Wendy Rampson, head of the city's planning staff, and Eric Mahler, newly elected chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, at the commission's July 8, 2010 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

That business included approval of revised area, height and placement (AHP) standards that have been under review for more than two years. The revisions have pulled back from some of the original proposals – for example, there’s no longer an uncapped building height in certain districts. It’s the first significant overhaul of these standards in roughly 50 years, with the goal of reflecting prevailing community values. The recommendations will now be forwarded to city council for final approval.

The planning commission also voted to postpone action on a project at the Kroger on South Maple. The grocery is adding a drive-thru pharmacy, and needs city approval to reconfigure its parking lot to accommodate the drive-thru lane. A few unresolved issues led commissioners to push back consideration until their July 20 meeting.

And the commission elected a new slate of officers, with local attorney Eric Mahler replacing architect Bonnie Bona as chair.

Area, Height & Placement

The fact that no one spoke during the meeting’s public hearing on changes to the city’s area, height and placement standards might be attributable to the July 4th holiday week, or it could be related to the multiple public forums held on the topic over the past year, most recently on June 16, 2010. [For a primer on AHP, see Chronicle coverage: "Zoning 101: Area, Height, Placement." Additional information is on a page of the city's website dedicated to the AHP revision process.]

Revisions to these standards have been in the works since 2007, when the planning commission and staff started looking at doing a comprehensive update – for the first time in more than 50 years. The rationale for making revisions is summarized in a planning staff report that accompanied the proposed changes:

More recently, best practices in urban planning and environmental design recommend a more sustainable approach to land use practices including: a) more compact use of land and infrastructure, b) the preservation of natural systems, c) accommodating new growth along transit corridors in existing urban areas which have existing infrastructure, d) locating buildings closer to the right-of-way to promote non-motorized access, and e) mixed land uses. The challenge that decision makers in Ann Arbor now face is that current ordinances related to area, height and placement do not encourage these land use practices.

After working with an advisory committee, in the summer of 2008 the planning commission passed a recommendation for initial revisions.

Planning staff presented the recommendations to a city council work session in September 2008, and got direction from council to get additional public input about the changes. Eight public workshops were held, and at its Dec. 7, 2009 meeting, the council passed a resolution kicking the issue back to the planning commission for further consideration. Since then, planning staff and the commission’s ordinance revisions committee have been working on further revisions. Those revisions were presented to the full commission at their July 8 meeting.

AHP: Proposed Changes to Draft

Based on public input, as well as staff and committee review, there are a raft of proposed changes to the AHP amendments that were originally drafted. [.pdf of summarized list of substantive AHP changes and .pdf of complete revisions] Here’s a general overview of some of the current proposed changes:

• Area: “Area” is a measure of density, specifically using a floor-area ratio (FAR). FAR 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%. Originally, three retail zoning districts had a proposed FAR of 200%, an increase compared to the current maximum of 40-50%. Some of those increases were scaled back under the revised draft. Now, the proposed FARs are: 1) 100% in the C1 retail district; 2) 150% in the C1B retail district; and 3) 200% in the C3 retail district.
• Height: Building heights in four zoning districts – office, retail, research, and research & light industrial – had originally been proposed as uncapped, but now have height limits of 55 feet and four stories. The maximum height for hotel districts – originally proposed for 120 feet – now have height limits of 50 feet, or up to 80 if there is parking below at least 35% of the building. The maximum height in the C2B (business service) zoning district has been reduced from 60 feet to 55 feet.
• Placement/Setbacks: “Placement” regulations govern where a building can be constructed within a particular lot, and are expressed in terms of “setbacks.” For example, a 25-foot minimum front setback would mean that a building needs to have a 25-foot buffer between it and the front lot line. There are several setback changes proposed. In the original proposal, setbacks in two retail zoning districts – C1 and C1B – had no minimum setback, compared to the existing 25-foot minimum. Now, the minimum setback is proposed at 10 feet.

Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff is the point person for the AHP initiative, and gave the staff report to commissioners.

No one spoke during a public hearing on the AHP changes. Earlier in the meeting, Rampson had said that the official notice of the meeting had included an incorrect start time – 7 p.m. – which might result in people coming late. Though planning commission meetings typically start at 7 p.m., Thursday’s meeting began at 6 p.m. to accommodate the change of venue. However, no one arrived to address the commission – there were no speakers during the final opportunity for general public commentary, either.

AHP: Commissioner Discussion

During their discussion of the AHP changes, commissioners primarily asked clarificational questions and gave some feedback, but did not suggest substantive revisions.

Evan Pratt asked a question about instances when a “skinny” piece of land doesn’t abut a residential property, but comes close. He asked whether they could modify the language to indicate a distance, rather than specify only parcels that abut residential.

Pratt was referring to the following changes, as outlined in a memo from the planning staff:

• Increase side and rear setbacks where non-residential abuts residentially zoned land from 20’ to 30’ wherever 20’ was required

• Require additional 1 foot side and rear setback for each 1 foot of building height above 30’ (e.g. a new 55’ building abutting residential would need to be set back 55’ from the residential property line)

• Restore the 100’ setback requirement for RE (Research) for side and rear setbacks

• Proposed adding modifications to Chapter 62 (Landscaping & Screening) in the following manner: a) add multiple family uses to those uses requiring a conflicting land use buffer when abutting residential property; b) increase the number of required trees in the conflicting land use buffer from 1 tree per 20 lineal feet to 1 tree per 15 lineal feet. This change is being coordinated with Public Services (Systems Planning) which is currently pursuing amendments to Chapter 62.

Kahan said he could talk to Kerry Gray and Jerry Hancock, members of the city staff who are handling revisions to Chapter 62. The overall goal is to provide a buffer to residential areas, he said.

Pratt next asked whether the lower building height for hotels (R5 zoning districts) was in response to public input. He noted that those parcels don’t seem to be imposing on any residential areas. Kahan confirmed that the R5 districts are proximate to freeways: the South State corridor at I-94, Plymouth Road at US-23, and Jackson Road at I-94. The main concern from the public had been uncapping height limits, he said. Responding to a follow-up from Pratt, he clarified that there are no FAR restrictions in those districts – there are no limits to a building’s massing.

Pratt said that Ann Arbor isn’t currently a big hotel town, but looking to the future, that might change.

Bonnie Bona spoke next, noting that other than Kahan, she was the only other person on the commission who’d been around throughout the long AHP process. The longer they’ve worked on it, she said, the more it feels like they’re going backwards – but that’s not the case. The current changes are a step back from a year ago, but are far better than the existing standards.

She made several observations about the revisions – noting, for example, that restrictions to height limitations in R4 (residential) districts do not include the R4C district. That’s because a separate study committee is looking at revisions to R4C and R2A districts.

Overall, “we’ve come a long way with this,” Bona said, adding that she thinks it will reduce number of planned projects that are proposed. [Planned projects are those requiring zoning variances, but not a rezoning as with planned unit developments.]

Diane Giannola raised a question about an additional one-foot setback requirement:

Require additional 1 foot side and rear setback for each 1 foot of building height above 30’ (e.g. a new 55’ building abutting residential would need to be set back 55’ from the residential property line)

Not many parcels – other than Georgetown Mall on Packard – would fit into this category, she noted. She wondered why it was necessary to include it, given that there were so few parcels to which the requirement would apply.

Kahan cited a few other applicable properties: The Colonnade on Eisenhower, the Cranbrook shopping plaza at Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower, the Busch’s plaza on Green Road. These “micro-sized” lots won’t be able to easily build up to 55 feet, he noted, unless they put parking underground, which is expensive. Smaller developers won’t likely take advantage of the extra height option, but larger developers would be able to afford it.

Jean Carlberg added that in looking toward potential future development, there needed to be those safeguards on height and setback.

Planning commissioners Evan Pratt, left, and Kirk Westphal at the July 8, 2010 planning commission meeting.

Kirk Westphal asked about changes in the C2B retail district. FAR isn’t changing, but rear setbacks are going from none to 30 feet when abutting residential, plus an extra foot for every additional foot of height. He wondered whether that would pose an additional hardship for property owners – for example, along Stadium Boulevard. In other districts, there’s been an increase in FAR to promote compact development closer to the street.

Kahan said that overall, the intent is not only to increase workability, but also to ensure consistency among the city’s employment and commercial districts. He noted that a big plus is the large reduction in the required front setback – a minimum of 40 feet is being reduced to 10. They’re hoping that it will increase pedestrian-oriented development, Kahan said, with buildings positioned closer to the street and away from neighborhoods.

Westphal said he’d forgotten about the dramatic decrease in front setbacks.

