The Ann Arbor Chronicle » Search Results » “near north”

June 2, 2014: Council Live Updates

Dave Askins — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:13:16 +0000

Editor’s note: This “Live Updates” coverage of the Ann Arbor city council’s June 2, 2014 meeting includes all the material from an earlier preview article published last week. The intent is to facilitate easier navigation from the live updates section to background material already in this file.

The council’s first meeting after adopting the budget for fiscal year 2015 – which was approved on May 19, 2014 – features a housekeeping adjustment for the current year’s budget, so that expenditures don’t exceed allocations.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

But the June 2 meeting agenda is dominated by items related to the physical attributes and layout of the city. Several items deal with city-owned physical assets, while several more involve land use and planning.

Possibly one of the more controversial agenda items related to physical infrastructure – and future development in the city – is a contract extension with CDM Smith Inc. for work related to the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program. While the city council suspended the program in certain areas of the city in 2012, it continued in other areas, backed by the city’s ordinance under which the city can require residents to disconnect their footing drains from the sanitary sewer system.

Also not suspended was the city’s developer offset mitigation program, which requires developers to offset the increased flow from new construction into the sanitary sewer system. The vote on the CDM Smith Inc. contract extension was postponed from the council’s May 5 meeting. The dollar amount of the contract extension has been substantially reduced in the meantime – from about $750,000 to $143,000.

Part of the backdrop of the CDM Smith contract extension is a lawsuit that’s been filed against the city, challenging the legal foundation of the footing drain disconnect ordinance. The city sought to remove the case from state court to the federal system, but at a hearing on the matter this week, a federal judge indicated he’d be remanding the case back to the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court.

City assets on the June 2 agenda include trees – as the council will be asked to approve the city’s urban and community forest management plan. The council will also consider a resolution on the city’s possibly most recognizable asset – the city hall building. The resolution would remove a $4 million renovation of city hall (a “reskinning”) from the city’s capital improvements plan for 2017 and 2018. This resolution was postponed from the council’s May 19 meeting.

Another city-owned asset on the agenda is the Library Lane underground parking garage. The council has already directed the city administrator to engage a real estate broker to test the market for the development rights for the surface of the garage. The resolution on the June 2 agenda, which was postponed at the council’s April 7 meeting, would set a policy to deposit 50% of the net proceeds from the sale of the development rights into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Land use and planning items on the June 2 agenda include a roughly $300,000 contract for study of the State Street transportation corridor. Related to transportation infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve resolutions that move along the process of special assessing property owners on Stone School Road for the cost of installing a sidewalk on the west side of the road in connection with a road reconstruction project.

Also related to land use, three Ann Arbor housing commission properties will be given initial consideration for rezoning. A site plan and associated rezoning for the Delta Gamma house will be given final consideration. Also up for final consideration is a revision to the ordinance regulating drive-thrus. Councilmembers will also consider the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris restaurant to be located downtown on South Fourth Avenue.

A rate increase for Ann Arbor water, sewer and stormwater rates is on the June 2 agenda for final approval.

Two items connected to parks and recreation appear on the agenda. One is approval of the receipt of funding for a program that helps Bridge cardholders purchase local produce at the farmers market. The second item is approval of a five-year agreement with the Community Action Network to continue operating the city’s Northside and Bryant community centers.

The council will also be considering a resolution in support of the local development finance authority’s application to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. for a possible 15-year extension of the arrangement under which the LDFA captures taxes. The captured taxes are used to fund a business accelerator that’s operated by Ann Arbor SPARK through a contract with the LDFA. Without an extension, the LDFA would end in 2018.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron.

Amend Current Year’s Budget

On June 2 the council will consider a resolution amending the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2014) to ensure that expenditures do not exceed appropriated amounts. The budget amendment will ensure compliance with Public Act 621 of 1978.

The total requested general fund budget amendment is $60,000. For all other funds, the amendment to be considered by the council on June 2 totals $310,000.

The non-general fund amount will cover right-of-way maintenance and purchase of materials that were necessary to deal with the severe winter weather. The general fund amount was the city’s cost for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s special election held on May 6. That amount will eventually be reimbursed by Washtenaw County – which in turn will receive reimbursement from the AAATA to cover the roughly $100,000 cost of the election.

FDD Program Contract Extension

A contract extension with CDM Smith Inc. for continued work as part of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program appears on the June 2 agenda. It had been postponed at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting.

No longer a part of the scope of work in the revised June 2 resolution are the FDD citizens advisory committee meetings, information management, or the multi-family FDD implementation. The revised memo describes how the funding would only provide a bridge until recommendations from a study group have been received, which will determine the future of the FDD program:

This amendment would provide the services needed to bridge the gap until the SSWWE [Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation] Project recommendations have been made. Presently, the anticipated timeline for completion of the SSWWE Project is in the autumn of 2014. That does not allow sufficient time to issue a new RFP, collect and review proposals, award a contract, and bring a new consultant up to speed to manage the remaining FDD and DOM work outlined above. Existing City staff does not currently have the available resources or expertise to perform the inspections required for the DOM program.

By way of additional background, in 2012 the city’s program to disconnect footing drains from the sanitary sewer system was suspended by the council in some areas of the city. Specifically, it was suspended in the Glen Leven and Morehead (Lansdowne neighborhood) areas. The program was allowed to continue in other geographic areas and as part of the city’s developer offset mitigation (DOM) program. The DOM requires owners of new developments to complete a certain number of FDDs to offset the additional flow in the sanitary system caused by new construction.

The CDM contract drew scrutiny at the May 5 meeting because the city is currently undertaking a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation (SSWWE) study. It’s supposed to yield a recommendation about whether to continue with the FDD program, and if so, in what form. In addition, the city’s ordinance – which requires property owners to undertake FDDs – was challenged in a lawsuit filed earlier this year. That case is pending as the city first removed the case from state to federal court. But the result of a May 28 hearing before a federal judge will be to return the case to the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court.

The previous three iterations of the CDM contract totaled about $3.6 million. The money for these contracts is drawn from the city’s sewer fund.

The proposed contract extension drew criticism during public commentary on May 5 from Frank Burdick, a Ward 4 resident who urged the council to reject it. Council deliberations on this item were included as part of The Chronicle’s live updates from the May 5 meeting.

Since the FDD program’s start in 2001, about 1,834 footing drains have been disconnected through the city program and 848 footing drains have been disconnected through the developer offset mitigation program.

Animation of contrast between the pre-FDD configuration and the post-FDD configuration. (Original illustration from screenshots of YouTube video by Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, modified by The Chronicle.)

Urban Forest

The city’s first comprehensive plan for managing Ann Arbor’s urban forest will be considered at the council’s June 2 meeting. The Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended adoption of the plan at its meeting on April 15, 2014. [.pdf of Urban & Community Forest Management Plan]

An urban forest is defined as all the trees, shrubs and woody vegetation growing along city streets, in public parks and on institutional and private property. In Ann Arbor, about 25% is on public property, with 75% on private property. Based on a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service i-Tree Eco Analysis done in 2012, Ann Arbor’s urban forest has an estimated 1.45 million trees. It creates a 33% tree canopy – the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

The city manages 43,240 street trees and about 6,900 park trees in mowed areas. A tree inventory conducted in 2009 didn’t include natural areas, she noted, so there are thousands of trees that aren’t counted. The urban forest includes over 200 species, representing 82 genera.

Map of selected tree variety by The Chronicle from city of Ann Arbor 2009 survey. Image links to dynamic map hosted on geocommons.com

PAC had been briefed on the 135-page Urban & Community Forest Management Plan at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting by Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator. The management plan includes 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation. Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding. The recommendations are:

Implement proactive tree maintenance program.
Strengthen tree planting and young tree maintenance programs.
Monitor threats to the urban and community forest.
Increase landmark/special tree protections.
Secure adequate city‐funding for urban forestry core services.
Develop street tree master plans.
Pursue grant and philanthropic funding opportunities.
Strengthen forestry related ordinances.
Update tree inventory and canopy analysis.
Develop urban forest best management practices.
Increase urban forestry volunteerism.
Strengthen relationships with outside entities who impact trees.
Implement community outreach program.
Obtain the best use of wood from removed trees.
Create city staff working groups to coordinate projects that impact trees.
Engage the city’s Environmental Commission in urban and community forestry issues.
Review the urban forest management plan periodically and update as needed.

The city council has adopted a budget for FY 2015, which starts July 1, 2014 that includes a one-time expenditure of $1 million to address the backlog in maintenance of trees in the public right of way.

Included in the focus of the effort to remove the backlog are trees classified as Priority 1 removals (red dots), Priority 2 removals (yellow dots), Priority 3 removals (blue dots) for large trees and Priority 1 prunings (green dots). [Map by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.]:

City Hall Reskinning

At its June 2 meeting, the council will consider a proposal to recommend to the planning commission that the capital improvements plan (CIP) for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for a city hall reskinning project. The planning commission is the body that approves the CIP. But the council has budgetary discretion to fund projects in the CIP or not – so the resolution in some sense calls on the planning commission to take an action it does not have the authority to execute. This was a point made during deliberations at the council’s May 19, 2014 meeting when the item was postponed.

According to a staff memo written in response to a councilmember question, reskinning of the Larcom City Hall building would mean replacing the existing exterior walls and windows of the building. The result would be new squared-off exterior, eliminating the inverted pyramid design. The new exterior would hang vertically from the sixth floor.

The focus of the project is on improving energy efficiency. The memo describes existing windows as mostly single-pane glass on aluminum frames, which offer little insulation value. The project would also result in an incremental gain in square footage – because the lower floors would have the same footprint as the sixth floor, which is currently the largest floor of the building. The materials used for the exterior would “blend better” with the recently constructed Justice Center, which adjoins city hall.

Library Lot Sale Proceeds

On June 2 the city council will consider a resolution setting a policy for distribution of the proceeds from the sale of development rights on the Library Lot. The proposed policy would set aside 50% of the net proceeds to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The council has already directed the city administrator to hire a real estate broker to explore selling the rights to develop the site – above the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed in 2012.

The item was postponed at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting. The vote was 6-5 to postpone, with dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje.

State Street Transportation Corridor Study

The June 2 agenda includes a resolution for a $299,911 contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. to conduct a study of the South State Street transportation corridor. The 1.3 mile long area of the study extends from the intersection of Ellsworth Road and South State Street north to the intersection of Oakbrook Drive and South State Street. The money to pay for the study will be drawn in equal parts from the current fiscal year and next year’s general capital fund budget. The study will take a year, starting in June 2014.

The goal of the study is focused on transportation needs in the corridor and to provide base conceptual engineering plans for the redesign of the corridor – possibly including a boulevard “Complete Street” design. The redesign would be intended to “address all modes of travel; enhance vehicle flow; improve safety; create an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the City; and, utilize sustainable concepts such as low impact design (‘LID’), and low energy use lighting.”

The study of the area as a transportation corridor comes not long after a recently completed South State Street corridor plan, adopted by the city council into the city’s master plan at its July 15, 2014 meeting. That corridor plan established planning objectives for the land use along the corridor.

Besides Parsons Brinckerhoff, the other bidder for the work was DLZ.

Stone School Road Sidewalk Special Assessment

As part of a road reconstruction project for Stone School Road, the city is planning to install a sidewalk on the west side of the road. To fund the sidewalk construction, part of the cost will come from a special assessment of property owners. The extent of the project on Stone School Road runs from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. Construction is planned for the project during the 2014 and 2015 construction seasons.

The project is being funded in part through a federal surface transportation grant, which can pay about 80% of construction costs, but not engineering, testing or inspection costs. The total project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed.

The council will be asked to approve a resolution directing the city assessor to set the roll of properties to be assessed.

Rezoning: Housing Commission Properties

At its June 2 meeting, the city council will consider giving initial approval to the rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land. The city council approved the transfer of deeds to the AAHC at its June 2, 2013 meeting. The three sites to be considered on June 2 are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Rezoning is recommended for the following public housing sites, two of which are currently zoned as public land:

Baker Commons: Rezone public land to D2 (downtown interface). The 0.94-acre lot is located at 106 Packard Street, at the intersection with South Main, in Ward 5. It includes a 64-unit apartment building.
Green/Baxter Court Apartments: Rezone public land to R4A (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site is located at 1701-1747 Green Road and contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center. It’s in Ward 2.
Maple Meadows: Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district), the recommendation is to rezone it as R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.

At the planning commission’s May 6 meeting, AAHC director Jennifer Hall explained that PL zoning doesn’t allow housing to be built on it. As AAHC seeks private funding to rehab its properties, it needs to ensure if a building burns down, for example, it could be rebuilt. In general that’s why the rezoning is being requested. It’s also being requested to align the zoning with the current uses of the property. She stressed that the highest priority properties to be rezoned are Baker Commons, Green/Baxter and Maple Meadows, because investors have already been found to renovate those sites.

For these three sites, planning commissioners also voted to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petitions, because no new construction is proposed and surveys of the improvements have been provided.

For additional background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

Delta Gamma Site Plan, Rezoning

The city council will be asked on June 2 to give final approval of a rezoning request for 515 Oxford, to convert a house for use as an annex to the Delta Gamma sorority. The main sorority house is located nearby at 626 Oxford. The council gave initial approval to the rezoning at its May 5, 2014 meeting. Also on the June 2 agenda is consideration of the site plan approval for the same project. The site plan was recommended for approval by planning commissioners on April 15, 2014.

Aerial view showing the location of 515 Oxford, south of Geddes and at the eastern end of South University.

The rezoning request, recommended by the planning commission on Jan. 23, 2014, is to rezone the parcel from R4A (multi-family dwelling) to R2B (two-family dwelling and student housing). Most of the surrounding parcels are zoned R2B, although the site immediately to the north is also zoned R4A. Also nearby is public land (PL) where the University of Michigan’s Oxford Houses complex is located.

The two-story house at 515 Oxford includes two one-story wings. It is currently a rental property with three units – a studio apartment, one-bedroom apartment, and four-bedroom apartment – and a maximum occupancy of 8 people. One of the units is in a former garage.

The proposal for a renovation would accommodate a maximum of 20 residents, including a required resident manager.

The building is notable because it was originally designed in 1940 by architect George Brigham, who used it as his home and architectural studio. He designed over 40 houses in Ann Arbor, including many in Arbor Hills and Barton Hills between 1936 and 1958.

Drive-Thru Ordinance: Final Approval

On the city council’s June 2 agenda is final approval of amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. Initial approval came at the council’s May 5 meeting. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The planning commission recommended the changes at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Ruth’s Chris Site Plan

The site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor is on the June 2 agenda for consideration. The planning commission recommended approval at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

Proposed facade of Ruth’s Chris Steak House at 314 S. Fourth Ave.

The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report on Ruth's Chris site plan]

Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. The architect also indicated that the restaurant will be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building.

This would be the first Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Ann Arbor. The chain is based in Florida, with locations nationwide.

Utility Rates

The council will consider giving final approval to higher utility rates – for water, sewer and stormwater. Initial approval came at the council’s May 19 meeting.

Water rates will increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is will increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates will increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this agenda item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

Grant to Farmers Market for Food Stamp Recipients

At its June 2 meeting, the city council will consider approval of an agreement with the Fair Food Network to continue administering the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmer’s market. Approval would entail acceptance of $32,000 in funding.

The Double Up name stems from the fact that it provides a match of up to $20/person/day for people using SNAP (Bridge cards/EBT/food stamps) to purchase Michigan-grown produce at farmers markets in Michigan.

The city of Ann Arbor has received Double Up Food Bucks grant funding since 2010.

Partnership with Community Action Network

A proposal for a five-year partnership with the nonprofit Community Action Network is on the June 2 agenda. The partnership was recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

The agreement would be for CAN to continue operating the city’s Bryant and Northside community centers, which the nonprofit has been managing since 2008. The proposed amount is not to exceed $130,000 annually – an increase of $25,000 from the current agreement. The higher amount is included in the FY 2015 general fund budget for parks and recreation that the city council approved on May 19. According to a staff memo, the higher amount will address increases in fixed costs and “assist in retaining quality staff that is at the core of the services that CAN provides.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The staff memo also noted that a request for proposals (RFP) was not issued for this work, because CAN has been the sole respondent to the previous two RFPs and the city is satisfied with its work.

During the May 20 PAC meeting, CAN received praise for their work from several commissioners and Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager. CAN executive director Joan Doughty and deputy director Derrick Miller were on hand to answer questions. Part of the discussion focused on CAN’s exemption from the city’s living wage requirement, which the city council granted in 2012 for a three-year period through Nov. 8, 2015. Doughty noted that the exemption was sought in part because CAN was paying a living wage to part-time employees who were high school or university students, which limited the nonprofit from paying higher wages to full-time workers. She also pointed out that the city parks and recreation unit isn’t required to pay the living wage to its seasonal workers.

LDFA Extension

On the council’s June 2 agenda is an item that would express city council support of the local development finance authority’s application to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. to extend the life of the tax capture arrangement for up to 15 years. Without an extension, the LDFA would end in 2018.

Ann Arbor’s local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) district, as a “certified technology park” described under Act 281 of 1986. The Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC) solicited proposals for that designation back in 2000. The Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti “technology park” is one of 11 across the state of Michigan, which are branded by the MEDC as “SmartZones.”

The geography of the LDFA’s TIF district – in which taxes are captured from another taxing jurisdiction – is the union of the TIF districts for the Ann Arbor and the Ypsilanti downtown development authorities (DDAs). It’s worth noting that the Ypsilanti portion of the LDFA’s TIF district does not generate any actual tax capture.

The LDFA captures Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) operating millage, but those captured taxes don’t diminish the school’s budget. That’s because in Michigan, local schools levy a millage, but the proceeds are not used directly by local districts. Rather, proceeds are first forwarded to the state of Michigan’s School Aid Fund, for redistribution among school districts statewide. That redistribution is based on a per-pupil formula as determined on a specified “count day.” And the state reimburses the School Aid Fund for the taxes captured by SmartZones throughout the state.

In FY 2013, the total amount captured by the LDFA was $1,546,577, and the current fiscal year forecast is for $2,017,835. About the same amount is forecast for FY 2015.

The extension of the LDFA is made possible by Public Act 290 of 2012, which amended the Local Development Financing Act to allow a SmartZone to capture school taxes for an additional five years or an additional 15 years. The staff memo accompanying the resolution describes the five-year extension as possible “upon approval of the MEDC President and the State Treasurer, if the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti SmartZone LDFA agrees to additional reporting requirements and the LDFA requests, and the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti approve, the amendment of the LDFA tax increment financing (TIF) plan to include regional collaboration.”

A 15-year extension is possible, according to the memo, “if, in addition to the above requirements, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, as the municipalities that created the SmartZone, enter into an agreement with another LDFA [a "Satellite SmartZone"] that did not contain a certified technology park to designate a distinct geographic area, as allowed under Section 12b of the Act…”

The council’s resolution states that if the MEDC approves the extension, the city of Ann Arbor will work with the LDFA and the city of Ypsilanti to identify another LDFA – called the “Satellite SmartZone LDFA.” The arrangement will allow the Satellite SmartZone LDFA to capture local taxes in its own distinct geographic area for the maximum 15 years allowed by statute.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) – who sponsored the resolution on the agenda and serves as the council appointee to the LDFA board– wrote that possibilities for an LDFA satellite for Ann Arbor’s SmartZone include Adrian (Adrian College) or Brighton and Livingston County (with Cleary University).

4:07 p.m. The public speaking line-up for reserved speaking slots is now available on the agenda. Four people are signed up to talk about the policy for distributing proceeds from the sale of the development rights to the Library Lane site: Amanda Carlisle, Jean Carlberg, Jim Mogensen, and Seth Best.

Two people are signed up to talk about the routine adjustment to the city’s budget for the current fiscal year: Thomas Partridge and Jeff Hayner. Two people are signed up to talk about the resolution supporting the LDFA application for a 15-year extension: David Jsa and Gregg Hammerman.

Signed up to talk about the footing drain disconnection contract with CDM Smith is Frank Burdick. And Henry Herskovitz is signed up to talk about Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. Signed up as an alternate speaker on the topic of engine powered heating is Kermit Schlansker.

5:08 p.m. Staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available: [.pdf of staff responses]

6:33 p.m. Council chambers are set up with the dividers already moved back to create more room and about 40 additional folding chairs are set up. The item involving the policy on the proceeds from the sale of development rights for the Library Lane lot is expected to draw a large number of people. About a dozen people have already arrived.

6:42 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive. Two dozen people now in the audience in support of affordable housing. They include former councilmember and planning commissioner Jean Carlberg, who has signed up to speak during public commentary. Round yellow sticker read “Homes for the Homeless Now!”

6:49 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived. She’s talking to people in the audience, which now numbers about 40 people.

6:53 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived. She’s chatting with Paul Fulton of the city’s IT services staff.

6:54 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje has arrived. He’s chatting with Jack Eaton. City attorney Stephen Postema is here.

6:54 p.m. Jim Mogensen has arrived. He’s signed up to speak tonight on affordable housing.

6:54 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

7:01 p.m. Remaining councilmembers are starting to filter in. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is here. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) have also arrived.

7:02 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is here, along with the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

7:06 p.m. Not yet here are Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

7:06 p.m. Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko has arrived. He’s talking to John Hieftje.

7:09 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. We’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of the council. Taylor, Anglin and Margie Teall (Ward 4) are absent.

7:10 p.m. Hieftje reports that Teall and Taylor will likely be along later. Anglin, however, is sick.

7:12 p.m. Approval of the agenda Eaton moves the closed session to just before DS-1 – that’s the footing drain disconnection contract with CDM Smith.

7:12 p.m. The council has approved the evening’s agenda.

7:12 p.m. Communications from the city administrator.

7:13 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is ticking through some upcoming events, including his favorite – Red Fish, Blue Fish, which teaches kids how to fish. It’s on June 8 from 9:30 to 11 a.m. at the Gallup Park livery.

7:13 p.m. Hieftje says Petersen represented the city well in the half-marathon of the Dexter-Ann Arbor Run that was held on Sunday, June 1. [She ran a sub-2-hour race.]

7:13 p.m. Proclamation honoring the University of Michigan International Center as volunteer of the month. The proclamation honors students, scholars and families affiliated with the center who have volunteered their service in city parks.

7:16 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Four people are signed up to talk about the policy for distribution of proceeds from the sale of the development rights to the Library Lane lot: Amanda Carlisle, Jean Carlberg, Jim Mogensen, and Seth Best.

7:19 p.m. Amanda Carlisle is executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. That’s a coalition of more than 30 organizations working to end homelessness, she says. She invites people to stand if they’re here to support affordable housing. [Just about everyone in the center section and the additional chairs set up is standing is support.]

Carlisle says she visited people living under bridges last week, not a mile away from where she’s standing – and they need housing, she says. We can’t rely on state and federal funding, she says, so we need to find local solutions. She’s calling for support of DC-1, a resolution that would allocate 50% of the proceeds from the sale of development rights for the Library Lane lot to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

7:22 p.m. David Jsa is a web developer and chief technology officer at Seelio. About 2.5 years ago, that company was invited into SPARK’s incubator – a company of four people. They were barely going to make it, he said. But they’ve now grown to a company of 15 employees. So they’ve moved into a larger office space. They’re indebted to the LDFA SmartZone and SPARK for helping the business grow. He says they expect to add around another 20 people. They love Ann Arbor and love to tell stories about how great a place Ann Arbor is to start up a company. He refers to people to the services his company received from the LDFA. He supports the extension of the term for the LDFA SmartZone.

7:25 p.m. Jean Carlberg is a former city councilmember and former city planning commissioner. She says she’s been working on affordable housing and housing for the homeless for 30 years. It’s not often you get a chance to put a “pile of money” to put into the affordable housing trust fund, she says. Affordable housing is at best a break-even proposition, she says. There are over 4,000 who need assistance in one year, she says. Councilmembers have all said they think that affordable housing is critical to the community, she notes. Carlberg urges the council to take the step of putting the proceeds from the Library Lane development rights into the affordable housing trust fund. She calls it a rare opportunity. Their actions should match their values and the values of the community, she says.

7:28 p.m. Jim Mogensen is speaking on the Library Lane resolution. He’s speaking for Religious Action for Affordable Housing. Back in the 1990s, one of the subgroups was looking for additional funds. That’s why RAAH was set up, he explains. They’ve raised about a half-million dollars, he says. Mogensen notes that it sounds like a lot of money, but it’s not. They compete with Habitat for Humanity and other organizations, so it’s difficult to raise money, he says. It’s important to have a trust fund available when projects happen, he says. For every complex problem there’s a simple solution – and it’s wrong, he quips. Putting all the affordable housing in Ypsilanti is one such “simple” solution, he says.

7:31 p.m. Seth Best apologizes for his attire. At the house on Stone School Road, they’ve been doing some renovating work, and he didn’t have a chance to change. He’s speaking in support of the Library Lane lot resolution. For every 100 people who are searching for affordable housing in the U.S., there are 30 homes available, he says. Affordable housing takes time, he says. He suggests that some of the money should support a community center or a warming center: Where do people go tonight? he asks. It’s national LGBT month, he says – and if you send people down South, that could put people’s lives in danger.

7:34 p.m. Frank Burdick introduces himself as a Ward 4 resident. He’s encouraging the council to vote no on the contract extension for CDM Smith for footing drain disconnection work. He says the city council has for the last 13 years listened only to the city staff and the city attorney, but not their constituents. He tells the council they have “married” the consultant, CDM. He talks about unhappy and anxious citizens who have failing sump pumps and frozen, improperly installed pipes. The city’s developer offset mitigation (DOM) program should be 100% funded by developers, he says. He contends that the DOM program is in serious legal jeopardy. He suggests that developers should deposit money into an escrow account instead of continuing the DOM program. He challenges mayoral candidates to consider their vote on the resolution.

7:37 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He calls on the mayor and council to re-open the city budget to allow for more housing for affordable housing and community development for the most vulnerable residents of the city. Protections under existing city policies are not adequate, he says. He calls for a change in attitude to bring about rules changes so that the public could have greater lobbying access to city hall. He wants public participation periods during the meeting, not just at the start and at the end. He supports the resolution on the Library Land lot sale proceeds, but says that all of the money should go into the trust fund, not just 50%.

7:40 p.m. Gregg Hammerman is cofounder of Larky – a mobile, web-based service that helps people keep track of discounts and perks to which they’re entitled through professional associations, alumni associations, credit cards, health insurance, shopping clubs, community groups, museums and the like. He graduated from UM in 1994 and started his first company then, called Techstreet. At that time, Ann Arbor SPARK didn’t exist, he says. Still, they managed to persevere and Techstreet was finally purchased – and it now has $30 million in revenue and about 25 employees. Now there’s a real start-up culture here in Ann Arbor, which he attributes to LDFA and SPARK. His new company has eight employees, which had been achieved in a two-year cycle, instead of the nine years that his first company required.

7:43 p.m. Jeff Hayner is speaking against voting on the LDFA resolution tonight and encourages the council not to approve it until more information on the efficacy of SPARK’s programs is available. He’s arguing that the SmartZones statewide amount to a geographic transfer of wealth.

7:46 p.m. Henry Herskovitz begins by asking: What if you heard through the news media that fighter jets from South Korea were used to attack a U.S. ship? Our answer would be clear – that the U.S. would not tolerate an attack by an ally. South Korea has not done that, but that’s what happened in 1967 with the USS Liberty when Israel [mistakenly] attacked the ship. U.S. citizens should take it seriously when a foreign government can influence U.S. foreign policy, he says.

