Jamie Kidwell, the city’s sustainability associate, and Wayne Appleyard, chair of the Ann Arbor energy commission. (Photos by the writer.)

The action plan identifies steps to implement 16 broad goals in a sustainability framework that was added to the city’s master plan last year. The goals are organized into four categories – resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community – that were culled from existing city plans and reorganized into this new framework.

The intent is to track efforts toward achieving the 16 goals, which cover a wide range of issues – from increasing renewable energy use and developing a resilient local economy to eliminating pollutants and maintaining Ann Arbor’s unique sense of place. The action plan includes specific indicators that measure progress in each area.

Jamie Kidwell, the city’s sustainability associate, is taking the lead on this project, and fielded questions from commissioners. Part of the goal is for each of the city’s commissions to incorporate these sustainability efforts into their own work plans, she noted. But the action plan is primarily to guide staff efforts. The action plan is also coordinated with the city’s budget process, tying in to the city council’s budget priorities.

Commissioners expressed interest in more collaboration – both among the city’s various commissions, and with other jurisdictions. One start will be to share their work plans, though not all commissions have those.

Commissioners also discussed the idea of holding an annual joint meeting of multiple commissions, possibly in September. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the kick-off for developing the sustainability framework had begun with a joint meeting – with the planning, energy and environmental commissions – in April 2010.

Sustainability Action Plan: Overview

Jamie Kidwell, the city’s sustainability associate, began her briefing by explaining how the action plan is tied to the city’s sustainability framework. Each of the framework’s 16 broad goals is tied to targets for achieving that goal, and concrete actions to hit those targets. “The intent of this document is to really help measure our progress towards our sustainability goals, and to really ground those big, lofty goals … to some of these more measurable actions.” [.pdf of draft sustainability action plan]

The action plan will be a living document, Kidwell said. Some new indicators are included in the plan, she noted. It will be a learning process for staff, and some of the indicators will work better than others, Kidwell said. That means there will be adjustments in the future.

Because the document is primarily for staff, Kidwell said, there have been conversations among staff about how the goals, targets and actions are already being worked on in the short term. The plan isn’t meant to be all-inclusive, she noted, so not everything that staff are working on will be included. She stressed that it’s not really a new plan, but rather a reorganization of some efforts that are already underway.

Jamie Kidwell, the city’s sustainability associate.

One key component of the action plan is that it brings in budget goals that are set by staff each year during the budget cycle. The benefit of that approach is that it allows staff to work with an existing mechanism, Kidwell said, capitalizing on the budget process to more clearly communicate the sustainability goals to other staff, city advisory commissions, the city council and the public.

For example, this year the planning unit’s budget goals are explicitly tied to sustainability goals, Kidwell noted. [Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Rampson stated that the budget goals are still in draft form and are being reviewed by the city administrator. They will become available to the public as part of the budget book when it is presented to the city council in late April or early May.]

The draft action plan also includes a chart that identifies which unit within the city will be responsible for each of the sustainability goals. For example, the sustainability goals for local food are the primary responsibility of the parks and recreation unit, which includes the farmers market and greenbelt program. Kidwell noted that this chart might change, based on feedback from staff.

Kidwell said she wanted to talk to the city’s advisory commissions about the action plan in part because there’s opportunity to help both staff and the commissions find areas that are of common interest. Most commissions develop a work plan for each fiscal year, she noted. How do those work plans feed into the sustainability process?

The intent is to update the action plan every two years, Kidwell said. She asked commissioners for feedback about whether they thought the document would be useful to them, and if it helped communicate the city’s targets and actions regarding sustainability. “Does it really help you get your arms around what city staff is working on, in terms of our sustainability goals?” she asked.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, reported that she’d reviewed the action plan with planning commission chair Kirk Westphal and Ken Clein, the commission’s secretary. They’d compared it to the planning commission’s work plan, and had found that there was alignment. [The planning commission most recently reviewed its work plan in detail at a Jan. 7, 2014 working session. See Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission Reviews 2014 Priorities."]

Sustainability Action Plan: Commission Discussion

Chuck Hookham of the energy commission reported that he’s involved with several national programs on sustainability and infrastructure, and he gives presentations on these topics. When talking to the public, one of the main questions that’s asked is “What are we getting out of this?” he said. If taxpayer money is being spent, where’s the return on investment? As professionals, he said, they need to be better at communicating that.

Chuck Hookham, an Ann Arbor energy commissioner.

Hookham speculated that if he were to ask people in the community to define sustainability, he’d probably get a hundred different answers. So the city needs to be more specific about its goals. “I think that’s how we’ll get to the end game, which is improving life in the future,” he said.

In terms of communicating with the public, Jamie Kidwell said the city plans to have a very robust online version of this action plan. Part of that includes transitioning the current State of Our Environment report to a State of Our Sustainability report, she said. The idea is to provide snapshots online of city projects, and a report of indicators in the action plan, so that the community has concrete evidence that the city is working toward these goals.

Mark Clevey, an energy commission member, wondered how specific the indicators will be. For example, for the indicator of renewable electricity generation, will it be broken down into the number of solar energy systems, or how much renewable power is purchased from utilities?

Kidwell said the level of specificity is still under discussion. The State of the Environment report has 60 indicators that include a very deep level of detail, she noted. “We might be taking a fresh look at how we tell that story.” She encouraged commissioners to give feedback.

Clevey told Kidwell that “more is better” in terms of detail. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the time that staff spends entering data is time that they won’t have to do other things. The city can use interns for some of that work, she said, but “we’re trying to balance what gives people a sense of information, without being a slave to updating the data constantly.”

Rampson said if commissioners know of websites that they think would be effective models for presenting this information, they should let Kidwell know. Hookham cited the Envision sustainable infrastructure rating system, created by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. He described it as a program that’s similar to LEED, except that it deals with non-building facilities.

From left: Sabra Briere and Bonnie Bona of the planning commission. Briere also serves on the city council.

Bonnie Bona of the planning commission asked how the staff was dealing with creating indicators for targets that aren’t numerical. For example, the “engaged community” goal has this target: “Increase effectiveness of communication and service delivery.” How do you quantify that? she asked.

Kidwell noted that there are several areas – including community services, human services, and economic development – that are much harder to quantify. “I think we’re going to have to grow into some of these,” she said. One way to help make some of the indicators “less squishy,” Kidwell said, is to look at the targets and actions, and ask: What will these do, and what indicator follows from that?

Kidwell gave an example by looking at a human services goal: “Provide services that meet basic human needs of impoverished and disenfranchised residents to maximize the health and well-being of the community.” A target to achieve that goal is: “Increase housing stability of public housing residents.”

Within that target, several actions are identified:

• Create a Family Self Sufficiency Program for public housing and voucher residents to increase financial self-sufficiency.
• Increase employment of low-income households on housing commission projects.
• Create permanent supportive housing site with 24-hour front desk security.
• Increase supportive services to public housing units, including food, mental health, case management, and financial literacy.

For these actions, staff have identified the following indicators: (1) number of case managers for public housing sites; (2) percent of public housing residents employed; (3) percent of public housing units with supportive services; and (4) coordinated funding impact(s).

The idea is to find correlations between the indicators and targets/actions, Kidwell said. It’s more difficult for some of the goals, and the staff will be looking for feedback on whether they’ve identified the best indictors – especially as they start tracking the results, she said. “I think it’s going to be a learning process.”

The April 8 working session was the last meeting that Dina Kurz will attend as a member of the Ann Arbor energy commission. Her term ends on April 18, 2014 and she is not seeking reappointment. She was first appointed in April 2008.

Bona encouraged staff and commissions to think of these indicators in terms of “how they help us get the work done.” Then the indicators become something that’s needed, she said, rather than just a tracking of what has occurred.

Kidwell pointed out that the plan tries to capitalize on items that are already being tracked. That’s one reason why it’s being tied to the budget process. The staff goes through a process of identifying targets within each budget cycle, including what they hope to achieve during the fiscal year. As these things get pulled into the sustainability action plan, she said, the plan will evolve.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the planning commission, asked if it would be helpful for a smaller committee – with members from various commissions – to work on goals from the sustainability plan. Kidwell hoped that the action plan would help commissioners identify ways to work together. As an example, several different commissions have talked about incentives for sustainable “green” buildings. Westphal said he could envision how a committee with members from the planning, energy and environmental commissions could “really button down what the metrics are” for achieving that goal.

Mike Shriberg of the energy commission asked Kidwell to talk more about the intersection of the budget with the action plan. Kidwell replied that as part of the budget process, city staff are asked to identify what they’ll be working on in the short term, what they expect to achieve, and the metric for assessing their work. The hope is to coordinate that work with the sustainability action plan.

Rampson told commissioners that every city administrator has a different take on how they want the staff to develop the budget. City administrator Steve Powers, who started with the city in the latter part of 2011, has been working with the city council to identify budget priorities. Those priorities include fiscal discipline, public safety, infrastructure, economic health, affordable housing, and quality of life. Powers is trying to get the city staff to think about how their work fits within those priorities, Rampson said.

Rampson noted that she, Kidwell and other staff are advocating to incorporate the sustainability framework into this process as well, to see how work on a day-to-day basis fits within that framework. The planning commission’s work program fit really nicely, she said. For example, the planning commission’s work on downtown zoning – a project that the council had asked the commission to undertake – fits within the sustainability action plan under the category of integrated land use and following goal: “Encourage a compact pattern of diverse development that maintains our unique sense of place, preserves our natural systems, and strengthens our neighborhoods, corridors, and downtown.”

Mark Clevey of the Ann Arbor energy commission.