Eric Mahler said he was a little confused about the phrase “below at least 35% of the building,” in reference to parking. Kahan clarified that at least 35% of the building’s footprint would need to include underground parking, in order to gain height premiums in certain districts. The intent is to encourage putting parking underground, he said.

Wendy Woods noted that there had been a lot of public input and staff input in this process, and that it truly was a community effort. She applauded planning staff for attending the many public meetings on the topic.

Outcome: Changes to the area, height and placement standards were unanimously approved. The city council will consider and vote on the issue at an upcoming meeting before the changes can take effect.

After the vote, Mahler wrapped up by saying, “That long saga comes to an end – good work.”

Kroger Site Plan Postponed

Owners of the Kroger store on South Maple, near the Westgate Shopping Center, want to add a drive-thru pharmacy on the south side of the building, and need city approval to reconfigure the parking lot to add a drive-thru lane.

The proposal includes widening the driveway along the south side of the building, and removing 14 of the 22 existing parking spaces there. Even after eliminating those spaces, the site will have 42 spaces more than the maximum allowed by code. [The grocery store site pre-dates changes to zoning that imposed a maximum number of parking spaces.] The existing walkway and landscaped areas will be reconfigured, with a pedestrian walkway flowing through an island that’s encircled by the pharmacy drive-thru lane. Bicycle parking will be moved to the front of the store.

Staff is proposing modifications to the driveway width and configuration, narrowing a proposed east-west lane from 35 feet to 26 feet.

The planning staff presentation was made by Alexis DiLeo, and the staff recommendation was for postponement.

Kroger Site Plan: Public Hearing

Two representatives of the Kroger project spoke during the public hearing.

Jeffery Scott, an architect based in Farmington, is working on the Kroger addition and spoke to the planning commission about the project at their July 8 meeting.

Jeffery Scott introduced himself as the architect on the project. He explained that trucks going back to the store’s loading dock often jump the curb on the southwest corner, and the reconfiguration would give those semis a wider turning radius. He said he was confident that they could tweak the project to the city’s satisfaction, with the caution that they didn’t want to make the overall configuration “too curvy.” He asked that the planning commission approve the project, contingent on “fine tuning” some of the details with city staff.

Stephan Hennard of Kroger’s Michigan operations, based in Novi, introduced himself and indicated he was there to answer questions, if commissioners had any.

Kroger Site Plan: Commissioner Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by asking for additional clarification from Scott about the driveway width. Scott said the site plan proposes to widen the driveway to allow trucks more room to maneuver. Bona indicated that the city staff would work with Kroger on that.

She then asked whether Kroger considered moving the parking spaces further west, noting that there’s 32 additional feet beyond the end of the parking area. She also wondered whether they could eliminate one or two of the parking spots along that stretch. DiLeo said they hadn’t considered that, but it might be possible, given the excess amount of parking on the overall site. She said the staff wouldn’t mind if all the spaces were removed from the south side and replaced with landscaping – a suggestion that Bona endorsed.

Wendy Woods agreed with Bona that reducing some of the parking to the west of the drive-thru would be good. She was concerned that customers parking in those spots would have to walk across the drive-thru lane in order to get to the store’s entrance. She was also concerned about pushing carts along that path in inclement weather. Scott noted that the volume for drive-thru customers isn’t high – typically four cars per hour, on a good day.

Woods asked whether the pharmacy would be open 24/7. Hennard indicated that the pharmacy would close at 9 p.m. on Monday-Saturday, and at 6 p.m. on Sunday. Responding to other queries, he said that there is lighting on that side of the building, and that there would be yield signs and pavement markings to guide both traffic and pedestrians.

A site plan detail of the proposed pharmacy drive-thru at the Kroger on South Maple Road. (Links to larger image)

Erica Briggs wondered whether it would be possible to remove the parking spaces along the store’s southwest side, saying it’s potentially confusing for customers to have parking there. She also asked whether the sidewalk next to the parking was envisioned as a staff break area.

Hennard said that Kroger could mark those spots as employee-only parking. The area next to the parking has picnic tables and is the only outside break area for staff, he said.

Earlier in the discussion, Tony Derezinski had noted that they needed to decide between two options: 1) approve the site plan, contingent on working out any unresolved issues, and 2) postpone the vote. He pointed out that Scott would like to know generally whether the commission approves of the project, and it seemed that they did, he said. Derezinski then asked DiLeo whether this could be brought up at the commission’s next meeting – was there sufficient time to wrap things up by then?

DiLeo noted that the next regular meeting was on July 20, and if they canceled their Aug. 3 meeting [which they did, later in the meeting], then the next meeting after that was Aug. 17. Two weeks would be tight, she said, and there are no guarantees that they could finish, but they’d make every effort.

DiLeo said there were five outstanding issues to address, including 1) coming to agreement about modifying the driveway width; 2) updating the “existing conditions” sheet to reflect the current site, specifically showing the wireless communications tower, accessory buildings and enclosure; 3) revising a comparison chart to include all variances that had been previously granted for the site; and 4) showing documentation that Kroger will get a temporary grading easement from the adjacent property owner.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone the project until their July 20, 2010 meeting.

New Officers Elected, Election Day Meeting Canceled

The commission elected a slate of new officers at their July 8 meeting, which had been moved from Tuesday to Thursday because of the July 5 holiday. Slips of paper were distributed for anonymous voting, but when it became clear that none of the seats were contested, they bagged the written ballots and held elections by a show of hands.

Eric Mahler is the new chair, taking over from Bonnie Bona. Vice chair is Kirk Westphal, and Diane Giannola was elected secretary. Bona walked over to Mahler, handed him the wooden gavel, shook his hand – and once again, a smooth democratic transition was secured.

Diane Giannola, the planning commission's newly elected secretary, proposed canceling their Aug. 3 meeting to accommodate the primary election.

Later in the meeting, another organizational issue emerged. Giannola proposed canceling the commission’s Aug. 3 meeting, since it falls on the date of the primary elections. Giannola said that in general, she didn’t think that any city business should be done on that day, in order to give people the chance to vote.

Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff indicated that things were pretty quiet – the Kroger site plan was the only item coming up that she was aware of. Giannola asked whether they could make it a standard practice not to schedule meetings on primary election days – it would be consistent with the practice of not holding meetings on the date of the November general election. Bona said that one good thing about having it as a standing practice is that they could set their official meeting calendar with that in mind, rather than setting the date and then canceling it.

Tony Derezinski said it would be possible to consider, given that they were currently revising their bylaws. But he noted that the next batch of commissioners might have a different view, and perhaps they’d want the flexibility to make that call themselves.

Mahler suggested running the question by the city attorney’s office. A vote to cancel the Aug. 3, 2010 meeting passed unanimously.

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

From the June 3, 2010 edition of the Washtenaw Legal News, the published notice of the June 7, 2010 Glacier Hills and Heritage Row site plan public hearings. (Image links to wider view and higher resolution file.)

In a phone interview on Friday, city clerk Jackie Beaudry confirmed for The Chronicle that an email sent by the Ann Arbor city clerk’s office to the Detroit News – requesting publication of the notices for Sunday, May 30 – was not received by The News. Due to the Memorial Day holiday, the city clerk’s staff did not learn of the communication snafu until Tuesday. That was not in time to meet the publication requirement for the June 7 public hearings.

As a result, no vote is now expected on the site plans for those two projects at Monday’s June 7 city council meeting. The notice of public hearings for those projects, Beaudry said, was published in the June 3 edition of the Washtenaw Legal News. Those WLN notices in the June 3 edition still specify the site plan public hearings for June 7, but indications from inside city hall are that if when the hearings are opened on June  7, they’ll be left open and continued through the council’s June 21 meeting, when a vote will be taken on the site plans as well as the Heritage Row rezoning.

The zoning change for the Heritage Row project, which is considered separately from the site plan by the council and is given a separate public hearing, was properly noticed, Beaudry told The Chronicle. How can one of the public hearings receive proper notice, but the other one not, when they’re part of the same project?

It’s due to the fact that the rezoning moves through a two-step process with the city council, whereas the site plan approval requires just one step. Rezoning is an ordinance change – as such, it requires two readings before the council. Having passed at its first reading at the city council’s May 3 meeting, the Heritage Row rezoning moves to a second council reading through a process handled by the city clerk’s office – and the associated public noticing is thus handled without any additional communication required from planning and development staff.

The site plan for Heritage Row, however, is coming to the city council for the first time on June 7 – it does not become part of the city clerk’s bailiwick until there’s communication from the city planning staff. On a related note, for planning commission public hearings, the responsibility of public noticing falls to the city planning staff, not the city clerk.