7:46 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) has now arrived.

7:46 p.m. Communications from the council. This is the first of two slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:47 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says that the topic of the work session on June 9 will be ethics and council rules.

7:49 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks everyone who has come in to license their dogs. She was here on Friday afternoon and there was a long line at the clerk’s office. Everyone wants to do the right thing, she says.

7:52 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thanks staff for the repaving of the St. Aubin service drive near Platt Road. He announces he’ll be bringing forth a resolution at a future meeting to tender an offer on 8 acres where the Burton Commons affordable project is proposed. [The idea would be to use open space millage money.] Here’s an animated .gif of the aerial photos of the property: Burton Commons land. He’s arguing for the purchase based on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north. The resolution would direct staff to make an offer to purchase at fair market value.

7:53 p.m. Eaton conveys Anglin’s regrets that he can’t attend.

7:53 p.m. Appointments: Confirmation. Tonight the council is voting on nominations to city boards and commissions made at the council’s May 19 meeting. Larry Eiler was nominated to the Economic Development Corporation, replacing Daniel Blakemore. Andy Baker-White and Amanda Carlisle were nominated to the housing and human services advisory board to fill vacancies.

7:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved all the appointments.

7:54 p.m. Appointments: Nominations. Being nominated tonight for reappointment to the city planning commission are Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Being nominated for reappointment to the commission on disability issues are Linda Evans and Larry Keeler. Their appointments will be voted on at the council’s next meeting.

7:54 p.m. Hieftje asks Lumm how many openings still remain on HHSAB. Lumm thinks there are still three vacancies.

7:54 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Five public hearings are scheduled tonight: PH-1 Ordinance to raise water, sewer, and stormwater rates; PH-2 Ordinance to amend drive-thru facilities and permitted uses; PH-3 Rezoning 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma); PH-4 Site plan for 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma); PH-5 Site plan for Ruth’s Chris.

7:55 p.m. PH-1 Ordinance to raise water, sewer, and stormwater rates.

7:56 p.m. Thomas Partridge asks that rates be revised so that the impact on the most vulnerable residents is ameliorated.

7:57 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) has now arrived.

8:01 p.m. Jeff Hayner says that water rates have gone up every year. He notices it as homeowner, he says. He cites some Sierra Club information that indicates that only three Michigan municipalities operate water services as a utility, including Detroit and Ann Arbor. He questions why the fourth heavy use tier has been dropped – and wonders if it resulted from an effort to accommodate the University of Michigan. He asks the council to please keep Ann Arbor affordable.

8:01 p.m. PH-2 Ordinance to amend drive-thru facilities and permitted uses. No one speaks on this hearing.

8:02 p.m. PH-3 Rezoning 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma).

8:04 p.m. Thomas Partridge says the property needs to be accessible to disabled students.

8:05 p.m. PH-4 Site plan for 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma).

8:05 p.m. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:06 p.m. PH-5 Site plan for Ruth’s Chris. Steve Fry, who is representing Ruth’s Chris, tells the council that he’s here if there are questions.

8:07 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls on the council to require the restaurant to be truly accessible to those who are disabled and to seniors and those who need to use public transportation. He says there should be menu items that are affordable to those with lower incomes.

8:09 p.m. Approval of minutes. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes of the previous meeting.

8:09 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes …

8:09 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Kunselman pulls out CA-4. It’s a resolution authorizing $28,444 in sanitary sewer and water improvement charges for 3980 Platt Road.

8:09 p.m. Outcome: All items on the consent agenda except for CA-4 have now been approved.

8:10 p.m. CA-4 Authorize sanitary sewer and water improvement charges for 3980 Platt Road. ($28,444). Kunselman says the property has been under construction for some time. If this resolution is approved, he wonders if the builder will be pursuing this more diligently. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, says that he won’t comment on the builder’s intent, but this will remove one hurdle.

8:11 p.m. Outcome: All items on the consent agenda have now been approved.

8:11 p.m. B-1 Increase water, sewer, and stormwater rates. The council will consider giving final approval to higher utility rates – for water, sewer and stormwater. Initial approval came at the council’s May 19 meeting.

8:13 p.m. Hieftje says he’s been following this for several years. And the city does a comparison with other communities. He calls the rate increases middle-of-the-pack and appropriate for a city with infrastructure the age of Ann Arbor’s. Hieftje is comparing the issue with roads – that to maintain the infrastructure, it requires money. He says the city’s departments are efficient with their use of money.

8:15 p.m. Kailasapathy asks about the four tiers of the previous approach: Why did the city move from a four-tier system to a three-tier system? Hupy says that those tiers are residential tiers. That was done in response to customers and councilmembers – and that fourth tier hit the large residential users. Powers adds that the commercial rates – including institutional uses – have a different rate structure.

8:16 p.m. Briere notes that years ago, the council used to receive the comparative analysis with other communities and asks that it be provided. Hupy will forward it to councilmembers.

8:17 p.m. Lumm reviews the elimination of the fourth pricing tier – and describes how it affected people who were watering their lawns. She describes the previous rates as involving “ungodly sums.” She notes that the rate increases will translate to $2.3 million in additional revenue. No one wants to increase prices, unless it’s absolutely necessary, and that standard is met, she says.

8:20 p.m. Kunselman asks if it will be possible to slow the rate of increase in future years. Hupy indicates he’s pessimistic that could happen for water rates, given that about half of the drinking water treatment plant might need to be replaced. Hupy expects at a minimum that water rate increases will be similar to what the city is doing for sewer rates.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the increase in water, sewer and stormwater rates.

8:20 p.m. B-2 Ordinance to amend regulations regarding drive-thru facilities and permitted uses. On tonight’s agenda is final approval of amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. Initial approval came at the council’s May 5 meeting. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code. [For additional background, see Drive-Thru Ordinance: Final Approval above.]

8:23 p.m. Eaton asks planning manager Wendy Rampson how this change differs from the standard the city has in the code now. Rampson describes how the new standard makes it clear that all drive-thrus are subject to planning commission review for special exception use. And windows can’t face the right-of-way, she says. Eaton ventures that this means that planning commission and the council have discretion to grant the special exception use. Rampson notes that he’s correct, but adds that the planning commission has purview on the special exception use. Eaton asks what the standards are for exercise of that discretion. Rampson points to the relevant section of the code.

8:26 p.m. Eaton raises the specter of a long line of cars extending into a neighborhood. Could anything be done about that? Rampson says that the planning commission has discretion on a case-by-case basis – and the commission could deny the application. Eaton ventures that the denial would not be required. Eaton says it would be easy to write this kind of requirement into the code – to prevent that kind of impact on a neighborhood. He revises “easy” to “plausible.”

8:26 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s glad to see this going through. Changing from by-right to discretionary is a good step, he says.

8:28 p.m. Briere says that she can send councilmembers the section of the ordinance that deals with special exception uses. There’s always the risk of making one size fit all, she says. The language in the ordinance revision is flexible enough that each site can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

8:29 p.m. Eaton says he wants to send this back to the planning commission to write into the ordinance what will happen when a drive-thru window is adjacent to a residential neighborhood.

8:30 p.m. The motion in front of the council is to refer this back to the planning commission. Warpehoski says he doesn’t think this needs to be sent back to the planning commission in order for Eaton’s goal to be realized. He doesn’t want to hold up the effort now.

8:31 p.m. Hieftje says he’s siding with Warpehoski, and wants to see the council pass what is good, instead of holding it up until it is perfect.

8:33 p.m. Briere says if there are concerns about drive-thru windows operating near residential neighborhoods, they should be looked into, but says there are already a lot of protections in the code.

8:34 p.m. Outcome on Eaton’s motion to refer it back to the planning commission: It fails on a 3-7 vote with support only from Eaton, Lumm and Kailasapathy. Anglin is absent.

8:34 p.m. Taylor says he’d also like to see the additional criteria, but adds that the changes in front of the council tonight already move the ball in the right direction.

8:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the revised regulations on drive-thrus.

8:34 p.m. B-3 Rezone 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma). The city council is being asked tonight to give final approval of a rezoning request for 515 Oxford, to convert a house for use as an annex to the Delta Gamma sorority. The main sorority house is located nearby at 626 Oxford. The council gave initial approval to the rezoning at its May 5, 2014 meeting. Later on tonight’s agenda is consideration of the site plan approval for the same project. The site plan was recommended for approval by planning commissioners on April 15, 2014. [For additional background, see Delta Gamma Site Plan, Rezoning above.]

8:36 p.m. Briere says that for many people, this is a landmark building, designed by an architect for his home and studio.

8:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the rezoning required as part of the Delta Gamma project.

8:37 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

8:45 p.m. We’re back.

8:45 p.m. C-1 Rezone Green/Baxter (AAHC). At tonight’s meeting, the council will consider giving initial approval to the rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land.

The three sites to be considered are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits. [For additional background, see Rezoning: Housing Commission Properties above.] First up is the AAHC property at Green/Baxter Court Apartments from PL (public land) to R4A (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site is located at 1701-1747 Green Road and contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center. It’s in Ward 2.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval of the rezoning of the AAHC property at Green/Baxter.

8:46 p.m. C-2 Rezone Baker Commons (AAHC). This would rezone the property from PL (public land) to D2 (downtown interface). The 0.94-acre lot is located at 106 Packard Street, at the intersection with South Main, in Ward 5. It includes a 64-unit apartment building.

8:48 p.m. Kunselman has a question. Rampson comes to the podium. He ventures that Baker Commons would exceed the 60-foot height limit in D2. Rampson says they don’t have an official height of the building, but agrees that it could be taller than 60 feet. She says that this would be a non-conforming structure. AAHC has been notified, and she says it’s not an issue as far as she understands. There’s not really a viable alternative zoning, she says. There was not a planning commission discussion of the possible non-conformance, Rampson tells Kunselman.

8:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of the AAHC property at Baker Commons.

8:49 p.m. C-3 Rezone Maple Meadows (AAHC). This item would rezone the property from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.

8:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of the AAHC property at Maple Meadows.

8:49 p.m. DC-1 Establish policy for distribution of proceeds from sale of Library Lane lot development rights. Tonight the city council will consider a resolution setting a policy for distribution of the proceeds from the sale of development rights on the Library Lane lot. The proposed policy would set aside 50% of the net proceeds to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. [For additional background, see Library Lot Sale Proceeds above.]

8:52 p.m. Hieftje says he wants to talk about some history. Several years ago, Michael Appel of Avalon Housing had come and talked with him about a pot of money that was available from the feds. [Appel was here earlier, but has departed.] That effort by Avalon had led to a partnership with the nonprofit Food Gatherers and the creation of Carrot Way on Dhu Varren Road.

But the funding landscape has changed a lot since then, Hieftje says. He doesn’t think anything can get done without a “pot of money” here locally. The community’s plans were set back during the Great Recession, he says. Now is an opportunity to create that pot of money, he says, but the exact way the money will be spent can be decided later.

8:55 p.m. As one example, Hieftje floats the idea of creating something like a Carrot Way – that could be located on Platt Road, where Washtenaw County’s former juvenile court facility was located. Hieftje says that the number of people in attendance reflects how well the proposal has been received. He ventures that the sale price might be around $8-10 million, which would mean the city’s general fund would receive several million dollars.

8:59 p.m. Kailasapathy says she’s heard from constituents that they’d like to see an “Arrowwood Part II” and calls it a worthy goal. But she says that there needs to be criteria set for the use of the affordable housing trust fund. It’s there to create new capital assets, she says. It’s not for recurring expenses. She wants to protect this fund for capital assets and says it shouldn’t be used as a slush fund.

Kailasapathy also has mixed feelings about the Library Lane lot. She was the one vote in the 10-1 vote on the hiring of a real estate broker to sell the development rights. She says she’ll support this resolution, and she knows millions of dollars are needed and this is just a start. She’d support 100% of a Palio Lot sale going to affordable housing, she says.

9:00 p.m. Petersen agrees with Kailasapathy that this doesn’t end the conversation about the Library Lane lot. She looks forward to the conversation. It’s more than a great cause, she says – it’s one of the council’s budget priorities and supports economic development.

9:05 p.m. Kunselman says it’s nothing more than a “teaser” resolution, as it’s non-binding. The number of $8-10 million is different from the number that Jim Chaconas had given, he notes – it seems inflated. The same people who sponsored this resolution are the same people who voted to bond for a $50 million underground parking structure, he says. “We’ve spent more money housing cars than housing people.” He points toward a June 4, 2007 vote when the council had rescinded a previous affordable housing policy as part of a land sale – because the council needed the money from the sale of the First & Washington property to build the police/courts facility. When the sale is actually done, he’ll support putting that money into affordable housing.

9:06 p.m. Taylor says he’s delighted to be a co-sponsor. He says the resolution is a moral commitment to use the money for an important community need. Local government can’t wave a magic wand to make things affordable, he says.

9:09 p.m. Briere says that after Kunselman brought forward the resolution to sell the development rights, she’s had a conversation with Hieftje about what percentage should go to affordable housing. The council’s budget committee had recommended 10% at a minimum. She cautioned that she didn’t want to see the community benefit of affordable housing used as an argument for a project on the top of the Library Lane lot that might not be a community benefit. She’s recounting the contributions that the council has made to the affordable housing trust fund – including from the former Y lot and from a strip of land associated with that parcel, as well as general fund contributions.

9:11 p.m. Briere asks if it’s political or if it’s good policy – and she concludes it’s not a political circus, saying that it’s an attempt to make good policy.

9:14 p.m. Lumm is concerned about the percentage and the timing of the decision. She’d supported the minimum 10% of the council’s budget committee, she says. This was first brought up on April 7, she says. The 50% amount is not unreasonable, she adds. But she says that the city’s general fund reserves are currently on the low side. She wouldn’t support any more than 50%. Chaconas’ estimate of $6-7 million would go down as chunks were taken away for public space, she says. Lumm is also concerned about other needs the city might have. She ventures that it might make sense to postpone again.

9:14 p.m. Lumm says she could go either way on this.

9:17 p.m. Eaton says this decision is premature. He notes that it’s not clear that the council has decided that the Library Lane lot development rights will be sold. This would put pressure on the council to sell those development rights, and cautions that it would possibly taint a decision to sell those rights. He’s also concerned about a lack of clear criteria for use of money in the affordable housing trust fund. It should be restricted to capital investments, he says. So he resists the idea of accumulating such large sums. He’d expressed those concerns when the council had sold the former Y lot. So he won’t support the resolution, he says.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman said he’d detailed some problems at a previous meeting about the bonding used for the construction of the underground parking garage. [The issue relates to how many spaces can be dedicated to private use.] He wants to know if staff now has an analysis of how many spaces are available for private use. Powers says that some of that information is still being compiled, but notes that some of the issues were addressed in a confidential memo to councilmembers from the city attorney. Powers allows that the answer to the question probably affects how valuable the property is.

9:23 p.m. Warpehoski notes that some councilmembers have wanted to lock down the amount of space designated as public open space before moving forward – and didn’t feel that it was premature to make that determination. Similarly, he doesn’t think that locking down a percentage for affordable housing is premature. Warpehoski will support the resolution.

9:23 p.m. Lumm says that her point is that things do change and that she wants to see how much money the sale actually generates.

9:24 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the changing in funding strategies by MSHDA – the Michigan State Housing Development Authority.

9:26 p.m. Kunselman proposes an amendment, saying that the Ann Arbor Housing Commission is the largest affordable housing provider in the city. He wants to stipulate that 25% of all proceeds go to the AAHC – in addition to the 50% that would go to the affordable housing trust fund.

9:28 p.m. Briere gets clarification that Kunselman that he’s not confining the AAHC allocation to just downtown AAHC properties. She notes that money from the affordable housing trust fund has been used in the past for AAHC properties. She doesn’t think this amendment is necessary.

9:30 p.m. Briere says she’s heard the concern that too much money would be used for the AAHC. Kunselman says it’s important that the AAHC be given money “straight up” without having to come ask. He doesn’t think they should have to go through hoops – saying that AAHC shouldn’t have to go before the HHSAB.

9:32 p.m. Kunselman says the council has neglected the AAHC for so many years, trying to engage in speculative development. He cites the former Y lot, Near North and Burton Commons. He points out that AAHC is also looking to increase their number of units.

9:33 p.m. Teall appreciates Kunselman’s concern for the AAHC, but doesn’t think that AAHC has been neglected. It’s good for the process that when the AAHC needs funds, they come and request the funds and explain what the funds are needed for, she says.

9:37 p.m. Hieftje agrees with Teall and Briere that the AAHC can come and ask for money when they need it.

9:37 p.m. Outcome on the amendment: The council has voted to reject Kunselman’s amendment with support only from Kunselman, Kailasapathy and Eaton.

9:39 p.m. Briere speaks in support of the resolution, saying she’ll carry the concerns she’s heard back to HHSAB. Kunselman says he won’t support this for reasons he’s already described. He noted that he’d been the one to push forward the Y lot sale and he’d also been the one to push for the sale of Library Lane lot development rights. The resolution tonight is premature. He wants the council to have concrete information instead of making “grand gestures” to appease people.

9:42 p.m. Hieftje is now unable to resist responding to Kunselman’s remarks about using public TIF (tax increment finance) dollars to support parking – saying it’s an important economic development tool. He’s giving others on the council credit for some of the good things that have happened – reacting to Kunselman’s previous remarks about his own role.

9:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the policy on designating proceeds from sale of development rights on the Library Lane lot. Voting for it were Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, Hieftje, Kailasapathy, Briere and Petersen. Anglin was absent. Kunselman, Lumm and Eaton voted against it.

9:43 p.m. DC-2 Remove funding for Larcom reskin. This is a proposal to recommend to the planning commission that the capital improvements plan (CIP) for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for a city hall reskinning project. The council postponed this item from its May 19, 2014 meeting. According to a staff memo written in response to a councilmember question, reskinning of the Larcom City Hall building would mean replacing the existing exterior walls and windows of the building. The result would be new squared-off exterior, eliminating the inverted pyramid design. The new exterior would hang vertically from the sixth floor. [For additional background, see City Hall Reskinning above.]

9:45 p.m. Lumm is reading aloud a prepared statement about other capital needs in the city. She describes the reskin of the Larcom building as being something that “might be nice” and expresses skepticism that the energy savings would translate to a positive business case.

9:48 p.m. Briere says that she has a bureaucratic problem with the resolution: The council can remove the funding, but the planning commission approves the content. The resolution asks the planning commission to remove the funding. So she had to ask what would happen if the planning commission removed the Larcom reskin from the CIP. Briere wants to remove the reference to the $4.4 million, but Petersen says that it’s merely an adjectival modifier of the project.

9:50 p.m. Petersen says that the council isn’t voting on the bureaucratic issue – and she’s going to support this resolution. She’s urging the council to explore the energy improvements. Hieftje says that he’ll support this resolution, because the city doesn’t have $4.4 million lying around. He recalls efforts the city had made to find federal dollars for the energy improvements.

9:52 p.m. Kailasapathy says that she doesn’t believe that there’s “free money” even if it comes from the federal or state government, because it’s all taxpayer money. She wants the cosmetic components of the project removed. “I just want to see this gone,” she says.

9:53 p.m. Teall won’t support this tonight. Energy efficiency is and should be a priority, she says. She recognizes that she’s fighting a losing battle. She’s concerned not just about the windows, but also about the insulation in the walls. Having the project in the CIP doesn’t mean we’re spending the money, Teall notes. She’s citing a common sentiment of Kunselman that the council shouldn’t tie the hands of future councils.

9:56 p.m. Kunselman says it’s ironic that he’d tried to fight the airport runway extension by removing it from the CIP, but he wasn’t sure he wanted to adopt that approach here. He wants to know more about the windows: Did they date from the 1960s? Powers notes that this is a project in the 2017 year of the CIP. Hupy confirms that it’s a very conceptual budget at this point. He confirms that the windows are original. Kunselman ventures that the title of the project can be changed from “reskinning” to something involving energy efficiency. He doesn’t think this resolution will do anything, but now suggests an additional resolved clause to address a title that will be more limiting in scope.

9:57 p.m. Hieftje suggests a recess to craft the language Kunselman is trying to come up with.

9:57 p.m. Recess.

10:05 p.m. Samuel McMullen, Ward 3 candidate for council, has arrived at the meeting.

10:05 p.m. We’re back.

10:09 p.m. Kunselman reads aloud the additional “resolved” clause that expresses a council desire that an energy-efficiency project be developed for city hall. Lumm is now arguing against the amendment based on skepticism that there’d be adequate payback. Kunselman allows that window replacements don’t pay back in energy savings, but it does affect the comfort for building occupants. It’s also a strain on the HVAC system, he ventures.

10:12 p.m. Kunselman says that if the building is going to be around for a few more decades, it might be worth putting in some new windows. Petersen says that she’ll support Kunselman’s amendment, characterizing it as formally asking what councilmembers have been talking about. Briere says that Kunselman’s amendment suggests a more cost-effective approach to the problems with the walls and windows. Briere notes that the building has historic status now that it is older than 50 years. She’s not particularly fond of the building, though.

10:14 p.m. Eaton says that the message to the planning commission is that the council won’t support anything that has the scope of a $4.4 million project. Teall says she’ll support the amendment, but not necessarily the main question. Hieftje reiterates his support for the main question and for the amendment as well.

10:15 p.m. Outcome on the amendment: The council has voted to approve the amendment.

10:16 p.m. Lumm is happy that it appears this will pass.

10:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve this resolution, over the dissent of Teall.

10:16 p.m. DC-3 Approve a five-year partnership agreement with Community Action Network for Operation of Bryant and Northside community centers. This is proposal for a five-year partnership between the city and the nonprofit Community Action Network. The partnership was recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at its May 20, 2014 meeting. [For additional background, see Partnership with Community Action Network above.]

10:18 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the resolution. [Taylor is a council appointee to the park advisory commission.] Taylor says that CAN is uniquely qualified to provide this service. He encourages support of the resolution.

10:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the operating agreement with CAN for Northside and Bryant community centers.

10:18 p.m. DC-4 Approve application to MEDC for extension of LDFA term. This resolution would support the LDFA’s application to the MEDC for an extension of its current 15-year term, ending in 2018. The length of the extension would be for at least five years, and possibly as long as 15 years. [For additional background, see LDFA Extension above.]

10:21 p.m. Petersen is reviewing some points in a letter from the LDFA board to the council. First is that LDFA SmartZones are enabled by state statute. Second is that the LDFA has had its contract with SPARK audited. SPARK’s financials are now on SPARK’s website, she says. She notes that the LDFA has heard the council’s interest in high-speed telecommunications networks.

10:22 p.m. Carrie Leahy, chair of the LDFA board, has come to the podium to answer questions. She tells Lumm that the most serious conversations about who might be the satellite are Adrian and Brighton. She says that Flint is no longer on the table. She’s explaining that a satellite LDFA would set up its own TIF capture.

10:24 p.m. Lumm wants to know what the impact would be on the Ann Arbor Ypsi SmartZone. Leahy says the Ann Arbor Ypsi SmartZone funds wouldn’t be spent outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsi.

10:27 p.m. Hieftje ventures that Lumm is raising a good question: Why does the MEDC want to do this? SPARK CEO Paul Krutko says that MEDC worked with the legislature to see how to allow the LDFA program to continue. Currently there are 15 SmartZones, each with an opportunity to extend for five years. Three of the 15 have the chance to extend for 15 years. One of the three is already decided – Marquette. There’s a deadline set by the state, Krutko says, of June 30 and Sept. 30. The effort reflects the state’s emphasis on regional cooperation.

10:29 p.m. Leahy stresses that tonight’s resolution is just the first step. The application will then go to the MEDC. Then it will come back to the council. Krutko says that the LDFA wanted to come to the council early, because the other communities have a lot of steps to complete. Both of the communities still on the table are very interested, Krutko says.

10:32 p.m. Kailasapathy is returning to the topic of “windfall” gains that the LDFA had realized due to increased valuation in the TIF district. She’d proposed a budget amendment on May 19, when the council adopted next year’s budget, that would have reserved some of that windfall for construction of a high-speed telecommunications network. That amendment hadn’t succeeded. Kailasapathy wants to know if the LDFA can provide audited job creation numbers.

10:34 p.m. Leahy tells Kailasapathy that the LDFA has heard the council’s interest in infrastructure improvements and has begun to reach out to other communities and the MEDC to get more information about that.

10:35 p.m. Leahy says that the LDFA does not ask an independent party to verify the job creation numbers in an audit. “Why don’t you just do it?” Kailasapathy asks. Leahy says that the LDFA board has not had a meeting since the last council meeting.

10:37 p.m. Eaton is getting clarification from Leahy about the council’s options for denying an extension in the future. It sounds like the council could opt to extend only for five years, even if the MEDC approved an extension for 15 years.

10:38 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t see any justification not to apply, because it would mean sending money elsewhere in the state.

10:42 p.m. Hieftje says he’s fully in support of this. He says that the city is interested in the best performance it can get out of Ann Arbor SPARK. Hieftje says that if the LDFA were to cease to exist, it would have no impact on the School Aid Fund.

Taylor is delighted to support this resolution. Both Ann Arbor SPARK and the LDFA do an excellent job, he says. About the drive for metrics, he says it’s the council’s obligation to oversee the money that is spent. It’s important to note, he says, that job creation statistics are not a science. It’s multivariable, he says.

10:46 p.m. Kunselman says he’s sitting on the fence. He doesn’t understand why the five-year extension is being discussed now five years ahead of the expiration of the LDFA. Kunselman expresses skepticism about the state’s reimbursement of the School Aid Fund, saying that the state has consistently underfunded the School Aid Fund. Powers quips that CFO Tom Crawford can’t speak for the governor except for the fact he’s not wearing a tie. Krutko corrects Kunselman’s understanding – pointing out that we’re only three years away from the expiration of the current LDFA.

10:47 p.m. Crawford is clarifying for Kunselman how the state reimburses the School Aid Fund.

10:47 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to support the LDFA’s application for the extension of its term, over dissent from Kailasapathy.

10:47 p.m. DC-5 Approve Bravo Brio Restaurant Group Inc. for a new Resort Class C liquor license. The restaurant is located at 760 Briarwood Circle.

10:49 p.m. Lumm is reporting out the liquor license review committee’s work on considering these license applications.

10:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend approval of Bravo Brio’s application for a liquor license.

10:49 p.m. DC-6 Approve P.F. Chang’s China Bistro Inc. for a new Resort Class C liquor license. The restaurant is located at 720 Briarwood Circle.

10:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend approval of P.F. Chang’s application for a liquor license.

10:50 p.m. Closed Session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation.

11:30 p.m. We’re back.

11:30 p.m. Recess. The council immediately takes a break.

11:36 p.m. We’re back.

11:38 p.m. DC-7 Community Events Fund Disbursements. This allocates $1,972 from the FY 2014 Community Events Fund to the African-American Downtown Festival scheduled for June 7, 2014.

11:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved the allocation.

11:39 p.m. DB-1 Approve 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma) site plan. This is the same project for which the zoning was given final approval earlier in the meeting.

11:39 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Delta Gamma site plan.

11:39 p.m. DB-2 Approve Ruth’s Chris Site Plan This is the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The planning commission recommended approval at its April 1, 2014 meeting. The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report on Ruth's Chris site plan] [For additional background, see Ruth’s Chris Site Plan above.]

