but The Varsity developer can’t do a site plan on the church’s property. Moore said he was certain that in the future the walk would be widened – that action might be handled administratively by city staff, or with the help of the church working through the historic district commission process.

Moore also reported that there will be a lease condition that specifies “right in, right out” only turns for the entrance off of Huron Street. There will be video surveillance cameras to monitor compliance, and if there are complaints, the building’s owner can impose sanctions against tenants who violate that condition, Moore said.

Bob Keane, a principal with WDG Architects in Washington D.C. who also spoke at the Sept. 20 meeting on behalf of the developer, addressed design concerns of the Huron facade. He described several ways in which the design has been changed. For example, the former metal garage door now will have frosted glass panels and look very elegant, he said, evocative of a storefront. There’s also a pedestrian entrance on the Huron side. People will drive by and think it’s the front entrance, Keane said, describing it as an “elegant urban facade.”

The final speaker was Rita Gelman, a resident of Sloan Plaza. (Her husband, Chuck Gelman, attended the meeting but did not speak during the public hearing.) She handed out a letter to commissioners, and said her main concerns are parking, green space and traffic. It’s important to keep the quality of the Huron Street corridor, but the proposed building looks humongous and commercial, she said. In contrast, Sloan Plaza is a building that looks residential, she said.

The Varsity at Ann Arbor: Commission Discussion

Kirk Westphal noted that the city had received a letter from Laura Houk, chairperson of the Ann Arbor Cooperative Preschool, a tenant at the First Baptist Church. [.pdf of Houk's letter] Houk had expressed concern about possible hazardous materials, noise and traffic during the demolition and construction phases of the project, and the impact on the preschool, which uses an outdoor playground year-round. She wanted the city to ensure that the developer mitigate the effects of the demolition and construction.

Westphal asked how those concerns would be addressed. Alexis DiLeo said she planned to meet with the preschool director, and go over the basic process for projects like this. The developer has had at least one meeting with the preschool too, she said. Regarding hazardous materials, if there are any on that site, there are state and federal regulations that govern the handling of those materials. She said she trusted that the developer would take steps to minimize the impact.

Erica Briggs noted that the developer’s ultimate intent is eventually to widen the walkway – that’s great, she said. In response to a query from Briggs about lighting, Brad Moore said there’s not currently room for pedestal lighting along the walkway – lights will be mounted on the building. But the intent is to include pedestal lighting in the future, and the developer would pay for it.

Briggs expressed concern that the sidewalk in front of the East Washington entrance isn’t clearly defined – that might be a safety issue, she said. She encouraged the design team to give more thought about how to make the pedestrian experience as safe as possible, especially in the driveway area leading to the parking garage.

Briggs also asked whether the developer planned to add any amenities for bicyclists – she had broached this subject at the Sept. 20 meeting, suggesting that things like a free air pump would be a public amenity. Donnie Gross, the developer, said he couldn’t make a commitment about that, but said they would explore that possibility.

Diane Giannola said her only concern is parking. She realized that the project includes the minimum number of parking spaces required by the city, and noted that the intent is to encourage people not to use cars. But she’s more of a realist, she said, and worries that there’ll be an even bigger parking problem in that area than there is now. [This issue was also addressed in an email sent to the planning staff by Jerry Weaver, manager for the Firestone shop at the corner of Division and Huron. He stated that because of parking needs at 411 Lofts, people are parking at other lots in the area and more cars have been impounded this fall than the prior 10 years combined. .pdf of Weaver's letter]

Giannola said that the way The Varsity selects its tenants will determine whether the development is a good neighbor. She asked that the owner find ways to discourage people from bringing cars. Eric Mahler, chair of the planning commission, quickly added that the city doesn’t advocate for discrimination based on anything.

For his part, Mahler pointed to the development agreement for The Varsity, citing the section stipulating that plazas on the site are intended to serve in lieu of a financial contribution to city parks:

(P-8) For the benefit of the residents of the PROPRIETOR’S development, in lieu of a contribution of $112,000 to the CITY Parks and Recreation Services Unit prior to the issuance of building permits, to construct and maintain as an integral part of the development the proposed amenities in the north and south plazas and the walkway along the east side of the site as generally illustrated and described in the exhibits to this Agreement. [.pdf of draft development agreement]

Mahler wondered whether the city can seek an injunction against the developer, if the plazas aren’t built as envisioned. DiLeo said the city won’t issue a certificate of occupancy unless the project passes a site inspection and meets all the requirements outlined in the development agreement.

Westphal weighed in again with several observations. He said he can see how the plazas benefit the church, but it gets tricky when zoning is bent to fit one neighbor.

By way of background, The Varsity is a “planned project,” which allows some limited flexibility in design. The setback to accommodate the plaza on East Washington, for example, is greater than would otherwise be allowed for a by-right project on that site. It differs from a planned unit development (PUD) in granting far less flexibility. From Chapter 55 of the city code [emphasis added]:

Planned Projects. 5:68. The intent of this section is to provide an added degree of flexibility in the placement and interrelationship of the buildings within the planned project and to provide for permanent open space preservation within planned projects. Modifications of the area, height, placement requirements, and lot sizes, where used for permanent open space preservation, of this Chapter may be permitted if the planned project would result in the preservation of natural features, additional open space, greater building or parking setback, energy conserving design, preservation of historic or architectural features, expansion of the supply of affordable housing for lower income households or a beneficial arrangement of buildings. A planned project shall maintain the permitted uses and requirements for maximum density, maximum floor area and minimum usable open space specified in this Chapter for the zoning district(s) in which the proposed planned project is located.

Westphal praised the plans to eventually widen the walkway, and said he appreciated the bike parking. Regarding vehicle parking, he said things won’t change until the message gets out that the city doesn’t want to see large portions of land used for car storage. He doesn’t have a problem with limited parking on that site.