Within that goal, one of the targets states: “Encourage dense land use and development patterns which draw people downtown and foster an active street life, contribute to its function as an urban residential neighborhood and support a sustainable transportation system.” An action item to achieve that target is to implement the rezoning and code amendment recommendations of the downtown zoning evaluation. That’s part of the planning commission’s work program for this year, Rampson said.

“In the ideal world,” Rampson said, “you have that line-of-sight from what you’re doing on a day-to-day basis all the way through to the sustainability goal and on to council’s budget priorities.”

Kidwell said the draft action plan reorganizes some of the current budget goals from various city units, slotting them into sustainability goals. Going forward, the hope is that each unit, as they set budget goals, will have the sustainability plan in mind. That will make it easier to pull the budget goals into the plan, she said.

Sabra Briere, who serves as the city council representative on the planning commission, said the council will benefit from seeing the direction that everyone is heading. It’s really easy for councilmembers to lose sight of what’s happening in the whole organization, “because you’re dealing only with what’s right in front of you,” she said. The sustainability action plan is a working document that will help councilmembers see how the priorities they set in December are being implemented for the budget process in May, Briere said. [The city's fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30. The budget is adopted no later than May for the coming fiscal year.]

Bona noted that the budget isn’t the only document that drives investments. The capital improvements plan (CIP) also addresses the city’s investments in infrastructure and assets. There’s a sophisticated matrix for developing priorities in the CIP, she said. But that matrix looks at “the act of building, not the use,” Bona said. [.pdf of CIP prioritization matrix]

Nate Geisler, energy programs analyst.

Kidwell replied that the sustainability goals are already part of the CIP prioritization process. Projects get points in the prioritization ranking if they further one or more of the sustainability goals. That’s not the perfect approach, she added, but it’s a start. Kidwell said she’s already had some conversations with Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process, about whether changes should be made to the matrix in the upcoming CIP cycle. Again, it’s a learning process, Kidwell said.

​Energy commissioner Shoshannah Lenski praised the action plan. She suggested including some very broad indicator, possibly by category, that signals how much progress is being made. It might simply be a green, yellow or red circle next to each target, for example. It could be a qualitative assessment by staff, she said, about whether they think they’re on track with the targets.

Kidwell joked that there’s a blank page in the draft document titled “Plan Progress.” It’s blank because the staff are working on how to best represent the data. She noted that the State of Our Environment report uses green, yellow or red colors to indicate good, fair or poor progress toward the goals, and arrows to indicate whether the indicators are moving in the desired direction.

Dina Kurz of the energy commission asked about incorporating “the language of resilience.” Resilience is an important vocabulary word, she noted, adding that it would fit into one of the targets for a safe community: “Adapt to and effectively manage current hazards and emerging threats from climate impacts.” The word could even be included in targets for public health and disaster preparedness. “What we’re hoping for is that the community remains resilient,” Kurz said.

Kurz thought it would be an important descriptive term. The concept of resilience would be complicated to use as a measure, but it could be an umbrella measure for a lot of different goals. The energy commission, for example, has talked about the benefit of the city’s hydroelectric dam that produces electricity, she said. Local electrical production is a valuable resource, she noted, and there might be other opportunities along the Huron River to produce electricity. That’s a measure of resilience.

The category of local food is another good fit for resilience, Kurz said. Having local food production and promoting that – through farmers markets, for example – is a way to provide resilience if there are disruptions in transportation from outside sources. All of these things interweave, she noted. Local food and markets, she said, also provide a center for community and neighborhood development.

Noting that this was her last meeting as an energy commissioner, Kurz encouraged other commissioners and staff to continue working hard to understand what’s going on in various parts of the community, and to bring those things together “under one tent.”

From left: Energy commissioners Erik Eibert and Mike Shriberg.

Brigit Macomber reported that the energy commission is starting to look at the issue of “time of marketing,” which she said seems to dovetail with green housing. That seems like a topic that lends itself to working with other commissions, she said. How could they make that happen?

Wayne Appleyard, chair of the energy commission, explained that this concept would require a homeowner to disclose energy usage when selling a house, and it might include an energy audit. The “time of marketing” refers to the fact that the disclosure would occur when a property is marketed, as opposed to the “time of sale.” It would allow a homebuyer to make a more informed choice, he said, and it could allow them to secure a mortgage that might include funding for energy efficiency improvements.

Kidwell noted that the action plan includes targets for energy efficiency. Responding to Macomber’s query about collaboration among commissions, Kidwell said the best way to involve multiple commissions on a topic would be to talk to the staff who support the commissions’ work.

Rampson said the key is to find the best fit for overlapping issues. The planning commission isn’t involved directly when single-family residential properties are sold. It might be a better fit for planning commissioners to work with the energy commission on the commercial energy disclosure project, she said, as part of the site plan review that the planning commission undertakes. Even when something isn’t required by city code, Rampson said, the planning commission can introduce the concept to people as they come through the site plan review process.

Macomber explained that she’d been asking a process question. There are rules about how many people can meet, and at what point it becomes a public meeting, she noted – referring to requirements of the Michigan Open Meetings Act. It would be helpful to get staff direction about how to approach joint commission work. “I think it’s great to have the commissions working together. I see a lot of potential in that,” she said.

As a starting point, Kidwell suggested that each commission could begin sharing their work plans with other commissions, and flag a few areas where there might be mutual interest. Westphal asked if each commission’s work plan is posted. It varies, Kidwell said. Westphal suggested emailing work plans for each commission to members of all the commissions.

David Wright of the energy commission.

Briere highlighted topics she’d like to discuss with the energy commission, such as solar shading. She indicated that she wasn’t sure of the mechanism for holding such discussions. She’s also interested in the fact that if you invest in a solar roof, the assessment of your property increases. “So not only do you not get a tax break anymore, but you get a penalty,” she said. As the city promotes installing solar roofs, how do they deal with that?

Appleyard replied that the city council, on which Briere serves, probably has the ability to create a policy. He reported that when energy commissioners met with the city assessor, the assessor had said he’d been told by state officials “that he had the ability to interpret things,” Appleyard said.

David Wright of the energy commission said his understanding is that the city has some discretion regarding assessments, “and we need to further understand what that discretion exists.” Is it with the state tax commission? Or is there some discretion that falls to the city?

Briere said the council has been told that they can’t set policy related to assessments, so she was trying to figure out what can be done in other ways. Wright replied: “We want to help figure that out.”

Appleyard noted that recently, three commissions – planning, energy and environmental – had passed similar resolutions recommending to council that sufficient staff be hired to implement the city’s climate action plan. “I think there was some real power in having more than one commission pass resolutions,” he said, “so I think we need to make use of that, when possible.”

Macomber asked if commissioners would be having regular joint sessions. Kidwell said it’s up to commissioners, and noted that the precedent is there. If there’s interest from multiple commissions, the staff can figure out how to schedule it.

Shriberg noted that the sustainability plan is a great forum for bringing commissions together, because the plan’s indicators touch on the interests of many commissions. Kidwell suggested an annual meeting to talk about progress toward the plan’s goals. Commissions could also present their work plans to each other at that time.

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters said that one of the planning commission’s jobs is to look far into the future. Having a process like the one Kidwell described would help with that.

Ken Clein of the planning commission wondered if there’d been any thought to coordinating with Washtenaw County government as well. It’s important to realize that Ann Arbor doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Kidwell said staff had struggled with that question in developing the sustainability plan. As a starting point, the plan makes the city’s work more transparent, she noted. Another step would be incorporating partners, she said – for example, she’s already been talking with the county’s office of community & economic development about their work.

From right: Planning commissioners Kirk Westphal, Diane Giannola and Paras Parekh.

Kidwell reported that she’s working on a countywide housing project, too – that’s just one example of work that’s being done with other partners, she said.

Briere gave several examples of areas where there are commissions in multiple jurisdictions that do similar work – Ann Arbor has a park advisory commission, and Washtenaw County has a parks & recreation commission. Many jurisdictions have housing-related commissions. She said she didn’t know all of the commissions that existed countywide. She wondered if the staff saw any opportunity to bring together commissions outside of Ann Arbor with Ann Arbor commissions, “to really talk through the next set of ideas, whatever they may be.” It would be great to see regional planning, Briere said.

Kidwell agreed that it’s something to support. She gave the example of the Reimagine Washtenaw project, which involved several jurisdictions – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Pittsfield Township – to improve the Washtenaw Avenue corridor between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Rampson noted that the Reimagine Washtenaw project is at a critical point, because the federal grant that’s paid for staff is ending in the next year. Now, each community must decide whether it wants to continue paying for that staff work, she said. The challenge is how to keep a project like this moving ahead.

There’s benefit in not reinventing the wheel, Rampson said – that’s a reason to collaborate with other communities.

Commissioners wrapped up by discussing the timing of an annual meeting of multiple commissions, possibly in September. Rampson noted that the kick-off for developing the sustainability framework had begun with a joint meeting – between the planning, energy and environmental commissions – in April 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor."]

Rampson suggested that the chairs of these three commission meet to do some planning, and to include the housing and human services advisory board too, and possibly the park advisory commission. Another possibility is to create a committee focused on the CIP.

As a follow-up to sharing work plans, Kurz asked that the planning commission’s work plan be shared with other commissions, so that it could be used as a template. [.pdf of planning commission's work plan] The environmental commission also has an active work plan, which was adopted in September 2013. [.pdf of environmental commission's work plan] The energy commission doesn’t have a current work plan. Nor does the housing & human services advisory commission, but Briere indicated that she would bring up the issue at the HHSAB’s next meeting.

Planning commissioners present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal.

Energy commissioners present: Wayne Appleyard, Mark Clevey, Erik Eibert, Chuck Hookham, Dina Kurz, ​Shoshannah Lenski, Brigit Macomber, Mike Shriberg, Ken Wadland, David Wright.