11:39 p.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council has voted to approve the Ruth’s Chris site plan.

11:39 p.m. DS-1 Approve amendment No. 4 to the contract with CDM Smith Michigan Inc. for the footing drain disconnect (FDD) program. This item is an extension of a contract with CDM Smith Inc. for continued work as part of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program. It had been postponed at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting.

In the interim, the dollar amount of the contract extension has been reduced from $748,106 to $143,440. That reflects a reduction in the scope of the work. The original May 5 resolution called for the following activities to be funded: citizen support ($36,928); FDD citizens advisory committee meetings ($24,180); information management for sump pump monitors ($93,707); developer offset mitigation (DOM) program support; ($95,213); and multi-family FDD implementation ($498,005). No longer a part of the scope of work in the revised June 2 resolution are the FDD citizens advisory committee meetings, information management, or the multi-family FDD implementation. [For additional background, see FDD Program Contract Extension above.]

11:41 p.m. Eaton says he’s glad to see that the amount in the contract has been pared down. But he does not think the city should be spending money on the DOM, saying that the DOM should be funded by the developers. Residents in Ward 4 have expressed concern about the quality of work done by CDM Smith, Eaton says. When the work isn’t done right, water can freeze, he adds.

11:43 p.m. Eaton contends that about 1/3 of the houses that have had FDDs done don’t have a proper air gap in the discharge pipe. Eaton doesn’t think the city should continue to spend money to this consultant, when it should be funded by the developers, not taxpayers.

11:43 p.m. Teall says she doesn’t share the same level of distrust of the consultant that Eaton does. She allows that she’s heard from constituents who’ve had these issues. She says that the council hears a lot from only a few constituents.

11:46 p.m. Hupy is now at the podium. Teall asks him to respond to Eaton’s remarks. Hupy says there are simply not 1/3 of the houses with FDDs that don’t have proper air gaps. He says that the city is working through various complaints. Out of the nearly 600 installations the city has done, only five were frozen this past winter, he says. So the issue is not as widespread as it’s been reported, Hupy says. The city is now looking at solving the root causes of any problems, he notes.

11:48 p.m. Hupy describes what CDM Smith does: When a developer identifies a candidate for an FDD, they go in and verify that it’s a viable candidate and also verify that the work was done properly. Hupy doesn’t know why the program is set up so that the city pays for the administration of the DOM program. Hupy says that going forward, that would be an obvious aspect of the program to consider changing.

11:51 p.m. Teall asks what the impact on city staff would be if the resolution were not approved. Nick Hutchison says it would require about half the time of two full-time employees – that is, one FTE. And some workloads would need to be moved around. Summer road projects would need to be managed with outside resources, he says. Teall characterizes the situation as substituting different consultancies for the consultancy with CDM Smith. Teall says she’ll support the resolution. She’s dismayed by some of the communication that the council has been receiving from some people. There hasn’t been a balance from other members of the citizens advisory committee, she says.

11:53 p.m. Eaton says that his 1/3 figure was based on the results of a survey done by the committee – Question 18. Hupy says that residents who reported that don’t understand what they’re looking at. Hupy adds that when the city inspects those situations, they don’t find 1/3 with inadequate air gaps.

11:55 p.m. Back and forth between Eaton and Hupy ensues. Eaton ventures that the survey documents a great deal of dissatisfaction. Hupy says that a question about whether you’d recommend the procedure to a neighbor had a 70% positive response.

11:57 p.m. Warpehoski says he understands and hears the concerns. He’s also a satisfied participant in the DOM program, he says. For him, it had worked well – as part of a basement renovation program. CDM Smith had answered his questions and worked with his general contractor. Warpehoski says that the council has approved site plans that have development agreements requiring FDDs, so he thinks the council needs to approve this resolution.

11:59 p.m. Lumm thanks Eaton for his work on this issue. She’s glad to see the reduced amount in the contract. The recommendation from the committee won’t be coming back until the fall, she notes. She doesn’t think it makes sense to stop all the development projects that are currently in process.

12:01 a.m. Kunselman gets confirmation that the DOM program is voluntary from the point of view of the homeowner.

12:03 a.m. Kunselman asks if there are houses in the queue for the DOM. Yes, about 13. But there are about 350 that are on the books as required. About 150-160 are at some point in the process. Kunselman asks if anyone who is paying $100 a month instead of doing an FDD. Yes, there are two.

12:04 a.m. Hieftje says he appreciates the light that Eaton’s work has shone on the issue. But the consequences of not approving this resolution would be onerous, he says.

12:06 a.m. Briere notes that the DOM program does not mandate FDDs, but rather that the flow mitigate in some way. Hupy confirms that. She wants to know if the city encourages alternatives to FDDs. Hupy says that the city reviews any ideas that developers have. He cites how some developers own enough fixtures that they can reduce flow in those and achieve the needed offset – e.g., Ann Arbor Public Schools and University of Michigan.

12:07 a.m. Briere asks if there’d be a benefit to having developers pay cash in lieu. Hupy isn’t sure.

12:08 a.m. Briere notes that some alternatives will need to be found, because there’s only a finite number of footing drains. Hupy agrees that there will be a point of diminishing returns.

12:09 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the CDM Smith contract for FDD work, over dissent from Eaton and Kailasapathy.

12:09 a.m. DS-2 Resolution No. 2 for special assessment district for Stone School Road reconstruction project. As part of a road reconstruction project for Stone School Road, the city is planning to install a sidewalk on the west side of the road. To fund the sidewalk construction, part of the cost will come from a special assessment of property owners. This resolution sets the roll of properties to be special assessed. [For additional background, see Stone School Road Sidewalk Special Assessment above.]

12:10 a.m. Kunselman says he’s very excited that this project is moving forward. He’s also excited that about 80% of the cost of the special assessment is being covered by public dollars.

12:10 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the assessment roll for the Stone School sidewalk special assessment.

12:10 a.m. DS-3 Approve contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. South State Street transportation corridor study. This item would approve a $299,911 contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. to conduct a study of the South State Street transportation corridor. The 1.3 mile long area of the study extends from the intersection of Ellsworth Road and South State Street north to the intersection of Oakbrook Drive and South State Street. [For additional background, see State Street Transportation Corridor Study above.]

12:10 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff for the State Street transportation corridor study.

12:10 a.m. DS-4 Adopt the City of Ann Arbor urban and community forest management plan. This item would adopt the first comprehensive plan for managing Ann Arbor’s urban forest. The Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended adoption of the plan at its meeting on April 15, 2014. [.pdf of Urban & Community Forest Management Plan] [For additional background, see Urban Forest above.]

12:12 a.m. Lumm says that it represents a huge amount of work. She’s thanking those who were responsible for its development. She says she agrees that the urban forest is a defining and highly-valued characteristic of the community.

12:14 a.m. Taylor says that the plan was presented to the park advisory commission a while ago. [He's a council appointee to the PAC.] PAC was extremely impressed with the plan, he says.

12:14 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt the urban forestry plan.

12:14 a.m. DS-5 Accept a Fair Food Network grant for the Ann Arbor Farmer’s Market. This item would approve an agreement with the Fair Food Network to continue administering the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmer’s market. Approval would entail acceptance of $32,000 in funding. [For additional background, see Grant to Farmers Market for Food Stamp Recipients above.]

12:14 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the Fair Food Network grant.

12:15 a.m. DS-6 Amend Ann Arbor City budget for fiscal year 2014. This resolution would amend the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2014) to ensure that expenditures do not exceed appropriated amounts. The budget amendment will ensure compliance with Public Act 621 of 1978. The total requested general fund budget amendment is $60,000. For all other funds, the amendment to be considered by the council on June 2 totals $310,000. [For additional background, see Amend Current Year's Budget above.]

12:15 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to amend the FY 2014 budget.

12:15 a.m. Communications from council. Teall notes that Cinetopia is starting. It runs from June 4-8 at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor and also in Detroit.

12:16 a.m. Hieftje notes that the Ozone House celebrated its 45th anniversary, and there was a recent celebration for the 50th anniversary of the city’s Elizabeth Dean trust fund.

12:16 a.m. Clerk’s report. Outcome: The clerk’s report has been received.

12:16 a.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:18 a.m. Thomas Partridge salutes the council for passing the resolution on the distribution of proceeds from the sale of development rights for the Library Lot. It would have been better to have dedicated 100% of the money to affordable housing instead of 50%, he adds. Partridge says we need a new governor. He calls for the election of Democrat Mark Schauer.

12:22 a.m. Mark Koroi says he’s here to address the “debacle” that had occurred in the Bob Dascola lawsuit. The judge had excoriated the city in his opinion, and the city would now be paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, he notes. Koroi says that Jack Eaton has stated publicly that the council had not given authorization for the city attorney’s action, so who did? Koroi says he’s endorsing McMullen in the race, but felt that Dascola should not have been denied access to the ballot.

12:25 a.m. Caleb Poirier is addressing the council on the challenge of dealing with the homeless population and those who are living under bridges. There are some unmet needs: toileting and trash removal. It’s the desire of his nonprofit to deal with the trash. He has a two-part request – to get trash into city dumpsters and to keep fecal matter out of the river. So he’d support port-a-potties at those locations.

12:28 a.m. Elizabeth Kurtz says she’s presentable because she just got her hair cut. Having lived on the streets for about 14 months, she’d been able to get into temporary housing. Generally she has little access to laundry and bathing facilities, she says. Despite the council’s resolution tonight, there’s little attention to immediate needs, she says. She describes herself as living a Third World existence. She was part of a Detroit Public Schools layoff – up until then, she was part of the middle class. We’ve got to get our priorities straight, she says.

12:31 a.m. Judy Bonnell-Wenzel is lamenting the fact that a friend of hers, Alan Haber, is away for the summer and is not here to speak in favor of a public commons on the Library Lot. She also says that people who have no place to sleep and unmet basic needs have no democracy. She worries about gentrification – pushing people out. She and her husband pay $527 a month for their housing, she says.

12:31 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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.

Feedback on Downtown Zoning Continues

Mary Morgan — Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:57:12 +0000

Ann Arbor planning commission meeting (Oct. 15, 2013): Planning commissioners continued a discussion that began at their Oct. 8 working session over proposed changes to downtown zoning. But they took no action and will pick up the topic at their next meeting, on Nov. 6.

Running Fit building at East Liberty and Fourth Avenue. A proposal calls for building three additional floors for apartments or condos. The adjacent building owner is concerned about blocking the three windows – barely visible in this photo – that are in apartments facing over the current one-story building. (Photos by the writer.)

Questions and comments covered a range of issues, including potential conflict of interest over a lot next to city hall that’s owned by the University of Michigan Credit Union. Five commissioners are UMCU members, and the credit union president objects to a proposed rezoning of the site. Other discussion points included affordable housing premiums, the use of diagonals as a tool for influencing the shape of tall buildings, and concerns over rezoning public land.

Ten people spoke during a public hearing on the zoning review. Before the hearing began, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal stated that the hearing would likely continue at a future meeting, but that speakers would be allowed only one turn during the entire hearing – either that night, or at a subsequent meeting. Midway through the hearing, Sabra Briere raised an objection to Westphal’s ruling, and commissioners spent about 20 minutes debating the issue. The commission ultimately voted to allow for people to speak more than once when the public hearing is continued, over the objection of Westphal, Diane Giannola and Wendy Woods.

Consultant Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates attended the Oct. 15 meeting and answered questions from commissioners, but her contract for this project has now expired. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that any additional work from Perdu would require city council approval.

In addition to the downtown zoning review, two development projects were on the Oct. 15 agenda. Commissioners recommended approval of an three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth. The expansion will create six residential units.

During a public hearing on the project, Ali Almiri – who owns the adjacent building to the west at 119 E. Liberty – raised concerns that three bedroom windows in his building’s residential rental units would be blocked by this new structure. He and his attorney urged that the new project be required to accommodate those existing windows. The issue will continue to be investigated by planning staff, building staff and possibly the city attorney’s office prior to the project’s consideration by the city council.

Another proposal – related to plans for two new restaurants at Briarwood Mall, on the east side of Macy’s – was postponed, because of several outstanding issues that still need to be resolved.

During public commentary, Alex Perlman, a co-owner of the food carts The Beet Box and Cheese Dream, highlighted a project at 1215 S. University – the former location of Pinball Pete’s, which burned down in 2009. The project, called Eat the Hub, would repurpose the space as a temporary food cart yard that would accommodate between three to six carts. Perlman noted that current city ordinances “don’t reflect the ever-changing landscape that mobile food businesses require.” He said he’d appreciate any help to move this project forward.

Downtown Zoning Review

The Oct. 15 agenda included a public hearing and discussion of the revised report on downtown zoning changes. The report had been originally presented at the planning commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. Based on feedback from the working session, Erin Perdu, a consultant hired to oversee the project, made some changes to her original recommendations. [.pdf of revised downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

The zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission that was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development. Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2, which was adopted in 2009.

On Oct. 15, Perdu reviewed the process and public engagement that had taken place since July. She also highlighted changes that had been made based on feedback from planning commissioners at an Oct. 8 working session.

Illustration showing potential development on Main Street between William and Packard, if recommendations for new zoning standards are adopted. The changes would include reduced height and a new diagonal requirement, compared to existing zoning.

The revised recommendations reviewed on Oct. 15 include: (1) rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) rezone the Municipal Center parcel from PL (public land) to D2; (3) reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 130 feet; (4) rezone the D-zoned parcels on the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue (where city hall is located) from East Huron 2 Character District to East Huron 1 Character District; (5) change the maximum height in the Main Street Character District to 150 feet when within 20 feet of a residentially zoned area and add a tower diagonal requirement of 50% of the maximum parcel diagonal; (6) rezone the south half of the parcel at 425 S. Main (between William and Packard) from D1 to D2.

In addition, several recommendations relate to premiums: (1) require approval of the design review board for a project to be eligible for any premium; (2) revise the residential premium to be more specific about the types of units that will be eligible for premiums; (3) revise the affordable housing premium so that the provision of affordable housing is mandatory for receiving any premiums; (4) eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) include other types of premiums in addition to those currently available.

Perdu noted that other issues emerged during the review that are outside of the project’s scope, but that she and the city staff felt should receive additional attention from the city. Those issues are: (1) consider a review of D1 zoning for other “sensitive” properties that were not identified in the city council resolution, such as some areas of South University and Thayer; (2) survey what other communities have done to regulate the shading impacts of new high-rise developments, in addition to requiring step-backs and diagonals; and (3) further study of the sewer and stormwater infrastructure, and the connection between new development and requiring city residents to disconnect their footing drains.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase“; “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review”; and ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward.”

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing

In total, 10 people spoke during the public hearing. In opening the hearing, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal stated that he anticipated the commission’s discussion would carry over to another meeting. In that case, the public hearing would be continued. However, he asked that people only speak one time during the hearing – so if they spoke that night, they would not be able to take another turn when the hearing continued on a different date. He noted that there are other opportunities to address the commission at the end of each meeting. [There is also public commentary at the start of each meeting.]

Jeff Crockett and Eleanor Pollack wait to speak during the Oct. 15 public hearing.

Piotr Michalowski told commissioners that he lived at the corner of Packard and Fourth. He thanked them for doing this difficult job, but said there are still some problems. He’s appalled by the prospect of what’s suggested for the Main Street corridor. There’s no reason for property there to be zoned D1 – any development would tower over the neighborhood. And why does the south entrance to Ann Arbor, with its low two- and three-story buildings, have to be zoned for buildings of such “monstrous” proportions? It should be zoned D2 or some other kind of creative zoning. Many houses in that area are historic and owner-occupied. He said the neighborhood has already been destroyed by the “monstrosity” on Fifth Avenue – City Place apartments. You can’t just allow for someone to build another horror, he said. Michalowski urged commissioners to reconsider this recommendation.

Eppie Potts objected to the constraint that someone could only speak once during the public hearing, even if it was carried over to additional meetings. “I’m really upset that we have to choose between tonight and whenever it is you take this up again.” People have input that would be useful, she said.

Tom Petiet, owner of 432 S. Fourth Ave., wanted to see the entire lot at Main and William zoned D2. Even though many houses near there aren’t owner-occupied, “renters have rights as well,” he said. There’s a garden at his house that would get less light if a tall building is constructed, so it’s a problem if there’s a building that’s two or three times as high as the existing DTE building. He noted that when the DTE building was proposed, the city promised residents that the building would have a three-foot setback from the alley, but that didn’t happen, he said. There’s no setback now. He’d recommend the commission go back to the drawing board regarding the zoning of this parcel.

Jeff Crockett complimented the city council and planning commission. He couldn’t recall a public input process like this, with numerous opportunities for people to give feedback. The report’s renderings were well done. Although he didn’t agree with every outcome, it’s a process that should be replicated in the future. He referred to the report’s recommendations regarding East Huron, and said he really wished these considerations had been in place four years ago. If these standards had been applied, then the 413 E. Huron project wouldn’t exist in its present form.

He also praised the fact that the recommendations would put teeth into the design review, but he’s concerned about some omissions. He said he’d spoken to the planning commission about the impact on trees, and he sees nothing in the recommendations that addresses this issue. Trees are covered under the city’s guidelines on natural features, he said, but there’s no teeth behind those guidelines. If trees are impacted, the only response is mitigation, “which essentially does very little.” You can knock down a 250-year-old oak tree and replace it with a few saplings, he said, and that’s totally unsatisfactory – especially considering that the city is named after trees.

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing – Debate over Continuation

After four people had spoken during the public hearing, Sabra Briere spoke up, saying she’d like to make a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair about the continuation of the public hearing. It seemed to her that the practice of the commission was to allow people to speak again, if a public hearing is continued over multiple meetings. Bonnie Bona seconded the motion.

From left: Planning manager Wendy Rampson and Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and city council.

Wendy Woods said she didn’t understand why the public hearing was being interrupted. It was her understanding that people could only speak once during a public hearing, even if it’s continued. That rule may not always be adhered to, she noted, because it can be hard to keep track of who has spoken previously. Diane Giannola said she remembered the rule in the same way as Woods, though she noted that sometimes the commission is more lenient and lets people speak twice.

Eleanore Adenekan didn’t think it was appropriate to stop the public hearing. Commissioners could have this discussion after the hearing, she said.

Briere replied that she’d looked up the point of order in Robert’s Rules of Order, and it stated that an appeal should be made as soon as possible after a ruling has been made, and that it’s appropriate to interrupt the speaker who has the floor, in order to appeal a ruling of the chair. She said she’s witnessed people speaking more than once at a public hearing, though the commission might not be rigorous in keeping track of names. But proposals often change, she said, and the commission has allowed people to speak when that happens.

Bona noted that regardless of the rules, this downtown zoning review “is a moving target.” It’s a complicated issue, and the commission hasn’t finished discussing the report or making changes. She expected people might have something important to say if the discussion continues at another meeting. That’s why she was in favor of allowing people to speak, even if it makes the commission’s meetings longer.

Jeremy Peters agreed with Bona and Briere, because it seemed like the rules haven’t been consistently applied, and out of an interest in hearing public commentary on issues that are very important.

Kirk Westphal said he took comfort in knowing that there’s an opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting. Peters pointed out that in that case, a decision would already have been made by the commission.

Adenekan explained that she didn’t object to having people speak more than once. But when Westphal had stated the one-turn rule at the start of the hearing, no one had objected, she said. She opposed interrupting the hearing to decide this issue. Briere replied that she had been checking the parliamentary rules to make certain that her understanding was accurate – that’s why she didn’t object immediately.

Giannola called it a standard rule at city council and the planning commission, though she again noted that it wasn’t followed consistently. “I guess we’re sort of being punished now for being generous in some of the other public meetings.” If people speak more than one time, the public hearings last for hours and hours, she said, and some people don’t attend to have their say because the hearings are so long. Everyone should have the chance to speak.

Giannola pointed out that email is an effective way to communicate, and can be even more effective than speaking in person. Bona agreed, and encouraged people to provide written comments, even if they also decide to speak at the hearing.

Woods said she didn’t think Westphal had made a ruling, as Briere had stated. He had just been reminding people of the commission’s rules, Woods said. It was standard practice, to make sure that everyone has the chance to speak. “I’m sorry if people are offended, but I do think that if we have these rules, either we’re going to have them or we’re not.” She said she might support allowing people to speak more than once, but it should be clear that this is an exception. “I also don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be somehow blindsided by something that …wasn’t a part of how we’ve been operating.”

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters.

Saying he didn’t have a stake in how this turns out, Paras Parekh said he’d just like the commission to follow its rules and be consistent, one way or another.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the commission’s bylaws are silent on this issue, but the city council rules are very specific about only allowing one speaking turn per hearing. In the past, when a public hearing is continued and additional information might be coming forward at a future meeting, it makes sense to allow people to review a revised plan, she said. When nothing is anticipated to change, “it’s really open to interpretation about how much time or how many opportunities people have to be able to speak,” she said. “We’ve done both practices.”

Giannola said she couldn’t support Briere’s proposal, because she thinks that process and precedent are important. Going forward, the commission will be setting a precedent, so commissioners should be aware of what their vote will mean.

Giannola also wondered if the chair could vote, since the motion related to his action. “In America, everybody gets a vote,” Woods quipped.

It was clarified that an affirmative vote would uphold the ruling of the chair, while a negative vote would overturn it and allow for people to speak more than once if the public hearing were continued.

Outcome: On a 3-5 vote, commissioners overturned the chair’s original ruling. Voting in favor of the original ruling were Kirk Westphal, Diane Giannola and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh.

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing – Continued

The public hearing continued. Eleanor Pollack said she thinks of the downtown core between State and Main streets as being bounded by the north side of William and the south side of Huron. Whatever occurs anywhere along the south side of William directly impacts an in-town residential neighborhood. The same is true for the north side of Huron, she said.

The fact that there is also commercial activity in these areas doesn’t diminish the need for careful constriction of new development, Pollack said. For these areas, D2 should be the most allowable density, and it should be further tempered by approval of the design review board for a project to be eligible for any premium. For over 40 years, residents of in-town neighborhoods have asked the city to ensure that adjacent new development be respectful of the neighborhoods and compatible with them. Now is the time for the city to respond to those requests in a concrete way, she concluded.

Will Leaf said the planning commission and city council have the opportunity to provide more space for people to live and work without harming the near downtown residential neighborhoods. Two problems are facing Ann Arbor and the rest of the country, he said: (1) poverty and the lack of affordable housing for poor and middle-class people, and (2) the destruction of the environment. Both are affected by the amount of space downtown. Why is housing more expensive in downtown Ann Arbor, compared to rural areas like in Pittsfield Township? The answer is space, Leaf said, and the value of the land. “If you could create more space, I think you could reduce the cost of housing.”

From left: Jack Eaton and Ted Annis.

Leaf recommended reading a report by the Harvard Institute of Economic Research: “The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability.” He read a section from the report, which stated that zoning restrictions appear to cause higher prices. He recommended allowing for taller buildings – that is, more space – further away from residential neighborhoods, perhaps by limiting the maximum height of the structure to one-half the distance to the nearest restricted area. That would be a comprehensive way of addressing the D2 buffering problem. If it’s addressed parcel-by-parcel, Leaf thought there would be perpetual issues of people not feeling that their neighborhood is protected sufficiently.

Regarding the environment, it’s better to have more people living downtown where they can be less dependent on the automobile, he said. It improves air quality and reduces traffic. The way to do that is to lower the cost of housing by creating more space for it. He’s in favor of a variable height limit, which would allow taller buildings in the center of downtown, and shorter ones around the edge. He drew an analogy to Ford Motor Co. giving out a million Jaguars – it would have the effect of lowering car prices. The same would be true if more downtown housing is built.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council. The ward has been almost entirely left out of this discussion because it’s not within the boundaries of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, he said. Under the tenure of mayor John Hieftje and of the Republican leadership prior to that, there have been no policies that require zoning for affordable housing or that promote diversity of housing in every block of the city, Partridge contended. He likened it to attitudes of the Klu Klux Klan when they came to Ann Arbor several years ago.

Eppie Potts said she was glad to hear the commission’s discussion at their Oct. 8 working session, including changes to D1 and D2 zoning, as well as premiums. The city isn’t getting public benefits from premiums, so she’s glad those are being reconsidered. But do commissioners really think D2 is a buffer? she asked. It allows for buildings that are twice as high as the nearby neighborhoods. And why limit the locations that the commission is discussing to the three sites that were mentioned by the city council? There are other locations at the edge of downtown that would be “devastated” by D1 zoning, she said. New premiums are also needed – such as required open space, affordable housing and design that respects context.

Ted Annis called the zoning recommendation for the parcel at Main and William a “mistake.” Even though the report notes that D2 was the most popular zoning option for that site based on responses to an online survey, the consultant didn’t recommend D2 on that site. He took great exception to that conclusion, and he hoped commissioners did, too. D1 zoning on that corner would allow for a building that’s massive and inconsistent with surrounding buildings. He urged the commission to send the report back to the consultant, Erin Perdu, and have D2 for the entire site incorporated into the report before it goes to city council. [Perdu's recommendation is to zone half of the site – at the southeast corner of Main and William – as D1, with the other half D2.]

Julie Ritter said there seems to be a fear of offending developers and sending them away from Ann Arbor, and she’s curious about that. She noted that she worked in commercial real estate for 11 years, and was personally responsible for the operation of two shopping centers and several office buildings in southeast Michigan, and did due diligence on buildings in other states. Real estate development is a very aggressive industry. “I’ve seen incredible power plays. I’ve seen grown men cry,” she said. But developers have very thick skins and they don’t scare easily. They’re smart and rational, “and if they smell money, they will figure out a way to get it.”

There’s a lot of development happening, Ritter said, and Ann Arbor is losing its unique character. Developers don’t like uncertainty, and become anxious if they don’t know what they’re supposed to do and if that uncertainty costs them money. If they know the expectations in advance – and know that the requirements will be enforced – they’ll figure out how to make it work. Give them a high bar and enforce it, she said, and give residents buildings that they can get behind and be excited about rather than dismayed by. Don’t be intimidated by developers’ threats of lawsuits or financial hardship. The commission has a lot of power, Ritter said, and she wanted them to use it consciously and wisely to make Ann Arbor the “great, beautiful, civilized city that we all envision.”

The final speaker was Doug Kelbaugh, professor at the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning. “I would have been a little bit peppier, had it been earlier,” he joked. His remarks restated commentary he made at the Oct. 8 work session. There are three very vulnerable areas that were designated D1 in 2009 and that need the commission’s close scrutiny: (1) on Thayer near North University; (2) the former Borders bookstore site on East Liberty; and (3) the area along Ann and Fourth. William and Main is a tough call, Kelbaugh said, adding that he understands the dynamics there. He visited the site again and think the possible height is exacerbated because there’s a rise coming into town just south of the site, which would exaggerate the height. Any building at the corner of Main and William should be roughly the height of the existing DTE building, roughly 100 feet. It seems reasonable to have split zoning on that site, he said – adding that’s often the norm.

Kelbaugh said he often uses the former Y lot for a class exercise, asking his students to design development there. Most students don’t go as high as 180 feet or even 150 feet because they think it’s too tall in that location. And these are students, he noted, who are generally in favor of the most exotic and dramatic architecture possible. Finally, he said the northern portion of Huron needs to be a new kind of zone. Perhaps there should be new zoning east of Maynard as well, he said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Credit Union

Wendy Woods began by noting that the commission had received an email from Tiffany Ford, CEO of the University of Michigan Credit Union. [.pdf of Tiffany Ford's email] The credit union owns a parcel next to city hall that’s being considered for rezoning from D1 to D2, and Ford’s email states that she is “completely opposed to the downzoning.”

Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates.

Woods told commissioners that she’s a member of UMCU, and wasn’t sure whether she should recuse herself from this issue or get an opinion from the city attorney. As there are about 55,000 members, “I may not be the only one,” she said.

Four other members indicated that they are also UMCU members: Kirk Westphal, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters and Sabra Briere.

Briere said she thought recusals are allowed only if the decision affects you materially. “I don’t believe that my decision is likely to affect me materially and uniquely,” she said. Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that the discussion is about a recommendation to do something, not the action itself. However, she suggested that commissioners could hold off on discussing that particular parcel and she would check with the city attorney’s office for guidance. There are plenty of other items that commissioners can address first, she said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Diagonals

Sabra Briere asked about diagonals, noting that Erin Perdu had recommended the use of diagonals in two specific areas – at Main and William, and in the East Huron 1 character district. Briere wondered whether the city should consider using diagonals across the entire D1 zoning, beyond just specific areas. [Diagonals are a method of controlling shape, and typically allow for taller but less massive buildings.]

Perdu replied that her recommendations were based on the sites that the city had specifically hired her to evaluate. But it would be appropriate to look at using diagonals for the entire D1 area, she said.

In explaining how she had arrived at the specific diagonal recommendation, Perdu said she recommended a flat number for the East Huron 1 character district because the parcels along that street are more uniform in size. In contrast, the site at Main and William is very large. To determine the diagonal for that site, Perdu said she tested the diagonals on existing buildings in that area, and made a proportional recommendation based on those comparisons.

Paras Parekh asked how Perdu arrived at the 130-foot diagonal requirement for the East Huron 1 character district. Perdu replied that she looked at the table of existing buildings that the city planning staff had compiled. [.pdf list of downtown development projects since 2000] The 130-foot maximum was recommended in order to keep any new development in scale with existing buildings in that area, she said. It’s something that could be studied further and refined, she said.

Kirk Wesphal noted that the diagonal for the Main and William site – 50% of the maximum parcel diagonal – is recommended for the entire Main Street character district. Perdu clarified that it would be required if a building is within 20 feet of a residential area. Rampson explained that the Main and William site is the only parcel that falls within 20 feet of a residential area. All other parcels in the Main Street character district are adjacent to D1 or D2 sites.

Westphal said he’d be in favor of figuring out what the ideal diagonal is to orient sunlight toward the neighborhood.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Extending East Huron 1

The current East Huron 1 character district runs from Division to State, on the north side of Huron. The recommendation calls for extending that district westward to include the north half of the block between Division and Fifth. So it would include the parcel where Ahmo’s Gyros & Deli is now located, which is currently zoned D1. The downzoning would reduce the maximum height of development in that block to 120 feet (from the current 180 feet) and include new diagonal regulations recommended for the East Huron 1 character district.

Perdu noted that the owners of the properties that would be affected by this change haven’t been contacted yet. It would be a big change for the development potential of those properties, and Perdu recommended that someone from the city should reach out to the owners before any changes are made.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Premiums

Bonnie Bona referred to a comment made during the public hearing about the affordability of housing downtown. One of her concerns is that adding an affordable housing premium makes all of downtown housing potentially less affordable. She asked Perdu for feedback about how adding premiums might threaten the affordability of downtown housing.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Perdu replied that it’s an issue that the consultants, city staff and Ann Arbor housing commission struggled with. By including an affordable housing option as a premium, it’s potentially increasing the cost of development. But developers aren’t obligated to take advantage of that premium, she noted.

Perdu reported that this was also an issue that arose when discussing the recommendation to make the design review approval mandatory, in order to secure premiums. That requirement could extend the time it takes to work through the approval process, and in turn make a project more expensive. It’s difficult to quantify, she said. Perdu added that she heard from several developers who are concerned that the city might incentivize affordable housing at the expense of middle-of-the-road pricing.

Bona thought the quality of construction could also be threatened, if a developer is looking to cut costs. Rather than making a mandatory affordable housing provision for premiums – by either providing affordable housing on site or through a payment in lieu – perhaps a requirement of open space could be made instead. She asked for Perdu’s feedback on the idea that a project would have to have provisions for either affordable housing or open space. Perdu said she hadn’t considered that approach, but it’s reasonable to consider.

Westphal said he echoed Bona’s concerns about affordability. Adding to the housing supply citywide is a great way to get more affordable units, he said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Height Cap

Westphal said he’d heard concerns about a height cap limiting flexibility. A cap wouldn’t give the design review board or any governing body the ability to make exceptions that would allow developers to shape a building to reduce shading. So if the city is making design review mandatory, he wondered if there’d been any thought to providing more flexibility regarding an absolute height limit.

Perdu noted that this issue had emerged during the Oct. 8 working session, and perhaps it was worth more discussion. She understands there’s also a tradeoff between implementing diagonal restrictions and height caps, and that’s something developers struggle with.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Rezoning Public Land

Briere noted that one of the recommendations is to rezone the city hall site from PL (public land) to D2. The rationale is to allow for the unification of D2 zoning parcels adjacent to city hall. She said she’s struggling with the concept of public land not being zoned as public land.

Perdu replied that the extension of D2 zoning was a “second tier” recommendation, beyond addressing what the council resolution had directed. The goal was to extend D2 zoning westward, to connect with other existing D2 parcels. One option was just rezoning the north portion of the city hall site, facing Ann Street. There was discussion about whether it was better to rezone a half block rather than a full block, and ultimately the recommendation was for the full block. If the city ever decides to move city hall, the site could be redeveloped, she noted.

Bona asked whether the master plan would need to be changed, if the city hall block is rezoned to D2. City planning manager Wendy Rampson said she’d recommend amending the downtown plan – which is part of the city’s master plan – for all of the zoning changes that might be made.

Bona suggested that one way to deal with the city hall parcel is to give direction in the master plan, rather than actually rezoning the site.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Ground Floor Uses

Westphal noted that one thing the planning commission and staff had recommended – that got removed by the council and didn’t end up in the final A2D2 zoning – was to require active uses in the ground floor levels of downtown buildings. There were specific streets that were proposed to have a certain degree of retail frontage. The only parcel that it would relate to in the current review would be the parcel at Main and William. He’d be interested in looking at that requirement again, to make the ground floors pedestrian-friendly, especially on Main Street. He asked Perdu if she had gotten any feedback on that issue.

Perdu reported that “downtown real estate interests” had expressed concern about having specific requirements for ground floor uses. She’d gotten feedback that it was more important to have a building that fit in with the “urban fabric” and had an active design, with ground floors that could be used for a variety of purposes.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Consulting Services

Bona asked about Perdu’s availability, beyond the meeting that evening. Rampson replied that Perdu’s contract has ended, and likely wouldn’t be available after the Oct. 15 meeting.

Woods wondered if it was possible to extend Perdu’s contract. Rampson said that any additional work from Perdu would require authorization from the city council.

Perdu said she’d be willing to respond to questions via email, even if she wasn’t able to attend future meetings.

Giannola suggested emailing questions to Perdu, and continuing the discussion at the next planning commission meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone the item on the downtown zoning review.

Running Fit Building

A proposal to build a three-story addition to the one-story building on the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth – where Running Fit is located – was on the commission’s Oct. 15 agenda. The building is located on three parcels: 121 and 123 E. Liberty, and 220 S. Fourth Ave.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building (indicted with crosshatches), at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The site plan calls for keeping the first floor as retail space, and creating six residential units on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units. The project’s architect, Brad Moore, indicated that a decision hasn’t been made yet about whether the units will be apartments or condos.

The expansion would increase the building’s square footage from 2,515 square feet to 8,530 square feet. Some of the units will be on two levels, connected by circular staircases. The fourth floor will include a smaller unit, roof decks and a “green roof” with plantings.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District. The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

In terms of historical background, there were originally two buildings on the site that were built in the 1800s, but burned down in the 1950s.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

The site plan approval is contingent on constructing two Class A bicycle parking spaces in the Fourth & William parking structure – located about a half-block away – or paying a contribution to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to install the spaces. No vehicle parking is required. One footing drain disconnection is required.

Running Fit would remain open during construction. Staff recommended approval of the project.

Running Fit Building: Public Hearing

Seven people spoke at the public hearing on this project. First in line was Tom Partridge, who introduced himself as a Ward 5 write-in candidate for the Ann Arbor city council. It’s discriminatory to handicapped and senior citizens to add new residences downtown without adequate parking, he said. He noted that the only parking required is for “the mayor’s all-time favorite bicycle, even though I go around town and I don’t think I’ve ever seen the mayor on a bicycle.” Partridge recommended tabling the proposal in order to come up with adequate vehicle parking.

Ellen Ramsburgh, a member of the city’s historic district commission, expressed her support for the project, saying the design is very appropriate for that corner and will make it more vibrant and useful. The project has support from the historic district commission, she noted.

From left: Attorney Dan Dever and Ali Almiri, who owns the building at 119 E. Liberty.

Dan Dever, an attorney for the owner of the adjacent building on East Liberty, said that they would applaud this project except for one thing. After the fire in the 1950s, in 1982 his client and the owners of the Running Fit building agreed to install three windows on the second story “common wall” – the wall of his client’s building that faces east. Those windows have been there for over 30 years, and if the windows go away, it will impact the residents in those rental units. It would be possible to design the new addition to step back and allow light and air to reach the windows, Dever said. There has been communication between the parties, and Dever said he wasn’t going to argue whether there was a license or a contract between the two property owners. But the situation hasn’t been adequately addressed, and it would impact the economic viability of those rental units. He asked the commission not to approve the project, saying it would have an adverse impact on his client’s building.

A tenant of one of the second-story apartments at 119 1/2 E. Liberty – and whose bedroom has a window that overlooks the current Running Fit building – expressed concern that the new building would shut out all natural light. She’s also concerned about how long the construction will take and how parking will be affected. She noted that there’s a senior apartment building nearby on Fourth Avenue, which would also be affected by construction and parking.

Ali Almiri, who owns the adjacent building at 119 E. Liberty, told commissioners that he’s been an Ann Arbor resident for over 40 years. His partner had gained permission in 1982 to put windows on the east wall, he contended. Almiri said his partner handled everything with city hall, but his partner and his partner’s wife both died and now Almiri has no record of that agreement. If the windows are covered, that would affect his rental income. Every two years, inspectors from the city come to inspect the building and no one has ever said anything about the windows, he noted.

Tom Bourque, the attorney for Running Fit’s owner, responded to the previous speakers. Although they’ve said there’s a purported agreement from 1982, there’s no documentation from the city to indicate that a variance was obtained to allow the windows to be installed, he said. The windows are actually through the east wall of 119 E. Liberty as well as through a wall that remained from the original adjacent structure after the fire. From a legal standpoint, if anything was ever granted, at most it was a license. He didn’t believe it could be the basis for tabling the project by the planning commission, because that’s not an issue that the commission would be deciding. It’s a legal issue, he said.

Regarding the inspections, Bourque said he presumed those were housing inspections and the inspectors would have assumed that the windows were installed with a variance from the city. There’s no record to show that, he said – no recorded easement, no document stating that the windows can be there permanently or that the windows “run with the land.” He said the Running Fit owners have offered to send their architect, Brad Moore, into the building at 119 E. Liberty to see if there’s another way to get light into the building. They’re still willing to do that, he added, but that shouldn’t affect what the planning commission does.

Architect Brad Moore noted that just one footing drain disconnect is required for this project. The Running Fit building has no footing drains currently connected to the sanitary sewer, he said. The existing footings can support the proposed addition, he noted. Moore said he was available to answer any questions.

Running Fit’s co-owner, Randy Step, attended the meeting but did not speak during the public hearing.

Running Fit Building: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere began the discussion by noting that she hadn’t noticed the windows on the adjacent building, and she asked staff why someone would need variances for those windows. She also asked what the city’s practice would have been when the windows were installed.

City planner Jill Thacher reported that the city’s building official is concerned about whether the windows are fire-rated – that is, would the windows keep a fire out of the building, and vice versa. The planning staff did a document search and didn’t find any record of planning approvals or other records for those windows. The building official has indicated that there are some plans that are stored off-site, and copies of those plans have been requested, Thacher said. But the planning staff hadn’t yet received those copies, so they don’t know if the windows were part of a previous remodeling plan.

Briere noted that the city has a history of ensuring that new construction includes windows for bedrooms. She embraces that, although her understanding is that it’s not required in the building code. She asked the architect, Brad Moore, whether he’d considered a design that included air wells or light wells for those adjacent residential units.

From left: Running Fit co-owner Randy Step and attorney Tom Bourque.

Moore replied that offsetting the upper stories to accommodate window wells doesn’t work with the existing footing structure, so that idea was abandoned early in the design process. The state building code doesn’t require windows in bedrooms, he noted. Alternative ideas include skylights or “sun pipes.” Moore reported that his client has asked him to go look at the adjacent building and see what alternatives could be achieved.

Briere wondered if it would be possible to create a vertical shaft where each window is located. She said she was only asking in order to ensure that she’s thought of all the options. Moore said it would not be a small shaft, and would result in the loss of too much square footage so the project wouldn’t be viable as a result.

Eleanore Adenekan asked if the units would be condos or apartments. Moore said that hasn’t been determined yet.

Bonnie Bona asked how the trash will be handled, since there is no alley next to the building. Moore replied that it will be taken care of as it’s done now, with dedicated space for trash cans in an alley off East Liberty that’s three buildings to the west, running between East Liberty and East Washington. You would take your trash bag and walk down the sidewalk to the alley, he said. Bona indicated that it seems like a good system, though it’s a bit of a longer walk than most residents have.

Bona also asked about what appeared to be bricked-over windows on Fourth Avenue. Moore explained that those are opaque now – inside is display and shelf space for Running Fit. The owners have indicated that they’d like to put public art in that spot, perhaps mosaics by local artists to enhance the pedestrian experience, he said.

Bona also asked about the corner of the upper stories, where it appears to have a section with two stories of glass. She wondered what was behind the glass. Moore said the corner unit is a two-story unit, and the glass is part of that unit. The same design is used for the stairwell in the back of the proposed structure.

Regarding requirements for the Americans with Disabilities Act, Bona confirmed with Moore that there isn’t an elevator in the building. Moore explained that ADA requirements don’t apply to apartments. The federal Fair Housing Act deals with residential units, he said, and requires elevators only for clusters of more than three dwelling units. This development is being crafted as two “assemblages,” Moore explained. Each of those assemblages has a staircase, but there’s no common circulation to all the units – so no elevator is required.

Bona also asked how far the building is from the Blake Transit Center. About two-thirds of a block, Moore replied. Bona said the proximity is “very lucky” for residents who’ll live there.

Bona referred to the staff report, which cited concerns by the Ann Arbor DDA that the project maintain pedestrian access during construction. She asked whether there was any assurance of that. Thacher said she wasn’t aware of any mechanism that could be used to ensure that the sidewalk remains open all the time. Sidewalks probably won’t stay open for the entire duration of the project, she said. Bona said that before the project is forwarded to the city council, it would be nice to see a proposal for how the owners plan to deal with that issue.

Regarding the window issue, Bona said she’s worked on a building that needed to get variances for windows on a zero lot line – otherwise, windows aren’t allowed unless they have special fire-suppression qualities. For the building she worked on, the owner had to secure an easement in order to put in windows. She suggested that the planning staff should get a better explanation of that situation before it goes to the city council. She didn’t think it should hold up action by the planning commission, however.

Jeremy Peters echoed Bona’s comments about the windows. It seems to be a legal issue and he hoped that the building owners could work something out, but he thought it fell outside the planning commission’s process. He thought the public benefit of a green roof is good for stormwater mitigation, and that the addition would not be out of character for that location.

Thacher indicated that planning staff would continue to work with building officials and the city attorney’s office on the window issue. She didn’t believe it was a site plan issue. They would need a more definitive answer on these outstanding questions before the project goes to the city council.

In response to a question from Kirk Westphal, Thacher said there are rules governing the hours when construction can occur – 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. She also reported that the project would require permits from the city if sidewalks are closed, and permission from the DDA if parking spaces are used for construction equipment and staging.

Wendy Woods asked whether Running Fit would remain open. Running Fit’s co-owner, Randy Step, replied that the store would stay open for business.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend approval of the site plan for the Running Fit project. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants

On the Oct. 15 agenda was a site plan and rezoning for two new restaurants at Briarwood Mall.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the Macy’s parcel, where two new restaurants are proposed.

Angeline Lawrence gave the staff report. The proposal calls for building two new freestanding restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana. There will be landscaping around the restaurants, and a pedestrian plaza area leading into Macy’s.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 108 spaces. Additional bicycle parking will be added. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094.

A portion of the parking lot would need to be rezoned from P (parking) to C2B (business service). The site is located in Ward 4.

By way of background, when the mall was built in 1973, the property was divided into seven parcels, each with its own parking. Over the years, several administrative amendments have been made to allow for additions and modifications to the original structure.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponement in order to allow the developer to deal with some outstanding issues related to zoning, landscaping, easements and utilities.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during the project’s public hearing. Tom Partridge called for planning commissioners to give senior citizens and others better access to the council chambers at city hall, saying that it didn’t currently meet fire code or ADA regulations. He also criticized representatives of developers in general for deliberately speaking in low volumes so that they couldn’t be heard. He said he was in favor of business and economic development, but this site plan was taking away needed parking spaces. He indicated that it was difficult to find parking at Briarwood Mall, especially handicapped spaces. Perhaps the restaurants should be required to provide off-site parking, he said, and transportation to and from the site.

Scott Richardson, representing the Briarwood Mall owners, said the new restaurants and other mall improvements will be a great benefit. He responded to staff comments regarding outstanding issues, and indicated that they are being addressed. He hoped that rather than postponing, the commission could vote to recommend the proposal, so that it could move forward to the city council. The hope is to complete construction of the restaurants so that they’ll be open by the holiday season of 2014, so there’s not a lot of time to spare, he said.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Commission Discussion

In response to a question from Diane Giannola, Scott Richardson clarified that there won’t be a road between the restaurants and Macy’s. The back of the restaurants will be just over 10 feet from the Macy’s wall. It’s a code-based separation, and isn’t intended for use by the public. The entrance to Macy’s will be between the two restaurants, and there will be landscaping to mask the space between the restaurants and the Macy’s wall.

Scott Richardson, a representative of Simon Company, the developer of Briarwood Mall.

In response to a query from Wendy Woods, Richardson said that Macy’s has embraced this concept of putting restaurants in front of its stores. Exterior walls of older department store buildings “are not the most aesthetically pleasing to look at,” he noted. So instead of looking at large cinder-block walls, it’s better to line them with restaurants that have architectural interest and life to provide a better experience for the shopper, he said. In general, the mall owners would like to see restaurants built against the mall, Richardson said, rather than located in “out parcels.” The goal is to promote cross-shopping, and to extend the duration of a shopper at the mall. If shoppers have to drive to a restaurant to eat, they’re more likely to leave and not return to the mall, he said.

Responding to another question, Richardson said the area where the restaurants will be located is designated for Macy’s expansion, and they are forgoing that opportunity for expansion.

Woods then asked Richardson to explain the concern that the city’s fire department had. Woods was referring to this section of the staff memo:

The entire footprint for Macy’s does not meet the 250 foot hydrant radius requirement. The site plan shows two hydrants, one on the northwest and the other on the northeast of Macy’s. However, the Fire Marshall has indicated that they are Post Indicator Values (PIV’s) and not hydrants; they cannot be used to meet hydrant radius requirements. The proposed FDC for proposed restaurant A does not meet the minimum 100 foot distance from a supporting hydrant.

Gary Tressel – with the engineering firm of Hubbell, Roth & Clark in Bloomfield Hills – responded. He indicated that the project will add two hydrants to bring it into compliance, and those will be included in the final engineering drawings that will be submitted to the city.

Woods wondered how the project would handle the dumpster areas. The city staff had indicated that the dumpster areas for these restaurants would need to be widened to create a 20-foot clear opening for a second dumpster for recycling. Richardson wasn’t sure how this would be handled, because it’s physically not possible to provide that 20-foot requirement at that location. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said it’s possible that the requirement could be waived or that other alternatives could be explored – such as providing another location for recycling in the vicinity.

Sabra Briere was concerned whether the new buildings will leave enough space for deliveries to be made in a corridor that serves Macy’s and other shops in the mall. Richardson replied that currently, delivery trucks park in the lane and use hand trucks to take deliveries into the mall. This new project will create a “service court,” he said, to be used for deliveries both to the restaurants as well as the mall stores. So trucks will be able to back up into the court, rather than park on the lane next to the mall. It’s the same area that will be used for trash and recycling pick-up, he said.

Briere wanted to know how composting will be handled for the restaurants. That’s a question that the restaurants need to answer when those specific site plans come in for approval, Richardson said. Briere suggested that he make the restaurants aware that the city is moving toward commercial composting, and that commercial recycling is already required.

Bonnie Bona asked about how the project fits into the city’s master plan for that area. “Malls are not where we want our urban planning to go,” she said, describing malls as “an isolated interior space surrounded by a ton of parking.” The city would rather see something more vibrant and more mixed use.

The east entrace to Macy’s at Briarwood Mall, where new restaurants are proposed.

The master plan for the Briarwood Mall area includes a recommendation to develop a safe designated pedestrian pathway from crosswalks to mall entrances through the parking lot, and to evaluate “innovative parking solutions” to use land more efficiently. The master plan also supports the rezoning of P (parking) districts to C2B (business service), as part of redeveloping the mall to increase its floor-area ratio (FAR).

Bona noted that the landscaping and paving plan for this proposed restaurant area is more detailed than is the landscaping on the entire Briarwood site. “The landscaping at Briarwood is pretty…” Bona paused, and Richardson quipped: “You can stop at pretty.”

Bona said landscaping is almost non-existent in other parts of the mall site, and she liked that the new plan for these restaurants to include making the area more attractive for pedestrians.

Bona asked how this project was part of a larger plan to make the mall more dynamic and “village-like.” She said she’s a proponent of not tearing down buildings, because that’s wasteful, but she hoped the buildings evolved into mixed-use space. She also told Richardson that the pedestrian connections to the restaurants “look entirely random.” She felt that the attention paid to the pedestrian experience stopped at the curb.

Regarding long-term plans, Richardson said “you’ve got to start somewhere.” He noted that two-thirds to three-fourths of the parking lot at the mall is owned by other entities – not Simon Company, the Indianapolis-based firm that developed the mall. So Simon Company doesn’t have the ability to make changes there. Within Simon Company, there’s a unit called the asset intensification group, with the sole goal of taking surface parking lots and making the uses there more intense, by adding residential, office, medical, entertainment or other uses. To make that happen, Richardson said, there needs to be a public/private partnership, because “it’s not cheap.”

Bona said it wasn’t her intention to redesign Briarwood Mall on the spot. She wondered if there are things that the city can do to help facilitate a more intensive, desirable development – like a parking structure with retail uses on the first floor, rather than surface parking, which she called a “stormwater nightmare.”

Richardson replied that he’s “a young, ambitious developer at Simon, and I want to make every one of my assets the best.”

Rampson pointed out a challenge: The built infrastructure on the site hasn’t been addressed since 1987.

Regarding pedestrian connectivity, Richardson said that although it might not appear to be appealing, he thought it would be quite nice.

Jeremy Peters brought up the issue of bioswales, noting that the city’s staff didn’t believe the requirement for bio-retention had been met, given the number of parking spaces on the site. Richardson said that the project team planned to sit down with city staff and review the requirements, and if the bioswales aren’t big enough, they’ll be enlarged.

Kirk Westphal wondered what the maintenance schedule is for the mall’s bioswales. Tressel replied that litter pick-up would occur every week or so, depending on the need. There’s also an annual maintenance program for the bioswales, he said.

Westphal also asked whether there was ever consideration of making this a mixed-use project. “Not at this time,” Richardson replied, saying that the company doesn’t believe there’s demand for it. They’re also hampered by not owning parcels that would be appropriate for that kind of development. Long-term, the company is looking at it, especially because Ann Arbor is a college town, he said.

Westphal pointed out that the existing parking seems to exceed the maximum allowed by the city. Rampson replied that the site is considered non-conforming, because of that issue. The current project is proposing to remove parking spaces, she noted. “If they were going in the opposite direction, then that would require a variance.”

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Referring to peak parking capacity, Westphal asked if there are occasions when all the parking is used. Richardson reported that Briarwood Mall, compared to similar sized malls, has more parking per retail square footage. It’s busy between Nov. 15 and Dec. 31, he said, but other than that, parking isn’t an issue.

Giannola confirmed that the holiday season is the only time when the parking at Briarwood is at or near capacity.

Bona asked about whether there was only one bus stop. Yes, Richardson said, and it was recently relocated. A new bus shelter was also constructed, in conjunction with the recent mall renovation. Bona wondered whether there’s a need for more than one stop, since the mall is so large. Richardson said he’d be happy to discuss it with mall management.

Briere reported that she had just Googled the bus stops and it showed two locations at the mall. Richardson suggested that perhaps the map hadn’t yet been updated. The bus stop has been moved, and there’s only one, he said.

Woods thanked Richardson for keeping the bus stop at the mall. “There’s another part of town where that changed,” she noted. [Woods was referring to the decision by the owners of Arborland on Washtenaw Avenue not to allow an AAATA bus stop on their property.]

Woods asked if people park at Briarwood Mall on game days for University of Michigan football. Richardson said he wasn’t sure about parking, but the two new hotels that have opened in that area are fully booked on weekends when there are home games. “They kind of validate the demand” for hotel rooms, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to postpone action on the proposal.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two general public commentary times. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Eat the Hub

Alex Perlman, a co-owner of the food carts The Beet Box and Cheese Dream, addressed commissioners during public commentary at the start of the meeting about a project at 1215 S. University. That site is the former location of Pinball Pete’s, which burned down in 2009. It’s been a blight on the South University corridor, he said, so he’s been working on a solution.

Alex Perlman, co-owner of The Beet Box and Cheese Dream, is proposing a new food cart area at 1215 S. University called Eat the Hub.

The project, called Eat the Hub, would repurpose the space as a temporary food cart yard that would accommodate between three to six carts. Perlman said he’s been working with planning staff, who’ve been helpful. But unfortunately, he added, current city ordinances “don’t reflect the ever-changing landscape that mobile food businesses require.” He said he’d appreciate any help to move this project forward.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager’s Report

As part of her planning manager’s report, Wendy Rampson, reported that earlier in the month the city staff held a public meeting about the intersection of Nixon, Dhu Varren and Green roads. The staff was on hand to answer questions and get feedback about the intersection, which she described as an “odd, offset intersection” with four-way stops that has caused concern in that neighborhood. With a potential development proposal on Nixon, the staff has heard a lot of concern, Rampson said. As a result of the meeting, there will be more information posted on the city’s website in a Q&A-style format, she said.

Any project there would eventually be part of the capital improvements plan (CIP), Rampson said. The CIP is up for an off-year review, she noted – not the full overhaul, but an update. The planning commission’s CIP committee – Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh – will meet on Oct. 30 with Deb Gosselin, who is overseeing this process.

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

Absent: Ken Clein.