He also commended the design review board, saying that they didn’t suggest changes that are too burdensome. He hoped that people would stay tuned for a review of the design process next year.

Noting that he hadn’t attended the Sept. 20 meeting, Evan Pratt asked whether the design of the Huron facade had changed since then. No, DiLeo replied, but the design had changed since the developer’s team met with the design review board in the summer.

Tony Derezinski said the planned project approach is a creative way to work with The Varsity’s neighbor and create an attractive plaza, even though it’s larger than what would otherwise be allowed by code. He indicated that some people wouldn’t be satisfied with any design, and at some point it’s the commission’s responsibility to say enough is enough. The developer has shown willingness to make some changes, he said, and if retail eventually becomes viable, the developer will include that. Derezinski concluded by saying The Varsity will add to the area and improve the city’s tax base.

Giannola asked whether it would be possible to require a No Left Turn sign – could that be added to the development agreement? Gross said he’d welcome that. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said the city can’t require that a sign be added to the public right-of-way – that’s the purview of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, since Huron is a trunkline. Rampson said the developer could certainly put a sign on his property, but she didn’t recommend altering the development agreement to address traffic engineering issues like this. No amendment was made.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the site plan for The Varsity at Ann Arbor. It will be considered next by city council.

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

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Oct. 18 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 do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Site of proposed 13-story The Varsity Ann Arbor, at 425 E. Washington, where a two-story office building is now located. To the left is 411 Lofts. To the right is the entrance to the First Baptist Church parking lot. (Photos by the writer.)

The Varsity is a 13-story apartment building proposed for 425 E. Washington St., east of the 411 Lofts building and west of the First Baptist Church. Currently on the site is a two-story office building that formerly housed the Prescription Shop. The proposed 177,180-square-foot apartment building would include 181 apartments with a total of 415 bedrooms, to be marketed to university students.

Four residents spoke during a public hearing on the project, and were generally supportive. However, they cited concerns over the attractiveness of the facade facing Huron Street and traffic issues that might arise from that entrance. Some commissioners also raised issues about parking and design, and wondered about the possibility of retail space on the first floor. The developer’s representatives felt retail wasn’t feasible at this time.

City planning staff recommended that site plan approval be postponed, so that some relatively minor issues could be resolved. Commissioners followed that advice, and postponed action on the project. It’s expected to be on the agenda again for the commission’s Oct. 4 meeting.

In addition to The Varsity, Tuesday’s meeting included several communications from staff and commissioners. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, reported that a Sept. 21 meeting of the R4C/R2A advisory committee had been postponed and will be rescheduled. City planning staff had heard from several committee members who felt they needed more information before reconvening. The advisory group is developing recommendations for zoning changes in Ann Arbor’s near-downtown residential neighborhoods.

Tony Derezinski, a commissioner who also serves on city council, reported on planning-related items that emerged at the council’s Sept. 19 meeting. He noted that although it wasn’t on the council’s agenda or discussed publicly, the issue of the City Place apartment complex, which is poised to break ground in the coming weeks, was “quietly being discussed” among councilmembers, he said. While it looks like the project will move forward and that an alternative project on that site called Heritage Row won’t be realized, Derezinski said – somewhat cryptically – there’s “many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.” 

The Varsity

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff gave a report on The Varsity project. The 13-story building, with 181 apartments, also calls for 70 parking spaces – 45 in an underground level, with an entrance off of East Huron Street, and 25 on the street level, with an entrance off of East Washington. In addition, two spaces would be provided on adjacent property (owned by the same developer) for use by a car-sharing service like Zipcar – the city counts each of those shared-car spaces as four parking spots. A total of 121 bike spaces are also proposed for the project.

Rendering of an aerial view of the proposed Varsity apartments, located on the left, between Washington and Huron streets. In the lower right is the First Baptist Church. In the upper right, across Huron, is Sloan Plaza.

The building is set back 15 feet from Huron Street. The side facing East Washington has zero setback for about half the frontage, then about a 25-foot setback for the remaining area, creating an entry plaza next to the First Baptist Church.

A public walkway – which the developer describes as a “mews” – will run along the east side of the building, from Huron to Washington. A mid-block pedestrian crosswalk is proposed across Washington, leading to the walkway/alley across the street next to McKinley Towne Centre. That alley extends to East Liberty. [.pdf of staff report]

By way of background, the alley between Washington and Liberty has been the subject of recent complaint voiced at a recent meeting of Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority, because of the placement of dumpsters there.  Maintaining the alley as publicly accessible has been the focus of conversations involving the Downton Citizens Advisory Council dating back at least to late 2009.

The Varsity was the first project evaluated by the city’s new design review board, which discussed the proposal at a meeting in June. According to a memo prepared by city staff, the board reported that the building’s design was generally in line with the city’s design guidelines. Issues cited by the memo as weaker design elements included a significant area devoted to vehicle circulation, front facades disconnected from the base, and an underutilized plaza, among other things. [.pdf of report from the design review board, and the developer's response]

The city’s planning staff had recommended postponement to give the developer – Potomac Holdings of Bethesda, Maryland – more time to address several outstanding issues. Those issues were listed as an inadequate drive approach on East Washington to access the service alley; changes to the landscape plan and grading plan, as requested by city staff; and revisions to the site’s solid waste plan, which city staff had deemed unacceptable. A representative for the developer described these as minor, and city staff expects they’ll be resolved by the commission’s Oct. 4 meeting.

The Varsity: Public Commentary

Seven people spoke during a public hearing on the project, including four residents and three representatives from the developer.