Staff present: Planning manager Wendy Rampson; Nate Geisler, energy programs analyst; Jamie Kidwell, sustainability associate.

Next planning commission meeting: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor.

Next energy commission meeting: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 6 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

First, the council directed the city’s energy office to draft a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. It’s an effort to help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. That succeeded on a 7-3 vote. Dissenting were Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent.

Second, the council directed the city administrator to “report back to council by May 5, 2014 with a plan to make significant progress on creating and implementing additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets, reduce our community GHG emissions, provide economic benefit to our community and help to preserve our quality of life.”

The original resolution would have given explicit direction to hire an additional staff member for the city’s energy office, bringing the total back to two people, according to the resolution. The energy office staffer would “create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets.” Among the specific efforts cited in the resolution are the city’s property assessed clean energy (PACE) program.

However, the resolution was amended at the meeting so that the city administrator would only be directed to provide a report back to the council on how the goals of the city’s sustainability framework could be realized. The resolution succeeded on a 6-4 vote. Dissenting were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

At its March 4, 2014 meeting, the city’s planning commission passed a resolution in support of the hiring. Planning commissioners were briefed on the issue by Wayne Appleyard, chair of the energy commission. Appleyard attended the March 17 council meeting, but was not asked to address the council. Resolutions of support were also passed by the city’s energy and environmental commissions.

The resolution on the energy disclosure ordinance directs the city’s energy commission and staff to convene a stakeholder work group, with the support of the city attorney’s office, to draft a commercial building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinance. Such an ordinance would require owners of commercial buildings to disclose data on energy consumption by their buildings. It’s an effort to help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan, which was approved by the city council at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting. Ann Arbor’s climate action plan calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 8% by 2015, 25% by 2025, and 90% by 2050. Baseline for the reductions are 2000 levels.

The energy disclosure resolution on the council’s March 17 agenda originated with the city’s energy commission. The staff memo compares the idea of a disclosure requirement for energy usage by commercial buildings to a miles-per-gallon rating for vehicles or nutritional facts labeling for food products. According to the memo, awareness of energy consumption has been shown to encourage building owners to have energy audits done on their buildings. Those audits can then lead to energy efficiency upgrades that result in cost savings to the building owners and reduced emissions.

An estimate for the potential energy cost savings that would result from an energy benchmarking ordinance in Ann Arbor – prepared by the Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) – is between $2 million and $2.5 million, annually. According to the staff memo, similar ordinances in place in other cities typically employed a phased approach, often with municipal buildings as well as the largest private buildings (by square footage) complying in the initial year(s), and medium-sized and/or smaller buildings participating in later years.

The energy commission is recommending that an ordinance be developed with a phased approach, with the phases based on building categories and sizes. One possibility is to start with all qualifying municipal buildings in the first six months, commercial buildings over 100,000 square feet in 12 to 18 months, multifamily and commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet in 24 to 36 months, and all commercial buildings over 10,000 square feet in 36 to 48 months. The goal would be to have reported energy consumption information for 80% of the commercial square feet in the city within five years of adoption.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson and Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, at a Jan. 7, 2014 working session in the basement of city hall. (Photos by the writer.)

Planning manager Wendy Rampson gave the mid-year update, reporting on items that were moving ahead, delayed or stalled. Some projects – like the downtown zoning review – had taken more time than anticipated, she reported. That meant some other projects didn’t get as much attention. [.pdf of work plan status report]

Two projects on the work plan have been completed: (1) an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, and (2) the second-year update to the capital improvements plan (CIP). Other work – like the years-long effort to reorganize the city’s zoning ordinances, known as ZORO, continues to languish. That project is being overseen by the city attorney’s office, with support from planning staff.

Based on feedback from the four commissioners at the working session, as well as input from other commissioners via email, some items on the work plan will be tweaked.

City staff have drafted an action plan to implement goals of the city’s sustainability framework, which was approved last year. Planning commissioners are interested in moving that forward.

Commissioners also expressed interested in forming a new committee to explore the impact of pending changes to mandated floodplain insurance, with a cross-section of representatives from planning, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office, the city’s historic district commission and local creekshed groups.

In addition, Rampson was asked to explore the possibility of forming a joint planning commission with representatives from the four jurisdictions along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor – the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Pittsfield Township. A right-of-way report for that corridor will be completed soon, which will be reviewed by the commission.

Commissioners also directed Rampson to develop a list of pros and cons for eliminating drive-thrus as a by-right option in certain zoning districts, and instead requiring developers to seek a special exception from the planning commission in order to build one. Some commissioners think that drive-thrus – especially for fast food restaurants – make an area less pedestrian-friendly. Also of concern are the emissions generated from idling vehicles.

More immediately, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee will be reviewing recommendations from an advisory committee on R4C/R2A residential zoning. There will also likely be work on ordinance revisions for downtown zoning, depending on what direction is given by the city council. A set of recommendations already approved by planning commissioners is on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

Work Plan Overview

Each year, the planning commission sets a work plan, prioritizing initiatives and long-term projects that they’ll work on with staff during the city’s fiscal year, which runs from July 1 through June 30. For fiscal 2013-2014, commissioners developed a work plan in June of 2013, which was formally approved at their June 18, 2013 meeting.

At the commission’s Jan. 7, 2014 working session, Kirk Westphal, who chairs the group, reported that the commission’s executive committee had met to review the work plan and get an update on the status of various projects that the planning staff is undertaking. The intent was to review these projects at the working session and see if any priorities have shifted. The city is about halfway through its fiscal year.

The work plan has two main sections: (1) items related to master planning, and (2) items related to ordinance revisions or implementation. [.pdf of work plan status report]

Several items in the work plan haven’t moved forward as quickly as expected, according to city planning manager Wendy Rampson. The review of downtown zoning had been “all consuming” during the first six months of the fiscal year, she noted, and the ongoing R4C/R2A zoning review had also taken up considerable time. Neither of those efforts have produced anything tangible yet, she added, “but all of the discussion that’s gone on in the community has resulted in some consensus-building in that area.”

Rampson told commissioners that she was looking for direction about where the planning staff should put its energy in the next six months. The commission will also hold a retreat in the spring to look at priorities for next year.

The work plan also will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting of the full planning commission. Only four commissioners attended the Jan. 7 working session.

Master Planning

Under the category of master planning, the planning commission’s work plan has two main projects: (1) developing an action plan for the city’s existing sustainability framework; and (2) corridor projects on Washtenaw Avenue and North Main Street.

Master Planning: Sustainability Framework Action Plan

The planning commission and city council had approved a sustainability framework last year, adding it as an element of city’s master plan. The framework has 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. City staff have drafted an action plan to implement the goals of that framework. [.pdf of draft action plan]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the staff made some good progress on drafting the action plan over the summer, but now “it’s basically stopped.” The two staff members who had taken the lead on it – Jamie Kidwell and Jill Thacher – got pulled into other projects, she said.

The draft action plan hasn’t yet been circulated to the three groups that were involved in developing the sustainability framework: The planning, energy and environmental commissions. If there’s interest in prioritizing this project, getting feedback from these commissions would be the next step, Rampson said.

The intent of the action plan is to take each goal of the sustainability framework and pick one to three items that could be implemented throughout the organization.

For example, under the category of integrated land use, one of the goals from the framework is: “Encourage dense land use and development patterns which draw people downtown and foster an active street life, contribute to its function as an urban residential neighborhood and support a sustainable transportation system.” Two action items have been drafted to help achieve that goal:

Develop a reuse strategy for end of life, vacant city-owned properties in and near downtown.

Implement the recommendations of the Connecting William Street effort, once adopted.

By way of background on Connecting William Street, at its March 5, 2013 meeting, the planning commission voted to add the Connecting William Street report as a resource document. However, the city council has not taken any action regarding that effort, which was undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the direction of the city council.

Action items for other land use goals include implementing recommendations of the South State Street corridor study and the North Main/Huron River corridor task force, continuing participation in Reimagine Washtenaw, and implementing appropriate city code revisions related to the R4C/R2A zoning review.

Kirk Westphal noted that the sustainability framework represents the highest priorities of several city commissions, and it made sense to him to finish the project by completing the action plan. “So even if we’re not always on the same page, at least we’re in the same pamphlet,” he joked.

In response to a query from Paras Parekh, Rampson said the action plan would be a working document. If approved, the staff would review progress on these items each year.

Rampson said it’s possible to link almost everything that the planning commission works on to the sustainability action plan. The Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project, for example, is linked to economic health and public engagement – the idea that there’s a clear understanding of the rules for development.

Jeremy Peters supported working on the action plan, saying it’s a point of pride if someone can look at work on the sustainability goals and say, “This is why I want to live in Ann Arbor. This is why I want to start my business in Ann Arbor.”

Diane Giannola urged each of the commissions to focus on the action items that are most relevant to their work. She was worried that it would be difficult to reach consensus on all of the action items.

Rampson said she’d schedule a time for the planning commission to discuss how to move forward, possibly at a working session in February.

Master Planning: Washtenaw Avenue, North Main Corridors

Wendy Rampson noted that two projects related to central corridors – Washtenaw Avenue and North Main – are on track.

Planning commissioner Paras Parekh.

The North Main/Huron River corridor task force had completed its work in the summer of 2013. The question for commissioners is whether they want to do a full-blown corridor study for North Main, as they did for South State Street, Rampson said.

Paras Parekh noted that there had been a lot of ideas about North Main, calling it a “vital part of the city.” He thought the commission should make a decision about what to do with the task force report, one way or another. Diane Giannola observed that a full-blown corridor study, like the one that was done for South State Street, is intense and would require a lot of work. Rampson pointed out a similar study for North Main would likely be less intense, because the North Main/Huron River corridor task force has already done a lot of public engagement and research. “It gives us a bit of a jump start,” Rampson said.