The relevant city code section for public noticing of site plans is from Chapter 57:

5:135.  Public information and hearings. …

(3)   Notice of all public hearings shall be published in a local daily newspaper of general circulation at least 1 week prior to the public hearing

The decision on Heritage Row, now projected for June 21, 2010, would overlap with the first reading before the city council of a proposed historic district, tentatively scheduled for the same meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "S. Fifth Avenue: Historic District, Development"]

The Heritage Row project includes 79 units – 12 efficiencies, 9 1-bedroom, 43 2-bedroom, 14 3-bedroom, and 1 5-bedroom apartment. Those units will be distributed over seven renovated existing houses and three buildings to be constructed behind the existing houses. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Heritage Row Moves to City Council"]

Mike Rein of Bowers + Rein spoke to the Ann Arbor city planning commission in opposition to eliminating time deadlines for planning commission and city council review of site plan submissions. (Photos by the writer.)

He was illustrating why he thought deadlines in the approval process for site plans and other petitions were a good idea.

But Pratt was the lone dissenter on the commission, which recommended that deadlines in the city’s zoning code be replaced with a standard of “reasonable time.”

The current deadlines apply to two different stages of site plan reviews. The first is the maximum time between the planning commission’s receipt of a report from city staff and the commission’s recommendation – 60 days. The second stage is the time between the planning commission’s recommendation and city council action – 30 days. The commission voted to recommend replacement of the deadlines with language that refers to a “reasonable” time.

Currently, if the bodies do not act within the prescribed time parameters, site plan petitions are considered to be recommended or approved automatically – by default. At its Tuesday meeting, the automatic approval language was recommended to be dropped from the city code.

The code changes regarding timing would now need city council approval in order to take effect.

The timing issue joins two other technical revisions to the city’s zoning code, which the planning commission voted to recommend at its previous meeting. Those revisions involve fee reimbursements associated with applications and a requirement that up-to-date drawings for site plans be publicly accessible 24/7 for a week prior to public hearings.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the commission also heard a presentation from the city’s environmental coordinator, Matt Naud, on the city’s environmental indicators. Part of the background of the presentation was a recent joint meeting of the city’s planning, energy and environmental commissions that focused on sustainability.

Technical Revisions – Time Parameters for Decisions

Before the planning commission was a technical issue on the maximum time allowed for decisions on projects that are brought through the city’s development review process. The proposed amendments to the city’s zoning code are part of a related set of technical revisions the planning commission is handling. The timing issue had been looked at a year ago and had been sent back to the city attorney’s office by the planning commission with suggested revisions.

Any change to the city code would need to be approved by the city council.

Time Parameters: Background Description

Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, summarized the proposed code changes for the commission. The amendments, she said, will change when the planning commission provides its recommendation to the city council for area plans, site plans, plats, and planned project petitions. It will eliminate the 60-day limit. It will also eliminate the current requirement for the city council to approve or reject a petition within 30 days. Instead it requires the city council to take action within a “reasonable time.” Finally the amendments will eliminate the assumption that a petition is considered approved if no action is taken within the currently specified time period.

For most of the petitions, she said, planning commission makes its recommendations to the city council within 60 days of receiving the staff recommendation. And the city council must make a decision within 30 days of receiving the planning commission’s recommendation on those items – 90 days in the case of a planned project. Any of the petitions are considered to be recommended by the planning commission or approved by the city council, unless the body acts within the specified time limit. But both bodies, she said, can exceed the time limits by 30 days if they elect to extend the time limit.

None of the time limits, she told the commission, are required by state law. She suggested that the time limits were included in the code as a way to indicate accountability for the process. There’s always an interest, she said, in moving forward with projects so that they are not stalled. But city staff and the commission have also expressed concern about moving forward with projects without full staff review and being complete in the evaluation before petitions are put up for recommendation or a decision.

The current timing requirements, Rampson said, leave very little room for the resolution of complex issues – for example, when there is a neighborhood concern that requires staff to go back and meet with the developer. Rampson called the assumption that a petition is approved if not acted on within the time parameters “burdensome” because of situations where a review would not be complete if they adhere to the strict rule of the time frame.

The language, Rampson said, was in the state enabling legislation for planned unit developments (PUDs) – it allows for a “reasonable time” to do the review. Among the petitioner, the public, the planning commission, and the city council, Rampson said, there’s an interest in moving projects forward. The proposal, she said, would also remove the assumption that a project would be approved by default if no action were taken. She said that the planning commission’s ordinance review committee had reviewed the changes a year ago, and the planning commission as a body had already reviewed some of the items – the plat project changes that needed to be made not been included at that time – and the planning commission had at that time recommended approval.

But Rampson told the commission that a year ago there had been some concern about the language. The city attorney’s office as well as planning staff had gone back and done additional research, and the insertion of the phrase “reasonable time” had come out of that additional work. The ordinance review committee had most recently looked at the issue in March of this year and recommended the changes for approval. So the city staff is recommending approval of the changes, she said.

Time Parameters: Ordinance Text

The amendments on time parameters cover submissions for approval of planned projects, area plans, site plans, and plats. Here’s the proposed amendment for site plans. The language to be deleted is indicated with a strike-through. Language proposed to be added is in italics.

Chapter 57 – 5:122. Site plans.
(3) Site plans for City Council approval. Except as otherwise provided in this section, City Council shall review and approve or reject a site plan after receiving a report and recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall submit its report and recommendation to the City Council within 60 days of receiving a report and recommendation from the planning and development services manager or designee. The City Council shall approve or reject the site plan within 30 days of the recommendation by the Planning Commission. Within a reasonable time following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council to approve or deny the planned project. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council shall approve or reject the planned project within a reasonable time following the close of the public hearing. If approval is conditioned on changes to the site plan, the petitioner shall submit revised drawings with the necessary changes to the planning and development services manager or designee within 30 days of approval by the City Council or the site plan approval shall lapse. Any changes to a condition placed on the site plan by City Council shall require City Council approval.

Time Parameters: Public Hearing and Commentary

Mike Rein of the architectural planning firm of Bowers + Rein was first to address the commission during the public hearing. He began by saying that he wanted to clarify he was not against dropping the provision that a project would automatically be approved if no action were taken within the time parameters. He had concerns instead about eliminating the time requirements. From a petitioner’s standpoint, he told them, to get before the planning commission was already a very difficult and time-consuming process.

If it’s a complex petition, Rein said, there are a lot of different review departments and professional staff who have to review the project. It’s “no small undertaking” to get before the planning commission, he said. One thing you could always count on as a petitioner, he said, was that if you got before the planning commission or the city council, it would move along in a timely manner. He asked why it was necessary to eliminate the 60-day time limit entirely. Why was it not possible to try a 90-day or a 120-day time limit? The language of a “reasonable” time frame did not provide a lot of assurance, he said.

Kyle Mazurek, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of that organization, which had completed a merger between the two cities’ chambers that very same day. He expressed opposition to the proposal to eliminate time frames from the current review process and to replace them with “reasonable time” parameters. The objections were based on two considerations, he said: accountability and certainty. The vagueness and murkiness of the language was not adequate to hold the bodies accountable, he contended. The lack of a quantifiable standard could result in a lengthier, more burdensome review process.

Kyle Mazurek, vice president for government affairs with the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Chamber of Commerce, speaks to the planning commission in opposition to dropping specific time parameters from the city's approval process.

The uncertainty would also create a major deterrent for developers to invest in the community, create jobs and help grow the tax base. Rather than create uncertainty, Mazurek said, the city should seek to expedite the current review  process. He reminded the commission that previously when the proposal had come before the planning commission, they had been “concerned that the proposed language did not offer any assurance to petitioners that their petitions would be acted upon in any reasonable time.” He said that the chamber did not see how the current proposal addressed that concern.

Mazurek said that he could reasonably argue that in the past, Ann Arbor’s review process had been influenced by political considerations. He was concerned that the reasonable time standard would only exacerbate the role of such considerations in projects moving forward. He suggested that if modifications were needed, then an incremental change should be explored, instead of an outright repeal.

Brad Mikus echoed the sentiments of Mazurek and Rein. If there was a problem completing review within the current time frame, he suggested that the time frame be increased. Concerning the proposed language, he asked, “What’s ‘reasonable’?”