Hugh Sonk spoke on behalf of the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association – Sloan Plaza is located at 505 E. Huron, just east and across the street from The Varsity site. He said he’d been deeply involved in developing the city’s design guidelines and design review board, and he had several concerns about the proposed project and its impact on residents in the neighborhood. He wasn’t opposed to the project, but wanted to address those concerns: (1) traffic on Huron; and (2) the design of the facade facing Huron. Regarding traffic, Sonk said that having an entrance off Huron into the building’s underground parking will exacerbate an already congested corridor – a major traffic artery that will be even more crowded when the University of Michigan’s new children’s hospital opens in November. There’s not adequate space on the site to queue cars, he said, which will result in backups on Huron.

Sonk’s other concern was the design of the facade facing Huron. The idea behind the design guidelines is that new buildings should complement existing structures, he said. In this case, The Varsity is adjacent to historic buildings, which that are located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. The current design, he said, doesn’t look like it’s a street facade – it looks like the entrance to an alley. He likened it to the large AT&T building, located further west on Huron.

Bob Keane, a principal with WDG Architects in Washington D.C., introduced himself as representing The Varsity’s ownership group. He described the process so far as collaborative, working with city staff and input from the neighbors, including the adjacent First Baptist Church. A lot of good comments came out of the design review process, he said, and they’re working to keep the project feasible while trying to beautify it as well.

Keane told commissioners it’s important to take a step back and look at the entire neighborhood, city and UM campus, when considering the building’s design. He showed several slides of other buildings in Ann Arbor and on campus, that were meant to provide context to The Varsity. Keane also described several elements of The Varsity’s design, including the mews along the building’s east side, and the courtyard on the East Washington site that opens onto the gardens of the First Baptist Church.

Architect's rendering of The Varsity – the view from Huron Street. The dark brick building on the right is 411 Lofts, at the corner of Washington and Division.

Christine Crockett introduced herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and a member of the committee that helped write the city’s design guidelines. She didn’t object to the project – it’s appropriate for the D1 zoning, and more student housing near campus is needed. But her principal objection is the design of the Huron Street facade, saying it looked like a back door garage. For years, the city has been talking about ways to make the Huron Street corridor more attractive, she said. The building should incorporate elements of the historic district character overlay, she said.

There didn’t seem to be any design changes made since the design review board meeting, Crockett contended, and she felt the architects could do a better job. Comparing the building to other structures that were several blocks away (as the developer’s architect had done) wasn’t germane. She suggested removing the garage entrance from Huron completely, saying that it would help alleviate a lot of problems, including traffic concerns. Crockett concluding by saying that “a garage door is simply not acceptable. This is not the back door to anything.”

Ray Detter spoke on behalf of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council. He called The Varsity a significant project. Over the years, planning commissioners have noted that they didn’t have purview over the design of a project – but now, they do, he said, because of the city’s design guidelines and review process. The developers of The Varsity did a good job, Detter said, and also responded to input by improving the project. However, “our position is it can be even better yet,” he said.

Detter suggested making all parking underground, for example, and getting rid of the first floor parking that’s adjacent to the mews. The building could have a deeper setback in exchange for adding a couple of floors to its height – no one would object to that, he said. Perhaps the mews could be wider, too. Detter said that everyone knows this project will be approved. It’s just a matter of how good it will be, and of how good the process will be. Every time he sees it, as the project moves forward, he hopes to see improvement.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting, who’s working on the project, addressed some of the outstanding issues that had been cited by staff as the reason for postponement. He noted that the solid waste plan, which city staff deemed unacceptable, is similar to plans that the city already approved for the apartment buildings Zaragon I and Zaragon II [now known as Zaragon West]. The staff also indicated that the entrance to the service alley off of East Washington is inadequate, but Ophoff said the driveway was narrowed on the west side because a dumpster is not planned for that location.

The staff requested corrections to the project’s landscaping plan sheet, which Ophoff described as housekeeping details. His final point related to a staff request for corrections to the grading plan sheet, as noted by the city’s development inspector. Ophoff said he’s at a loss to know who the development inspector is – this was the first he’d heard about such a person, and he’d previously received no staff comments about the site’s grading plan.

Brad Moore and Bob Keane, architects for The Varsity.

Brad Moore, an architect on the project, spoke about the Huron Street facade, which he said had changed significantly from the original design. The original design called for a solid, opaque garage door facing Huron, he said. Now, the door will be designed to look more like windows. The design uses hues from nearby buildings, Moore said, including Campus Inn. A small plaza has been added, with benches and an area for plantings. All of these things are intended to make it more like a front facade, he said.

By having entrances off of both Huron and Washington, Moore said, the traffic situation will actually be better – the cars won’t be coming in and out of just one place. They’re trying to minimize the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, he said, noting that there are fewer pedestrians on Huron than on Washington.

Steve Kaplan said he’ll be a neighbor of the future building, and appealed to developers to put more of the parking underground. He urged them to keep the ground-level space available for future retail or commercial use. In conversations he’s had, Kaplan said the sense is that there’s not demand for retail there. But the area is changing rapidly, he noted, with this project, the nearby 411 Lofts and North Quad (a UM dorm). The opportunities are just starting to grow, and it would be a waste if that ground floor were squandered on parking. The developers have said they’re constrained by the site’s topography, but since they’ll need to build a foundation for the structure, Kaplan said that would negate issues with the existing topography.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners asked a range of questions, focusing primarily on traffic, parking and the design of the building and surrounding site. For this report, their discussion is organized by topic.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Traffic

Tony Derezinki was one of several commissioners who asked about traffic in relation to the entrances, especially off of Huron. He noted that in addition to public commentary, the commission had received a letter from Maurice Binkow, a resident of Sloan Plaza, who was concerned about traffic. [.pdf of Binkow's letter] Derezinski asked if any traffic studies had been done.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting said the traffic study they’d done was based on the existing structure, which was an office building. There were peak hours in the morning and evening, but students don’t have those same peaks, he said – they operate on different schedules.

Facing south across Huron Street – the site of the proposed Varsity apartments. In the background to the right is 411 Lofts. To the left is the top of the Liberty Square (Tally Hall) parking structure.