Next regular meeting: Due to the Nov. 5 election, the next planning commission meeting will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 6, 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.

Ingalls Mall near North University

Linda Diane Feldt — Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:17:01 +0000

The area was filled with mist as University of Michigan workers blew compressed air through the sprinkler system. A worker told me that people often ask if it is a toxic mist. Nope. Just water and air. They are winterizing the fountains and sprinklers all over campus, and the suggestion was made that everyone do the same this week before it is too late. [photo 1] [photo 2] [photo 3]

Dems Forum Finale: The Campaign, The Party

Dave Askins — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:21:59 +0000

Editor’s note: A forum hosted by the Ann Arbor Democratic Party on June 8, 2013 drew six of seven total city council candidates who’ve qualified for the primary ballot.

From left: Julie Grand (Ward 3 challenger), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3 incumbent), Jack Eaton (Ward 4 challenger), Mike Anglin (Ward 5 incumbent), Kirk Westphal (Ward 2 candidate), and Sabra Briere (Ward 1 incumbent).

In the Aug. 6 Democratic primary, only two wards offer contested races. In Ward 3, Democratic voters will choose between incumbent Stephen Kunselman and Julie Grand. Ward 4 voters will have a choice between incumbent Marcia Higgins and Jack Eaton. Higgins was reported to have been sick and was unable to attend.

The format of the event eventually allowed other candidates who are unopposed in the Democratic primary to participate: Mike Anglin (Ward 5 incumbent), Sabra Briere (Ward 1 incumbent), and Kirk Westphal, who’s challenging incumbent Jane Lumm in Ward 2. Lumm, who was elected to the council as an independent, was in the audience at the forum but didn’t participate. The event was held at the Ann Arbor Community Center on North Main Street. The Chronicle’s coverage is presented in a multiple-part series, based on common threads that formed directly in response to questions posed to the candidates, or that cut across multiple responses.

This final installment of coverage from the June 8 city council candidate forum focuses on the remarks candidates made that were overtly about the campaign – to the extent that those remarks weren’t included in one of the previous reports on this forum.

The fact that the forum was hosted by the Ann Arbor Democratic Party meant that party politics was an obvious potential topic. State representative Jeff Irwin set that tone early as he addressed the audience with a legislative update. And Ward 2 candidate Kirk Westphal, who’ll face independent Jane Lumm in the general election, stressed that he is a Democrat.

Part 1 of this series focused on the candidates’ concept of and connection to Ann Arbor, while Part 2 looked at their personal styles of engagement and views of how the council interacts. Part 3 reported on the theme of connections, including physical connections like transportation, as well as how people are connected to local government. And Part 4 covered the theme of downtown and its role in the life of the city. Chronicle election coverage is tagged with “2013 primary election.”

The League of Women Voters of the Ann Arbor Area will be holding its candidate forums for Ward 3 and Ward 4 primaries on July 10 at the studios of Community Television Network. Those forums will be broadcast on CTN’s Channel 19 and will be available online.

The Campaign

Julie Grand led things off by saying she had truly enjoyed the opportunity so far of “getting out in the community, listening to your concerns, listening to your solutions.”

During her closing comments, Grand added that if people at the forum had other questions about her campaign, they could look at the literature that had been placed on tables in the back of the room. Her website would be live shortly, she said. [Grand's website] She offered to talk after the forum or when people saw her out in the community – as she was not taking any vacation over the next couple of months.

Grand felt she has a strong record of public service to the community – one that she said has been characterized by hard work, transparency and strong public engagement. That’s what she’d continue to do, she said. [Grand is chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, on which she's served since 2007. She has served on several task forces during that time, including one that's currently focused on the North Main/Huron River corridor.] Grand said she is looking forward to the opportunity to continue listening to people’s ideas and working hard for them.

Stephen Kunselman said he’s seeking re-election. Back in 2011, he noted, he’d campaigned on the tagline of a “strong voice, bold vision, an honest ethic and a new direction.” This year, his tagline is “experienced, effective, ethical leadership you can trust.” [Kunselman's website]

Kunselman thanked Grand for throwing her hat in the ring. Campaigning is not easy, he said. He allowed that it’s a good time because you meet a lot of people – but it’s not that much fun. He thanked other candidates who stepped forward, because it really does give the city a broad representation of interest in the dialogue that’s going to be taking place in the next couple of months, he said. He repeated his tagline for this year: “Experienced, effective, ethical leadership you can trust.” He’d be going door-to-door over the next couple of months, he said.

He’s accomplished a lot during his service on the city council that he’s very proud of, Kunselman said, working with councilmembers Sabra Briere and Mike Anglin. As an example, he gave the public art ordinance that was given a major revision at a recent council meeting. The revision to the public art ordinance meant that the city would no longer be transferring restricted monies into pooled funds for public art.

As another example, he gave his service as the council appointee to the taxicab board. When there were complaints about limo drivers assaulting University of Michigan female students, he had stood up to make sure that the police department was addressing that issue, he said. When there was a proposal to close fire stations in the last year, he’d opposed that with others on the council, and added FTEs during the last fiscal year. About the former YMCA site – a city-owned property at Fifth and William – he noted that he’d campaigned in 2011 on the idea of selling it. A broker is now being selected by the city administrator, so that the city can be put back on the tax rolls again.

Kunselman commented on the houses along Main Street – across from the Ann Arbor Community Center, where the forum was held. He noted that the dilapidated houses, which had been part of the demised Near North affordable housing development, had now been demolished. [Demolition had been delayed, in part because the city expected that federal funds could be used to cover the cost, but that proved not to be the case.] Where did that money for demolition come from? Kunselman asked. When he’d been returned to the council by voters, he said, he’d used his experience working in local government. And because of that experience, he said, he’d pushed not for using the city attorney’s office to deal with blight in the community. Instead, he’d said: Let’s use the building department. He’d previously run a dangerous buildings program in a prior position, and he knew that the building department could be effective.

There’s a tremendous difference between playing poker politics and putting the cards on the table for all the public to see, Kunselman said. He gave forum attendees information on his campaign kickoff event.

Jack Eaton said it’s time now to turn attention “from stopping the bad ideas to a positive agenda.” He said it’s important to revisit the idea of protecting the city’s parkland from misuse. “We need to address our infrastructure needs. We need to address our unfunded liabilities. I want to help rebuild our police and fire departments,” he said. He’s running because he wants to be responsive to Ward 4 voters. But he also wants to represent the interests of the entire city. [Eaton's website]

Eaton reported that when he goes door-to-door talking to voters, he hears repeatedly that people really like it when he talks about commonsense priorities. It’s not that difficult to understand that public safety is more important than some of the other things the city spends money on, he said. It’s not that difficult to understand that when roads are in horrible condition, the city needs to address those problems. It’s not that hard to understand that neighborhood flooding should have been addressed a long time ago and we have just ignored the symptoms, Eaton said.

Sabra Briere ventured that she’d been “annoying my spouse lately” because every time she goes through a neighborhood and sees the sidewalks being repaired, she says, “If I have accomplished nothing else, I’ve done that.” She described how the first thing she did after she was elected to the council was to object to the method of paying for sidewalks. At that time, it was an individual’s responsibility as a property owner to pay for the sidewalk adjacent to your property. She was really happy that the community was asked to approve a millage for that, and had agreed to pass a millage to pay for sidewalk maintenance.

“Infrastructure is my big deal,” Briere stated. Her other big deal, she said, was a focus on affordable housing and human services. She’d been working on that “more quietly perhaps than some people might like, but it is making a real change in the budget.” She pointed out that this year the council was able to allocate $100,000 to the city’s affordable housing trust fund, when that had not been done in the last several years. That’s important because it’s a community value, she said.

Briere said she’s really tried over the last few years to be open and available to the public – to benefit from other people’s viewpoints as much as possible. Sometimes she’ll play devil’s advocate, she said – countering somebody’s view with someone else’s view to see how well they can defend it. Yes, she has a website, Briere said, and yes, you can e-mail her. But she pointed out that you can also talk with her – every Monday morning at the Northside Grill at 7:30 a.m. She stays until at least 9 a.m., she said. Some of the candidates and councilmembers at the forum had come to visit her there. She’s there to hear what anybody has to say. If nobody shows up, she has other stuff to do while she’s sitting there – adding that Northside Grill makes “a decent cup of coffee.”

Democratic Party

As a gathering of members of the city Democratic Party, it was not unusual to hear partisan talk at the June 8 candidate forum.

Democratic Party: State Politics

Jeff Irwin – representative for Michigan’s 53rd House District, which includes most of Ann Arbor – led off the morning by filling some time until moderator Mike Henry was able to arrive.

Irwin described how progress had been made on the possibility of Michigan adding LGBT individuals [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] as a protected class under its civil rights law. Based on an NPR news story he’d heard, Irwin indicated that Republican Rep. Frank Foster would be willing to introduce the necessary changes to Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen civil rights act. “This is something we have been working on in Lansing as Democrats for at least a decade,” Irwin said.

Michigan is one of only a few states that does not have that language in its civil rights act, Irwin continued, so Democrats have been working on this issue for years and years, trying to get LGBT protection inserted into Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen act. Explaining why it’s a Republican who’s bringing the proposal forward, Irwin explained: “When those of us like myself get to Lansing and see the Republicans control everything, we realize very quickly that, you know, the best way [to move the issue forward] is to get a Republican to lift up the banner and carry it across the finish line.”

So a number of Democrats had been working behind the scenes with Republicans to try to encourage them, particularly younger Republicans, Irwin said. “… [I]f they want to have a political career in Michigan, that if they want to survive in politics, they need to understand that the politics of this issue is moving so fast that they are going to get run over and flattened if they don’t get on the right side of it.” If the Republican Party wants to maintain its “bigoted position” on marriage, he said, then the Elliott-Larsen change would be a way to mollify that and “save themselves.” Irwin thought a number of Republicans had been convinced that a change to Elliott-Larsen is a good move for the Republican Party in the next couple of years.

And in response to a question from local attorney David Cahill about Democratic Party prospects statewide in 2014, Irwin took the opportunity to heap criticism on the most recent Republican U.S. president. Michigan Democrats are looking at 2006 as a model for how to achieve success, but one part of the 2006 success had been the fact that George W. Bush was in office – something that couldn’t be repeated, Irwin noted, describing Bush as a “buffoon.”

Democratic Party: Candidate Forum

The candidate forum also touched on partisan themes. In particular Kirk Westphal asserted his Democratic Party credentials. Although he’s unopposed in the Ward 2 primary, he’ll face incumbent Jane Lumm in the general election. Lumm is running as an independent, though she ran for mayor in 2004 as a Republican and served in the mid-1990s on the city council as a Republican. Lumm attended the June 8 forum and sat in the audience. She told The Chronicle she had no expectation of participating in the candidate forum, and that she was there just to listen.

In his remarks, Westphal noted that he’s unopposed in the August primary by saying, “I’m the only Democrat running for the seat in the Second Ward – so I’ll keep my remarks brief and mostly focused on personal background.”

Later, Westphal stated, “I’m a strong Democrat,” and went on to list out where he stood on basic issues. He believes in a strong government role in the environment, the arts, transit, affordable housing and in successful cities overall. He wanted to bring those values to the Ward 2 council seat.

Westphal characterized the local government as the face of the community. Some folks think that a local government should play a very small role, he allowed, He felt, however, that the local government captures the personality of the community. He added, “And I’m frankly running because a lot of my wardmates and I have not seen progressive Democratic values reflected in this council seat. And we believe that these values are important to the future, both locally and nationally.”

The other explicit mention of the Democratic Party came from Sabra Briere, who told the audience that she’s sorry there’s no Democratic primary in Ward 1 – saying that’s not her doing.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor’s city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Column: Let’s Get DDA Tax Capture Right

Dave Askins — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 05:12:30 +0000

The Ann Arbor city council’s March 4, 2013 agenda includes a proposed change to the city ordinance (Chapter 7) governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. I think most of those ordinance amendments have considerable merit, and warrant the council’s consideration. But it’s possible that the amendments themselves won’t receive their due consideration, because they’ll be dismissed as politically motivated.

Ann Arbor DDA tax increment finance (TIF) capture: Actual valuation (green line) of the increment compared to projected valuation in the DDA TIF plan (blue bars correspond to one of three estimates – pessimistic, realistic, and optimistic).

The Chapter 7 amendments are being proposed by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who’s been joined by Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) in sponsoring them. Kailasapathy’s co-sponsorship might help only incrementally to buffer the proposal against criticism that they’re motivated by Kunselman’s personal political aspirations.

On that theory, Kunselman is proposing revisions to Chapter 7 in an effort to raise his profile – in anticipation of a possible mayoral candidacy in 2014, and to shore up support for his Ward 3 re-election campaign his year. Given that he took out petitions for the 2013 Democratic primary on Nov. 3, 2012 – before the Nov. 6 general election – and collected signatures outside the polls, it’s pretty clear that he’s eager to seek re-election to his council seat. And last time around, in 2011, he campaigned as much against the DDA as he did against either of his two opponents. Kunselman is quoted in the February 2013 issue of the Ann Arbor Observer saying that if mayor John Hieftje runs for re-election next year, he’ll run against Hieftje.

However, on the theory that these proposed amendments are all about Stephen Kunselman and not about good public policy, I figure it’s also reasonable to toss in another possibility. Perhaps Kunselman is trying to raise his profile enough to win local blog Damn Arbor’s current poll as “most attractive councilmember.” The poll includes Kunselman as one of just four nominated councilmembers. It’s not clear to me if the voting is meant to include sartorial choices, but if it does, Kunselman could objectively be considered a natty dresser.

All kidding aside, it would be easy and convenient to dismiss the Chapter 7 amendments as a political ploy, and save the work of understanding some gnarly tax calculations. [You'll have a head start on this if you've read my previous column on the issue: "Tax Capture is a Varsity Sport."]

But I think at least some of the proposed changes to Chapter 7 have considerable merit, independent of Kunselman’s political ambitions. Millions of dollars are at stake. As councilmembers give this proposal initial consideration on March 4, I hope they focus on the tax-related amendments.

The proposed Chapter 7 amendments can be divided into two kinds: (1) those that deal with the calculation of the tax increment finance (TIF) capture by the Ann Arbor DDA; and (2) everything else. For that reason, I think the city council should consider dividing the proposed amendments into separate questions for its consideration. This could pose a parliamentary challenge, because the subset of Robert’s Rules adopted by the Ann Arbor city council does not include “dividing the question” as a proper motion during debate. But even if the division isn’t achieved in a parliamentary fashion, councilmembers would be well served at least mentally to divide the proposed changes this way.

By grouping the Chapter 7 amendments on TIF capture for separate consideration, councilmembers would, I think, have a better chance at understanding the implications.

What are the implications? As proposed in the Chapter 7 amendments, the DDA would, in future years, potentially capture less through its TIF. Compared to the way the DDA currently interprets the ordinance, that potential for FY 2014 would translate into $713,221 less in total capture by the DDA. Of that total, the city of Ann Arbor’s share would be $429,409. The remainder would be distributed to other taxing authorities in the DDA district that have their taxes captured: Washtenaw County ($149,392), Washtenaw Community College ($94,257), and the Ann Arbor District Library ($40,163). For FY 2014, that would still leave the DDA with $3.96 million in TIF capture.

Those calculations are based on the city treasurer’s memo that accompanies the council’s March 4 agenda item. But even if the proposed Chapter 7 amendments were enacted, the city treasurer’s calculations show that for the following year, in FY 2015, the reduced amount captured by the DDA would be just $19,862. And it would leave the DDA with $4.77 million in TIF capture for FY 2015.

Why the difference? It’s because the proposed Chapter 7 amendments still don’t explicitly settle a point of unclarity in the ordinance language, which involves the method of TIF calculation.

It’s this method of TIF calculation that should receive most of the council’s attention as it considers the Chapter 7 amendments. Councilmembers should specifically be focused squarely on this question: Should the TIF calculation be based on a year-to-year method or on a cumulative method?

Pay No Attention to the Politics

Some of the proposed Chapter 7 amendments involve governance of the DDA. For example, if the amendments were enacted, then it would not be possible for an elected official to serve on the board of the DDA. Currently, mayor John Hieftje serves on the DDA board, something that’s allowed for in the state enabling statute for downtown development authorities. And in the past, Sandi Smith served as an elected member of the city council, while also serving on the DDA board. Despite Kunselman’s objections to it, the state statute on incompatible offices explicitly allows for simultaneous service on a city council and the board of a downtown development authority.

The Chapter 7 amendment on board membership wouldn’t take effect until after the November 2014 general election – so even if enacted, it would not require immediate removal of mayor John Hieftje from the board.

Another Chapter 7 amendment involves a policy on use of TIF funds inside the DDA TIF district. Currently, the DDA’s own policy for its housing fund allows the DDA to make expenditures on properties located up to a quarter mile outside the DDA TIF district. That’s based on the idea that investments in housing that are sufficiently near the downtown would have an indirect benefit to the downtown. For example, the DDA had pledged $500,000 in support of Avalon Housing‘s now defunct Near North affordable housing project, which was located on North Main Street, outside the district.

The Chapter 7 amendment would require TIF funds to be spent on projects that directly benefit properties inside the DDA TIF district.

Another Chapter 7 amendment would clarify that the DDA’s annual report has to be filed with the city clerk in early January of each year.

I don’t think it’s necessarily unfair to call this set of changes politically-motivated – but that doesn’t count as an argument against any of them. All these changes are at least worth the council’s consideration.

But if councilmembers have an hour to study and deliberate on all the Chapter 7 changes, then I think they should spend 59 minutes on the changes to the TIF calculations.

Chapter 7 TIF Calculations

I’ll begin with a quick overview of how TIF works generally, followed by the current text of Chapter 7, the history of this specific issue, and why the proposed ordinance changes don’t go far enough to provide clarity.

TIF Calculations: How TIF Works

Downtown development authorities in Michigan do not levy taxes of their own, but rather “capture” taxes levied by other entities within a specific geographic area – the TIF district. The “increment” in a tax increment finance (TIF) district refers to the difference between the initial value of a property and the value of a property after development. Among other things, Chapter 7 sets forth how the Ann Arbor DDA’s tax capture is confined to the initial increment on the value of a property after improvements are made, and does not include subsequent increases due to inflation.

TIF Calculations: Chapter 7 Text

In Chapter 7, three paragraphs bear directly on the way that the TIF calculation is supposed to be performed for the Ann Arbor DDA. I’ve added the paragraph numbering, to help keep things straight, and added italics to highlight some of the points I’ll be making. [.pdf of Ann Arbor city ordinance establishing the DDA]:

¶1 If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed.

¶2 After the then earliest dated bond issue of the downtown development authority is retired, the captured assessed valuation prior to the date of sale for that issue shall be returned to the rolls on the next succeeding tax levy.

¶3 Tax funds that are paid to the downtown development authority due to the captured assessed value shall first be used to pay the required amounts into the bond and interest redemption funds and the required reserves thereto. Thereafter, the funds shall be distributed as set forth above or shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies.

Having reviewed old newspaper clippings from the early 1980s, when the DDA was first established, it seems almost certain that ¶1 was included for a specific reason. It was included to provide some assurance to other taxing authorities – in case the newly formed DDA were wildly successful in its mission of spurring private investment in the downtown area. The assurance given in ¶1 was that not just the DDA, but also the other taxing authorities would enjoy an immediate benefit of that possibly unanticipated success. Success is defined in terms of the projected value of the increment as expressed in the TIF plan.

The TIF plan is a foundational document for the DDA. Here’s an extract from the Ann Arbor DDA’s TIF plan from its 2003 renewal [.pdf of DDA TIF plan appendix]:

Extract from the Ann Arbor DDA’s TIF plan table. It shows the projected valuation of the increment on which the DDA’s TIF capture will be based.

The fact that three different estimates of anticipated growth are included in the TIF plan leaves room for disagreement about which estimate – realistic, pessimistic, or optimistic – should be used to calculate the redistribution described in ¶1. But the Ann Arbor DDA’s current legal position is that even under ¶1, no TIF funds need to be distributed to other taxing authorities, given the DDA’s current financial picture.

That legal position is based on ¶3, which the DDA interprets as meaning that no re-distribution to other taxing authorities needs to be made under ¶1, until the total amount of the DDA’s debt payments falls below the amount of its TIF capture. In the FY 2014 budget, adopted by the DDA board at its Feb. 6, 2013 meeting, about $6.5 million is slated for bond payments and interest. That clearly exceeds the amount of anticipated TIF capture in the FY 2014 budget – about $3.9 million. The DDA is able to make those debt payments, because about half of that $6.5 million is covered by revenues from the public parking system. The DDA administers the public parking system under contract with the city of Ann Arbor.

As a side note, I think it’s worth thinking about the text of ¶2 from the perspective of the early 1980s – because ¶2 seems to contemplate a much smaller-scale DDA for Ann Arbor than the one that now exists. It seems to contemplate a DDA that, for a specific project, itself issues bonds – based on the TIF from a specific increment in property values. But after the bond is paid off, then under ¶2, the DDA would no longer capture TIF on that increment. Of course, it could be argued that ¶2 simply doesn’t apply, because bonds for DDA projects are issued by the city of Ann Arbor, not the DDA itself. But by that same reasoning, it’s not clear how ¶3 would provide an argument against re-distribution of TIF to other entities.

In any case, the Chapter 7 amendments to be considered by the council on March 4 would render moot any legal arguments about how correctly to interpret ¶2 and ¶3. That’s because the proposed amendments would completely strike both ¶2 and ¶3.

TIF Calculations: History

I don’t think the proposed elimination of ¶2 and ¶3 from Chapter 7 can be dismissed as a political attack by Kunselman on the DDA.

This issue first arose back in the spring of 2011. The context was the year-long hard negotiations between the DDA and the city over terms of a new contract under which the DDA would manage the city’s parking system. The Chapter 7 issue emerged just as the DDA board was set to vote on the parking system contract at its May 2, 2011 meeting.

When the issue was identified by the city’s financial staff, the DDA board postponed voting on the new contract. The period of the postponement was used to analyze whether the DDA’s obligations under ¶1 could be met – at the same time the DDA was ratifying a new parking system contract, which required the DDA to pay the city of Ann Arbor 17.5% of gross parking revenues.

Initially, the DDA agreed that money was owed to other taxing authorities, not just for that year, but for previous years as well. And the DDA paid a combined roughly $473,000 to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College and Washtenaw County in 2011. The city of Ann Arbor chose to waive its $712,000 share of the calculated excess.

Subsequently, the DDA reversed its legal position, based on ¶3, and contended that no money should have been returned at all. That decision came at a July 27, 2011 DDA board meeting.

The following spring, during the May 21, 2012 budget deliberations, Kunselman proposed an amendment to the city’s FY 2013 budget that stipulated specific interpretations of ¶3 and ¶1 in Chapter 7, with a recurring positive impact to the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund of about $200,000 a year. Kunselman wanted to use that general fund money to pay for additional firefighters.

Kunselman’s budget amendment last year got support only from two other councilmembers – Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Some councilmembers didn’t feel like they’d had enough time to understand completely what the impact would be on the DDA’s financial picture. During those deliberations, for example, mayor John Hieftje raised the general specter of the DDA not being able to meet its own financial obligations, which would then become the city’s obligations.

Fair enough. Now there’s time. Let’s take enough time to understand what the impact would be on the DDA’s ability to meet its financial obligations. But let us also take time to understand why the proposed changes to Chapter 7 need to provide more clarity than they currently do.

As proposed, the Chapter 7 amendments leave open the possibility of a year-to-year method for calculating ¶1 TIF limits, instead of using a cumulative method. The proposed Chapter 7 amendments provide clarity only about which TIF plan projection to use – realistic, pessimistic or optimistic.

TIF Calculations: Realistic Projections

Beyond eliminating ¶2 and ¶3, the amendments to Chapter 7 to be considered by the council would alter ¶1. The most significant alteration would settle the question about which projections in the TIF plan to use for the ¶1 calculation – in favor of the “realistic” projection. The following language would be inserted:

The authority shall determine the difference between the actual captured value and the adopted tax increment financing plan capture value using the realistic tax base growth calculation identified in the plan for real and personal property for each tax year. Absent designation of a realistic tax base growth calculation in any adopted plan, the application of this section shall utilize the mean of all values illustrated by year.

If the actual captured value exceeds the “optimistic” projection, then it exceeds the “realistic” projection by even more. So compared to a method that uses the “optimistic” projections, a method using the “realistic” projections would result in the DDA redistributing more TIF back to the taxing authorities. It wasn’t accidental that when the DDA calculated the amounts it redistributed in 2011, it used the optimistic growth projections in the TIF plan.

TIF Calculations: Cumulative, Year-to-Year

Based on the proposed Chapter 7 revisions, the city treasurer’s memo includes the following calculations, presumably based on certain assumptions about when currently in-progress construction projects will be completed. The severe abbreviations are mine. In order in the table below are the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College, and Ann Arbor District Library. The rate of the total millage levied by each entity is in parens:

Entity (mill)     FY 2014      FY 2015         

A2 (16.5720)   $  429,409   $   11,958
WC (5.7654)    $  149,392   $    4,160   
WCC (3.6376)   $   94,257   $    2,625
AADL (1.55)    $   40,163   $    1,118

Total "Rebate" $  713,221   $   19,862

DDA Capture    $3,964,457   $4,774,758

In FY 2014, there’s a sizable redistribution calculated. But in FY 2015, it’s almost inconsequential. Why is there a disparity between years? This relates to the fact that the language of ¶1 asks a tax analyst to determine whether the valuation of the increment “grows at a rate faster” than that in the TIF plan projection. And completely absent any context, that phrase could mean one of two things when the TIF is calculated:

The analyst is supposed to compare the increment’s valuation this year to last year’s valuation, and ask: Was the rate of increase from last year to this year greater or less than the rate of increase forecast in the TIF plan?
The analyst is supposed to compare the increment’s valuation this year to the valuation at the start of the DDA, and ask: Is the rate of increase for the whole period of the DDA up to this year greater or less than the rate of increase forecast in the TIF plan?

Graphically, here’s the situation. The green line is the actual valuation of the increment. The blue bars represent the three alternatives – realistic, pessimistic or optimistic.

The green line shows actual valuation. The blue bars depict the TIF plan projections for the increase in valuation, based on pessimistic, realistic, or optimistic projections. Year X is 2004. Data for the final two years was estimated. For other years, the figures are actual.

The proposed Chapter 7 revisions help provide some clarity on the question of which blue bar to use: Use the darkest blue bar – the one labeled “realistic.” But the Chapter 7 revisions don’t provide clarity on the question of a year-to-year versus cumulative method.

Let’s say it’s YEAR X+7 and we’re trying to calculate the right TIF. Graphically, here’s the question: Do we use the method in Chart A or in Chart B below? More simplistically, for YEAR X+7, do we use the little triangle to compute the rate of increase, or do we use the big triangle?

Chart A: Year-to-year increase method.

Chart B: Cumulative increase method.

If we use the big triangle (cumulative approach), then the corresponding big triangle for the blue bars is this one:

Chart C: TIF plan growth rate (cumulative).

It’s pretty easy to see that the triangle in Chart B shows a greater rate of growth than the triangle in Chart C. That is, the rate of growth for the actual valuation of the increment in Year X+7 (green line) is greater than the rate of growth indicated in the TIF plan (blue bars).