Regarding the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, the planning commission was briefed about Reimagine Washtenaw at a working session in December of 2013. The commission will need to decide what it wants to do next, regarding recommendations for that project.

Rampson reported that a Washtenaw Avenue right-of-way study being conducted by Smith Group/JJR would be completed soon. She suggested that the planning commission could look at how the right-of-way recommendations would impact potential redevelopment along Washtenaw Avenue. That corridor passes through four jurisdictions: the city of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township, and the city of Ypsilanti. Rampson noted that the biggest challenge for Ann Arbor’s section is that it’s the widest part of the corridor. Any changes that would narrow the road would affect the service drives, which include parking areas.

Because the Reimagine Washtenaw recommendations will be coming soon, that’s probably the most timely project for implementation, Rampson said.

Parekh confirmed with Rampson that the changes would happen incrementally over the next few years, as properties get redeveloped. Owners would not be required to conform the existing buildings and setbacks to new zoning, for example. Although major changes would not happen immediately, Rampson noted that some property owners are interested in redevelopment. She cited the owners of the Victory Inn at 3750 Washtenaw Ave. near the US-23 interchange, saying they’ve come in to talk with planning staff about redeveloping that site.

It’s important that new requirements are in place so that when redevelopment does occur, it can conform to what the city and other jurisdictions would like to see along Washtenaw Avenue, Rampson said. Changes in transit will also impact some of the corridor improvements. “This is real planning – when you’re looking so far into the future,” she added. In addition to some of the “problem-solving” projects on the planning commission’s work plan, it’s good to have a longer-term project as well, Rampson told commissioners.

Kirk Westphal confirmed with Rampson that it would be possible to have a joint planning commission for the corridor, with representatives from each jurisdiction. He wondered if creating that would be the best first step. Rampson noted that state law governs the formal process of setting up a new joint planning commission. She pointed out that once it’s created, it has to be sustained – so the question is whether there’s enough energy among all the jurisdictions to do that. Responding to another question from Westphal, Rampson said a joint planning commission doesn’t preclude the formation of a corridor improvement authority (CIA).

Rampson reported that a joint technical committee – composed mostly of staff from the four jurisdictions, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation – continues to meet monthly. Their work has been driven by the right-of-way study, so after that the committee “will have to figure out what our reason for being is,” she said.

Also, there’s some funding from the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development’s Sustainable Communities planning grant for public art in the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, Rampson said, and Deb Polich of the Arts Alliance is working on that. Polich is also participating in the joint technical committee.

The involvement of elected officials in this project has started to wane, Rampson reported. The staff has also tried to get merchant associations involved, she added, but it’s been difficult along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor. The core businesses for the Washtenaw Avenue Merchants Association are Hiller’s grocery, Paesano restaurant, and Wheels in Motion, Rampson said, but she wasn’t sure how active the group is.

Rampson said she’d follow up with Nathan Voght of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development, who is providing staff support for Reimagine Washtenaw, to explore a possible joint planning commission.

Master Planning: Completed Projects

Rampson noted that two projects on the work plan in the master planning category have been completed: (1) an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan; and (2) the second-year update to the capital improvements plan (CIP).

The planning commission approved an update to the non-motorized transportation plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. The document includes sections on planning and policy, as well as recommendations for short-term and long-term projects, such as bike boulevards, crosswalks, sidewalks and larger efforts like the Allen Creek greenway and Border-to-Border Trail. The city council subsequently approved the update as well. Items in the city’s master plan must receive approval from both the planning commission and the council.

The council does not approve the CIP – as that’s the planning commission’s purview. But the city council has budgetary control over the plan. Commissioners approved the 2015-2020 CIP at their Dec. 3, 2013 meeting, and it was forwarded to the council as an information item.

The CIP is a supporting document for the city’s master plan, and the city council bases its capital budget on the CIP. It includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of staff memo and CIP for FY 2015-2020] Most of this year’s updates relate to FY 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. This year reflects the first-time inclusion of projects undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations

Several items on the work plan relate to ordinance revisions, including reviews of downtown zoning and R4C/R2A residential zoning, the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project, and possible ordinance changes related to floodplain issues.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Downtown Zoning

The recommendations regarding changes to downtown zoning were originally due to the city council by October 2013. The planning commission had finished that work and approved the set of recommendations on Dec. 3, 2013. Wendy Rampson reported that the recommendations will be on the city council’s Jan. 21 agenda. “So we’re making progress on that, but it’s slow,” she said.

Kirk Westphal noted that even if the council signs off on the recommendations, then the planning commission gets “restarted” as they work with staff to develop actual ordinance revisions that implement the recommendations.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: R4C/R2A

Amendments to the city’s R4C/R2A zoning were scheduled to be completed by March of 2014, but that project isn’t moving ahead as quickly as planned, Rampson reported. She noted that a final report will be submitted soon by an advisory committee, and at that point the planning commission will need to decide what to do next. [.pdf of final advisory committee report]

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

A review of these residential zoning ordinances has been in the works for several years. An advisory committee was originally established by the Ann Arbor city council in 2009. Its purpose was to give input as the planning commission developed recommendations for what some city staff have called a “broken” zoning district. The committee’s original recommendations were delivered to the commission in 2012, and planning commissioners adopted their own set of recommendations for the council in April of 2013.

Although there was considerable overlap, the planning commission’s recommendations diverged from the advisory committee in some significant ways. Some advisory committee members felt their work had been cut short and that the final report presented to the planning commission on behalf of the committee did not fully reflect the committee’s consensus. They also wanted to weigh in on some of the commission’s recommendations, including a proposed “group housing” overlay district.

So the city council reconstituted the advisory committee in the summer of 2013, with slightly different membership. The group met four times, then created a new report for the planning commission to consider.

Most recently, planning commissioners were briefed on the advisory committee’s report at a Dec. 10, 2013 working session. For background, see Chronicle coverage: “R4C/R2A Zoning Proposals Reviewed.”

On Jan. 7, Diane Giannola said that she and Bonnie Bona are interested in making some proposals related to the R4C zoning ordinance, like making it easier to convert garages into “carriage houses,” for example.

The next step will be for the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee to look at all of the recommendations for the R4C/R2A zoning, and decide how to move forward. It’s possible that a new set of recommendations would be brought forward to the full planning commission. Ultimately, the city council would need to give direction on how the planning commission should proceed in developing actual revisions to the zoning ordinances.

The advisory committee’s final report will be part of the planning commission’s Jan. 23 meeting agenda.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Citizen Participation Ordinance

An evaluation of the city’s citizen participation ordinance was due to be completed by October 2013, but hasn’t made much progress. Rampson said that Angeline Lawrence of the city’s planning staff has written a memo with suggestions about how to improve the city’s citizen participation. So Rampson would like to review that with the commission’s citizen outreach committee. Members of that committee are Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh and Jeremy Peters.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: ZORO

ZORO stands for Zoning Ordinance Reorganization. It’s a project that began in 2009. The goal is to do a comprehensive review of 11 chapters of the city code that are related to development, and to present the material in a more concise, user-friendly way, clarifying terminology, and eliminating inconsistencies and outdated material.

The chapters being reorganized by ZORO are:

• Chapter 26: Solid Waste
• Chapter 47: Streets and Curb Cuts
• Chapter 55: Zoning
• Chapter 56: Prohibited Land Uses
• Chapter 57: Subdivision and Land Use Regulations, and the attached Land Development Regulations
• Chapter 59: Off-Street Parking
• Chapter 60: Wetlands Preservation
• Chapter 61: Signs and Outdoor Advertising
• Chapter 62: Landscaping and Screening
• Chapter 63: Soil Erosion, Sedimentation Control and Storm Water Management
• Chapter 104: Fences

Don Elliott of the consulting firm Clarion Associates was hired by the city to do the initial work, and presented a draft report about two years ago. Since then, it has been worked on by planning staff and the city attorney’s office, which is overseeing the project. Over the years, planning commissioners have expressed frustration that ZORO hasn’t been completed. At the commission’s April 23, 2013 retreat, for example, it was a topic of discussion.

On Jan. 7, Rampson reported that ZORO has made no progress in the last six months.

Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office, who’s point person for the project, was originally scheduled to give commissioners a ZORO update at a Jan. 14 working session. However, a special meeting of the planning commission was convened on that night instead, for the purpose of holding closed session with McDonald to discuss attorney-client privileged information. That is one of the exemptions allowed under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Floodplain Ordinance/Insurance

Rampson told commissioners that it looked like FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) was going to delay moving to mandating market rate flood insurance, “so that gives us a little breathing room.”

By way of background, at its March 5, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council gave final approval to an ordinance change that will adopt a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the city. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) makes flood insurance available for properties in participating communities – Ann Arbor is a participant. If a building has a federally-backed mortgage and it’s located within the “1% annual change floodplain” (previously called the “100-year floodplain) then flood insurance is required.

Ann Arbor’s previous FIRM dated from Jan. 2, 1992. In 2004, the FEMA began a map revision process for Washtenaw County. Various drains in the city were re-analyzed, using updated data, and on July 27, 2007, FEMA issued preliminary maps. After required public review, appeal and revisions, on Oct. 3, 2011, FEMA issued a letter with a final determination, indicating that the new maps would become effective on April 3, 2012. [.pdf of Oct. 3, 2011 letter] [.pdf of Dec. 20, 2011 reminder letter]

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Compared to the previous 1992 maps, 321 parcels are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain. However, 116 parcels that were previously not analyzed as in a floodplain are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. Building-wise, 452 structures are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain, while 88 buildings are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. [See also Chronicle coverage: "Column: Digital Information Flood."]