Kirk Westphal said the additional curbcuts make it more difficult for pedestrians. He wondered what the heaviest trips per hour are expected to be, compared to what’s there now. Alexis DiLeo said she could get that information from the traffic study, but that in general, residences tend to have lower traffic volume per unit than office buildings. And students – The Varsity’s target market – won’t likely be going to 9-5 jobs, she said, so the traffic volume would be significantly different than it is now.

Eleanore Adenekan wanted to know whether there are more pedestrians than vehicles on Huron. DiLeo said she didn’t have counts, but her sense is that there are significantly more vehicles than pedestrians, given that Huron is a four-lane road and one of the city’s main thoroughfares.

Westphal said it was inexcusable to have two curbcuts out of the building, leading out onto two busy streets. He didn’t buy the argument that it diffused traffic – most students use their cars infrequently. Regarding the aesthetics, it’s not possible to dress up the garage, he said, adding that it’s “dangerous and not a pedestrian-oriented use.”

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Parking

Diane Giannola said her main concern was with parking. There are 78 spaces in the structure for 415 bedrooms – is that enough? Brad Moore responded, saying that the parking ratio conforms with the city’s zoning ordinance, and is similar to the parking provided at 411 Lofts, Zaragon and 601 S. Forest – other downtown apartment buildings designed for students. He said it’s the experience of the owner, in other projects, that students living in apartments this close to campus don’t need cars on site.

Responding to Giannola’s query about how the spots will be assigned, Moore said residents can lease the spots. He noted that it’s a separate lease from the apartment leases.

Giannola wondered if there’d been problems with residents of 411 Lofts parking in the neighborhoods. Moore said he wasn’t aware of any problems. He said he’d been told by someone at the State Street Merchants Association that a significant number of permits for spaces at Tally Hall [the parking structure that's now called Liberty Square] will be rotated out of that structure into other city parking garages, including the new underground structure being built on South Fifth Avenue. When that happens, it will free up more spots at Tally Hall, he said.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, told commissioners that there’s a waiting list to get parking permits, but that about 700 new spaces will be coming on line in about a year at the underground structure. When that happens, there’ll be a lot of shifting of permits among the city’s parking structures, she said.

Moore noted that the underground structure will be opening before The Varsity does.

Even so, Giannola said she worried about the impact on neighborhoods if students end up parking their cars on neighborhood streets, rather than in city structures or The Varsity.

[Later in the meeting, during the final opportunity for public commentary, Ray Detter said he wanted to clarify the situation regarding parking in the State Street area, which he believed had been misrepresented. The intent is to free up space in the State Street area to use for short-term parking, he said, as part of a demand management system being developed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA manages the public parking system for the city. By moving long-term permit parking to the underground structure on South Fifth, the idea is not to fill the freed-up spaces elsewhere with more long-term parking, he said.]

Planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Erica Briggs.

Erica Briggs asked about a possible Zipcar partnership. Moore indicated that two spaces are planned for a car-sharing service like Zipcar.

Briggs also wondered why all the parking isn’t underground. Bob Keane, one of the project’s architects, noted that the design uses the underground parking that’s in the existing building, with an entrance off of Huron. It’s cost effective to do that, he said. They they’ll build a separate entrance off Washington leading into parking on a level above that underground area. There will be a screen of vines and other greenery to shield the cars from the mews, he said, so it will feel like you’re walking through a garden.

Briggs wanted to know more about the bike storage, too. A total of 121 bike parking spaces are proposed, including 6 hoops in the entry plaza on the south side of the building, 6 hoops on the north side of the building, 37 covered hoops in the parking levels, and 72 spaces in a secure bike storage room on the ground level of the building. Briggs asked whether there will be amenities like a free air pump provided in the storage room or in the plaza, as a community benefit. The developer’s representatives said they could explore that possibility.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Building Design

Kirk Westphal asked Alexis DiLeo to clarify the commission’s ability to talk about design, in the context of the city’s new design guidelines and review board. DiLeo replied that with the council’s adoption of the design guidelines, the topic of design is “fair game” for commissioners now. She reminded them that while the design review process is mandatory, compliance is voluntary.

Tony Derezinski asked for more information about design of the north facade, facing Huron. Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting replied that they were treating it more like a plaza than a garage. Bob Keane added that both entrances – on Huron and Washington – were being treated the same, using the same materials and configuration. On the Huron side, they’ve added windows above the garage door, and tried to make it look more like a storefront, with a large metal canopy overhang above the garage door. The design also attempts to mirror the context of the two-story houses that are on either side of the building, he said. He felt the facade contributed greatly to the streetfront.

Derezinski replied that it seems like the objection is to having any entrance at all on that side. Given that there is an entrance, this design is probably as good as it can get, he said.

Westphal clarified with DiLeo that the cutout – the plaza in front of the building on the East Washington side – was the result of discussions with neighbors, particularly the First Baptist Church to the east of the site. DiLeo said the plaza had always been part of the design – she was unsure what the original inspiration was for it. She said it has the effect of making a nicer transition between 411 Lofts to the west, which has a 10-foot setback, and the church to the east.

Erica Briggs asked the developer to discuss the plaza in more detail. She also noted that a lot of the design influence came from the church.

Ophoff described attributes of the plaza and mews. Multi-colored pavers will be used to create a design in the walkway, he said, that will lead pedestrians through the space. Other features include ornamental fencing and gates, and plantings – both annuals and perennials. Ophoff also described a “green screen” – a wire matrix on the building over which Virginia creeper vines and flowering hydrangeas will grow, to mask the first-floor parking area. There will be lots of opportunity for artistic details and richness in this area, he said.