And in fact we don’t have to draw the triangles for the cumulative approach. Just look to see if the green line is above the blue bars. On the cumulative approach, if the green line is above the blue bars, then the DDA should distribute TIF back to other taxing authorities.

But on the “small triangle” analysis – the year-to-year approach – if the green line levels off or dips, as in YEAR X+8, then that would count as less of an increase than the steady gains forecast in the TIF plan. So in YEAR X+8, no distribution would be owed to the other taxing authorities. That’s despite the fact that the green line is clearly still above the blue bars. On the year-to-year approach, increases in the valuation that exceed expectation could yield an immediate benefit to other taxing authorities only in the same year a new development comes on line. Thereafter the DDA would, on this approach, capture taxes on the full amount of the increment.

That’s why the city treasurer’s calculations show a drop-off for the amount of redistributed TIF from FY 2014 to FY 2015. It’s the year-to-year method that is assumed. From the memo [emphasis added]:

The DDA will use the same method of calculation used in the determination of refunds for Fiscal Years 2003-11. This method contemplated a year to year actual rate of increase versus the rate of increase of the tax base growth estimate in the TIF plan, not the value of the difference between the actual capture versus the tax base growth estimates in the TIF plan.

That’s the part I think councilmembers need to challenge. I think there’s no question that the only rational way to handle this is to take the cumulative approach.

We know there was concern back in the early 1980s expressed by other taxing authorities – about the amount of TIF that might be captured by the new DDA. We know that this concern is almost certainly the reason ¶1 appears in the DDA ordinance at all. I think that any rational conversation back in the early 1980s must surely have been based on this basic intuition: If the green line is above the blue bars, then half the distance between them will be redistributed to the other taxing authorities. With this historical context, it’s not plausible to use a year-to-year method to calculate the TIF under Chapter 7.

In round back-of-the-napkin numbers, if these calculations were done correctly, the city of Ann Arbor could expect to see at least $250,000 added to its general fund every year, not just this next year.

Next Steps

While I’m championing a further ordinance revision that would commit to a cumulative approach for these calculations, I think it’s important to pause and ask for some additional specific data. It’s also important explicitly to solicit the view of the other taxing authorities involved.

I would suggest that any action by the council on March 4 include the following:

Direct the city treasurer to estimate TIF redistribution to other taxing authorities and DDA tax capture for the next 10 years, using: (1) the cumulative approach; and (2) the year-to-year approach.
Request that the DDA incorporate the city treasurer’s estimates under (1) into its 10-year planning spreadsheet and to make that spreadsheet public.
Communicate the DDA’s 10-year plan and the city treasurer’s estimates to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College, and Washtenaw County, with a request that the governing bodies of those entities comment on the information.

All this might entail postponing the ordinance revision, even though the council’s consideration this coming Monday will only be for a first reading. I think it would be reasonable to postpone the proposed ordinance change – in the interest of nailing down the correct approach to these calculations to everyone’s satisfaction.

It would not be reasonable to vote down these ordinance revisions based on the idea that they’re just political theater.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Round 3 FY 2014: Housing Commission

Dave Askins — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:16:10 +0000

After a Feb. 11, 2013 budget work session that included separate presentations on the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) and the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC), both of these topics came up again briefly at the city council’s most recent regular meeting.

During communications time for the council’s meeting on Feb. 19, 2013, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) expressed his view that the CIP should start including the 360 units of public housing managed by the AAHC.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The size of the dot is proportional to the number of units in the location. (Map by The Chronicle. Image links to interactive map.)

Kunselman’s argument for future inclusion of AAHC properties in the city’s CIP is based in part on the fact that the city of Ann Arbor currently holds the deeds to those properties. But his broader point is that he’s opposed to the city relinquishing title to the properties – as part of a proposal made to the council by AAHC executive director Jennifer L. Hall. Hall has served in that capacity for about a year, and began her Feb. 11 presentation at the council work session with an overview of improvements that AAHC has achieved since she took the post.

Hall’s proposal stems from a need to cover an estimated $500,000 per year funding gap for needed capital investments, coupled with a perceived shift in priorities by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in its funding strategy. That shift is somewhat away from subsidized public housing, where rent is subsidized in units owned by a housing commission. [Ann Arbor's situation is apparently unique – because the city, not the AAHC, holds the deeds.] While HUD still allocates several billion dollars nationally for public housing, it subsidizes even more in programs that are based on vouchers. And based on the last three years, the trend is toward more funding on the federal level for vouchers than for public housing.

Some HUD vouchers are tied to a tenant – a person. A potential tenant can take that voucher to a private landlord – and it’s the tenant who receives the rent subsidy, wherever that tenant is able to rent a place to live. Other HUD vouchers are tied instead to privately-owned property, and whoever lives in that private project receives the rent subsidy.

The strategy that Hall will be asking the council to authorize is one that converts AAHC properties to part private ownership, in order to take advantage of project-based HUD vouchers. The private ownership of the AAHC properties will also allow the possible use of tax credit financing to pay for needed capital investments – roofs, boilers, plumbing and the like.

The conversion to project-based vouchers would take place under HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program. To set the stage for that, the board of the AAHC selected a co-developer at its Jan. 10, 2013 meeting: Norstar Development USA.

The council would need to take two specific steps in order to proceed with the RAD: (1) approve the contingent transfer of the city-owned AAHC properties to the AAHC; and (2) approve a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for the properties so that they’d owe just $1/unit in property tax per year. As city-owned properties, no property tax is currently owed. Without the PILOT provision, taxes would be owed. Requests to take those steps are expected to come to the council in March. March will also be a period during which public hearings will take place on this issue.

Although Kunselman expressed clear opposition to the idea of transferring the deeds, and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) joined him in expressing significant skepticism, other councilmembers were more positive. They still had several questions about the complexities and the risks associated with the RAD program. [For more background on the AAHC’s efforts to prepare for the RAD program, see Chronicle coverage: “Housing Commission Eyes Major Transition.”]

The Feb. 11 budget work session included the 15th District Court and the capital improvements plan (CIP). A session held on Feb. 25 covered the fund-by-fund budget picture for the next two years. Presentations on those topics are covered in separate Chronicle reports. The council’s discussion of its budget priorities – identified at a planning retreat late last year – is expected to begin at a March 11 work session.

Highlights of Hall’s Feb. 11 presentation to the council included accomplishments of the housing commission over the last year, as well as a description of the properties Hall considers to be in the best condition, contrasted with those in the worst condition. She then walked the council through the key elements of the RAD program. Councilmembers had a range of questions.

Housing Commission Accomplishments

Ann Arbor Housing Commission executive director Jennifer L. Hall has held that position for a bit over a year. The AAHC board made the decision to hire her at its Oct. 19, 2011 meeting. At her first meeting of the board, on Dec. 21, 2011, she sketched out a possible expansion scenario.

Jennifer L. Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, addressed the city council at its Feb. 11 work session.

But Hall’s presentation to the city council on Feb. 11, 2013 focused on a path to sustaining the existing units of housing administered by the AAHC. To be eligible for the RAD program, for example, AAHC public housing could not have a “troubled status” designation. Hall was able to report to the AAHC board last fall, at its Oct. 17, 2012 meeting, that AAHC’s public housing operations no longer had a “troubled status” designation from HUD.

The news about AAHC’s public housing program emerging from the “troubled status” designation to achieve “standard performer” status was accompanied by even better news for AAHC’s voucher program (Section 8). After previously having “troubled” status, the AAHC voucher program is now considered by HUD to be a “high performer.”

Some of the data underlying the better status includes the time it takes AAHC to make a public housing unit ready for the next tenant after one tenant moves out – the “unit turn” time. Three years ago, based on minutes from the Jan. 20, 2010 board meeting, one subset of the AAHC public housing units had turn times of as much as 270 days. But that’s improved to 21 days on average, with another 14 days to occupy a unit – for a total of 45 days on average to get a new tenant into a unit after the previous tenant moves out.

Because HUD gives AAHC a rent subsidy for a unit only if it’s occupied, an unoccupied unit translates to zero revenue for AAHC. The overall vacancy rate for AAHC public housing has improved from 95% (12-20 vacant units) to 99% (1-5 vacant units).

Toward the end of the council’s session on AAHC, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) told Hall that he appreciated the leadership she’d shown during her short time as head of AAHC. That helped him have confidence in what she was proposing. And despite his opposition to the proposed conversion through the RAD program, during the “thank you mode” of the presentation, Kunselman added his thanks to Hall, saying that he was most impressed with the turnaround.

Housing Commission Properties

At the council’s Feb. 11 work session, AAHC executive director Jennifer L. Hall gave councilmembers an overview of some of the housing commission’s properties – from the best-maintained units to those with problems.

As an example of the commission’s best-maintained properties, Hall cited Baker Commons, a building with 64 one-bedroom apartments located in downtown Ann Arbor at the intersection of Packard and Main streets. Hall described Baker Commons, which was built in 1980, as the housing commission’s “best, most beautiful building.”

Baker Commons still requires maintenance, however. Last fall, on Oct. 3, 2012, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board allocated a $260,000 grant for the replacement of the roof on Baker Commons. The work was done in mid-November. Hall also showed the council before-and-after slides of the carpeting in a common area, replaced by marmoleum.

Two-foot contour map of the North Maple Estate property. The highest portion of the site is toward the north (upper left of the image), where no units were built.

She contrasted Baker Commons with units at North Maple Estates on the west side of town. The topography of the site poses challenges, and she described how many of the units have been built on the lowest part of the parcel. There are constant flooding issues, she said.

Based on a 2009 capital needs assessment, Hall estimated the capital investment gap – between what was actually needed and the amount HUD would be giving AAHC for public housing capital repairs – at around $500,000 per year. And the RAD program, with its potential for tax credit financing through privatization, is a way Hall would like to address the capital needs of most of the properties all in “one go.”

North Maple Estates was a touchstone for Ward 3 councilmember Stephen Kunselman’s remarks toward the end of the work session on the housing commission. He grew up on the west side of town, and had friends who lived in the project – which consists of 20 4-5 bedroom detached single-family units, built in 1969. He allowed that he was a little bit “nostalgic,” but noted that the families who lived in North Maple were families he grew up with.

Responding to Hall’s estimated $500,000 annual capital needs for all of the commission’s public housing units, Kunselman contended that much of that was for shorter-term needs, like appliances and boilers. So he wanted to make sure that any solution to cover that funding gap was longer-term – because appliances might need to be replaced again in 10 years. He was concerned that the housing commission might find itself in exactly the same situation 10 years from now.

Kunselman concluded that he would not support the transfer of deeds from the city to the housing commission so that a private entity could become the majority owner of the properties. Kunselman was also not supportive of transferring housing commission employees to the new private entity. When the council is asked to approve the transfer, Kunselman said, “I will say no.”

While other councilmembers expressed concerns and had questions, their outlook was more positive than Kunselman’s. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) allowed that Kunselman is right – it’s all about the people who actually live in the housing commission’s units. But she didn’t want to rule anything out until the council gets to the point of making a determination. She’d look at it with a level of optimism and skepticism.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) allowed that there was a certain amount of risk, but he looked at the potential for an “eight-figure” reward. He characterized the approach recommended by Hall as a “hard restart” which the city should consider investigating.

More Background on the Conversion

By way of general background, public housing is supported with government funding – primarily at the federal level – and owned by local government entities. The city of Ann Arbor actually owns the units administered by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. From the city ordinance establishing the Ann Arbor Housing Commission [emphasis added]:

All deeds, mortgages, contracts, leases, purchases, or other agreements regarding real property which is or may be put under the control of the housing commission, including agreements to acquire or dispose of real property, shall be approved and executed in the name of the City of Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor City Council may, by resolution, decide to convey or assign to the housing commission any rights of the city to a particular property owned by the City of Ann Arbor which is under the control of the housing commission and such resolution shall authorize the City Administrator, Mayor and Clerk to take all action necessary to effect such conveyance or assignment.

Another kind of government-subsidized housing (Section 8 vouchers) supports individuals who qualify based on their household income. Residents use those vouchers to help pay for private rental housing of their choice. Locally, AAHC manages the Section 8 voucher program for Washtenaw, Monroe, and western Wayne counties. AAHC also manages the public housing units in Ann Arbor.

In her presentation to the council on Feb. 11, Hall explained that a year ago the AAHC had 1,298 vouchers under contract, with a goal to have 1,378 under contract by December 2012. That goal was exceeded, as 1,420 vouchers are under contract as of January 2013.

To a more limited degree, HUD also provides project-based vouchers. For example, the AAHC has an allocation of 37 vouchers that are tied to specific projects, including 20 for the nonprofit Avalon Housing’s Pear Street apartment complex and 12 for assisted living in units managed by Area Agency on Aging 1-B.

Part of the reason Hall would like to convert AAHC’s public housing to project-based vouchers is due to a policy shift by HUD – away from public housing and toward voucher programs.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Voucher programs versus public housing programs. Over the last three years, HUD voucher programs (blue) have shown an increasing funding trend compared to public housing (red). Voucher programs are also funded at a much higher level overall – $28.2 billion compared to $5.8 billion in 2012.

The RAD program, which Hall was proposing to the council on Feb. 11, uses the project-based-voucher approach, but also allows entities like the AAHC to partner with private-sector developers on housing projects – something the AAHC currently can’t do.

Overall, Hall sees HUD as more committed to the voucher-based approach in the future, which would provide AAHC with a more reliable funding source for ongoing operations.

But the RAD project-based-voucher approach also allows public housing entities to tap private investment for needed capital improvements on existing public housing – by converting current public housing units into units that are owned by a public/private partnership.

Based on a 2009 capital needs assessment, Ann Arbor’s public housing stock would need about $40,000 per unit in repairs and renovations over the next 15 years. But based on current funding levels for public housing, HUD would provide only about $18,000 per unit over that period – or possibly less. The gap works out to $22,000 per unit. For the AAHC’s 360 units, that’s $8 million over the next 15 years, or in round numbers, about $500,000 a year.

Hall’s plan is to seek a range of financing in connection with the RAD conversion. But the main source is likely to be low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC), awarded through the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). Tax credits are awarded for projects, and are in turn sold to investors who provide funding for construction or renovation. Depending on market conditions and other factors, pricing for those credits could range from roughly 85-95 cents on the dollar. From a recent report by the Congressional Research Service:

Typically, investors do not expect the project to produce income. Instead, investors look to the credits, which will be used to offset their income tax liabilities, as their return on investment. The return investors receive is determined in part by the market price of the tax credits. The market price of tax credits fluctuates, but in normal economic conditions the price typically ranges from the mid-$0.80s to low-$0.90s per $1.00 tax credit. The larger the difference between the market price of the credits and their face value ($1.00), the larger the return to investors [.pdf of "An Introduction to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit" from the Congressional Research Service.]

These are the Ann Arbor public housing properties being considered for conversion, that were included in AAHC’s RAD application:

Baker Commons: 64 one-bedroom units
Green Baxter Court: 24 townhomes with a total of 65 bedrooms
Hikone: 30 townhomes with a total of 82 bedrooms
Lower Platt: 4 houses, each with 5 bedrooms
Miller Manor: 104 units with a total of 108 bedrooms
Evelyn Court: one single-family home with three bedrooms
Garden Circle: one single-family home with three bedrooms
Maple Meadows: 30 townhomes with a total of 82 bedrooms
North Maple Estates: 20 single-family homes with a total of 85 bedrooms
North Maple duplexes: Two three-bedroom duplexes, for a total of 12 bedrooms

In addition to choosing Norstar Development USA as a co-developer, AAHC has already completed several other steps needed for the RAD initiative. Three entities have been hired as consultants to help handle various aspects of the process. Avalon Housing, a local nonprofit that focuses on supportive services for affordable housing, was hired as a consultant to take the lead in applying for low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC). [.pdf of Avalon Housing contract] The AAHC had originally hoped to apply for a February round of credits, but given the short timeline, has decided to wait until the August round.

From left: Ann Arbor Housing Commission board members Ron Woods and Christopher Geer attended the city council work session on Feb. 11. Other board members are Leigh Greden, Marta Manildi and Gloria Black.

Also acting as a consultant is Tom Davis of Recap Real Estate Advisors. [.pdf of Recap Real Estate Advisors contract] Davis will provide advice about compliance with HUD regulations as well as financial transactions that AAHC might pursue, including the application for low-income housing tax credits.

AAHC will also be getting help with this transition from Rochelle Lento, an attorney with Dykema who specializes in LIHTC deals. [.pdf of Dykema contract] Lento has already been working with AAHC on a pro bono basis, and assisted with changes to bylaws and articles of incorporation for an AAHC nonprofit subsidiary – the Ann Arbor Housing Development Corp. – which will serve as the entity that enters into partnerships for these RAD projects. Those changes were approved by the AAHC board at its Nov. 14, 2012 meeting.

Council Questions: Highlights

At the Feb. 11 work session, councilmembers had a number of questions and concerns. Here are some highlights.

Council Questions: Norstar?

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked about Norstar Development USA – the co-developer that AAHC has selected: What’s in it for them? Hall explained that Norstar’s business is doing housing development. Norstar does its own housing development, but also hires itself out – just like an architect or an engineer would – to do projects. Norstar’s staff would share the developer fee, and get paid to do the work of putting the project together, Hall explained.

Norstar gets paid to hire architects and engineers, complete the due diligence, and oversee construction. “They’re a developer – that’s their business,” Hall explained. Norstar has expressed to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission that they’re not necessarily interested in being involved for the full 15-year period imposed by the IRS compliance for affordability of the housing units involved in this type of deal. The deal could be structured in a way for Norstar to exit sooner than 15 years.

Hall explained that Norstar’s business is more on the development side, as opposed to the property management side. Norstar has a property management company that it works with, but that company is not a part of Norstar, Hall told the council.

Council Questions: Why Now?

Petersen noted that the LIHTC-type of financing that would be used has been around since 1986. She asked Hall to give two or three reasons why Ann Arbor should do this now?

Hall cited the opportunity provided through the RAD program as the main reason for acting now. Through RAD, Hall explained, HUD is promising new, additional project-based vouchers to be attached to the AAHC units. “That’s the number one reason to do it,” Hall said.

Council Question: Pre-development Funds?

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked Hall about the estimated pre-development costs of around $100,000-$200,000. That would cover all the due diligence. Kailasapathy wanted to know how that cost would be covered.

Hall explained that HUD will allow the AAHC to take the first $100,000 out of its own budget. The rest is being negotiated with Norstar, Hall said. Normally, the developer would pick up those costs as risk, as part of the deal. So that’s all being negotiated right now, Hall said.

Hall also told the council that AAHC would be applying for pre-development funds from grant sources. But Hall confirmed that the first $100,000 would be coming out of AAHC’s existing budget.

Council Question: All or Just Some Units?

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted to confirm that all of AAHC’s units would be included in the proposal. Hall indicated that was right, but noted that it would likely happen in two phases.

AAHC was approved for around 280 units in its initial application, she said. Now that the developer, the architect and the contractor have looked at the housing commission’s properties, they have some different ideas about the properties in the initial application. So AAHC has talked to HUD about modifying or amending its initial application.

AAHC is looking at a rehab package for the first phase. For the second phase, there’s consideration of some demolition and new construction. But that’s too much work to undertake right now, Hall said, so there would likely be an application for a second phase next year.

Council Question: Big Deal? Promises?

Taylor asked Hall how big a reset this would be, if this all works out. “Gigantic,” Hall answered. “There is no other way to reinvest and keep these units in the condition they need, unless the city puts a significant chunk of funding in every single year. I don’t know how we would do it.”

Taylor followed up by asking Hall what gave her confidence that HUD’s promise of increases to this type of voucher program would be kept.

Hall told Taylor that she personally attaches skepticism to everything that HUD does, but she said she didn’t know how HUD would get out of the contract. Rochelle Lento, an attorney with Dykema who specializes in LIHTC deals, clarified that when HUD assigns the project-based vouchers with AAHC, they’ll enter into a 15-20 year HAP (housing assistance payment) contract, and that will be binding on HUD. Like any federal grant contract, she said, it’s going to say that it’s subject to appropriations. But the federal voucher program (HAP) has been much more stable over the last 15-20 years than the public housing program, Lento said.

Part of the mentality for HUD, Lento added, is to “get out of the public housing business,” and through the voucher program to have the private sector shoulder some of the responsibility.

Council Question: Risk?

During back-and-forth between Kunselman, Hall, and Lento, Lento was asked to identify the risk to the city. She indicated that the primary risk would be if the property were to be poorly managed and deteriorated. But the city has some control over that, she said, because “you are the management company.”

The other risk she described is if the construction and rehabilitation work is not completed in a timely fashion. The key to that, she said, is having a good general contractor.

Council Question: Tax Credits?

Taylor wanted to know how the tax credit investment made by some entity with a tax liability achieves the privatization goal. Lento told Taylor this was achieved in two ways. One way is that the private investor would necessarily be involved in the due diligence, making sure that the projects actually get constructed or rehabbed. As part of the ownership group for 15 years, she continued, the investor monitors and oversees the project to make sure they’re well-managed and well-maintained.

Taylor ventured that the participation of a tax credit investor in the ownership group is not as a silent partner. Lento indicated that the investor would require regular reporting, for example on the status of the tenant population. Especially for the first 10 years, if the property is not maintained as affordable within all the provisions of the IRS tax code, the tax credits could be jeopardized.

Taylor summarized his understanding of the situation by saying that HUD is getting the benefit of third-party oversight – which is incentivized by linking the tax credits to compliance with the IRS regulations.

Council Question: Why Not Avalon? Philosophy?

Given the complexity of RAD, and given the track record of local affordable housing developer Avalon Housing, Kunselman wanted to know why the city wouldn’t just sell the AAHC properties to Avalon. Lento explained that Avalon can’t take advantage of the RAD program in the same way that the AAHC can. The RAD program is only available to housing authorities, she said.

Hall clarified that there are two parts of the equation. There’s the operating subsidy, which is tied to the vouchers. And then there’s the low-income housing tax credit investment. Avalon could go out and get tax credits, Hall allowed, but Avalon would not have the ability to have the project-based rent subsidy in the same way that AAHC can.

However, Hall allowed that Avalon might be able to make it work.

Kunselman alluded to the fact that Avalon had not been able to bring the Near North affordable housing project to fruition. He concluded that there was, in fact, a lot of risk associated with developing affordable housing.

Lento pointed out that LIHTC was the most successful approach to developing affordable housing nationwide. Kunselman wanted to know how many affordable units LIHTC had generated in Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor is more challenging because of land acquisition, Lento said. Kunselman ventured that the only reason Hall’s proposal is feasible is that the land cost is zero – because it’s public land being turned over.

Lento didn’t necessarily agree that it’s “free land,” but Kunselman insisted that it’s “land that the city owns, land that the city bought – it’s public land.” That’s what makes him skittish, he said, because the city would be losing a lot of control. But he allowed that it’s a philosophical issue.

On a philosophical level, Hall ventured that it might be best to have the property owned by a nonprofit whose goal and mission is to be an affordable housing owner – as opposed to the city. As an example, she gave the former Y site at Fifth and William, which the city acquired from the Y. For a short time, the city operated the 100 units of affordable housing there. Then the building was condemned and eventually demolished, but new affordable housing has not been developed there. Views on all this change, Hall said.

Council Question: Where to Locate Affordable Housing?

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) took up the issue of the old Y lot. She described it as a poorly-used site, with deplorable conditions. She said everyone seems to forget about that part. She also contended that since that time, the city has learned that putting all the needed supportive housing in the middle of downtown is probably not the most efficient use of funding.

Higgins said the alternative that Hall was presenting was very interesting, and she wished this had been presented sooner. She praised Hall for taking the initiative and appreciated Hall’s hard work. Margie Teal (Ward 4) joined Higgins in expressing her thanks to Hall, and to the AAHC board.

Speaking to the issue of where to locate affordable housing, mayor John Hieftje indicated agreement with Higgins’ position that a large installation like the former Y building should not be located in the downtown. He described downtown Ann Arbor as bearing most of the burden of homelessness in Washtenaw County. To single out the downtown of the largest city in the county seemed unfair to him. The fact is that the clientele of the Delonis Center shelter comes from across Washtenaw County and beyond, he said. So it might be wiser to keep from concentrating that population in the downtown area.

Hieftje noted there was some sentiment on the city council to put the former Y site on the market and sell it. [It's currently used as a surface parking lot, as part of Ann Arbor's public parking system. A resolution, sponsored by Hieftje and Kunselman, is on the March 4, 2013 city council agenda to direct the city administrator to issue an RFP for brokerage services to sell the parcel.] If there were funds left over from the sale of that property, some of it could be put toward affordable housing, Hieftje said.

Hieftje told Hall he appreciated her creativity.

Addressing the appropriate location of affordable housing, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) spoke from her perspective serving on the city’s disabilities commission. She didn’t want the city to become a place where it’s not possible for disabled and elderly people to live downtown.

Site Plan Moratorium: Commentary, No Action

Dave Askins — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 04:18:41 +0000

Ann Arbor city council meeting (Feb. 19, 2013): Land use was the predominant theme of the meeting, linking several different agenda items – but the council chambers were filled mostly with people interested in just one of them.

The architecture of councilmember snacks at the Feb. 19, 2013 meeting provided a nutritional buffer against zoning out during the meeting: a stacked configuration of units for fruit and nuts. (Photos by the writer.)

The item drawing that interest was a proposed six-month moratorium on site plan review by the city for projects in the D1 (downtown core) zoning district. After holding a nearly one-hour closed session to review written legal advice from the city attorney’s office, the council decided to postpone the issue until March 4, its next regular meeting.

Exceptions to the proposed moratorium are provided for projects that have already received a recommendation of approval from the city’s planning commission. While that exception applies to a large residential project at 624 Church St., it does not exempt a larger project at 413 E. Huron. Planning staff had concluded that the East Huron project meets all the zoning requirements. But the planning commission’s vote on 413 E. Huron was only 5-3 in favor of recommending approval – one vote short of the six it needed. Ordinarily developers can, on their own initiative, bring a site plan to the city council for action, even without the planning commission’s recommendation.

If the resolution is enacted, then during the period of the moratorium, the planning commission would be directed to review the D1 zoning standards against site plans submitted since 2009, when new zoning regulations were established. The commission would be asked to make recommendations by June 4, its first meeting in June. The postponed resolution states that the council is supposed to take any action by Aug. 19, its second meeting in August.

Legal counsel for the 413 E. Huron developer addressed the council, intimating that if a moratorium were enacted, then a lawsuit would be filed against the city. Attorney Susan Friedlaender expressed skepticism about a provision in the postponed resolution that provided a way for an aggrieved party to have a hearing before the council. The council will take up the moratorium again on March 4.

Also postponed was a related resolution to reconvene the design guidelines task force, which would be asked to recommend improvements in the design review process. That resolution also will be taken up on March 4.

In another item related to downtown land development, the council completed an accounting step – establishing a project budget – in connection with roughly $9 million of bonds recently sold by the city. Those bonds are funding the public parking deck portion of the private City Apartments project now under construction at First and Washington. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority will be making the bond payments.

Another land use issue postponed by the council was the proposed purchase of a parcel immediately adjacent to the Bluffs Nature Area. The postponement was based on council questions about the need for additional access from the west side of the nature area, and the price to be paid out of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. Related to that same millage, the council approved applying to the USDA Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for matching funds to acquire development rights on two farms as part of the city’s greenbelt program.