At the conclusion of the meeting, Jim Mogensen put the timeline issue in the context of future staffing conditions. Five years ago, he said, there were more projects and more staff. Now there are fewer projects and fewer staff. In another five years, he said, there will hopefully be more projects – but fewer staff. Staffing levels would have an impact, he suggested, on the ability to meet deadlines. One of the possibilities that had been considered in the budget process for this year, he said, was the idea of outsourcing the planning function. He cautioned the planning commission against that, as he’d cautioned the city council against that approach as well. There would be too many opportunities for conflict of interest, he said, with people involved in the approval process, who also might have other projects coming to the city for approval.

Time Parameters: Commission Deliberations

Throughout deliberations there was a lot of support expressed for dropping the automatic approval clause if the time parameters were not met.

Tony Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on city council, said he was one of the people who had raised concerns about the language the last time the planning commission had reviewed the issue. He said he still had those concerns. They were essentially the same concerns as expressed by Rein and Mazurek, as well as conveyed in a letter from developer Dan Ketelaar. Said Derezinski: “It is a worry.”

Derezinski said that making the allowable time longer is justified, especially in the case of complex projects. He was interested, therefore, in knowing how long the review process currently took. Wendy Rampson said that as part of the A2D2 downtown rezoning process they had reviewed the time it had taken for site plans and rezoning just for the downtown area – not citywide. The time period covered was from the year 2000 forward. [.pdf of the review for process times]

Based on those projects, Rampson said any of them that had zoning already in place ranged between three and five months. Projects that involved a planned unit development (PUD) rezoning were substantially longer. One of them took a year and a half, she said. For those that have taken an extraordinarily long time, she said there had been a mutual agreement between the planning commission or the city council and the petitioner to hold off making a decision.

Derezinski asked what the usual pattern was in cities across Michigan – are there time frames in the ordinances? Rampson said that she could not speak to that issue and that Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office and Alexis di Leo of the planning staff had focused on the language of the state enabling legislation, she thought. Reacting to the suggestion that some of the public commenters had made to try a longer time frame instead of getting rid of the time frame together, Derezinski said he would be willing to try the “reasonable” standard as long as it’s tracked for a year to see how long it actually takes for a review process. Lawyers are used to the “reasonable man” standard, he said.

Evan Pratt also asked about the average time frame for current review processes. He wanted to know what the “on switch” was for starting the clock. Was it the completed application? Rampson said they measured from the date of application until the final approval. Pratt suggested that one thing the commission would like to see is petitioners coming to the planning commission for pre-application meetings. If complex issues could be raised before the clock started to tick, he said, it would minimize the time it takes. It was important, he said, to get all the issues on the table prior to the project coming before planning commission and city council.

Pratt said that things that have deadlines seem to get done sooner than things that don’t. He wondered if it’s possible to figure out what the current practice is and write that down, in terms of time frames that could actually be met. “My garden doesn’t have a deadline and there may be no corn this year,” he joked. He came back to the idea that pre-petition meetings with a working session would be a good idea.

Jean Carlberg said in her experience, it was unusual for a review process to take more than one extra meeting of the planning commission. She allowed that she understood developers’ fear about there being delays, but that recent experience did not support that fear. Everyone had an interest in moving projects through the process. Wendy Woods echoed Carlberg’s sentiments.

Erica Briggs said she shared concerns about the lack of definiteness and wondered if time periods of different lengths had been entertained. She said she supposed there had been good reasons for inserting the time periods into the code in the first place. Rampson responded by telling Briggs she had not been part of the review of the ordinance when it took place a year ago. [Rampson recently moved into the planning and development area from systems planning.] But she said there was a reluctance to set time frames generally – getting items onto the council’s agenda, she said, was a lengthy process.

Derezinski suggested an amendment that would require the tracking of the time it took for various projects to make their way through the process. That tracking would take place over the course of a year and then there would be a report back to the planning commission and the city council.

Pratt wanted to know how well the city was performing against the current standard. He asked, “What is the problem? What are we trying to fix?”

Derezinski’s amendment requiring that performance be tracked for a year was unanimously approved.

Pratt came back to the issue of understanding why the revision to the ordinance was being examined. “Why are we doing this?” he asked. He argued for delaying consideration until they had a clearer understanding of that. However, he did not move for a postponement.

Carlberg characterized any specific time frame as “arbitrary.” Either body – the planning commission or the city council – could always vote to extend the deadline anyway, so it’s effectively not a deadline. The commission always gave it their “best shot,” she said, and setting a specific time created an “unrealistic expectation.” It was more realistic, she said, to say that they would move as fast as they could.

Kirk Westphal, responding to Carlberg, said he would like to think the way she described things held true. However, he understood the fear that removing a schedule could mean things get slower – there’d be no schedule to check against. Westphal expressed some concern about what “best practices” were across other communities. He felt he needed more information to make that call, because there were issues of perception related to whether Ann Arbor was business-friendly. Perception of communities as business-friendly, he said, played a role in how people allocated their investments.

Briggs said she would like to see all the cross-community comparisons done, but recognized that the city’s planning staff had limited resources.

Westphal suggested that he’d be comfortable passing the recommended revision on to the city council with some kind of cursory review before the council voted on it – 5-6 phone calls and a couple of hours, to gather information about what other communities are doing.

Rampson indicated that Kalamazoo had no time limits and made reference to the collaboration of all parties, but said that the language was too broad for this particular ordinance revision.

Woods said she’d feel okay sending it to the city council – some projects would simply take “forever,” no matter what, she said.

Eric Mahler, an attorney, stressed he was not offering a legal opinion on behalf of the city. But he said that it’s always better to have certainty than uncertainty. There was a vested interest, he said, in handling things in the most expedient way possible. He said it would be nice to see a legal memo that explicated what “reasonable” meant. He was concerned about the legal risks that the term might pose. However, he said given that the city attorney’s office had reviewed it, he assumed that any risk had been properly assessed.

Mahler said he was not concerned with the planning commission as it was currently composed, but rather with the fact that the body would change in the future. But he also allowed that the world might be very different 30 years from now or 50 years from now, and the flexibility of “reasonable time” might be appropriate.

Outcome: The planning commission recommended that time limits be removed from the city’s zoning code about review of area plans, site plans, plats, and planned project petitions – to be replaced by a standard of “reasonable time.” The automatic approval for failure to act within a prescribed time was recommended to be dropped. The motion was passed with Derezinski’s amendment on one-year tracking.

Technical Revisions – Availability of Plans

At the planning commission’s previous meeting, on May 18, 2010, the group had recommended another technical revision to the city code addressing the requirements of the city with respect to the way that petitions are handled.

Currently, the city’s code on the approval process requires that up-to-date drawings for site plans be available in the lobby of the city hall 24/7 for a week before public hearings. The proposal recommended by the planning commission would relax the code by deleting the 24/7 requirement and by making clear that there’s not an obligation to continually update the material with any changes that might be made. Material recommended to be deleted is struck through, with proposed added language in italics.

5:135. Public information and hearings.

(2) Area plans, site plans, site plans for Planning Commission approval, PUD site plans, and preliminary plats and land divisions under review shall be displayed in a publicly accessible location in City Hall open to the public 24 hours per day, 7 days each week, for at least 1 week prior to the City Council and Planning Commission public hearings. Plans shall be current at the time of placement and subsequent revisions, if any, shall be available in the planning offices.

This code requirement has factored into the review of a project in the city’s recent history – City Place.  The current version of that project – called Heritage Row – is coming before the city council for approval at its June 7, 2010 meeting.

Back in the summer of 2009, City Place came before the city council, but was remanded back to the planning commission, due in part to errors the city had acknowledged involving the public information requirements of the city code.

From the text of the June 15, 2009 city council resolution that sent the project back to the planning commission [emphasis added]:

Whereas, Upon investigation, city staff have determined that there were errors and inconsistencies in site plan documents presented to the city planning commission and available to the public for review prior to, during and after the planning commission’s consideration of the city place site plan on April 21, 2009; and

The specific issue with City Place was called to the attention of the city attorney’s office by Ann Arbor resident Tom Whitaker, and the city attorney’s office was reminded of Whitaker’s objection by his legal counsel, Susan Morrison. From a May 27, 2009 letter sent by Morrison:

As described below by Mr. Whitaker, the site plan drawings on display in the City Hall lobby prior to the April 21 st Planning Commission public hearing did not include subsequent amendments made by the petitioner that were acted on by the Planning Commission. In a letter to the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission members and other staff dated May 13, 2009,  Mr. Whitaker stated:

The drawings on the table in the lobby of City Hall were not, as of yesterday [5/12/09], are still not the actual ones reviewed and acted on by Staff, City Planning Commission, and soon-to·be, by City Council. Because the public cannot access the planning department files after business hours, the public did not have access to these site plans 24 hours per day, one week before the Planning Commission meeting, as required. The drawings in the lobby are original submittals that were changed rather dramatically by the petitioner prior to final Staff review and Planning Commission action. One of the drawings reviewed and included in the CPC packet (showing a newly-added accessory building) was not even completed by the architect until 4/15/09 – just six days prior to the hearing – a violation on its face.