Briggs encouraged the developer to widen the walkway as much as possible. It’s generally 5 feet, but widens up to 10 feet in some places. She also urged the developer to add even more details to the design, noting that it would be one of the longest pedestrian connections downtown, running from Huron to Liberty. It should be an area that people want to use and explore. Milwaukee does a good job of putting in touches of public art throughout the city, she said. One possibility might be to ask Ann Arbor’s public art commission for funding, she said.

Westphal praised the report of the design review board, saying that it sounds like the process led to some positive changes. He applauded the developer for including things like the walkway and bike spaces above the minimum required. However, his sticking point is the cutout – the plaza area in front of the building facing East Washington. The city can’t require that the building include retail, but it looks like the plaza is going to be underutilized, Westphal said, “and goodness knows we have enough of them around town – we don’t need more.”

Westphal also urged the developer to take another look at the building’s east facade, facing campus – it could be improved.

Brad Moore responded to Westphal’s criticism of the plaza, saying that the planning staff thought a larger plaza would be better, but the developer would be willing to reduce it in size so that it simply complies with code. Westphal asked whether they’d be willing to compromise on the design of the plaza, to make it more pedestrian friendly. Moore indicated that his client wouldn’t be willing to do that.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Retail

Westphal wondered if there’d been any discussion about adding retail to the first floor. The planning staff did suggest it, DiLeo said, and it would be possible to renovate the building later and add it. Currently a lounge for residents in planned in the first floor area, with another lounge – and an outdoor patio – on the top level.

Eleanore Adenekan asked for additional explanation about why the developer wasn’t putting in retail. Moore noted that the first floor facing Washington includes a lounge area, and in the floor above that there’ll be a fitness room. Those areas are designed to engage the plaza and streetscape, he said. There’s also a top floor lounge, so if the first floor lounge is converted into a coffeeshop or other retail in the future, residents will still have a lounge area.

But in talking with other landlords in the area and doing market research, Moore said, it didn’t seem like the time is right for retail. He noted that the leasing office at 411 Lofts is being relocated from one of the upper levels down to the first floor, because the owner couldn’t find a tenant for the first floor retail space. The former leasing office is being converted into another apartment.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone the project.

Misc. Communications

Every meeting includes points on the agenda for communications from commissioners and staff. Several topics were mentioned at Tuesday’s meeting.

Misc. Communications: City Place, Heritage Row

In addition to serving on planning commission, Tony Derezinski is a city councilmember representing Ward 2. He gives regular updates to the commission about city council actions, and on Tuesday reported a variety of items from the council’s Sept. 19 meeting. In addition to council action related to the city’s public art ordinance – which he characterized as leading to a “pretty husky debate” – Derezinski mentioned that the council postponed action on rezoning a property on South State, which houses a medical marijuana dispensary. The planning commission had recommended denial of that request from the Treecity Health Collective.

Other council action related to the planning commission included passing revisions to the commission’s bylaws and authorizing staff to move ahead with systematic annexation of township islands within the city.

Derezinski also noted that although it wasn’t on the council’s agenda or discussed publicly, the issue of the City Place apartment complex, which is poised to break ground in the coming weeks, was “quietly being discussed” among councilmembers, he said. If nothing changes, then the City Place project will be built and some houses along South Fifth will be demolished. [An alternative proposal, called Heritage Row, would have preserved those houses, in addition to building new apartment buildings. That proposal failed to achieve the eight votes it needed on the 11-member council.]

Derezinski said a lot of the focus has been on those councilmembers who voted against Heritage Row. [Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).] Derezinski concluded by saying you never know what might happen, adding that there’s “many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.” [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "City Place Project Moves Forward"]

Eric Mahler, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Misc. Communications: Public Hearing on 2333 S. State

Eric Mahler, chair of the planning commission, announced that the planning staff is reviewing a request to divide a 4.13-acre parcel at 2333 S. State into two separate lots for commercial use. According to a staff memo, this is an administrative process – assuming that the request conforms to the state Land Division Act, it will be approved. The planning commission does not have authority to act on this request.

Misc. Communications: R4C/R2A Committee

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, reported that a Sept. 21 meeting of the R4C/R2A advisory committee had been postponed. City planning staff had heard from several committee members who felt they needed more information before reconvening. Rampson reminded commissioners that they’d received a preliminary report at a working session in June. The advisory group is developing recommendations for zoning changes in Ann Arbor’s near-downtown residential neighborhoods. Rampson said committee members feel that they might be able to reach consensus, or at least form a majority opinion – that’s what the next meeting is intended to do. It will likely be rescheduled in 2-3 weeks.

Misc. Communications – Sustainability Joint Session

Rampson reminded commissioners of a joint session on Tuesday, Sept. 27 with the city’s energy commission, environmental commission and park advisory commission. The meeting, which will focus on the city’s sustainability efforts, starts at 6 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road. A previous joint session on this topic was held in April 2010.

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

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Evan Pratt, Wendy Woods

Next special meeting: On Tuesday, Sept. 27, the planning commission will be meeting in a joint session with members of the city’s energy commission, environmental commission, and park advisory commission. The focus of the meeting will be on the city’s sustainability efforts. The session starts at 6 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Oct. 4 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 do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The building addition would replace an existing unenclosed canopy area used by the former tenant, Frank’s Nursery. The site is part of a larger retail center along Washtenaw Avenue that consists of five parcels with the same owner. The site plan includes construction of a new public sidewalk in the Yost Boulevard right-of-way fronting the site. An existing 22-foot service drive on the north part of the site would be converted from pavement to turf, and a new 10-foot-wide non-motorized path is proposed.

The project had previously received approval from the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner for its stormwater system, using bioswales and underground pipes in the parking lot area. Since then, changes were made to the city’s landscape ordinance, which now requires additional modifications to the bioswales and an additional review by the water resources commissioner. That approval is required before the site plan will be placed on a city council agenda. The bioswales will be planted with native vegetation, including trees, and will also act as the required interior parking lot landscaping.