In other land zoning issues, the council gave final approval to the owner-requested rezoning of some residential properties in the Arbor Hills neighborhood. The council also gave initial approval to a rezoning that would allow a retail project called The Shoppes to be built near the junction of Plymouth and US-23.

The council took action related to city-owned land at 721 N. Main, approving a $30,000 physical study of the main building on that former maintenance yard, to see if it can be re-used. At least part of that site is slated to become part of an Allen Creek greenway.

Across the street from 721 N. Main stands a collection of vacant houses that were supposed to be demolished to make way for the Near North affordable housing project. With that project now defunct, the city is moving to demolish the houses as nuisances. The council’s action on Feb. 19 was to accept about $96,000 in additional federal funds through a community development block grant, which can be used only for demolition of houses on the former Near North site.

In other action, the council formally adopted a sustainability framework that now will be part of the city’s master plan. And related to sustainability, the city council authorized the issuance of up to $1 million in bonds for the property assessed clean energy program (PACE). The PACE program provides low-interest loans for owners of commercial properties to invest in energy saving improvements.

Changes to the city’s living wage ordinance also were on the Feb. 19 agenda. The council had previously contemplated but ultimately postponed those changes. This time around, they were tabled. That means the issue will not come back, unless the council proactively decides to take up the proposal again in the next six months.

Also as a result of council action on Feb. 19, the municipal airport will get new fencing.

Moratorium on Downtown Site Plans

The council considered a six-month moratorium on the acceptance of new site plans for developments in downtown Ann Arbor.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and mayor John Hieftje.

Councilmembers also considered a resolution that called for reconvening the downtown design guidelines task force to consider and make recommendations regarding improvements to the design review process. Currently, developers must follow a mandatory process of review for downtown projects, but are not required to comply with the review board’s recommendations. The resolution was added to the agenda about an hour before the meeting started. Members of the task force mentioned in the resolution are: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4 city council), Tamara Burns (architect), Dick Mitchell (architect), Bill Kinley (construction contractor), Norm Tyler (architect), Kirk Westphal (planning commission chair), and Doug Kelbaugh (University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning).

Under the proposed moratorium, a controversial project at 413 E. Huron would not be allowed to move forward, because its site plan did not receive a recommendation of approval from the city’s planning commission. However, the wording of the resolution provides for exemptions for site plans that have already received the planning commission’s recommendation of approval.

Specifically, the wording in the resolution means that the moratorium would not apply to the 624 Church St. project, which received a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission on Jan. 15, 2013. That project is expected to be considered by the city council at its March 4 meeting. The 14-story 624 Church St. project would offer 75 apartments with a total of about 175 bedrooms. Local attorney Scott Munzel, who represents the developer of the project, attended the council’s Sunday night caucus to get clarification on that point.

The moratorium also would not impact Kerrytown Place, a proposed development on North Main – the site of the former Greek Orthodox church – because it’s not in a D1-zoned area. It’s currently in a PUD area, but would meet D2 (interface) zoning requirements. Kerrytown Place consists of three 3-4 story buildings with a total of 19 units. The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Feb. 20.

Architect Norm Tyler attended the Feb. 19 meeting but did not address the council.

But based on the wording in the resolution, the moratorium would apply to the 413 E. Huron project, which recently failed to gain a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission, and could be on a city council agenda as early as mid-March. That project is located on a site zoned D1, the highest density allowed in the city. It would be a 14-story, 271,855-square-foot apartment building with 533 bedrooms, marketed primarily to university students.

But even without a planning commission recommendation, a developer ordinarily has the option of bringing a site plan proposal to the city council for consideration, which the 413 E. Huron developer intends to do. The developer is Greenfield Partners, a Connecticut-based firm doing business here as Ann Arbor Green Property Owner LLC. The real estate development firm Carter – based in Atlanta, Georgia – is a lead partner in the project.

The council’s resolution, if enacted, also would direct the planning commission to use part of the period of the moratorium to review recently approved and recommended site plans in the D1-zoned areas. The point of the review would be to determine if zoning standards provide appropriate guidance on form and use, and if the zoning conforms to the city’s master plan, downtown plan and character district overlays. The resolution states that the planning commission is to complete its work by June 4 (its first meeting in June) and the council is supposed to take any action by Aug. 19 (its second meeting in August).

The memo accompanying the resolution notes that an initial review of the relatively new A2D2 zoning, enacted in 2009, was supposed to take place after one year. But in that first year no projects had been proposed – because of the economic downturn. Since then, however, the memo points to four projects that have been proposed in D1 areas: Zaragon West (built), The Varsity (under construction), 624 Church St. (proposed) and 413 E. Huron (proposed).

Feb. 19 was the first council meeting after the city planning commission took action on the site plan for 413 E. Huron. The determination of the planning staff was that the project met the D1 zoning requirements, which in that part of the city includes a height limit of 150 feet. However, the outcome of the planning commission’s vote on Feb. 4, 2013 was not a recommendation for approval, because the 5-3 tally in favor did not give the project the required six-vote majority.

The planning commission vote came after long and harsh criticism during the public hearing on the 413 E. Huron site plan – at the two meetings when the planning commission deliberated on the proposal. Some residents called for a rezoning of the parcel, saying it was inappropriate for that area. The D1 zoning had been part of the A2D2 rezoning package for the downtown, which the council approved at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting.

The resolution to establish a moratorium was brought forward by Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere and was co-sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Briere sits on the city planning commission as the council’s representative, and voted as a planning commissioner against the 413 E. Huron project. Joining her in that three-vote dissent were commissioners Wendy Woods and Ken Clein.

The council’s dilemma with respect to 413 E. Huron relates to the parcel’s zoning, which many residents contend was inappropriately zoned as D1. Opponents of the project argue that the site should have been zoned D2 (interface), in order to provide a buffer between densely developed areas and neighboring residential areas.

Last year, on April 16, 2012, the city council was asked to contemplate the reverse scenario, when a developer asked for conditional rezoning of a parcel at 1320 S. University – to change its 2009 designation of D2 to D1. The requested D1 zoning would have allowed for a much denser project, which would have exceeded the 60-foot D2 height limit by 85 feet. The council rejected that request. On that occasion, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) argued that the community conversation about the South University area – which had led to the D2 designation – had been significant and warranted the council’s respect.

Moratorium: Public Commentary

Peter Nagourney told the council he supported the resolution to review conformance of site plans with zoning and the rest of the city’s planning documents. He told the council that his interest in the topic went back to his participation in the citizens committee that had worked on the design guidelines as part of the Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2) process. He was speaking on behalf of eight different neighborhood organizations, he said. In the downtown area, he said, except for properties that are bounded by University of Michigan properties, all parcels zoned D1 step down to D2 zoning before they meet residential areas. That principle is true except for two blocks on the north side of Huron Street, he said. It had been originally zoned D2, but he said that “at the last minute” it had been changed to D1.

Sketch of “worst-case scenario” created four years ago in March 2009 during the debate on A2D2 zoning.

When the D1 zoning was proposed for that part of East Huron, neighbors who live on North Division Street had sketched out the worst possible potential impact of the zoning – which did not comply with any of the city’s planning documents, and which require step-down buffers to adjacent residential areas. [Chronicle coverage from March 24, 2009 – "A2D2 Zoning in the Home Stretch" – included the same sketch Nagourney showed the council on Feb. 19, almost four years later.]

The unanimously adopted design guidelines were intended to help developers in the city generate new projects that conform to appropriate design and planning documents, Nagourney said – including character overlay districts and historic district guidelines. The original goal was to have design guidelines integrated into the city zoning ordinances, and to evaluate the zoning and design guidelines to determine how well they had met their goals.

Nagourney told the council that the 2009 sketch of the worst possible potential impact of D1 zoning turns out to be conservative – because the 413 E. Huron project has been designed to occupy every square inch of the parcel. The proposed building has no step-down to the adjacent residential area, and casts the historic district to the north in shadow much of the year, while threatening landmark trees that predate the city’s founding. In addition, he continued, as it’s now written the inappropriate zoning will allow a 180-foot tall building to be constructed on the lot adjacent to city hall (to the east) with no setbacks or buffer.

If Ann Arbor’s legal or financial records were threatened by an oversight in security or procedures, the city would act as quickly as possible to close that loophole, he said. Today, he contended, the city’s zoning code has a loophole in the A2D2 process – but in this case, the consequence is not a temporary loss of data, but a permanent alteration of the city’s character. The council should act now to stop and review these problems while it can, and preserve the character districts and historic districts that were intended to create a city to serve multiple generations over many years.

Steve Kaplan told the council that he was a lifelong resident of Ann Arbor – born here, bred here, educated here, and now he works here. He works for a company that has been here for 50 years, he said. As an independent small business person, he continued, he welcomed density and development in most cases – because it helps his business. It helps the bottom line. However, in certain specific cases, he felt that it might do more harm than good.

Kaplan said he’d participated in many of the meetings that were held as part of the A2D2 process, and in this one particular area, on the north side of East Huron, he recalled it being a tricky part of the equation. He said he was not alone in being surprised that the proposed zoning had been changed at the “11th hour” from D2 to D1 zoning. He characterized a decision as possibly being driven by the “loud threatening calls of a few people” with specific interests. As the city contemplates reviewing the process as it should have done a year ago, Kaplan said, he worried that the same loud and specific calls of the few would outweigh the benefits and the needs of the many. So he asked the council to remember that as they deliberated on the issue. He cautioned the council to be very careful before they took permanent steps.

Jeffrey Crockett introduced himself as a resident of East Kingsley. He told the council that several landmark trees in the Old Fourth Ward historic district were being threatened by the current D1/D2 zoning law on the north side of Huron. He described two bur oaks with 40- and 50-inch diameters, as well as a hickory tree with a 24-inch diameter. The estimated age of the larger oak tree, he said, is about 250 years. He read aloud a substantial portion of a letter from Christopher Graham, a landscape architect who previously served on the planning commission and is currently chair of the natural features committee on the environmental commission. Graham’s letter states in part:

It is area of the grove of trees under which Indians camped and managed the landscape into a spectacular, open, old tree canopied setting. A few of those old trees still exist, and the one immediately nearby may be one of them. … is counter to the grain of the spirit and work and intent of all those who have so carefully crafted our historic districts, including this most special one, the one that is original Ann Arbor, the one named for a grove of trees and a couple of founders wives’ first names. [.pdf of Graham's letter] [.pdf of a second letter from Graham]

Crockett described the mitigation provided by the zoning ordinance for damage to trees as inadequate. Replacement of a landmark tree with smaller substitute trees, he said, is designed for the benefit and convenience of the developer. That can’t compensate the community for the loss of a 250-year-old tree that inspired the name of Ann Arbor. He pointed out that the historic district ordinance for the city does protect landmark trees.

He quoted section 5:138 of the zoning ordinance, which reads “no approval of any plan, plat or division pursuant to this chapter shall be construed as authorizing any improvement or action not in compliance with all – not some – provisions of this code.” He called on the council to ensure the protection of landmark trees by ensuring that the historic district ordinance is upheld, which he said allows for protection of landmark trees. He described how the construction of the proposed 413 E. Huron could impact the nearby oak tree’s critical root zone and told the council that it might not happen immediately but within five years, the tree would be dead.

When the developers of tall buildings have cashed out their investment and left town, Crockett continued, it will be Ann Arbor’s citizens and their children and grandchildren who will be left to wonder why we didn’t do more to save the landmark trees in “tree town.” He urged the council to vote for the moratorium.

Attorney Susan Friedlaender introduced herself as a representative of the owner of the 413 E. Huron property. She began by quoting the political philosopher Jeremy Bentham:

With respect to property, security consists in no shock or derangement being given to the expectation which has been founded on the laws, of enjoying a certain portion of good. The legislator owes the greatest respect to these expectations to which he has given birth: when he does not interfere with them, he does all that is essential to the happiness of society; when he injures them, he always produces a proportionate sum of evil.

The result of the A2D2 zoning process, Friedlaender said, gave birth to the reasonable expectation that those new zoning laws would have some measure of stability. The city knew, or should have known, that the new laws would encourage significant investment in Ann Arbor. The council had drafted those laws specifically to encourage that investment, she said, observing: “Well, it came.” Her clients had reasonable expectation, she continued, that if investment was made in the city, that the rug would not be pulled out from under them. She noted that her clients had constitutionally protected property rights, which the moratorium was designed to take away. The last-minute addition of an appeal procedure, she said, would be completely futile – because if the council were to grant that appeal, it would destroy the whole purpose of the moratorium. She urged the council to vote against the resolution, which she characterized as “ill-advised.” It’s difficult and dangerous to try to legislate taste, she said.

Carl Hueter began with an allusion to the fact that his name had been rendered as “Carol” on the meeting agenda, joking that it’d been the first time he’d undergone a gender change. He told the council that he had been born in Ann Arbor sometime in the middle of the last half century, and he’s been a practicing architect in the city for the last 40 years. He had seen a great deal of change in his 60 years of life in the city, he continued.

Hueter described the site plan approval in the 1970s and 1980s as a relatively easy and uncontentious affair. But moving into the 1990s, more and more neighborhood groups got involved in the site plan approval process. More and more requirements were placed on the site plans, he said. It became harder and more difficult and more financially challenging to develop site plans in the city of Ann Arbor. As we moved through the 1990s and into the early 2000s, he continued, there were some very contentious projects. As an offshoot of that, the A2D2 process was established. The hope was that by re-looking at the city’s zoning ordinances, citizens would have a fair and adequate way to participate, and also to allow developers to see a clear path – if they followed through the course of the zoning ordinance, it would give them some certainty that they would receive approval.

The moratorium resolution the council is considering, Hueter said, was a “thinly veiled attempt to deny one specific project its due process.” He allowed that the D1/D2 zoning ordinance needs to be re-evaluated – and it was written into the code that it needed to be reviewed within a year after being enacted. But there were not a sufficient number of projects brought forward in that first year on which to base such a review, he said. And so far seven such projects have been proposed, he said. He described the opposition to the project as a “very well-organized minority of a small neighborhood in the city who have failed technically to deny the project moving forward.” So now the group is acting politically, he said.

Hueter allowed that the zoning needs to be reviewed, but asked the council not to deny this specific development – which was proposed by developers, who months ago had entered into a process with the trust that they would receive due process, review and consideration of their project.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald touches base with Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

Pat Lennon introduced himself as an attorney with the Honigman law firm, representing the developer of 413 E. Huron. He’s chairperson of Honigman’s land use and zoning group, and is also a chairperson of the West Michigan Program’s committee of the Urban Land Institute – so he has an opportunity to review a lot of zoning and land use matters. He said he had the pleasure of appearing before bodies like the Ann Arbor city council all over the state. He was there because he and his client felt that it was “a pretty extreme situation.” In his view, his client had been put in an unprecedented situation. He was there to urge the council to vote down the moratorium. If the motion were to pass, then his client would be reviewing his legal rights and protecting his legal position, Lennon said. “Our client was stunned to learn about this proposed moratorium,” he told the council.

The proposal came virtually on the eve, he said, of his client’s opportunity to have his project considered by the city council. In addition to the issues raised by Friedlaender, he saw additional legal questions that a moratorium would raise. Based on the circumstances, the moratorium appears to be directed at one applicant and one project – his client’s. If that’s not in fact the case, he said, he would urge the city council to exempt pending applications from the moratorium.

Second, he questioned the circumstances under which the matter has been put before the council. There had been no mention of a moratorium before his clients started the application process, which had already been going on for months. No review had been mentioned previously for the D1 category. “We are understandably frustrated by this turn of events,” he told the council. His client would review whether the moratorium followed the proper path on its way to counsel, and he will be ensuring that his client’s rights had not been violated along the way.

Finally, Lennon said, the timing of the moratorium is dubious. A measure that’s as impactful and far-reaching as the one the council is considering had come up with short notice and apparently little discussion before it came before the council. It appeared to him that the moratorium and the potential changes to the ordinance can be seen as a last effort to avoid making a final decision on his clients “by right” project. In his view, any such use of the moratorium process would be improper, and if it were put in place, it would entitle his clients to their legal rights. Putting aside the question of legal rights, he said, he asked the council to consider what is best for the city of Ann Arbor. Imposing such a moratorium in this manner at this time, he told the council, would be to discard the A2D2 process, and would override the city’s interest in developing its tax base and the redevelopment of the downtown core areas.

Stuart Gordon introduced himself as a member of the committee for the ice rink next to the downtown library. A moratorium, he told the council, would give the ice rink initiative the chance to flower and grow. It could possibly show the alternatives that might be explored with city-owned properties. He told the council that there is continuing community support for the ice rink and that businesses in the downtown area were continuing to come on board with the project. Similar projects were being undertaken in several cities in Michigan, he told the council. The committee would be soon generating a short report and financial analysis. He asked the council to guide the Ann Arbor DDA to sit down with the ice rink committee and to take it seriously.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Alan Haber also spoke in support of establishing an ice rink on top of the Library Lane parking structure, next to the library.

Doug Kelbaugh, professor of architecture and urban planning at the University Michigan, told the council that he was a long-term and outspoken proponent of greater density downtown. He was addressing the city council in that context. The zoning code is very clear about its intent to have a buffer, or an interface zone, between D1 and residential zones – in order to avoid an abrupt, rude, and awkward adjacency. “It’s just plain good zoning,” he said.

Ann Arbor zoning. Darker red areas are zoned D1. Lighter brownish areas are zoned D2. A more limited core area is outlined in white, reflecting a suggestion by University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning Doug Kelbaugh.

There usually is such a transition, Kelbaugh continued, as D2 zoning or the university campus abuts D1 areas. The one major exception, he noted, had already been discussed that night – the north side of East Huron Street. It’s a troubling exception, he said, and a glaring one. He told the council that he wanted to focus on the edges of downtown.

Ann Arbor has an opportunity to have a well-defined downtown core, with crisp edges, rather than the usual loose checkerboard of most American downtowns, Kelbaugh told the council. If the D1 zone were limited to the “true inner core,” it would lend a distinctive character to the city’s center. He suggested specifically that the city institute a moratorium to reconsider the extent of the D1 zone. Personally and professionally, he said, he felt the city should consider containing the 180-foot high area within Maynard and William at one corner, and Ashley or First at Huron at the other corner. That would make for a very “legible core,” with existing and new tall buildings limited to the inside of it.

The existing code would allow for a 180-foot tall building right across the street from Hill Auditorium, across from the Ann Arbor Hands-on Museum, and right next to Nickels Arcade. That’s a pretty abrupt transition, he said. Instead of that, he said, the core area could be limited to 17 square blocks. That would allow the shaping of the city as a compact 24/7 core with more permanent residents of all ages, ethnicities, classes, income groups, and household sizes. That cluster would decrease the ecological footprint of the city, and add downtown vitality to attract the next generation of knowledge workers, who seem to want urban lifestyles, he said. Kelbaugh concluded by calling for surrounding the core completely with an interface to reinforce legibility and the normal build-up from leafy neighborhoods to vibrant downtowns.

Moratorium: Council Deliberations

The council held a closed session under the Michigan Open Meetings Act exemption that allows for material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute, which presumably was attorney work product in connection with anticipated litigation in the event a moratorium was imposed.

Subsequent council deliberations were scant. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) moved for postponement based on the desire of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) to be part of the deliberations. [Higgins was not able to attend the meeting due to a professional commitment.] Deliberations on a separate resolution, to reconvene the design guidelines task force, were similarly brief.

Outcome on moratorium: The council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the moratorium until March 4, 2013.

Outcome on reconvening design guidelines task force: The council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the resolution to reconvene the design guidelines task force until March 4, 2013.

City Apartments Parking Deck

The council was asked to approve a step necessary for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to satisfy its commitment to support the construction of the parking deck within Village Green’s City Apartments project. The residential project is currently under construction at the southeast corner of First and Washington.

The step the council was asked to take was to create a project budget for the proceeds of bonds sold by the city on Jan. 22, 2013 – $8,666,075 total, of which $4,079,743 were taxable and $4,586,332 were non-taxable. The authorization to issue the bonds had come at the council’s Oct. 4, 2010 meeting.

The DDA is committed to covering payments on the roughly $9 million of bonds to support construction of the bottom two floors of the building – which will hold about 240 parking spaces. Of those, 95 will be available for public use. The remainder of the spaces will be used by residents of the 146-unit project, when construction is completed. Before then, the deck will be handed over to the city and the DDA after a certificate of occupancy for the parking deck is received.

City Apartments project under construction in early February at First and Washington.

As of early February, the construction was on a pace that would result in a certificate of occupancy for the parking deck by March 15. The construction of the entire building is expected to be complete by the end of the summer.

City Apartments Parking Deck: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the bonds would show up on the DDA’s annual TIF (tax increment finance) report as part of the DDA’s indebtedness. CFO Tom Crawford indicated that the city issues the debt and the DDA repays the city. So it won’t show on the DDA’s books as debt. It’ll show up as a commitment to repay.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to establish the project budget.

Open Space Millage (Greenbelt) Issues

The council had two items on its Feb. 19 agenda related to spending proceeds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

For one of the items, the council was asked to approve applying for federal matching funds to help acquire development rights on two pieces of farmland outside the city. For another item, the council was asked to authorize the purchase of a parcel inside the city near the Bluffs Nature Area.

Open Space Millage: Farmland

For the two parcels outside the city, council was asked to approve applications for matching federal funds to purchase development rights – for the 72-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 100-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township. The federal match is only up to $5,000 per acre.

At its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council had given approval for the acquisition of development rights for the southern part of the Drake farm. On that occasion, the requested expenditure from millage funds amounted to $483,450. Of that amount, $23,867 went to cover costs related to closing, due diligence and a contribution to the greenbelt endowment. The total purchase price of the land was $549,478, with the city of Ann Arbor’s share supplemented by $109,895 from Washtenaw County parks & recreation and $1,000 from Lodi Township.

What the council approved on Feb. 19 for the Drake Farm was an application to the USDA Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for matching funds to acquire development rights to the northern part of the farm. When the city failed to win an FRPP award for the farm as a whole last year, it divided the property – because the northern part is very suitable for agricultural production, and the city felt its chances were very good for winning an FRPP grant for just that portion of the farm. The Drake property had been mentioned recently at the Feb. 7, 2013 meeting of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission.

If the city wins the FRPP matching grants, the item will likely come before the city council in June.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council approved the FRPP grant applications.

Open Space Millage: Adjoining Bluffs Parcel

Inside the city, the council was asked to approve the $115,000 purchase of a roughly 0.357-acre piece of vacant land located at 1240 Orkney, with a current SEV (state equalized value) of $49,200. [SEV is based on 50% of market value.]

Map showing a parcel on Orkney proposed for acquisition by the city – the narrow parcel that’s highlighted in yellow.

The parcel is located immediately adjacent to the Bluffs Nature Area – in the north part of the city, near the confluence of North Main, M-14 and Huron River Drive. The parcel is intended to provide an additional access point to the nature area, from the west.

The total proposed appropriation of $128,000 in open space millage funds for purchasing the Orkney parcel included $3,000 in closing costs and $10,000 in due diligence. An environmental assessment would be done before the closing.

The proposed Orkney parcel acquisition is similar to one made last year for a parcel on Hampstead Lane immediately adjacent to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area. Like the Bluffs, Kuebler Langford is located in the northern part of the city. [.jpg of area showing cluster of nature areas in the city's north side] [.jpg image of map showing city-acquired parcel adjoining Kuebler Langford Nature Area]

The roughly 0.91-acre Hampstead Lane parcel was determined to have a fair market value of $110,000, with an additional $13,000 accounted for through closing costs and due diligence. The council authorized the acquisition of the Hampstead Lane parcel at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting.

Open Space Millage: Adjoining Bluffs – Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) objected to the purchase price, saying he didn’t think the assessment factored in the roughly $40,000 in utility connection charges that would apply to the parcel as developable land. If those charges were added in, Kunselman said, the total cost of the land would work out to $155,000 – which he did not believe reflected an amount a buyer would be willing to pay. So he thought the $115,000 purchase price was too high. [The council had debated the utility connection charges just recently, at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting.]

Kunselman felt that the property was simply too expensive to acquire just to provide additional access. He wouldn’t support the city’s purchase of the property unless it came down in price to accommodate the utility improvement charges. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked if the park advisory commission’s land acquisition committee had looked at it. Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves as one of two city council liaisons to PAC, indicated that it had, in fact, been considered.

With respect to better access to the area, mayor John Hieftje said his concern is that access to the Bluffs Nature Area through the parcel wouldn’t be used except by people in that neighborhood. Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, confirmed that there’s no parking available, and that visitors to the nature area who’d get access through the parcel would need to park along the street.

Left to right: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and local attorney Scott Munzel.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that entrances already exist on three sides of the area, and some citizens have questioned the need for a fourth one – especially given the high cost. She asked Bahl to help her work through the rationale. Lumm said she’d heard from neighbors that they hadn’t been notified about the pending purchase. She felt that notification of neighbors would have been a normal step. Bahl told Lumm that the city doesn’t normally notify neighbors about pending land acquisition. [Land acquisition is a topic that can be discussed in closed session under Michigan's Open Meetings Act.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she remembered when the city was looking for ways to access the Bluffs other than from the Main Street side, the Orkney lot was identified, because it’s been used as informal access for years. She said that $115,000 is comparable in price to other unimproved lots in the area. The price itself didn’t bother her, but she found herself thinking about how useful it really is to have a small entrance to the nature area from a limited neighborhood. She wanted to understand why this is value. She described getting to the Bluffs Nature Area as “difficult and obscure.” But the city’s ownership of this parcel doesn’t help that, she felt. Why did PAC’s land acquisition committee feel the city ought to acquire this parcel as an entrance? Bahl indicated he had not been a part of all of LAC’s discussion, but that having access from all sides of the area had been a long-time goal.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) inquired if there’s a possibility of using the parcel as a parking area. Bahl said that could be considered. Teall ventured that she’d like to see the matter postponed.

Kunselman reiterated his objection based on the cost, and asked that the council be provided a copy of the appraisal. Hieftje indicated his view that a professional appraiser would have factored in the cost of utility connections. He went on to say that he was familiar with the neighborhood, and ventured that the value of property was legitimately high.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the vote on the Orkney property until March 4.

Plymouth Retail Zoning

The council was asked to give initial approval for the rezoning of land that would allow a proposed retail development at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23.

The change would rezone the parcel from R5 (motel-hotel district) to C3 (fringe commercial district). That followed a recommendation of approval given at the Jan. 15, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission. The project – called The Shoppes at 3600 – had been postponed by the commission on Nov. 7, 2012.

Aerial view of a proposed retail development on Plymouth Road west of US-23 – The Shoppes at 3600. The site is in the complex where the Holiday Inn North Campus is located, visible on the right side of this image.

But on Jan. 15, commissioners recommended that the city council approve the project’s zoning, as well as the original site plan. At its Feb. 19 meeting, the city council did not have the site plan on its agenda – only the rezoning request.

The site is located in the same complex as the Holiday Inn North Campus. Responding to some commissioner concerns voiced at the November 2012 meeting, the developer had provided planning commissioners an alternative site plan that they reviewed on Jan. 15. But the developer sought approval for the original layout. The owner is listed as Ann Arbor Farms Hotel Corp., with property being developed by Diverse Development in Holland, Ohio.