Had the now recommended changes to the city code been in place back in 2009, the errors and inconsistencies cited by Morrison and Whitaker, and acknowledged by the city, would not have existed.

In the city planning staff report recommending the change, one reason given is the practical challenges of meeting the standard:

Given recent security changes to City Hall, this strict standard is virtually impossible to achieve and leaves the City vulnerable to procedural challenges. After normal business hours, and particularly in the overnight hours, there may be instances when City Hall is not open to the public. There have also been times during the normal business day (such as the recent closure of City Hall for 2 hours for an all-employee meeting in January and a 36-hour closure in April due to elevated carbon monoxide levels) when the building was closed to the public.

The staff report also cites the increased prevalence of high-speed telecommunication technology – among private citizens as well as through the public library – as a reason for recommending the change. For commentary on the issue, see a previous Chronicle comment written by Tom Whitaker: [link]

Planning Commission Work Plan

In its other business, the commission approved its work program for the year. Highlights include work on master plans:

• Corridors (1-Washtenaw, 2-State, 3-Plymouth, 4- N. Main)
• Master Plan – Land Use Update
• Master Plan – PROS (Parks, Recreation & Open Space) Update
• Capital Improvements Plan
• Connector Feasibility Study – State, Plymouth
• Sustainability Study
• Allen Creek Greenway Plan
• Huron River Impoundment Plan

Also on the planning commission’s work plan is a review of various ordinances:

• Minor Zoning Text Revisions
• Downtown Zoning A2D2
• Downtown Design Guidelines
• A2D2 Floodplain Ordinance
• Area, Height & Placement
• R4C/R2A Study
• Citizen Participation Ordinance
• Sign Ordinance amendments
• Zoning Ordinance Re-Organization (ZORO)

Outcome: The planning commission approved its work program for the year.

Environmental Coordinator: State of the Environment

Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, gave a presentation to planning commissioners on the city’s environmental indicators. They are based on 10 environmental goals set by the city council. Naud’s presentation to the commission was a follow-up to a recent joint meeting of the environmental commission, the energy commission, and the planning commission on sustainability. [Chronicle coverage: "Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor" See also The Chronicle series on environmental indicators.]

Matt Naud, the city's environmental coordinator, presents the city's environmental indicators to the planning commission. At left is Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city.

Naud  reviewed with the planning commission how the city’s State of the Environment report had been developed by the environmental commission originally in 2000. In that year, it was a 10-page report. In 2004 it had become a 100-page report. And at that point, the city realized there was so much information that needed to be included that it should be a web-based document. It would be a living document that can change.

The report is now organized, Naud said, around large goals like clean air and clean water and mobility – significant goals that will take a while to achieve. Within those goals are specific objectives that correspond to 60 different environmental indicators. Questions from planning commissioners drew out the fact that there is a difficulty in measuring certain areas because they depend more on regional factors than on things local to the city of Ann Arbor. One example is air quality – there is an Environmental Protection Agency air-monitoring site in Ypsilanti that is used. But Naud said the real determinant of air quality depends on what kind of air is coming from Chicago and Grand Rapids – “their air comes our way.”

During public commentary, Brad Mikus told the commissioners that last week he was at the environmental commission talking to that body about planning issues, so he figured this week he might as well be at planning commission talking about environmental issues. He told commissioners that a couple of years ago, the city had put in a new park – Mary Beth Doyle Park. There’s a big detention pond there, which fills up and then slowly releases water into Malletts Creek, he told them.

The idea is that it’s supposed to help remove phosphorus and other pollutants. Mikus told the commission that it was a really nice park and that there will be a volunteer work detail on June 5 to help with park maintenance – he encouraged them to come. With respect to the state of the environment report, he wondered if people use it simply as a report or if they use it as an action tool. For example, do people focus energy on those indicators where we’re currently doing poorly? Or do they focus resources on those areas where we are doing well, reasoning that we’re actually able to have an impact on those areas. He also wondered if the planning commission could suggest to developers that they use more environmentally friendly design, by citing the report.

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

Absent: Bonnie Bona.

Next meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, June 15 at 7 p.m. in city hall council chambers, 150 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Mike Anglin's (Ward 5) amendment with edits made by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) at the council table.

Ann Arbor City Council meeting (July 6, 2009): The word “public” covered much of the ground of this past Monday’s meeting: public art, public land, public input.

The council got an annual report from the Public Art Commission highlighted by a reminder that Herbert Dreiseitl will be visiting Ann Arbor on July 20 to introduce plans for the storm water art he’s been commissioned to design for the new municipal center. The designs have not yet been accepted.

The council also heard a report from the Greenbelt Advisory Commission on a slight strategy shift in the use of $10 million of public money so far to protect 1,321 acres of land. The  council also approved a resolution to preserve the First & William parking lot as public land.

The discussion of another parcel of public land, the library lot, led to long deliberations on the wording of a resolution to establish an RFP (request for proposals) process for development of the site – below which an underground parking structure is planned. At issue was the timing of the RFP and the explicit inclusion of a public participation component in the process. The deliberations provided some insight into how councilmembers work together when the outcome of their conversations at the table is not scripted or pre-planned.

Planning in the sense of “land use” was also a topic addressed in multiple agenda items by the council. Councilmembers passed a resolution establishing a study committee to review the R4C and the R2A residential zoning districts – a bid by the Ward 3 council contingent to eliminate R2A from the purview of the committee got no support from others.

Having received a recommendation from the Downtown Development Authority board on the A2D2 zoning package that they wanted to examine more closely, the council postponed for two weeks the first reading of the A2D2 zoning package. The site plan for Walgreen on Jackson Road, near Maple Road, was approved with permits contingent on an easement for ingress and egress.

The November city council campaign in Ward 4 began to take shape when independent candidate Hatim Elhady took a turn at public commentary, and he took the occasion to ask some questions of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), the incumbent he’s challenging.

Site Development Committee and RFP for the Library Lot

-

Background

The planned underground parking garage along Fifth Avenue has generated discussion about the “What goes on top?” question. In March, the DDA passed a resolution in support of making DDA resources available for facilitating a public process. From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

Community Vision for 300 Block of South Fifth Avenue: What Goes on Top? [Sandi] Smith introduced the resolution, which states support of a process to develop a community vision for the 300 block of South Fifth Avenue. She said that it was prompted by the dialogue about the undergound parking garage, which had prompted the frequent question from residents: What goes on top? The idea, said Smith, was to begin a community conversation that was vague, free from preconception, and not steering towards some pre-set notion.

[John] Hieftje said he was happy to begin the discusison and that the reason it hasn’t come before is that it’s not a good economic environment to start a project. People needed to understand, he said, that it would be a few years before that climate would change.

[John] Mouat said it was an interesting urban planning exercise involving potentially a lot of different groups. “Are we really prepared to take it on?” he wondered.

John Splitt stressed that the DDA would just be offering resources: “We’re not trying to steer it into any direction; we’re there to help.” [Jennifer] Hall said she supported it, and pointed out that the discussion would include the whole block, not just the library lot. “Somebody needs to get out the door,” she said. “It should have been done ages ago.”

Public Commentary on Library Lot Site Development

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Alan Haber and Hatim Elhady addressed the council, speaking on the topic of the library lot site development.

Alan Haber: Haber began, “By the time questions get here, the fix is in and the deal is done and this is ceremonial democracy so that the people will think that we had something to do with this.” Haber sketched a scene of an America that is owned by banks, and the local landscape dominated physically by the “elite monumentalism” of the university. He gave the newly renovated Michigan Stadium as an example. He expressed the hope that sometimes people can actually change their minds and let the people’s voices come in. Haber proposed that the council dedicate the parcel as public land, dedicated to the culture of peace and nonviolence for the children of the world. “Build a park on the Commons, on the public land. Build it all-season, make it solar, geothermal, a place for community, embrace the vision of The Commons, a place for people to come together to sustain themselves and each other.”

Hatim Elhady: [Councilmember Marcia Higgins will be unchallenged in her August Democratic primary, but will face Hatim Elhady, who's running as an independent, in the fall.] Elhady began with a point blank question: “I would like to ask councilmember Higgins just what the rush is to build atop a nonexistent parking lot a project threatened with a lawsuit from an environmental group – when the Stadium bridge has gone unrepaired since you and George W. Bush were elected into office?”