Federal legislation passed in 2012 – the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act – will result in dramatic rate hikes for flood insurance, because federal subsidies will be eliminated. However, implementation of those increases has been delayed.

On Jan. 7, Rampson explained that the plan is to incorporate changes into the city’s flood and zoning ordinances that reflect the insurance risk factor. The primary changes will relate to the flood ordinance, which isn’t the planning commission’s purview. However, any zoning changes would come through the planning commission.

Historic structures have been exempt from regulations related to floodplains, Rampson said. But now, any structure in a floodplain must carry flood insurance, and the rates are expected to increase significantly. The deeper a property is into the floodplain, the higher the insurance rates would be. That might result in disinvestment within those areas, she said, or possibly owners would elevate buildings, which would change the character of a neighborhood. [If a structure is elevated above the flood depth, its insurance rates would be lower.] It’s primarily the impacts on historic districts that the city staff felt should be addressed by possible zoning ordinance changes.

Rampson suggested that the effort should be coordinated with the historic district commission. The question is whether the HDC would come up with a new set of standards for dealing with historic structures in a floodplain. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards don’t really address it, she said. Rampson noted that the HDC has been briefed on this issue by city planner Jill Thacher, “so they already understand that this will be a problem.”

Diane Giannola proposed putting together a committee to tackle this issue, and include former planning commissioner Evan Pratt, who is now Washtenaw County’s water resources commissioner. Other members could be pulled from the HDC, the planning commission, the zoning board of appeals, and local creekshed associations. Giannola noted that Pratt has extensive background on this issue.

Rampson asked about priorities. If planning commissioners want the staff to work on this project, what other project will be moved to a lower priority? Giannola recommended holding off on launching a North Main corridor study, and that the floodplain project should take priority over that.

Rampson reported that Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater & floodplain program coordinator, had briefed the city council on this issue last year. He had anticipated that the council would provide direction on what steps to take next, but that hasn’t happened yet. Giannola didn’t think that councilmembers understood the implications of the flood insurance rates on historic districts.

Rampson said she’d work on pulling a committee together to work on this issue. Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Jeremy Peters volunteered to serve.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Redevelopment Ready

The city council – at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – authorized the city to participate in the Michigan Economic Development Corp.’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program. The planning commission had been briefed on the program at a Sept. 10, 2013 working session.

The program was originally developed by the nonprofit Michigan Suburbs Alliance, and later acquired by the state through the MEDC. [Both organizations have local connections. The suburbs alliance is led by Conan Smith, an Ann Arbor resident who also is an elected official serving on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. MEDC's CEO is Michael Finney, former head of Ann Arbor SPARK.]

The program is viewed as a tool to help communities put in place elements that would allow redevelopment to happen. Those things include master plans that are clear about what community expectations are for new developments, and zoning that reflects those expectations in a very specific way. It means that when developers look at a specific property, they’ll be able to know exactly what they can do. The program includes a list of best practices focused on six categories: (1) community plans and public outreach; (2) zoning policy and regulations; (3) development review process; (4) education and training; (5) redevelopment ready sites; and (6) community prosperity (economic strategies, marketing and promotion). [.pdf of best practices document]

In March of 2013, the MEDC announced that 8 communities – including Ann Arbor – had been selected for the program’s first round to receive a formal Redevelopment Ready Communities evaluation. If the city completes this evaluation successfully, Rampson said, then it would be certified as a “Redevelopment Ready” community. The state has indicated that communities with this certification could receive priority points on grants from MEDC and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA).

On Jan. 7, Rampson reported that the city is moving forward more slowly than expected, and will probably get started on the certification process in March. That had originally been the timeframe for expected completion of the certification.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Sign Ordinance

A project to revise the city’s sign ordinance is on the work plan for completion by June of 2014. Rampson reported that the staff is waiting for funding to pay for a consultant before that work can start.

Potential Future Projects

In addition to the projects already underway, Wendy Rampson provided an updated list of potential projects that planning commissioners have previously indicated an interest in pursuing:

• Economic development initiatives
• Student neighborhood property conditions/enforcement in R4C
• Southeast area neighborhoods visioning
• “Mixed use” overlay amendment
• Neighborhood outreach/engagement
• Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance amendments
• “Age-Friendly” master plan and ordinance amendments
• Non-motorized plan implementation/pedestrian safety & sidewalk initiatives (with systems planning unit)
• Lowertown land use amendments
• Ordinance amendment to make all drive-thrus special exception uses
• High school student representation on the planning commission

Potential Future Projects: Drive-Thrus

Diane Giannola asked what the impetus was to look at eliminating the current by-right use of drive-thrus. It’s come up in discussions about corridor improvements, Rampson replied. One of the challenges in encouraging major corridors to be less auto-friendly is that the city keeps getting proposals for drive-thru restaurants, like Tim Hortons, she said. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed “by right” on any property that’s zoned C3 (fringe commercial). It’s particularly an issue along Washtenaw Avenue, where most of the property is zoned C3.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Kirk Westphal noted that most restaurant proposals include drive-thrus. “It’s just a cash box in a busy corridor,” he said, “but it makes everything around it not walkable.” To him, it’s a broader question of looking at which parts of the city could evolve into a “walkable node.” If those areas are identified, then the city could ban drive-thrus there. In the meantime, changing the ordinance to require a special exception use for a drive-thru seemed like a good safeguard, he said, so that the planning commission could make a decision on a case-by-case basis.

In response to a query from Paras Parekh, Rampson explained the process for changing the ordinance. Language for an ordinance revision would be drafted by city staff and reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee. The planning commission would hold a public hearing on it, vote on a recommendation, then send that recommendation to city council. The council would need to approve any ordinance change.

Rampson noted that some cities have banned drive-thrus completely. With a special exception use, it would allow drive-thrus under certain conditions. Those conditions would need to be articulated.

In addition to restaurants, other businesses that use drive-thrus include banks and pharmacies, Rampson noted.

Based on the interest that commissioners were indicating, Rampson said the planning staff would add it to their work plan and draft some ordinance language for commissioners to review.

Diane Giannola and Jeremy Peters asked for an analysis for making this change. “You’ll have landowners and business owners and franchisees up in arms, so it would be good to see some pros and cons,” Peters said. Giannola cautioned that eliminating drive-thrus might result in the need for more parking.

Westphal responded, saying that it might result in fewer fast food restaurants coming to town. “I don’t know that McDonald’s would build a new restaurant if they couldn’t include a drive-thru,” he said. “So that’s one question: Do we have enough drive-thrus?”

Rampson added that from a sustainability perspective, vehicle emission from idling at drive-thrus is an issue. The air quality issue has caused some communities to ban drive-thrus.

Present: Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Bonnie Bona, Ken Clein, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor city council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. The typical Tuesday meeting has been shifted to Thursday to accommodate scheduling changes related to the Jan. 20 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The item had originally been on the planning commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 agenda. Action was postponed at that time, after some commissioners raised concerns regarding a goal for high-performance buildings.

The city has been developing this framework for nearly two years. In June of 2012, the planning commission had recommended approval of the 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. In September, commissioners voted to disseminate the framework to neighboring jurisdictions, which was a necessary step on the path toward including it in the city’s master plan.

Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,“ and “Final Forum: What Sustains Community?”

The sustainability framework will become the seventh element of the city’s master plan. Other elements are: (1) land use; (2) downtown plan; (3) transportation plan; (4) non-motorized plan; (5) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan; and (6) natural features master plan.

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

This current house at 515 N. Fifth, just south of Beakes, will be demolished to make way for a new four-unit residential development. (Photos by the writer.)

The site plan for 515 N. Fifth calls for demolishing the current house – which has three apartments – and building a three-story structure with four two-bedroom units. Two of those units will be condos, with the other two rented out as apartments. Although the building’s design had previously received harsh criticism from Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and Ray Detter of the downtown citizens advisory council, no one spoke against the project on Jan. 3 and the commission’s discussion was brief.

Also moving forward was a site plan for Summit Townhomes, a residential project at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, between Stone School and Platt roads. That project proposes 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings. The planning commission and city council have already approved annexation of the site from Pittsfield Township, although that process still awaits authorization at the state level.

In other action, commissioners took steps on two major planning projects that have been years in the making. They recommended that the city council distribute a draft of the South State Street corridor plan to neighboring jurisdictions and other stakeholders, including the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. It’s the next step toward adopting the corridor plan’s recommendations into the city’s master plan.

Commissioners also voted to adopt a sustainability framework as an element of city’s master plan, and recommended that the city council take the same action. The sustainability framework will become the seventh element in the master plan, which is used to guide decision-making in a variety of ways. Other elements are: (1) land use; (2) downtown plan; (3) transportation plan; (4) non-motorized plan; (5) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan; and (6) natural features master plan.

Related to that effort, planning manager Wendy Rampson highlighted a series of sustainability forums hosted by the city. The first one is on Wednesday, Jan. 9 and focuses on “sustainable systems,” looking at how weather changes might impact the community and the city’s infrastructure. All forums, held monthly through April, begin at 7 p.m. at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

The hour-long Jan. 3 meeting was relatively short, but commissioners are anticipating a much longer session on Jan. 15. That’s when two major residential projects will be on the agenda: a 14-story building on the northeast corner of Huron and Division, with 216 apartments; and a 13-story addition to the Pizza House building on Church Street, with 76 apartments. Both projects, especially the controversial proposal at 413 E. Huron, are expected to draw significant public commentary.

515 N. Fifth

On the Jan. 3 agenda was a request for site plan approval and a development agreement for a residential building at 515 N. Fifth Ave., between Kingsley and Beakes on the west side of North Fifth. The project is a three-story, 8,404-square-foot building with four two-bedroom units: two condominiums and two apartments.

Aerial view showing the location of 515 N. Fifth, outlined in black.