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

A rendering of one of four buildings planned at Arbor Hills Crossing, located on the southeast corner of Platt and Washtenaw. This view is looking northwest from the center of the site. (Image by ReFORM Studios)

The project involves tearing down several vacant structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site is also directly north of the new location for Summers-Knoll School. Planning commissioners had approved the Summers-Knoll project at their May 17 meeting.

Comments from commissioners about Arbor Hills Crossing ranged from disappointment in the lack of density to concerns about pedestrian safety. Commissioners generally expressed the sense that they were glad to see the site developed.

Citing some outstanding issues, planning staff recommended postponing action on the plan. Several commissioners raised other issues they’d like to see addressed before the site plans come back to the commission for approval. Among those issues: future plans for bike lanes along Washtenaw Avenue, as identified in the city’s non-motorized transportation plan; and possible pedestrian access to a wetland area. The vote to pospone was unanimous.

Later in the meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson got feedback on a draft memo to Pittsfield Township, providing input from the commission on the township’s draft master plan. In part, the memo states an objection to the township’s description of itself as “providing an Ann Arbor mailing address while placing a much lower tax burden on businesses.” The memo points out that the plan could be improved by emphasizing regional cooperation.

Arbor Hills Crossing Site Plan

The planning commission was asked to consider the site plan for Arbor Hills Crossing at 3100 Washtenaw Avenue, a property at the southeast corner of Washtenaw and Platt, owned by Campus Realty. [In 2006, the city had approved a site plan for a different retail development at that location, but it was never built.] Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning department gave the staff report.

The plan calls for demolishing several commercial buildings and constructing a 90,700-square-foot retail and office center with four buildings, 310 parking spaces and 30 covered bike parking spaces on a 7.45-acre site. Retail space would primarily include smaller stores that would be visible from Washtenaw Avenue – three of the buildings face that road.

Aerial drawing of Arbor Hills Crossing proposal. Washtenaw Avenue runs along the north border of the property. Platt Road is on the property's west edge. The project is across Washtenaw from Huron Village Plaza, where a Whole Foods grocery is located.

The developer is proposing to consolidate five existing curb cuts along Washtenaw into one entrance. Vehicles could also access the site from Platt Road. An exit-only road onto Platt on the south side of the site will also be available through an easement from the adjacent property owner.

A wetlands area is located in the southwest corner of the site – the developer plans to build a “pocket park” near it, as a gathering place for customers. The plan also calls for removing two landmark trees – a 64-inch silver maple and a 12-inch ginkgo – as well as 36 non-landmark trees. The developer proposes planting a total of 106 trees throughout the site.

DiLeo described results of a traffic impact study, which found that the proposed project is likely to generate 306 trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 692 trips during the weekday evening peak hour. Traffic is simply bad along that stretch, DiLeo said, but would be improved if a traffic signal at Platt and Washtenaw is installed.

As part of the site plan, the developer is proposing a 23-foot-wide easement along Washtenaw Avenue for a 10-foot shared use path, a bus pullout, and landscaping. The concept is amenable to planning staff, DiLeo said, but they’re trying to determine whether an easement is the right mechanism for it. A dedicated right-of-way might be more appropriate.

DiLeo noted that a citizens participation meeting was held on Feb. 16, 2011; it was attended by 28 people.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponement, citing several unresolved issues: (1) a formal decision from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) on installation of a traffic signal at the Washtenaw/Platt intersection; (2) approval of the plan by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner; and (3) resolution of issues related to the 23-foot easement along Washtenaw Avenue, including which parties will be involved and what mechanism would be used to handle that easement.

Separately, the developer has filed a brownfield plan for the site that’s being considered by the city’s brownfield plan review committee. The brownfield plan would allow for a TIF (tax increment finance) to reimburse the developer for removal of contaminated soil, caused by a repair shop at an auto dealership previously located at the site.

Arbor Hills Crossing: Public Hearing

Two people representing the developer spoke during the project’s public hearing. Tom Covert of Atwell, an Ann Arbor civil engineering and landscape architecture firm, said he was there along with others in the project team, including Tom Stegeman and Norm Hyman from the ownership group. Covert highlighted several aspects of the development, noting that the wetlands area is a central focal feature and wouldn’t be impacted by the project – it would become part of a pocket park, and would be a place for patrons to congregate, he said.

This rendering shows a bird's-eye view of Arbor Hills Crossing, looking southeast. The intersection of Washtenaw and Platt is at the bottom right of this drawing.

Because there’s a 30-40 foot difference in grade between the property’s northwest and southeast corners, they looked at the design as a series of plateaus, he said. The layout is designed to give the development a sense of scale, creating pedestrian space along Washtenaw that invites people into the site, he said. Covert pointed out that they’re consolidating five curb cuts on the property along Washtenaw Avenue into a single cut. There, the exit onto Washtenaw will be limited to a right turn only, Covert said, though vehicles can enter from either direction. The other access is from Platt.

The distance between buildings is designed to be similar to a city block, Covert said – if you drive to the site, you could park and easily walk to two or three of the four buildings without moving your car. Landscaping features on the site include a planned rain garden between two of the buildings, and use of native plants so that no irrigation is required. Part of the stormwater management system includes capturing water in the rain garden, then releasing it to an underground detention basin and into the preserved wetland.

Robb Burroughs of ReFORM Studios Inc., the project’s architect, described some of the project’s design aspects. He highlighted the building at the northwest corner, at Washtenaw and Platt. To balance out the site and deal with the grade changes, the first floor will be below grade, with entrances facing the parking area on the east side. The second floor of that building will be at street level facing Washtenaw, visible from the intersection of Platt and Washtenaw. The strategy is to create a walkable, pedestrian-friendly experience internal to the site, Burroughs said.