Elhady noted that there were emails from the mayor and other councilmembers to constituents saying there were no plans to build anything on top of the library lot and that it could be years before anything is built, but that soon after the emails were sent it had been declared there must be something built. He focused on two clauses in the resolution. [The first of these was eventually taken up during council deliberations by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).] The first clause that Elhady highlighted specifies that the the site must bring financial return to the city. The second says that the city administration shall incorporate a design committee with residents. From that Elhady reasoned that residents can have whatever they want – as long as it brings revenue. This immediately tosses out the idea, he contended, that a park should be made with swings in it. The citizens of Ann Arbor deserve honest and open answers to their questions and an inclusive and thoroughly deliberate discussion about what gets built in their city before council votes to issue RFPs, he concluded.

Deliberations by Council on the Library Lot Process

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) introduced the resolution by acknowledging that it had morphed a little bit based on input from the public and from the council. At the immediately previous council meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had moved successfully for a postponement of the resolution to establish a committee on site development of the library lot.

The general context described by Smith in which the resolution was being brought forward was one in which the council had received an unsolicited proposal from a developer. Drawings had been provided to councilmembers at their January 2009 budget retreat. The idea, said Smith, was to throw the door open wide to any and all other proposals to see what they get.

Mike Anglin then offered amendments to the resolution, couching them in terms of the council’s commitment to public participation in development decisions. He said that the same requirement for public participation should apply to city projects as well as private developments. Anglin circulated printed copies of the amendment language to all of his council colleagues. Anglin noted that there was a feeling in the community that the space itself was very special and that it has the potential to become something spectacular. Anglin’s amendment:

RESOLVED: That the city conduct a series of public meetings to determine citizen opinion on the desired use of the site before the RFP is prepared.

Anglin’s amendment also proposed to strike the date-related resolved clauses specifying an RFP issuance on Aug. 3 and a 60-day time frame for submissions.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) began deliberations on the amendment by saying that he appreciated Anglin’s motives, saying that they were “well served.” But he reminded his colleagues that this was an RFP process and that removing the dates reflected a non-standard way of moving forward. Having dates certain ensured that everyone had the same amount of time to respond to the proposal, Rapundalo said. He echoed Smith’s view that the process really did open the door wide to anything and everything that someone might propose. He said that once the RFP process was finished that it was reasonable to expect that there would be some kind of public review of proposals. He characterized the RFP processes that he’d been a part of over the years as “very deliberate.” Rapundalo concluded that he would not be supporting the amendment.

Anglin then challenged his fellow councilmembers to describe what the public input to date had been on the subject. A longish pause ensued.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) responded to Anglin by saying that the community had been talking about the downtown for six years. Over the years, she said, they’d talked about what might happen to the parcel if it were ever developed: There’d been ideas about selling the parcel, and they’d heard from groups about making it into a park; they’d heard a proposal to put an ice rink there; and it’d had been discussed as a possible location for the municipal center. During that whole period, Higgins said, they’d heard many different ideas about what should happen on the lot.

What they had not yet heard, she allowed, was council saying that they would like to hear from everybody, and that’s what this RFP process was about.

[Analysis: Here Higgins acknowledged that there'd been a lot of talk by a lot of people, but never a specific directed process meant to achieve some specific design proposal. It could have been used as a common ground gambit, but was mostly missed in subsequent deliberations by Anglin, Rapundalo and Leigh Greden. Higgins' characterization allowed that there'd been a lot of discussion up to now (which occupied subsequent focus by Greden and Rapundalo) but none as specifically directed and as wide open as this one they were about to contemplate – the only part that Anglin focused on.]

“We are not saying that it is a done deal,” Higgins stressed. She allowed that people had heard there was a group who had convinced the council that the parcel should be used for a conference center. She’d also heard from greenway advocates that the parcel could become another park area. She’d heard the mayor advocate for a very long time that he would like to see an ice skating rink downtown as a part of any project that might be done there.

Part of this proposed process, Higgins emphasized, was to say that there were no particular criteria that they were looking for. She said she was hoping for lots of different ideas to be proposed. The proposals would all go forward for review by the committee, she said, which would include citizens. That, she declared, would start the public process. She concluded that it was the most wide-open RFP process that she had ever seen the city council do.

Higgins said that if, after 60 days, the city administrator reported that they had received no proposals, then the council could easily extend the time frame.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) read through an amendment by Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) weighed in by saying that it was not a question of whether to have public participation but rather when. Once council had a series of proposals, he said – with different themes and with different uses for that property – then it was appropriate to have public input as to which one might be picked. Restricting the process of beginning, he said, would simply choke off the flow of potential alternatives. He stressed that council should wait and see what proposals they received, noting that the public input on the proposals was going to be incredible in any case. “It’s a question of what you choose from,” Derezinski concluded.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) said he agreed with the idea of some additional public process associated with the site, and that the question was when and in what form. He allowed that he did not know if he had a position on the “when” question– is it after the bids come in, or is it earlier in the process?

Greden said he wanted to point out that there had been extensive public process already to date on this particular site. Greden appealed to the historical record of a resolution passed in November of 2007 in which council had talked about the development of the area above what could eventually become the future underground parking garage.

The language of that resolution, which authorized the DDA to design and construct the underground parking garage, was quoted subsequently in deliberations by Stephen Rapundalo:

… Whereas, The land above an underground parking garage on the South Fifth Avenue lot could be used in the near future to support new residential, retail, and/or office development and open space for public use, thus increasing the number of downtown residents, employees, and visitors, increasing the tax base, creating jobs, and enhancing the experience of being downtown; and …

… Be it further resolved … the underground parking garage shall be designed to support above ground, in the short-term, surface public parking, and in the long-term, development which could include, but is not limited to, a residential, retail, and/or office building(s) and a public plaza;

Citizens had come and spoken at public comment on that, Greden said. In the process of the DDA designing the garage, Greden noted that the DDA had coordinated public activities to help design the underground garage itself and also to explore the question of what might go above the site. A second resolution, Greden said, had been passed in early 2008 that shows similar conversations were conducted.

While he agreed with the idea that there should be additional public input, Greden said that the language of the amendment was “too vague.” “Public meetings – what does that mean? How many?” he asked. Greden also allowed that the dates and times proposed in the original resolution (Aug. 3 and 60 days) might be too strict, but agreed with Rapundalo that there should be dates of some kind. He said he’d be open to an amendment of the dates but would not support eliminating them completely. He concluded that he would not support the amendment as written.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said that over the years there had been a significant amount of input from the public that had been specific to the site. However, he felt that some additional public input would be useful. Having no deadline, he cautioned, was not constructive for the process. Hohnke wanted to know what was meant by having “a financial return to the city,” but he was advised by Mayor John Hieftje that he needed to focus the amendment – which did not include that phrase.

Anglin, advised by Hieftje that this would be his last speaking turn without a suspension of council rules, contended that there had been no public input specifically on the library lot. The DDA, he said, had done “invite only” meetings. He then said he believed that the financing was not yet in place for what was to go below or on top, saying that it was not a done deal. And he then introduced a phrase that caused momentary confusion by saying that he would be calling for a “voice vote” on the issue – subsequently Hieftje would clarify that the intended term was “roll call vote.”

Anglin then admonished his colleagues that voting no on the amendment meant that they didn’t want the public to say anything more about this. Zeroing in on a previous mention of public process on the library lot as having begun with the Calthorpe process, Anglin declared: “And this nonsense of saying that we started this at Calthorpe, that is erroneous.” Anglin then contended that the cost of the underground parking structure was 25% greater than it needed to be, because the city council had already planned to put something on top of it. “The public has not been consulted. So tell the public that you don’t want them to vote on something that is so important to them.”

Anglin said that he was certainly happy to change the dates and that conversation could happen once it was determined there would be public input.

If Anglin had been blunt, then Rapundalo was equally so: “With all due respect to councilmember Anglin, I think a lot of what you allude to is, quite frankly, in your own words, ‘nonsense.’” Rapundalo stated that the Calthorpe process had been fully open to anybody and everybody and not limited to select groups. He noted the example that Greden had previously cited was a resolution that passed on the public record. Based on that resolution, Rapundalo concluded: “We are in no way limiting what could be there.”

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) explaining that before asking the public to weigh in he felt there needed to be something "in hand" to show them.

Rapundalo related the timing of the solicitation of public input to having something specific for the public to evaluate: “I don’t have a problem going out to the public for their input. I’d like to have something in hand, and right now we have nothing.” Rapundalo reiterated that timelines are fairly standard for RFPs, then concluded with: “If you’re not up to speed on this, go back and do some homework on what has transpired at this body for years on end.”