The apartments would be on the second and third floors, while the condos would be on the first floor, with entrances from the north and south sides. Parking would be provided in an attached four-car garage in the front of the structure, though the garage openings are located on the side, near the front of the building. [.pdf of site plan] The site is zoned R4C (multi-family residential district) and the existing house on the site, with three apartments, would be demolished. It was built in 1901. Construction is estimated to cost $925,500.

The owners are requesting a variance from the city’s conflicting land-use buffer ordinance, which requires a 15-foot buffer on the west, north and south sides. The buffer requirement to the west can be met, but the owners want to put in a narrower landscape buffer on the other sides – varying from two to 12 feet on the south, with a 12-foot buffer on the north. There would be a five-foot-high screening fence along the entire perimeter of the site. Approval for this variance is needed from the city’s zoning board of appeals, which is expected to address the issue at its Jan. 23 meeting.

The project had previously been postponed at the commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 meeting, as planning staff recommended giving the owners more time to address a range of issues related to utility, landscaping and natural features analysis. At that meeting, Christine Crockett, who’s president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and Ray Detter of the downtown citizens advisory council, spoke in opposition of the project. They had cited a range of objections, including their view that the design did not fit with the neighborhood.

This time, staff had recommended approval of the project. In giving the staff report, city planner Jill Thacher provided a drawing that showed the proposed development in the context of neighboring buildings.

Drawing that shows proposed 515 N. Fifth development (center) in the context of surrounding structures. The view is facing west from North Fifth. At the far right is the building that houses Annie’s Children’s Center, at the southwest corner of Fifth and Beakes.

Thacher noted that a request for this drawing was one of the reasons that planning commissioners postponed action on Dec. 4. All other reasons for postponement had been addressed, she said, and now staff was recommending approval.

515 N. Fifth: Public Commentary

Scott Bowers, the project’s architect, addressed the commission to elaborate on the building’s context to surrounding structures. On the drawing, the darker portion is the part that comes out toward the street, he said, and it’s in size and scale with other buildings on North Fifth. In the back, “we do blossom out and make it a little larger,” Bowers said, “but that’s at the rear of the site.”

515 N. Fifth: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona noted that the project drawings make the site appear absolutely flat, when it isn’t. She wanted to highlight that issue for staff so that the development doesn’t inadvertently create a problem for the neighbors with regard to drainage.

Sabra Briere was curious about the accessibility of these dwellings. At least two of the units must be approached by one- or two-story staircases, she noted. Project architect Scott Bowers explained that for the front two apartments, you’ll need to use stairs. For the condos in the back, there’s an eight-inch rise to get into the building. Briere noted that this would make it impossible for people in a wheelchair to use. That’s true, Bowers said, unless they built a ramp.

Scott Bowers, an architect for the residential development at 515 N. Fifth, at the Ann Arbor planning commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 meeting. He also attended the Jan. 3 meeting, when the project’s site plan was approved.

Briere wondered if a condo owner were to install a ramp, would they be required to move it if they subsequently sold the unit? Probably not, Bowers said – there’s nothing written into the condo agreement that would require removal.

In response to another query from Briere, Bowers said the door frames are all 36 inches wide, and there are ground floor restrooms in both condo units – but only one of those restrooms is designed for handicap accessibility. He noted that for one of the condos, they’ve looked at the possibility of eventually adding an elevator in the space that’s now designed for closets.

Briere also said she wanted to echo comments that were made at the Dec. 4 meeting, related to the building’s design. To her, a front porch opens onto the street, not the driveway, and makes it clear where the entrances are. “I find that looking at the drawings, I have no clue where the entrance is,” she said. Briere hoped that future infill development would take into consideration “approachability from the sidewalk, which is an important part of the downtown living experience.”

Thacher noted that since this site is outside of the downtown area, there are no design guidelines or anything else that would dictate streetfront character. “If they were a few blocks farther south, that would be different,” Thacher said.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the original design didn’t have a front entrance at all. The architect took feedback very seriously, she said, and redesigned the building so that there’s a front entry and a porch-like structure in the front. But there’s no code requirement or design review in this part of the city, she added, nor is the site in an historic district. If it’s important to have porches on the fronts of buildings, “then you may want to incorporate that into code,” Rampson said.

In general, Rampson said, the planning staff has been taking recommendations from the city’s master plan and working with project applicants to see if they can fit their designs within the standards outlined in the master plan.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement for 515. N. Fifth, subject to a variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Summit Townhomes

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a site plan for Summit Townhomes, a residential project at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, between Stone School and Platt roads. Similar versions of the site plan had been previously postponed by commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012. The property is on the north side of Ellsworth, and abuts the Cloverly Village condo development, which is located to the northwest of the site. It also abuts a piece of vacant land owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

At the June meeting, commissioners had approved annexation of the 2.95-acre site from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council, but still awaits authorization at the state level. And at the commission’s Nov. 20 meeting, the zoning for the property – R3 (townhouse dwelling district) – had been recommended for approval.

Aerial photo of property for Summit Townhomes, outlined in black. The property fronts Ellsworth Road and lies southeast of the Cloverly Village condominiums. The north/south road to the left is Stone School. The north/south road to the right is Shadowwood Drive, leading into the Forest Hills Cooperative townhome development. The structure in the top center of this image is Bryant Elementary School.

The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

A public sidewalk would be installed along Ellsworth, with other sidewalks interior to the site. The city is requesting a $14,880 donation to the parks system.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that nothing has changed since the project was reviewed by commissioners in December. Staff had previously asked for postponement so that some outstanding issues could be addressed related to site stabilization and the staff’s natural features analysis.

Although some minor issues remain, in the view of the staff most of the outstanding questions had been sufficiently dealt with and staff now recommended approval of the site plan. Any of the minor outstanding issues will need to be resolved before the project is brought to city council for approval, Rampson said. Those issues include a minor landscaping change, and showing a water main connection on the site plan to the north, so that if property to the north is developed, there’s the ability to link into the city’s system.

Another remaining issue is the need for approval from the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, which is pending.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this project.

Summit Townhomes: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona noted that when this project had been considered previously by the planning commission, commissioner Ken Clein had mentioned the height of the retaining walls to the east. Sometimes during building permit review, it can be missed that a handrail is required, she said. However, if landscaping is used appropriately, “you can get away without that,” she said. It’s a safety issue that either a handrail or landscaping be put on the wall so that someone doesn’t fall over the edge – she said landscaping would be a more attractive option. Bona said she just wanted to highlight that for staff. [Clein did not attend the Jan. 3 meeting.]

Tony Derezinski clarified with Rampson that the site plan would not be brought to the city council until all outstanding issues are dealt with.

Sabra Briere wondered how the children of families living in this development would get to the nearby Bryant Elementary School – as it wasn’t clear by looking at the maps, she said.

Rampson replied that there’s a portion of the site that butts up against the vacant land owned by AAPS to the north. But the slopes on the site leading up to that vacant land “are pretty substantial,” she added, “and there really isn’t an opportunity to have a nice, flat connection.” She said it’s not clear what the AAPS intends to do with its property, which has no street access and is still part of Pittsfield Township.

Briere pointed out that there’s no sidewalk on Ellsworth, so the question remained: How would children walk to Bryant? When Rampson noted that a sidewalk will be built as part of this development, Briere replied that there’s no sidewalk on Stone School Road, either. Rampson indicated that there were sidewalks in the Cloverly Village development as well as an asphalt path running next to Kingdom Hall Of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which would provide pedestrian access along Stone School Road. Briere asked if those sidewalks were maintained: Were they cleared in the winter? Rampson said that like any other sidewalk, clearing snow is the responsibility of the adjoining property owner.

Rampson noted that Briere’s point is well-taken – that it would be closer to walk through the vacant property to the north. There is a longer way for pedestrians to walk to the school, but Rampson didn’t know whether it would be possible to put in a connection to the vacant property.

Leonard Michaels of CIW Engineering – the project’s site engineers – came to the podium and reported that concerns were expressed on this issue during two citizens participation meetings that had been held for the project. Because of that, the project will provide a sidewalk and perhaps steps to mitigate the steep slope up to the vacant AAPS property. He hoped to get in contact with someone at AAPS so that the exact placement of the connection could be coordinated. When construction documents are drawn up, that connection will be clearly shown, he said.

Outcome: The site plan for Summit Townhomes was unanimously recommended for approval.

South State Corridor Plan

Moving ahead on a project that’s been long in the works, planning commissioners were asked to recommend that the city council distribute a draft of the South State Street corridor plan to neighboring jurisdictions and other stakeholders, including the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. It’s the next step toward adopting the corridor plan’s recommendations into the city’s master plan. [.pdf of draft South State corridor plan]

The plan includes more than 40 overall recommendations for the corridor, which stretches about 2 miles between Stimson Street at the north end down to Ellsworth in the south. Recommendations are organized into categories of the city’s sustainability framework: Land use and access, community, climate and energy, and resource management.

Among the recommendations are: (1) Evaluate use of vacant parcels for alternative energy generation; (2) Evaluate integration of public art along the corridor; (3) Evaluate use of open land for community gardens; (4) Assess and improve high crash areas along the corridor; (5) create boulevard on State Street between Eisenhower and I‐94 to enable safer automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; (6) Consider utilizing vacant parcels for athletic fields and recreation facilities; (7) Develop a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Ann Arbor railroad that will connect the planned Allen Creek bikeway to Pittsfield Township through the corridor; and (8) Resurface roads in the corridor.

Each recommendation includes several related action items. The report also provides a section that organizes the recommendations into each of three distinct sections of the corridor: (1) from Stimson on the north to Eisenhower Parkway; (2) from Eisenhower south to the I-94 interchange; and (3) from I-94 to Ellsworth. In addition, there are nine site-specific recommendations for areas including Briarwood Mall, the complex of hotels near Victors Way and Broadway, and the research park development near the corridor’s south end.