They’ve designed a “contemporary building palette,” Burroughs said, integrating pedestrian elements like awnings, windows, and unique corner treatments. A tall vertical element on the northwest building will anchor the Platt and Washtenaw corner – it will likely be made of regionally sourced wood, he said, or latticed steel.

Arbor Hills Crossing: Commissioner Discussion

Jean Carlberg opened the discussion by expressing her concern over how close the sidewalk is to Washtenaw Avenue at the front of the property. Cars typically travel at 40-45 miles per hour, she noted, indicating it can be dangerous to pedestrians. On the opposite side of Washtenaw, there’s a grass buffer between the sidewalk and street.

Internal to the site, the development includes sidewalks, Carlberg said, but it’s more likely that people will walk across the parking lot to get from building to building. That’s also a safety issue. And though she said she was glad to see the site being redeveloped, she criticized the design of the building facing Platt, saying it was plain and unwelcoming. There was nothing to attract people who used the county recreation center across the street, she said. ”I think you’re missing an opportunity there.”

Kirk Westphal asked planning staff what the city’s recourse is if construction isn’t completed. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, described two different scenarios. If the incomplete work relates to the infrastructure portion of the project – such as installing a water main – then the city can step in and complete the work, and bill the developer. If the bill is unpaid, the city can place a lien on the property. However, if the work that’s incomplete is a building or other parts of the development that don’t relate to city infrastructure, it’s considered a nuisance case – it’s trickier, she said, but the city would have the option of taking the developer to court.

Related to the site’s proximity to Whole Foods, Westphal said he could imagine pedestrians crossing Washtenaw Avenue either coming from or going to the Huron Village Plaza, where the grocery store is located. Rampson said that as part of the Washtenaw Avenue corridor improvement project, there have been discussions about having a mid-block crossing along that stretch.

However, she said, a traffic engineer who’s looked at that section of Washtenaw is concerned about traffic “stacking” – vehicles backing up as they wait for pedestrians to cross mid-block. If there’s a stoplight installed at Washtenaw and Platt, that would ensure a safe pedestrian crossing, she noted. Pedestrians might still try to cross mid-block anyway, Rampson said, but since there’s a bus stop located close to the intersection, there’s a better chance that people would cross at the light.

From left: Planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods, and Diane Giannola review documents at their June 7, 2011 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Erica Briggs began her comments by saying it would obviously be a great improvement to have this development on the site. She shared Carlberg’s concerns about pedestrian safety along Washtenaw. Briggs also wondered whether the 23-foot easement on the north side of the parcel next to Washtenaw – to accommodate the sidewalk and a “tree lawn” – would also be sufficient for a bike lane at some point in the future.

Covert said a bike lane would need to use land intended for the tree lawn, which would be 10-12 feet wide. Briggs confirmed with Covert that the bike lane design would result in sacrificing the pedestrian experience in favor of cyclists.

Briggs also wondered whether there could be trails through the wetland area. Covert described the design as including a sidewalk that would wrap around the wetland, and a landscaped area for people to congregate on the east side of the wetland. But when he’s been physically on the site, the wetlands have been wet – there are no plans to put trails through it.

Finally, Briggs asked whether they had considered aligning the Washtenaw entrance/exit with the Whole Foods entrance/exit across Washtenaw Avenue – in the current design, you’d have a slight jog to get from one to the other, she noted. Covert said they looked at that possibility, but felt there’d be too much potential traffic conflict with people turning into and out of both spots, or trying to drive straight across.

Bonnie Bona spoke next, saying she would start with the “big question” – floor area ratio (FAR). She noted that the city had recently revised its area, height and placement (AHP) zoning. [City council approved the AHP amendments at its Jan. 3, 2011 meeting. FAR, a measure of density, is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to an FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in an FAR of 200%. For more background, see Chronicle coverage: "Zoning 101: Area, Height, Placement"]

The AHP changes include allowing for up to 200% FAR at that location, Bona said, but Arbor Hills Crossing has a FAR of 28%. ”What didn’t we do right?” she asked. ”What did we not do to encourage density on your site?”

It’s disappointing to see the site being underused, Bona said, especially considering the increased number of commuters coming into Ann Arbor. She noted that according to the 2010 census, there are 60,000 people commuting to Ann Arbor, compared to 45,000 commuters in 2000.

Tom Stegeman of Campus Realty came to the podium to respond to Bona. Financial feasibility and the project’s viability were paramount, he said, noting that the site plan for the previous development at that location proposed greater density – but the developer wasn’t able to build it. It would be nice to have more mixed-use options, including residential, but they have to respect market conditions, he said.

They’re confident they can build the proposed project, Stegeman said, and they won’t start construction until they have pre-leased the buildings and have their financing in place.

Bona said she would have preferred a more phased-in site plan, that would eventually have created a denser development, because whatever is built will likely be there for 50 years, she said. The site is also on the city’s most efficient bus route – Route 4, traveling between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – with the most frequent number of buses. It’s unfortunate that the project doesn’t take advantage of that, she said.

Turning to parking, Bona asked what it would have taken for them to have built a parking structure, rather than a surface lot. Stegeman said the expense of a structure, coupled with market demand, were the main factors.

Bona then asked if they’d considered providing vehicle access from their development to the site east of their land. Whenever possible, it’s important that interior connections are provided between developments, she said – that keeps at least some traffic off of Washtenaw. She urged them to explore that possibility.

Diane Giannola asked whether the project would be relying on brownfield tax credits – those are being eliminated by the state, she said. Her question was answered by Anne Jamieson-Urena, director of brownfield and redevelopment incentives for AKT Peerless Environmental and Energy Services. [Jamieson-Urena is also involved in the Packard Square project at the former Georgetown Mall site – Washtenaw County commissioners approved the brownfield plan and grant application for that project last month.]

Jamieson-Urena said it’s no longer feasible to seek brownfield tax credits, because of state legislative changes. However, brownfield status would still allow them to seek tax increment financing, which would offset costs of cleaning contaminated soil on the site.