Higgins then asked the city administrator, Roger Fraser, if the timelines were too restrictive. Fraser replied that he had provided input on the resolution and that he felt that it was doable to prepare the RFP by Aug. 3. Fraser characterized the 60 days as “tight but doable.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) reported that at the last partnerships committee meeting of the DDA there had been discussion of putting the RFP out more widely, possibly on a national level. A longer timeframe, she said, might allow for something like that.

Greden analyzed Anglin’s reference to a roll call vote as an implication that councilmembers should be ashamed to vote no on the amendment. Greden said that he thought the amendment was a “poor proposal.” “It’s vague,” he said. Anglin’s proposal didn’t have any parameters for time, Greden said, but he allowed that Aug. 3 and 60 days were probably too strict – he would entertain some alternative proposal. He said he agreed that a proposal for some kind of specific public process might be useful before the RFP is issued – that was a fair debate, he allowed. Because the amendment lacked sufficient detail, he said, “I look forward to casting my vote on the record against this amendment and would happily entertain any alternatives that someone else at the table has to address those issues.”

[Link to a column: "How a Skilled Politician Plays Chess"]

Councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) identified the points of commonality around the table, focusing on the willingness of several people to discuss different dates as well as an agreement that there should be a public process. Councilmembers then thrashed through amendments to Anglin’s amendment at the level of wording differences like “determining public opinion” versus “soliciting public opinion.” There was constructive input from many around the table. One example was from Higgins, who warned that the explicit inclusion of a provision for public input might imply that the usual practice was not to have public input. The final draft reconstructed by The Chronicle:

RESOLVED: That the committee conduct a public meeting to solicit public input, consistent with usual practice.

At this point, the Aug. 3 date had been left intact, and the 60-day window was extended to 90 days.

The roll call vote on Anglin’s amended amendment resulted in unanimous approval.

Greden then proposed delaying the date for issuance of the RFP by a month. Subsequent deliberations, which included an invitation by Smith to Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, to offer her perspective, resulted in an Aug. 14 date for the issuance of the RFP.

Hohnke then returned to the issue of the phrasing “financial return to the city.” He asked if the intention was that it required there to be a profit or rather that any proposal be at least revenue neutral. Higgins indicated that a proposal yielding profit was fine but that a revenue-neutral proposal would also be fine.

In summing up the deliberations, Hieftje said that a challenge facing the city council was the question of when public input should be solicited. On the one hand, he said, council strived to get public input as early as possible. On the other hand, in his experience, the public generally wanted something to react to, and that without something concrete for the public to consider, there was the risk that some members of the public would feel like their time is being wasted.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously as amended.

Planning: A2D2 Rezoning Package

-

Public Commentary on A2D2 Rezoning

Bruce Thomson: Thomson owns property on the north side of East Huron Street. He noted that it had long been zoned as C2AR, so the idea that it was being “changed” to D1 was not accurate, he said. He noted that the currently proposed zoning as a part of A2D2 included a height limit that was 30 feet lower than the rest of downtown [150 compared to 180 feet], plus had a requirement of increased setbacks. He said he felt the proposal was a good compromise and reflected some good hard work. [Thomson's remarks came in the context of a relatively recent effort by residents of nearby tall buildings to see Thomson's property zoned D2 under the new ordinance, which would limit future building heights to 60 feet.]

Jerald Lax: Lax introduced himself as Thomson’s attorney and offered comment on a communication from a Michigan Department of Transportation employee that had been sent to the city related to the proposed D1 zoning on Huron Street. He cautioned that the letter had been elicited by the residents of a nearby tall building who did not wish to see another tall building built on Thompson’s property. He noted that the zoning designation that had been in place for decades – C2AR – allowed for unlimited height. He also noted that the property already had curb cuts.

John Etter: Etter said that he was the one who had provided information to MDOT and it had come as a surprise to him that MDOT had not been consulted in the context of the rezoning effort in Ann Arbor.

Bob Snyder: Snyder reminded councilmembers that they had received communications from a variety of sources and neighborhood groups recently on the subject of the A2D2 zoning ordinance that was on their agenda. He said there was overall support for the effort, which had included a lot of hard effort over several years. However, Snyder reported a certain anxiety over last-minute compromises that might take place without going back the citizens. He stressed that after five years of involvement in public process, the groups he’s involved with generally approved of the Downtown Plan, the Central Area Plan, and the DDA Renewal Plan of 2003. They supported the new zoning ordinances, but only in the context of the Downtown Plan plus a context-based design process. “Consistency is what we looking for,” he said. Snyder was critical of a last-minute attempt to increase the mass of buildings in the downtown.

Council Deliberations on A2D2

In response to the question raised during public commentary, Wendy Rampson, the city’s interim director for planning services, was asked to explain what the nature of the consultation had been with MDOT. Rampson noted that the communication conveyed to city council had come via MDOT’s Brighton service area. She noted that in addition to the Brighton office, the city of Ann Arbor dealt with MDOT via the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS). She indicated that she had given a presentation to that group in December of 2008 and in January of this year.

Rampson noted that the current zoning is similar to the zoning that is now proposed. She indicated that traffic would be addressed on a site-by-site basis.

The effort to increase building mass – to which Bob Snyder had referred in his public commentary – was rooted in a resolution passed by the DDA at its June 3 meeting. In relevant part, that resolution reads:

Given that City Council has resolved to impose building height limits in D1 and D2, the DDA respectfully recommends that if 33% or more of a floor of structured parking required by the zoning ordinance is being constructed within a development, the remaining parking needed to complete a floor of parking should not be calculated as part of the building’s FAR.

• We recommend that the ratio for residential premiums be restored to a 1 to 1 proportion as is current zoning.
• Now that a height limit has been established in the D1, we recommend that the by right zoning in the D1 be increased to 500%.
• Further, to increase the community benefits of new buildings, we recommend that the FAR with
  premiums be increased to 900%, and with affordable housing to 1,100%.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated he didn’t have enough information on the interpretation of the suggestions that had been made by the DDA regarding building mass. He therefore asked for a two-week postponement in order to query staff. After confirming that the postponement would be to a date certain in two weeks, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said that council would still be able to take care of rezoning in time for the Sept. 14 joint working session with the planning commission on design guidelines.

Outcome: The first reading of the A2D2 zoning ordinance package was postponed until the July 20, 2009 meeting.

More Planning: R4C/R2 Zoning District Study Committee

As an amendment to the resolution to appoint an R4C and R2A zoning district study advisory committee, Leigh Greden (Ward 3) moved that the R2A district be eliminated from consideration, saying that it unnecessarily burdened the committee members and city staff.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves as city council’s representative to the planning commmission, appealed to a resolution from October 15, 2007 that specifically referenced the need to review both the R2A and the R4C districts. The idea, he said, was to do the review comprehensively: “Here’s the thing: Get it done!”

Higgins elicited from Jayne Miller, director of community services for the city, some of the rationale for consideration of the two districts together. First, these two districts represented the last classifications that planning staff needed to review in order to complete their comprehensive look at zoning for the whole city. R4C is more dense than R2A – R4C is multi-family housing, which also includes group housing, she explained. R2A is single- and two-family dwellings.

The idea, Miller said, was not to replace one zoning district with the other. The idea was that they should be considered together because there are many places, especially in the central area, where the two zoning classifications abutted each other. Higgins concluded that it would not be prudent to look at the zoning classifications separately, given their close geographic proximity, especially in this area.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he could appreciate the view of geographic primacy, but he felt that the designations were sufficiently distinct that they could be teased apart analytically. Sabra Briere acknowledged that it was important to analyze the two districts separately. But she noted that she herself lived in an R2A district, whereas her neighbors lived in R4C. She noted that her street was not unique in that the two districts were interwoven. She concluded the two kinds of district should both be within the purview of the study committee.

Outcome: The resolution to appoint the review committee passed with dissent from both Ward 3 councilmembers, Greden and Taylor.

More and More Planning: Possible Moratorium in R4C

During Mike Anglin’s (Ward 5) communications to council, he announced that he would be bringing forward at the council’s next meeting, on July 20, a resolution to establish a moratorium on all demolitions, rezoning, and all new developments that require site plan approval within the R4C and R2A districts, effective immediately.

Anglin indicated that the city attorney’s office was working on the language of such a resolution. The moratorium, said Anglin, would extend for a period of six months in conjunction with the study and possible revision of zoning ordinances pertaining to those districts. Anglin said that one of the goals was to bring the zoning ordinances in line with the Central Area Plan, which was adopted in 1992.