The city planning commission and staff have been discussing this project for several years, but have accelerated work on it within the past 12-18 months. See Chronicle coverage: “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look,” “Sustainability Goals Shape Corridor Study,” and “Ideas Floated for South State Corridor.”

In giving a staff report on the item on Jan. 3, planning manager Wendy Rampson said that the staff felt “it’s time to get it out there in the community and have them react to it.” Commissioners might want to make changes before approving it, she said, but the staff felt it was time to distribute the plan to get the state-mandated feedback from adjoining jurisdictions and others in the community.

Entities that will be receiving the plan include the planning commissions for Ann Arbor Township, Pittsfield Township, Scio Township, and Lodi Township; the Barton Hills Village long-range planning committee; the Washtenaw County board of commissioners; the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments; DTE Energy Services; Norfolk-Southern Railroad; Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; University of Michigan; and the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education.

After the city council authorizes the plan’s distribution, there’s a 42-day window for providing feedback. So comments likely would be due back to the city in mid-March, Rampson said. Meanwhile, she added, the commission’s master plan revisions committee can meet to review the document further.

There was no public hearing on this item.

South State Corridor Plan: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona wondered whether the Ann Arbor Railroad should be included as an organization from which to solicit feedback, given the significance of the railroad through that area. Rampson said the Ann Arbor Railroad should be on the list – the city is mandated by state law to notify the railroads about the plan. Rampson also noted that the ownership of the railroad is changing – Bona suggested contacting the new owners as well “because it may not get shared.”

Tony Derezinski congratulated the staff on a great report, saying he remembered when the commission talked about making the city’s corridors a priority about three years ago. They started with Washtenaw Avenue and now have South State as well, he noted. Even though the city didn’t get outside funding for the South State study, he said, the staff took it on themselves and did a great job. In both Reimagining Washtenaw and this South State project, the communication between different jurisdictions has been critical, he said. It’s been a very collaborative approach.

Diane Giannola had a question about the site-specific recommendations. For site 1-C – a 9-acre area of six parcels on the east side of South State Street south of Stimson, including four that are still part of Pittsfield Township – she wondered why the commission had decided to recommend M1 and M1-A (limited industrial) zoning. Rampson replied that because this was an historic use in the corridor, there was a sense that it was appropriate to keep a section of the corridor that would allow for those types of uses. She noted that “there was not unanimity of opinion on that among commissioners.”

Sabra Briere asked for a review of the rezonings that weren’t approved in the past year or so – those that were put off until the South State corridor study was completed. “I think we’ll see those again, and I want to understand it thoroughly before we confront requests for rezoning,” she said.

Rampson clarified that there had been three such requests. One had been postponed by the planning commission, awaiting additional information. [That was the 2.24-acre site at 2271 S. State St., on the east side of South State, across the street from a University of Michigan tennis facility. The owner, Capital Investment Co., requested rezoning from M1 (limited industrial) to M1A (limited light industrial) so that an auto dealership could be located there. Commissioners postponed action at their Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.]

Two other rezoning requests had been denied by city council within the past 18 months. Those included property at (1) 1643 and 1645 S. State St., south of Stimson and next to the Produce Station, where Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky, an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer are located; and (2) 1712 S. State – the former site for Treecity Health Collective, a medical marijuana dispensary.

Rampson clarified that at this point, the city council will just be asked to authorize the distribution of the corridor plan, not for approval of it. “We’re a ways away from actually having it come up for adoption,” she said.

Rampson also praised the efforts of Kristin Baja on this project, saying that Baja did the lion’s share of the work. Baja left the city last October to take a job at the city of Baltimore’s office of sustainability. “The credit goes to her on this,” Rampson said.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended that the city council distribute a draft of the South State Street corridor plan to neighboring jurisdictions and other stakeholders.

Sustainability Goals in Master Plan

A set of sustainability goals for the city has been in the works for nearly two years. In June of 2012, the planning commission had recommended approval of the 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. In September, commissioners voted to disseminate the framework to neighboring jurisdictions, which was a necessary step on the path toward including it in the city’s master plan.

At their Jan. 3 meeting, planning commissioners were asked to take the next step – adopting the sustainability framework as an element of city’s master plan. [.pdf of pre-amended sustainability document]

The item had been on the commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 agenda. Action was postponed at that time after some commissioners raised concerns regarding a goal for high-performance buildings.

The concerns related to a change that staff had made, based on feedback during the past few months. In the section on climate and energy goals, a phrase was added to a goal regarding high-performance buildings (added text in italics): “Increase efficiency in new and existing buildings within our community while preserving the architectural integrity of existing buildings.” According to staff, the change was made in response to concerns from some residents about the need to safeguard the historic integrity in older structures during sustainability retrofits.

During the Dec. 4 meeting there had been considerable discussion among commissioners about the appropriateness of inserting that new phrase. Commissioner Ken Clein – an architect with Quinn Evans – also noted that the phrase “high-performance” has a specific meaning among building professionals, which might not be completely consistent with what the city intends. Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that there was no urgency to adopt the framework at that meeting, and suggested that the staff could work on revising the language based on commissioners’ input and bring it back at a later date.

On Jan. 3, city planner Jill Thacher reported that she, Rampson and Clein had subsequently met to hash out some alternative language. The language suggested for the goal was this: “Sustainable Buildings – Reduce new and existing buildings’ energy use, carbon impact and construction waste, while respecting community context.”

The revised language was crafted so that it “would not infer compliance with a specific set of industry standards,” according to a staff memo.

Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,“ and “Final Forum: What Sustains Community?”

The sustainability framework will become the seventh element of the city’s master plan. Other elements are: (1) land use; (2) downtown plan; (3) transportation plan; (4) non-motorized plan; (5) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan; and (6) natural features master plan.

No one spoke during a public hearing on the item.

Sustainability Goals in Master Plan: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona said the revised language that was proposed was a great improvement. She appreciated wrapping energy conservation and community context into the same goal. She supported the revised language.

Kirk Westphal agreed that the new language was an improvement, and he thanked staff for working on the change – especially during the holidays.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to adopt the sustainability framework as an element of city’s master plan. In a separate vote, they recommended that the Ann Arbor city council also adopt the framework.

Sustainability: Upcoming Forums

During her planning manager’s report, Wendy Rampson highlighted a series of city-sponsored sustainability forums that will kick off on Wednesday, Jan. 9. That first panel discussion will focus on “sustainable systems,” looking at how weather changes might impact the community and the city’s infrastructure. Panelists include Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator; Dan Brown of the University of Michigan’s Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments; Jen Lawson, the city’s water quality manager; Cresson Slotten, manager of the city’s systems planning unit; Rick Norman, the city’s director of emergency management; and Jason Frenzel, Huron River Watershed Council’s adopt-a-stream and stewardship coordinator.

The Jan. 9 forum will be held at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location at 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m. Other upcoming forums are on Feb. 13 (economic vitality); March 21 (diverse housing); and April 18 (transportation options). More information – including links to last year’s sustainability forums – is available on the city’s sustainability forum website.

Communications & Commentary

During each meeting there are several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as public commentary. On Jan. 3, no one spoke during the two opportunities for public commentary.

Communications & Commentary: North Main Huron River Task Force

Bonnie Bona gave an update on the North Main Huron River Vision task force, which had met on Jan. 2. She reported that the group has divided into four subcommittees focused on (1) pedestrian and bike connections from Main Street to the Huron River, as well as access to pedestrian/bicycle right-of-way; (2) the intersections of Main & Depot and Main & Summit; (3) riverside amenities, including railroad crossings; and (4) the MichCon site off of Broadway.

Bona, who is the planning commission’s representative on the task force, noted that there’s obviously overlap on these topics, but all subcommittees will be reporting on their work at the main task force meetings. Information on all these meetings, which are open to the public, will be posted online, she said. The next task force meeting is on Jan. 23. The meetings typically are held from 5-7 p.m. at city hall in the basement conference room, 301 E. Huron.

Communications & Commentary: Farewell to Terri Blackmore

Tony Derezinski highlighted the recent departure of Terri Blackmore, who has served in local transportation planning for more than 30 years – most recently as executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS). She’s leaving to take a job as executive director of the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Derezinski said he wanted to give her a personal salute “for someone who has done well for the community and who was courageously upfront on an issue that was probably one of the hot issues of the time right now.” Blackmore had been an advocate for the countywide transit authority that ultimately did not gain support among a majority of local government leaders.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal.

Absent: Ken Clein, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The item had been on the commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 agenda. Action was postponed at that time after some commissioners raised concerns regarding a goal for high-performance buildings. On Jan. 3, the goal was amended to this: “Sustainable Buildings – Reduce new and existing buildings’ energy use, carbon impact and construction waste, while respecting community context.” Planning staff had worked with commissioner Ken Clein, an architect with Quinn Evans, to revise the language so that it “would not infer compliance with a specific set of industry standards,” according to a staff memo. [.pdf of pre-amended sustainability document]

The city has been developing this framework for nearly two years. In June, the commission had recommended approval of the 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. In September, commissioners voted to disseminate the framework to neighboring jurisdictions, which was a necessary step on the path toward including it in the city’s master plan.

Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,“ and “Final Forum: What Sustains Community?”

The sustainability framework will become the seventh element of the city’s master plan. Other elements are: (1) land use; (2) downtown plan; (3) transportation plan; (4) non-motorized plan; (5) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan; and (6) natural features master plan.