Wendy Woods directed her initial comments at the project’s south side, noting that it adjoins property that will soon be used for a school. [At their May 17, 2011 meeting, planning commissioners approved a special exception use for the property at 2203 Platt. The approval allows Summers-Knoll – a private school for grades K-8 – to convert the office building there into a school.]

Woods said she could imagine there’d be conflicts with vehicles coming out of the school, near the Arbor Hills Crossing exit onto Platt. She suggested that perhaps left turns could be restricted at certain times of the day, when traffic might be higher coming out of the school.

Covert shared some traffic count data, and said they anticipated that peak hours for their development wouldn’t coincide with peak hours for the school. Stegeman said he’d talked multiple times with Ron Weiser – a Summers-Knoll supporter and founder of McKinley, a real estate development firm – and that they’ll continue to communicate regularly with representatives from the school as the project progresses.

Eric Mahler, chair of the planning commission, asked about the status of the traffic signal at Platt and Washtenaw. Covert reported that they had submitted a traffic report and their project plans to MDOT, and paid application fees. They’ve had discussions with several MDOT representatives, he said, but don’t have anything in writing about the traffic signal installation. He said they’ve also had many discussions with AATA about the bus pullout, and have resubmitted their plans for stormwater management to the county water resources commissioner – they expect approval on that part of the project soon.

In wrapping up the discussion, several commissioners weighed in with issues they’d like the developer to address – in addition to the issues that staff had identified. They included: (1) looking at future plans for bike lanes along Washtenaw Avenue, as identified in the city’s non-motorized transportation plan; (2) identifying possible access to the wetland area; (3) aligning the Washtenaw entrance/exit with the Whole Foods/Huron Village Plaza entrance/exit across the street; (4) exploring the possibility of getting an easement and opening up vehicle traffic to the property on the east side of the development; and (5) addressing the width of the sidewalks along Washtenaw to ensure a sufficient buffer for pedestrians.

Carlberg also suggested looking at alternatives for tree placement along Washtenaw, keeping in mind that bike lanes might be added in the future. Trees should be located so that they wouldn’t have to be taken down in the future to make room for a bike lane, she said, “because taking down trees in this city is like taking your life in your hands.”

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Arbor Hills Crossing site plan. No date has been set for reconsideration.

Feedback for Pittsfield Township Master Plan

Based on input from planning commissioners, city planning staff had drafted some comments to give to Pittsfield Township regarding the township’s draft master plan. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, asked commissioners for feedback on the document – which includes some questions and recommendations – before sending the memo to township officials. [.pdf of draft memo]

In particular, she wondered about the tone of the last recommendation – did it sound too defensive? Ann Arbor’s draft memo states:

The “Successful Economy” section indicates that, “Pittsfield Township has the critical advantage of being located to the immediate south of the City of Ann Arbor and providing an Ann Arbor mailing address while placing a much lower tax burden on businesses”. It should be noted that by far the largest tax burden on both City and Township businesses is for school systems, which the plan rightfully notes is competitive advantage for attracting residents. Given this fact, the statement can be interpreted as indicating that Pittsfield Township is a better place to do business than the City of Ann Arbor. This can also be interpreted as being inconsistent with language in the same chapter that emphasizes regional cooperation.

City of Ann Arbor taxpayers support the economic vitality of the region by subsidizing transit service to outlying communities, providing an outstanding park and recreation system available free of charge to Township residents, providing recycling and composting facilities that are available to township residents, maintaining roads and non-motorized facilities that township residents depend on to get to work and services, and contributing substantially to human service organizations that provide a safety net for County residents. The plan would be more successful in emphasizing inter-jurisdictional cooperation if it highlighted those things that the Township is doing to benefit the region rather than indicating that it is a better place to do business than the City of Ann Arbor.

Several commissioners weighed in, generally supportive of the statement. Evan Pratt indicated that while it was pointed, it wasn’t the first recommendation on the list. Wendy Woods noted that the statement is all true, and Diane Giannola added that it needs to be said – even if the township doesn’t respond to it.

Bonnie Bona suggested one additional word for the last sentence [indicated in italics]:

The plan would be more successful in emphasizing inter-jurisdictional cooperation if it also highlighted those things that the Township is doing to benefit the region rather than indicating that it is a better place to do business than the City of Ann Arbor.

Other minor changes in the draft were recommended – Rampson said she’d run the final version past Eric Mahler, the commission’s chair, before sending it to Pittsfield.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the revised response to Pittsfield Township’s master plan.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Tony Derezinski

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, June 21  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 do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponement, citing several unresolved issues: (1) a formal decision from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) regarding a traffic signal at the Washtenaw/Platt intersection; (2) approval from the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner; and (3) resolving issues related to a 23-foot easement along Washtenaw Avenue, including which parties will be involved and what mechanism would be used to handle that easement. In addition, several commissioners raised other issues they’d like to see addressed before the site plans come back to the commission for approval.

Separately, the developer has filed a brownfield plan for the site that’s currently being considered by the city’s brownfield plan review committee. The plan would allow for a TIF (tax increment financing) to reimburse the developer for removal of contaminated soil, caused by an auto repair shop previously located at the site.

In 2006, the city had approved a site plan for a retail development at that location, but it was never built.

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

At its March 15 meeting, the Ann Arbor city planning commission had unanimously recommended approval of the Packard Square site plan. [Chronicle coverage: "Packard Square, Fraternity Site Plan OK'd"]

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 changes include modification of the locations where the exterior materials – glazing, panelized exterior cladding materials, plus accent materials – will be used. Roof lines have also been proposed, but the building is still under the maximum height permitted. The changes, which were prompted by alterations to the interior layout of the building, were presented to the surrounding neighbors at a meeting on March 17, 2011.

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]