It was supposed to be ready in draft form by Thursday (July 9). In his report to the planning commission on Tuesday, July 6, Tony Derezinski – the council’s representative to that body – alerted the planning commission to Anglin’s intended resolution, concluding: “I don’t know how much support he’ll get.”

Even More Planning: Preserving First & William as Open Space

-

Public Commentary on First & William

Margaret Wong: Wong said that although she was affiliated with the Greenway Conservancy and the Friends of The Greenway, she was there to speak as a citizen. She said that she was encouraged by the resolution on the council’s agenda that would establish the First & William parking lot as open space, but noted that it was just the first step. She noted that there were specific concrete actions that need to be completed, which included seeking funds for the remediation, revising the mutually beneficial parking agreement with the DDA, and rezoning the land. She noted, however, that there was a crucial need to classify the parcel as parkland. She encouraged council to expedite all of these concrete steps.

Rita Mitchell: Mitchell said that she’d been working with Margaret Wong on the Greenway for a long time and she welcomed Mayor Hieftje and councilmember Hohnke to the effort. Mitchell echoed Wong’s sentiment that it is a first step. She noted the benefits deriving from turning the parcel into a park: flood risk mediation, and improvement of water quality. She stressed the need to make sure that this parcel becomes the first in a chain and to make sure that it is more than just a green space on a piece of paper.

Council Deliberations on First & William

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began deliberations with a friendly amendment of the resolution he co-sponsored with John Hieftje, which confirmed Margaret Wong’s view – reported previously in The Chronicle’s analysis and expressed during public commentary – that the Park Advisory Commission needed to designate the parcel as parkland in its Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) plan. The amendment directed the commission to add the parcel to its PROS plan.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Yep, More Planning: Walgreen Site Plan Approval

Dave Prueter: Prueter, with Agree Realty, appeared at the podium to indicate that he was present and available to answer any questions along with Marc Levy, the owner of the property.

John Lagos: Lagos, who is an adjoining property owner, asked the council to maintain the requirement that an easement be granted to allow ingress and egress. The easement, he said, should be granted prior to the issuance of any permits.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge told the council that any site plan should require the consideration of access for people with disabilities. In particular he cited the need to require access to public transportation riders. He cited the case of the recent eviction of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority from the Arborland shopping plaza as an example illustrating why a necessary requirement of any site plan should include such access.

During deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) clarified with staff that the easements mentioned by Lagos were in place to be granted in a manner that seemed acceptable to all sides.

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously.

Fee Adjustments for Historic District Commission

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave the background for the resolution, which included the fact that application fees for a historic district permit had increased from $50 to $500 as a part of the recently passed budget by the city council. Briere noted that the fee increase had not been a part of the budget book circulated to councilmembers. Instead, she said that it had been provided in a packet that had been sent the day before they had voted.

The resolution changed the rules so that all application fees would be $40 until September, and directed city staff to develop a sliding fee schedule. Briere noted that it made little sense to charge a $500 application fee to someone who wanted to install a new door that might cost $100-$150. The fee schedule, Briere said, should not encourage residents to avoid going before the Historic District Commission.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Revised Park Advisory Commission Bylaws

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) thanked the city attorney’s office, in particular Kevin McDonald, for assistance in “getting into the weeds” with the review of PAC bylaws. There was a brief discussion about the fact that city council representatives to the Park Advisory Commission were non-voting members. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) noted that a similar situation applied in the case of the housing commission and the cable commission. Anglin said that he was surprised at the last Park Advisory Commission meeting that some members said they did not want councilmembers to have a vote on the commission.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Greenbelt Advisory Commission

Laura Rubin, who is chair of the Greenbelt Advisory Commission, gave a presentation outlining progress to date on land protection activity and provided an update on some changes in their strategic plan. Rubin said that 12 deals had been closed that protected 1,321 acres of land. The city itself, she said, had invested around $10 million, which had been matched by almost $9 million – in federal funds, funds from surrounding townships that had also passed a similar greenbelt millage, Washtenaw County, as well as landowner donations.

She reported the fund balance at around $6 million. Each year the millage generates around $1 million, she said. The focus to date on land protection had been in the area north of the city. Rubin, who is also executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, said that no land had yet been acquired on the Huron River itself, but that land on its tributaries had been protected with millage funds.

Rubin said there had been a change in the commission’s approach due to the overall economy. Whereas the commission previously had a real sense of urgency with the need possibly to pay top dollar to protect land, the market has slowed so there’s less need to act quickly.

In terms of general strategy, Rubin reported that the commission was placing a new priority on local food markets. Previously, land parcels greater than 40 acres had enjoyed a higher score on the metric used by the commission to evaluate parcels. Now, however, Rubin said that the commission had lightened its emphasis on matching funds when it came to smaller parcels that could be used for growing local food.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) confirmed with Rubin that the dollars invested by the city had so far been matched on a roughly 1-1 ratio with other funds. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Rubin to speak to the new strategy of a local food focus, asking if it was related to the scale or if the emphasis was on organic food production.

Rubin clarified that it is the scale of the operation that is at issue. She said the new strategy is intended to provide that parcels of 5-10 acres were also suitable candidates for protection under the greenbelt millage. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked Rubin to clarify how easements are being handled for the smaller parcels. Rubin clarified that some of the easement language is more restrictive for investments that are matched by federal grants.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted to know whether the new emphasis on local food production amounted to a material change in scoring outcomes for parcels. Rubin clarified that there are still many other factors in the scoring metric used to assess suitability of protecting a particular parcel. But she said that the 40-acre threshold used to get quite a bit of weight. Rubin allowed that it amounted to an expansion of eligible properties.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was curious about what Rubin had meant by “going it alone” in the case of protecting some of the smaller parcels. Rubin clarified that it might well be that the city of Ann Arbor could be the only purchaser of development rights for some of the smaller parcels. If a parcel is less than 40 acres, she said, then the federal government cannot be a partner.

Higgins noted that this represented a policy shift, saying that it had always been the intended policy that the city of Ann Arbor would never be the sole purchaser. She stated, “I’ll have a conversation with you off-line.” Higgins explained that she was not sure if there had been a public enough discussion on this shift in policy.

Public Art Commission Annual Report: Dreiseitl

Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, gave an annual report to the Ann Arbor city council during the agenda’s introductions section. Parker said that in the commission’s first year it had designated the new municipal center as the focus for public art projects and had convened a task force to identify such projects in connection with the center’s construction. That work had begun in August of 2008, she said.

In February of 2009 the commission had hired a half-time administrator, Parker reported. She noted that the DDA had set up its own Percent for Art program and that the Fourth & William parking structure addition had generated funds that could be spent on public art. The DDA had designated the Public Art Commission as the body to allocate those funds but had not included any funds for administration, Parker said. She characterized the coordination between the two bodies – the city’s public art commission and the DDA – as “still being determined.”

Parker said that one half-time person would be able to accomplish not more than one major project per year. She announced that on July 20 Herbert Dreiseitl would be visiting Ann Arbor and that from 4-5 p.m. on that day he’d be presenting proposed designs for the storm water art to be installed at the new municipal center. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) inquired of Parker where the commission was currently getting its administrative help.Parker said that 8% of the money generated through the Percent for Art program goes to fund administration. She said that the city attorney’s office had been very helpful with legal concerns and that Sue McCormick, who is director of public services with the city, had also provided support.

Any arrangement with the DDA, Parker said, still needed to be clarified. “The DDA has their own way of doing things,” she concluded.

Airport Runway Expansion

Since the beginning of the year, public commentary at most, if not all, Ann Arbor city council meetings has included remarks on the proposed runway expansion at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

Kathe Wunderlich: Wunderlich spoke against the proposed runway extension at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. She said that she wanted to correct some errors that had appeared in an Ann Arbor News article about a plane that had landed on the Stonebridge golf course recently. She stressed that the runway would be lengthened by 950 feet and that planes taking off from an airport took off directly over Stonebridge. She warned that the citizens advisory committee appointed in connection with the environmental review was loaded with Ann Arbor citizens and was therefore biased. She told city council that they would be asked to approve the runway extension without a safety study by the city, the state, or the Federal Aviation Administration. She noted that the Willow Run airport is just 6 miles away.

Miscellaneous Roundup

Two concerns leftover from the adoption of the FY 2010 budget were addressed formally: a Senior Center task force was appointed, and a task force to create a self-sustaining financial plan for Mack Pool was created.

Finally, a liquor license for the new Tios location on Liberty Street was approved.

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

Absent: none.

Next Council Meeting: Monday, July 20, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]