A series of city-sponsored sustainability forums will kick off on Wednesday, Jan. 9 with a panel focused on “sustainable systems,” looking at how weather changes might impact the community and the city’s infrastructure. Panelists include Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator; Dan Brown of the University of Michigan’s Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments; Jen Lawson, the city’s water quality manager; Cresson Slotten, manager of the city’s systems planning unit; Rick Norman, the city’s director of emergency management; and Jason Frenzel, Huron River Watershed Council’s adopt-a-stream and stewardship coordinator.

Other upcoming forums are on Feb. 13 (economic vitality); March 21 (diverse housing); and April 18 (transportation options). More information is available on the city’s sustainability forum website.

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

The city has been developing this framework for nearly two years. In June, the commission had recommended approval of the 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. In September, commissioners voted to disseminate the framework to neighboring jurisdictions, which was a necessary step on the path toward including it in the city’s master plan. [.pdf of sustainability document]

Based on feedback during the past few months, one change was recommended by staff. In the section on climate and energy goals, a phrase was added to a goal regarding high-performance buildings (added text in italics): “Increase efficiency in new and existing buildings within our community while preserving the architectural integrity of existing buildings.” According to staff, the change was made in response to concerns from some residents about the need to safeguard the historic integrity in older structures during sustainability retrofits.

During the Dec. 4 meeting there was considerable discussion among commissioners about the appropriateness of inserting that new phrase. Commissioner Ken Clein – an architect with Quinn Evans – also noted that the phrase “high-performance” has a specific meaning among building professionals, which might not be completely consistent with what the city intends. Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that there was no urgency to adopt the framework at this meeting, and suggested that the staff could work on revising the language based on commissioners’ input and bring it back at a later date.

No one spoke during a public hearing held by the planning commission on Dec. 4. In giving the staff report, city planner Jill Thacher noted that the next steps – after both the planning commission and city council adopt the framework – include refining a sustainability action plan, which she characterized as being in a “very drafty” mode. The action plan would provide details for implementing the sustainability goals.

Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,“ and “Final Forum: What Sustains Community?”

If approved, the sustainability framework would become the seventh element of the city’s master plan. Other elements are: (1) land use; (2) downtown plan; (3) transportation plan; (4) non-motorized plan; (5) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan; and (6) natural features master plan.

This report was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron, where the commission meets.

The Sept. 18, 2012  Ann Arbor planning commission work session focused on South State Street – an aerial map of the corridor is spread out on the table. To the right is Kristin Baja, who provided staff support for the project. She’ll be leaving the city to take a job in Baltimore, and was praised by commissioners for her work. (Photos by the writer.)

Eric Mahler recalled that both projects had been highlighted at a planning commission retreat two years ago, and that in some ways their completion marked a new era in city planning. The corridor study is the first project that incorporates the sustainability goals. The study’s recommendations are organized into the four main sustainability categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community.

The recommendations themselves cover a wide spectrum of issues, from traffic and walkability to public art and zoning. [.pdf of draft report] Planning commissioners spent nearly two hours reviewing the recommendations in a working session immediately following their regular Sept. 18 meeting. They’ll likely address the project again before it’s forwarded to city council.

Also during the Sept. 18 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reviewed highlights from an annual report of planning activities for the fiscal year 2012, which ended June 30, 2012. The report reflected an increase in development activity within the city. As one example, there were 28 site plans submitted during the year, up from 13 in FY 2011.

Several University of Michigan students attended the commission’s regular meeting on Sept. 18. Responding to a query from Tony Derezinski, they reported that they are graduate students in urban planning, taking a class from professor Dick Norton. Coming to this meeting had been part of a class requirement. [Norton had also been a speaker on some of the panel discussions related to the city's sustainability efforts.]

Sustainability Framework

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend that the city council distribute Ann Arbor’s sustainability framework to neighboring jurisdictions, as the next step toward incorporating these goals into the city’s master plan. The commission had previously recommended approval of the 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. [.pdf of sustainability document]

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, described the action as procedural. State law requires that changes to a community’s master plan must be communicated to adjacent jurisdictions and other stakeholders to allow the opportunity for feedback. The sustainability framework will be distributed to these entities: the planning commissions of Ann Arbor Township, Scio Township, Lodi Township and Pittsfield Township; the Barton Hills Village long-range planning committee; the Washtenaw County board of commissioners; the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG); DTE Energy; Norfolk-Southern Railroad; the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority; the University of Michigan; and the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education.

The planning commission will hold a public hearing – likely at one of its December 2012 meetings – for additional feedback. Entities more typically provide their input in written form.

Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,“ and “Final Forum: What Sustains Community?”

Sustainability Framework: Commission Discussion

Several commissioners praised the work that’s been done by staff to develop the framework. Ken Clein noted that it balances the need to be specific while not becoming an action plan. Having this as a part of the master plan sends a strong message about the importance of sustainability, he said. Clein also mentioned that he’d like to see more emphasis on the re-use of existing buildings.

Eric Mahler said it didn’t seem very long ago that the different commissions had started brainstorming on this project. It’s important to note that this framework is not set in stone, he added. He hoped that in the future the city could become even more aggressive in its sustainability goals, he added, so that it becomes part of the culture and permeates everything they do.

Evan Pratt highlighted the fact that this framework is actually a reorganization of more than 200 existing goals in various city plans. He appreciated the public process that had been involved in putting this framework together, and the thoughtfulness of its organization.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to distribute Ann Arbor’s sustainability framework to neighboring jurisdictions.

South State Street Corridor Study

Kristin Baja, project director for the city’s South State Street corridor study, updated commissioners about the status of that project. A written report has been drafted, and she’s seeking input before bringing it forward for approval. [.pdf of draft report]

Planning commissioner Eleanore Adenekan.

It’s the next step in a project that’s been in the works for years. The plan includes more than 40 overall recommendations for the corridor, which stretches about 2 miles between Stimson Street at the north end down to Ellsworth in the south.

Recommendations are organized into categories of the city’s recently adopted sustainability framework: Land use and access, community, climate and energy, and resource management.

Among the recommendations are: (1) Evaluate use of vacant parcels for alternative energy generation; (2) Evaluate integrating public art along the corridor; (3) Evaluate use of open land for community gardens; (4) Assess and improve high crash areas along the corridor; (5) create boulevard on State Street between Eisenhower and I‐94 to enable safer automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; (6) Consider utilizing vacant parcels for athletic fields and recreation facilities; (7) Develop a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Ann Arbor railroad that will connect the planned Allen Creek bikeway to Pittsfield Township through the corridor; and (8) Resurface roads in the corridor.

Each recommendation includes several related action items. The report also provides a section that organizes the recommendations into each of three distinct sections of the corridor: (1) from Stimson on the north to Eisenhower Parkway; (2) from Eisenhower south to the I-94 interchange; and (3) from I-94 to Ellsworth. In addition, there are nine site-specific recommendations for areas including Briarwood Mall, the complex of hotels near Victors Way and Broadway, and the research park development near the corridor’s south end.

The city planning commission and staff have been discussing this project for several years, but have ramped up action on it within the past 12-18 months. See Chronicle coverage: “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look.”

Baja told commissioners that the project’s next steps include finalizing the recommendations and report, holding a public hearing at a future planning commission meeting, and forwarding it to the city council for approval.

South State Street Corridor Study: Commission Discussion, Work Session

Several commissioners praised the work. Bonnie Bona noted that several projects had been proposed in the State Street area that differed from what the city’s master plan and zoning ordinance allowed. This study had been long-awaited, she said, and she’s eager to delve into the details of the proposed changes.

Tony Derezinski talked about the context of this study in relation to other corridor improvement efforts, including Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue and the North Main/Huron River task force that city council created earlier this year. He also noted that originally, the city had set aside funding for a consultant to do the South State Street study, but the council later decided not to expend those funds. The staff had moved forward with it instead, and the results are amazing, he said. One priority of these efforts is to beautify the entrances to the city, Derezinski said. As he has done several times in the past, he mentioned the possibility of partnering with the Rotary Club.

Eric Mahler said it was fortuitous that both the sustainability framework and the South State study were coming to the planning commission at the same meeting. At the commission’s retreat a couple of years ago, they had talked about getting both of these projects off the ground, he recalled, and layering the sustainability goals over the corridor study. [For Chronicle coverage of that retreat, see: "Ann Arbor Planning Priorities Take Shape."] This corridor study, with its incorporation of the sustainability goals, marks a new era of planning for the city, he said.

After the commission’s regular meeting adjourned, the group spent nearly two hours in a work session reviewing the draft report of the South State corridor study. The wide-ranging discussion was followed by a round of applause for Baja, who’ll be leaving the city to take a job in Baltimore next month.

Annual Planning Activity Report

During the commission’s regular meeting on Sept. 18, Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, reviewed highlights from an annual report of planning activities for the fiscal year 2012, which ended June 30, 2012. She told commissioners that it would give them an idea about how the planning staff spends its time. [.pdf of annual activity report]

Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Planning staff provided support for 70 meetings during the year, which Rampson noted takes a substantial amount of time and energy. The staff’s historic district activities included reviewing 157 applications, up 31% from 120 in FY 2011. The staff also reviewed 895 building permits to check for zoning compliance, compared to 756 permits in FY 2011 – an increase of 18%. These items include things like building additions to single-family houses or renovations in rental properties.

For development reviews – the kinds of projects that come before the planning commission – there was a sharp increase, too. The staff handled 13 zoning/planned unit development applications, compared to just one the previous year. There were 28 site plans submitted, up from 13 in FY 2011.

Sometimes it’s hard to make comparisons from year to year based on the number of applications, Rampson said, because some projects are more complicated than others and therefore take more time to handle. But there’s no doubt that during the last fiscal year, the staff spent more time on development review, she said.

This report will be forwarded to city council as an item of information.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Ken Clein, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal.

Absent: Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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