The developer hopes to build 9,490-square foot, one-story retail building, to be constructed in what’s now the parking lot and front yard for the hotel, at an estimated cost of $1 million. The building would have space for several businesses, including a restaurant with a one-lane drive-through window and outdoor seating. An existing shared driveway off of Plymouth Road would be used to access the site. The original site plan calls for 33 parking spots and four covered bike parking spots near the entrance.

The planning commission’s recommendation of site plan approval was contingent on four conditions: (1) approval of a land division, to divide off a 1.15 acre parcel from the parking lot and front yard of the 10.85-acre hotel site where the Holiday Inn North Campus is located; (2) approval of an administrative amendment to the parent site plan to change the parking for the hotel, because some spaces will be removed to allow for the new building; (3) recording an ingress/egress easement along the existing drive from Plymouth Road, so that a new curb cut would not be needed; and (4) recording stormwater and cross-parking easements between the hotel and the new building.

The site plan will be considered by the council at a later date.

Plymouth Retail Zoning: Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked about the turning pattern within the combined parking lot contiguous with the development, saying she was worried about how the new development would impact congestion within the parking lot. City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Petersen that the city doesn’t have standards related to interior drives, but when the city reviews site plans, the planning staff looks for continuity, pedestrian connections and the like. The city’s traffic engineer had taken a look at the traffic study. The petitioner had proposed adding signs, so that as someone exits the small shopping center, if a motorist wanted to go westbound on Plymouth, the sign would indicate that motorists should head toward Green Road – northbound Green could be used to turn left onto westbound Plymouth.

Left to right: Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about possible congestion at Green and Plymouth roads. Rampson replied that the traffic study indicated an additional four-second delay associated with the new retail development and that congestion would be limited. Lumm confirmed with Rampson that the city’s SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique) traffic signal system can adjust to help traffic flow. Rampson indicated that if you wanted to eliminate congestion at the intersection entirely, it would be necessary to add turn lanes.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed with Rampson that there’s a drive-through lane that goes behind the buildings. Given the parking in front of the buildings, Kunselman wanted to know where deliveries would take place. Rampson reported that deliveries would be made by small panel trucks, and they’d arrive early in the morning, and would park in the parking lot.

Kunselman felt the development seemed “very constrained.” It looked very difficult, he said. Rampson replied that the planning commission had similar concerns, and had asked for an alternate site plan that rotated the stores so that they fronted on the freeway ramp. A number of problems arose with that alternative, she said. In the end, based on the developer’s concern, the proposal that’s moving forward is the original one.

Responding to a question from Kunselman, Rampson explained that if the council approves the rezoning, then the owner would create a separate parcel within the lot. Kunselman concluded that the owner could come up with an alternate configuration. So he stated he would not support the rezoning.

Petersen asked about a berm that exists now. Rampson explained that it would be regraded for the proposed development. Rampson explained that there would be a net loss of parking in that area.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to the rezoning. Voting against the rezoning on the initial vote was Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The rezoning will require a second and final vote by the council to be enacted.

Ann Arbor Hills Zoning Tweak

The council was asked to give final approval to the rezoning of six parcels in the northeast Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood.

The sites were rezoned from R1B to R1C. Both are types of single-family dwelling districts. The locations are 2014 Geddes Ave.; 2024 Geddes Ave.; 520 Onondaga St.; 2025 Seneca Ave.; 2023 Seneca Ave.; and 2019 Seneca Ave. [.jpg aerial view of parcels] These are six parcels in a block of 10 sites – the other four sites are already zoned R1C.

The rezoning would potentially allow three of the parcels – each lot size currently about 17,500 square feet – to be divided in the future, if other city code requirements are met.

Initial approval had been given by the council on Jan. 22, 2013. Prior to that, the city’s planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its Nov. 20, 2012 meeting. The planning commission had considered the item after the city council directed the planning staff to study the issue of rezoning the parcels. That direction came at the council’s Sept. 17, 2012 meeting.

According to a staff memo, the direction on the rezoning came from city council at the request of property owners: Raymond Maturo and Ann Mulhern; Joseph and Suzanne Upton; Rishindra and Gwendolyn Reddy; Shahrzad Vazirzadeh and Chad Patterson; Vassilios Lambropoulos and Artemis Leontis; and the Clan Crawford Jr. Trust.

R1B zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Three of the parcels don’t conform with that zoning. Under the new R1C zoning, all parcels conform with required lot size and width.

Ann Arbor Hills Zoning: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for the Michigan state senate and house of representatives, and an advocate for the most vulnerable residents. He asked that the council reconsider the rezoning proposal and amend it – along with all other similar rezoning or annexation proposals – to require that for every acre of land that gains rezoning approval, if it enhances the property value of the lot, then an equal amount of land be dedicated to affordable housing.

Outcome: Without further discussion, the council unanimously approved the rezoning request.

721 N. Main Building: $30K Study

The council was asked to authorize $30,000 for a physical study of the building at the city-owed 721 N. Main property. The money is to be drawn from the city’s general fund balance.

A task force established by the city council on May 7, 2012 has been working to develop recommendations for a much broader area than 721 N. Main, including the North Main corridor and extending to the Huron River. The task force is supposed to provide recommendations for the area by July 31, 2013.

A map showing recommendations for the city-owned property at 721 N. Main St.

But the task force has been asked to provide recommendations on the 721 N. Main property even earlier than that – because of application deadlines for grants that the city is interested in seeking. The two grants would be from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, which has an early April deadline, and the Connecting Communities grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. The city’s $300,000 proposal to Connecting Communities – for trails to be constructed through the 721 N. Main property – was mentioned at the Feb. 12, 2013 meeting of the county’s parks & recreation commission. The Connecting Communities application had a deadline in December 2012, which the city met.

The task force submitted its initial recommendation on the 721 N. Main property to the city council in December, and based on that, the council approved making the two grant applications at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

And at the council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting, two members of the North Main and Huron River Corridor task force – David Santacroce and Darren McKinnon – gave a presentation to the council summarizing the group’s work to date. The task force recommendations were divided into the floodway portion and the non-floodway portion of the site. For the floodway portion, there was not a lot to decide – because a city council resolution from Aug. 15, 2005 calls for the floodway area of the 721 N. Main site to be included within a planned Allen Creek greenway.

For the roughly 2.5 acre non-floodway portion, the task force is recommending that it be developed to include non-motorized paths to connect from Felch Street to North Main and West Summit streets.

Santacroce and McKinnon told the council during their January presentation that the task force thought the main building had potential for reuse, but that it would need about $30,000 of physical testing to make that determination. It was that $30,000 of testing that the council was asked to authorize at its Feb. 19 meeting. The physical testing is supposed to be completed by May 31, which gives the task force two months of lead time before their final recommendations are due.

At the council’s Jan. 7 meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had expressed a lack of enthusiasm for salvaging the building.

The city is undertaking similar physical testing on buildings that stand on another potential city-owned greenway property, at 415 W. Washington. At the council’s Dec. 17, 2012 meeting, an additional $32,583 for the study of 415 W. Washington property was allocated. The council had previously authorized $50,000 for physical testing of the property. That vote had come at the council’s July 16, 2012 meeting.

The 415 W. Washington property, with its three buildings, was previously used by the city as a vehicle maintenance facility, before the construction of the Wheeler Service Center south of town on Stone School Road.

721 N. Main: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the property at 721 N. Main was previously part of the city maintenance yard, where trucks would pull in and out. There’s no way to know what it might cost to refurbish the building there, Briere said. But it’s known that there’s asbestos. Later, mayor John Hieftje added that the asbestos is visible. Briere reported that the task force believes that before demolishing the building, it’s worth exploring what it would cost to make the building usable again. Briere indicated it’s similar to the approach the city is taking at 415 W. Washington.

Hieftje said he appreciated the work done by the task force. He’d toured the building and described it as not fit for habitation. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked Briere for her leadership on the topic. He described the work as reflective of a long-term desire on the part of the community to see the property become a greenway.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the $30,000 allocation for the physical testing of the building at 721 N. Main.

Former Near North Demolition

The council was asked to receive formally an additional $96,000 through federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations, which the city will put toward demolishing six houses on North Main Street.

The houses are on the site of the former Near North affordable housing project. That project, on which the nonprofit Avalon Housing had partnered, ultimately did not go forward. The city must complete the demolition by March 15, 2013.

The additional $96,000 can only be used for the demolition of structures at 700-724 N. Main.

Council deliberations were brief. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she felt that many in the neighborhood were eager to see the demolition occur. She thanked the staff for an innovative solution to pay for it. Mayor John Hieftje added that he had been pushing to get those houses down for a long time, but he didn’t feel as bad about the wait, now that the grant has been received. It would preserve some of the city’s funds that were reserved for the specific purpose of demolishing nuisance properties.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the receipt of the additional $96,000 in grant funding.

Sustainability Framework

The council was asked to adopt a sustainability framework that had previously been adopted by the city planning commission, making it a part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission had taken action at its Jan. 3, 2013 meeting. The vote by the planning commissioners was unanimous.

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 is 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.

Sustainability Framework: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge called on the council to redefine environmentalism and sustainability and told them the top priority has to be ending homelessness. He called for socially integrated housing.

When no one else rose to speak during the public hearing, Alan Haber came out of the audience to say that he felt more than one person should speak at a public hearing on a topic this important. He said he was glad the proposal was coming forward – especially in the context of climate change. He called “sustainable development” a bit of an oxymoron, saying that development has to be done in such a way that does not increase the land value so much that the people who live and work here now can’t continue to live and work here. Things have to remain “inviting” to those who are here already, he said. He also called for a gathering place in the center of town, which he said would add to the sustainability of the city.

Sustainability Framework: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about a language revision on the definition of sustainable buildings and respecting human contexts. She wanted to know if there were any other major themes that surfaced in the public hearings. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that there were few comments at the public hearings, because it had been such a robust process that had led up to that point. Mayor John Hieftje clarified that a public hearing had been held, but nobody appeared from the public to speak. Rampson quipped that everyone was ready to move on to the action plan.

Lumm also confirmed that no comments had been received from adjoining communities. Rampson ventured that if other communities begin adopting similar frameworks, then it would be clear that they wanted to imitate it.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the sustainability framework.

Clean Energy Bonds (PACE)

The council was asked to approve the issuance of bonds that will assist owners of commercial property in making improvements designed to help save energy under the city’s property assessed clean energy (PACE) program. The item had been postponed by the council on Feb. 4, 2013. That initial decision to postpone stemmed from the fact that the item had not been added to the agenda until the day of the Feb. 4 meeting.

The sale of up to $1 million in bonds will support energy improvements to be undertaken by five property owners. In broad strokes, the PACE program is enabled by state legislation – the Property Assessed Clean Energy Act 270 of 2010. Property owners take out loans to make energy improvements to be repaid through regular installments as part of their taxes. Municipalities like the city of Ann Arbor administer the program. More than a year ago, on Jan. 9, 2012, the city council set the fees for participation in the program. Prior to that, on March 7, 2011, the city set up a loan loss fund with about $430,000 granted by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Properties for which owners have applied for improvements under Ann Arbor’s PACE program include: (1) Arrowwood (2566 Arrowwood Trail) for new HVAC equipment, insulation, occupancy sensors and lighting upgrade for the clubhouse; exterior lighting upgrade to LED; and solar shingles on one apartment building; (2) Big Boy (3611 Plymouth Road) for HVAC upgrade, lighting upgrade, cooking equipment replacement with energy efficient equipment, and controls; (3) Bivouac (330-336 S. State) for interior lighting upgrade; (4) Goodyear Building (118-124 S. Main) for HVAC replacement (boilers and A/C units), and lighting upgrade; and (5) Kerrytown Market & Shoppes (403 N. Fifth Ave.) for lighting upgrades in tenant areas and common areas.

PACE: Council Deliberations

Referring to the couple of years leading up to the enabling legislation by the state, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) described the city as hopeful that PACE funding would be available for single-family homes, in addition to commercial properties. While the city waits for legislation that would make it possible for single-family homes, she was pleased that the city could offer a program for commercial properties. It’s potentially one of the most effective ways to decrease the city’s energy footprint, she said, without costing property owners an incredible amount of money to get started.

Mayor John Hieftje characterized the council’s action as another step in a very long process. He described how the window of opportunity for the city’s stop loss load fund was set to expire next month, so it was important the council act. Hieftje picked up on Briere’s point about single-family homes, attributing the problem to the fact that Fannie Mae lenders didn’t want to be second in line if there were to be a foreclosure. He pointed out that PACE does apply to multi-family housing units.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved issuing the PACE bonds.

Living Wage Ordinance Changes

Consideration of several amendments to Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance was back on the council’s agenda, because at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting the council had specified Feb. 19 as the date to which it would postpone consideration of the ordinance changes.

The main proposed changes to the local law – which sets a minimum wage of $12.17/hour for those employers providing health insurance and $13.57/hour for those not providing health insurance – would exempt nonprofits that receive funding from the city for human services work. The changes would mean that such nonprofits would not need to meet the minimum wage requirements.

Following the council’s Nov. 19 postponement, consideration of the changes had been referred to the city’s Housing and Human Services Advisory Board (HHSAB) for more study. [For coverage of the HHSAB's Dec. 18, 2012 meeting, see: "Human Services Group Ponders Living Wage"] The HHSAB is taking a bit longer with its recommendations in part because those recommendations will be informed by work done by a class of University of Michigan students. The class is being taught in the winter 2013 term by Ian Robinson, a lecturer in the department of sociology. Robinson attended the Dec. 18 meeting of the HHSAB, and sketched out the range of work he thought his students might be able to do to assist the board.

The current law applies to organizations that have contracts with the city for more than $10,000 in a given calendar year, and that employ five or more people (10 or more for nonprofits). The current law also provides an exemption for organizations funded from the city’s community events budget – an exemption put in place to accommodate the Ann Arbor Summer Festival’s practice of paying its temporary employees less than the living wage and the city’s desire to fund the festival at a higher level.

Among the other contemplated amendments to the living wage ordinance was an increase from $10,000 to $25,000 for the amount of a contract triggering the application of the ordinance. The timeframe would also change from a calendar year to one fiscal year. Also included in the proposed amendments was one that would allow the city administrator to grant a waiver from compliance with the ordinance, instead of requiring the approval of the city council.

At its meeting on Nov. 8, 2012, the council had granted such a waiver to the nonprofit Community Action Network, which receives funding from the city to do human services work.

Living Wage Ordinance Changes: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who serves as one of two city council liaisons to the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB), led off discussion on the item. [Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is the other council liaison to HHSAB.]

Lumm said there’s not a consensus on HHSAB about whether the amendments should move forward along the lines currently proposed, so she thought it should be tabled. [A tabling motion is different from a motion to postpone to a date certain. If a matter is tabled, then it can be considered at any time in the future with a motion to take up the matter off the table – but it need not be taken up again. If a matter is postponed to a date certain, then it is automatically taken up on the date specified. A motion to table, according to Robert's Rules, is properly invoked when some other matter "of immediate urgency" has arisen, so that the other matter can be handled first. A motion to take the tabled matter up off the table can then come during the same session. If it's the desire of the body to kill the matter, without voting it up or down, then the proper motion is to postpone it indefinitely. A motion to table is also not supposed to be subject to debate.]

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked if this was a motion to postpone the matter indefinitely. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated his view that a tabling motion would have the effect of indefinite postponement.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that a matter that’s tabled has a finite period during which it can be taken up off the table, and after that it’s considered demised. Mayor John Hieftje stated the finite time period was one year. [According to the council's rules, the period specified for the demise of resolutions or for an ordinance approved at first reading is six months. The living wage ordinance before the council was being considered for its first reading.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there was an expectation that HHSAB would make some kind of recommendation – because he was interested in seeing at least a few procedural changes made to the living wage ordinance. Lumm told Kunselman that HHSAB might make some recommendations. But she ventured that the changes to the ordinance that HHSAB might eventually recommend would be a 180-degree change in direction – broadening the ordinance’s application instead of limiting it.

Lumm said she was not willing to bring to the council the kind of amendments that HHSAB is contemplating now. Anything that she would support would at least resemble the amendments that were in front of the council that night. Lumm ventured that maybe Briere would introduce a different recommendation from HHSAB – but knowing what HHSAB is contemplating, Lumm herself would not bring it forward.

Kunselman said he would hate to see it “die in committee.” He didn’t know if there’s a fire under HHSAB to make a recommendation. Kunselman expressed his view that he’d like to see a change in the ordinance so that a waiver can be given to a nonprofit organization by the city administrator, instead of requiring city council approval.

Briere told Kunselman that HHSAB was focused on the opportunity to undertake a broader study of nonprofits – those that receive funding from the city as well as those that don’t. She ventured that some members of HHSAB were concerned that the living wage ordinance should actually be the purview of the human rights commission. Briere characterized the last meeting of the HSSAB, in January, as lively and not unanimous. But she ventured that there was “gentle agreement” that the study of the effects of living wage on nonprofits was important. Briere said it should be complete by the end of April.

Kunselman, felt that any revision to the living wage ordinance should be something that’s ready to go by the time the council adopts the budget [by the second meeting in May]. He wondered if a resolution of direction to the HHSAB would help that. He stated that he’s willing to help, but said he’s not familiar with what’s going on at HHSAB.

Lumm told Kunselman that there was strong sentiment expressed by HHSAB members to study other aspects of the ordinance outside of HHSAB’s purview and more in line with the purview of the human rights commission. Lumm ventured that the majority of HHSAB members expressed some interest in revisiting the policy and requiring that the city pay a living wage to its own part-time and seasonal workers, as well as eliminating the exemption for those organizations that are funded from the community events fund [like the Summer Festival].

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to table the living wage ordinance revision.

Ann Arbor Airport Fencing

The council was asked to consider two items related to fencing at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. The first item consisted of a grant approval, which totaled $157,895. Of that amount, $150,000 is federal money, $3,947 comes from the state of Michigan, and $3,948 comes from the city airport’s operating budget.

The fencing is meant to improve safety. According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, three incursions (someone getting in a restricted area of the airfield) took place in 2012. Before those three incursions, none had taken place since 2009.

The second vote was on a $32,000 contract with URS Corp. for engineering services related to the gate and fencing project. Funding for the contract is covered in the grant that was also on the Feb. 19 council agenda. The scope of the project includes installation of two new gate locations, the replacement of two existing gates, the upgrade of an existing gate location, upgrade of existing security fencing and the installation of new security fencing in the three hangar areas of the airport.

Ann Arbor Airport Fencing: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) got clarification from fleet and facilities manger Matt Kulhanek that there was no eight-vote majority needed on the items because they did not reflect a budget adjustment. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there was no fencing currently. Kulhanek explained that two new gates would be installed in the northeast area of the airport. Three existing gates would be replaced. Kunselman wanted to know how that would prevent incursions.

Kulhanek described on incursion where an elderly woman was heading north on State Street, looking for Costco. And instead of turning on Ellsworth, she turned onto the airport property. She drove through the northeast hangar area, followed a vehicle through another gate and ended up pulling out onto an active taxiway.

Kulhanek characterized the city’s share as 2.5% of the total project. Kulhanek confirmed that the federal money comes from fees paid on airline tickets, not general tax dollars.

About the contract for the fencing installation, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) quipped: “It’s always good to get money and spend it immediately.”

Outcome: The council’s votes on the grant and the contract related to airport fencing were unanimous.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Public Art Ordinance Revision

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave the council an update on the work of a city council task force that was assigned to review and make recommendations on the city’s public art ordinance. [Besides Briere, the group consists of councilmembers Sally Petersen (Ward 2) Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). They'd been appointed at the city council's Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, when the council also voted to halt the spending of funds accumulated through Ann Arbor's Percent for Art program – except for projects that are already underway. The moratorium on spending lasts until April 1, 2013.]

The council’s resolution had not included a date in writing by which the task force was supposed to complete its work. But in making the appointments to the task force, mayor John Hieftje had indicated a date of Feb. 15. Briere reported that a draft resolution was now in the hands of the city attorney’s office. The task force would be meeting again on March 1, Briere said. [For the most recent Chronicle update on the activity of the task force, see the Jan. 23, 2013 meeting report of the public art commission.]

Briere characterized the issues addressed by the task force as including how and where public art should be placed, as well as changes to the funding mechanism. The task force is looking at ways to fund art that could include temporary art, publicly selected art, art the public helps to pay for, or performance art. The task force is working with language that would eliminate the “percent for art” funding mechanism, but would still allow capital improvement projects to have public art associated with the project as a “baked-in” ingredient.

Briere indicated that she hoped an ordinance change would be in front of the council by the end of March. [The council's second of two meetings that month falls on March 18.] She also indicated that a resolution separate from the ordinance change would also be brought forward, which she said would include additional guidance.

Comm/Comm: DDA Ordinance Amendments

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) announced that he now has a draft version of the ordinance amendments he’d mentioned at the council’s Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, regarding the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

He asked that the city clerk add the draft to the city’s online Legistar system for the Feb. 19 meeting. He’d be looking for co-sponsors, he said.

Among the revisions to the DDA ordinance Kunselman reflected in the draft are changes to the DDA governance, which would include term limits on board members, and a prohibition against elected officials serving on the board. But more significantly, Kunselman is proposing to change the way that the tax increment finance (TIF) capture by the DDA is calculated. The draft language leaves the issue still somewhat unclear. [.pdf of draft amendment to the DDA ordinance]

Comm/Comm: Housing Commission, CIP

During communications time, Kunselman conveyed his desire to see the properties of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) included in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). That came in the context of a presentation the council had recently received from AAHC executive director Jennifer L. Hall, who’s proposing a private-public partnership to address capital improvement needs for AAHC properties. Kunselman has expressed opposition to Hall’s proposal. [For background on the AAHC's efforts, see: "Housing Commission Selects Co-Developer."]

Comm/Comm: Taxicabs

Kunselman indicated that the Feb. 28 meeting of the city’s taxicab board – which he chairs – would include an update to the public about increased enforcement of the taxicab ordinance. He’s looking to see if any other changes can be made to the taxicab ordinance to make the taxi industry more responsive to the needs of the community. [For recent coverage of the taxicab board, see: "Ann Arbor Taxicab Board Grants Appeal."]

Comm/Comm: Former Y Lot

Kunselman also indicated that he’d be requesting brokerage services for the sale of the former Y lot at Fifth and William. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he wanted to look at what could be included as an offer, but leave the property as unencumbered as possible.

Comm/Comm: Human Rights Commission

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) noted that the city’s human rights commission is looking for additional members.

Comm/Comm: Anglin, WALLY

During communications from council, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that his name has been mentioned as someone who is a supporter of the WALLY north-south commuter rail project. [The project currently has a funded study for station location design]. Anglin said information was being publicly distributed to the effect that he’s a supporter of WALLY and that people should contact him about it. Anglin indicated he did not support WALLY, but was very much in favor of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s bus system, saying that rail was “foolhardy at this time.” He wanted to stop discussion of funding rail transportation until people accept the public transportation that already exists.

Comm/Comm: Ward 2 Website

During communications time, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) alerted people that she and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had created a website for Ann Arbor’s Ward 2. Anyone is welcome to visit it, she said, and there’s a link to a Ward 2 resident satisfaction survey. She encouraged people to take the survey, especially residents of Ward 2.

Comm/Comm: Aging Conference

During communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she’d placed a flyer on her council colleagues’ seats about the AARP’s Age Friendly Communities Conference, which takes place on Feb. 28 in Ann Arbor.

Comm/Comm: Israel/Palestine

Henry Herskovitz responded to some remarks that Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) made at the council’s Jan. 22, 2013 meeting. Warpehoski had indicated he wouldn’t be contemplating a resolution on Palestinian rights as long as demonstrations continue outside Beth Israel on Saturdays during worship services. Herskovitz asked whether Warpehoski’s remarks contained elements of a “friendly offer” or a possible quid pro quo from Herskovitz’s group – Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends – to cease their demonstrations at Beth Israel. He contended that Warpehoski’s comment contains an “odd element” – because it recognizes that a problem exists in Palestine, which Warpehoski could, or would, act on as an elected official. So Herskovitz concluded that Warpehoski was not saying that the city shouldn’t divest from Israel, or that there are no grounds for divestment – only that Warpehoski is conditioning his action on the actions of Herskovitz’s group.

Herskovitz drew an analogy to the abolitionist movement in the 1800s, as John Brown conducted violent raids against pro-slavery interests. Some in the abolitionist movement decried Brown’s tactics, but they did not allow Brown’s actions to distract them from their goal of abolishing slavery, Herskovitz said. The situation in Palestine cries out for moral intervention, he said. But based on Warpehoski’s remarks, it appears that intervention will not take place until Herskovitz’s group stops expressing its point of view – in a manner that is protected by the First Amendment. Herskovitz allowed that it’s difficult for Warpehoski to accept his group’s tactics. But allowing the actions of another to determine one’s own actions, Herskovitz said, raises doubts about that person’s reasoning and commitment to resolving the issue.

Comm/Comm: General Criticism

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Washtenaw County and Ann Arbor’s Ward 5. He noted that he been a recent candidate for the Michigan senate and house of representatives. He called for ending discrimination and corruption in the Ann Arbor city government.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, John Hieftje, Chuck Warpehoski.

Present: Marcia Higgins, Christopher Taylor.

Next council meeting: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle listings to confirm date.]

Former Near North Demolition Nears

Chronicle Staff — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:14:44 +0000

An additional $96,000 has been received by the city of Ann Arbor through federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations, which the city will put toward demolishing six houses on North Main Street.

The vote on the funding came at the council’s Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. The additional $96,000 can only be used for the demolition of structures at 700-724 North Main.

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]

DDA Sends William Street Project to Council

Dave Askins — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:10:30 +0000

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting (Jan. 9, 2013): The first meeting of the year for the DDA’s board featured a packed agenda – with items ranging from budget adjustments to the adoption of recommendations on the Connecting William Street project. Also voted on by the board were grants to the nonprofit Dawn Farm, an allocation of funds for the DDA’s energy grant program, and two monthly parking permits for The Varsity residential development.

Jeff Speck’s “Walkable City” was a volume brought to the Jan. 9, 2013 Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting by local developer Peter Allen. (Photos by the writer.)

The budget adjustments to FY 2013 were made in order to account for roughly $2.6 million in construction costs associated with the Library Lane underground parking garage. They had been allocated in the previous year’s budget, but not paid last year – because the completion of the construction extended into this fiscal year.

The FY 2012 audit report, which the board also approved at its Jan. 9 meeting, shows that for FY 2012, the DDA spent about $2.5 million less than anticipated for that year – because the construction invoices were not all submitted to the DDA by the time books closed for the year.

Not a part of the revised budget was the approval of two allocations made by the board – one of $50,000 in connection with the DDA’s existing energy grant program, and another of $150,000 for a grant to Dawn Farm, a nonprofit offering both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. The energy allocation will essentially attempt to leverage energy audits completed through the DDA’s program for use in the Michigan Saves program, which offers low-interest financing for energy improvements.

The board also approved recommendations to be forwarded to the city council on the future redevelopment of five city-owned sites currently used for parking. The project, which is now named Connecting William Street (CWS), began with an April 4, 2011 city council resolution that directed the DDA to seek “robust public input” from experts, stakeholders and residents to develop a plan for those parcels.

In connection with the parcels in that area, the board also adopted a policy on possible grants from the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) funds to support development of the CWS properties. The policy makes clear that the DDA would not forgo its TIF capture on any property – but the amount of the grant would be calculated based on TIF revenue.

Also in connection with the CWS project, the board heard remarks during public commentary from representatives of the city’s park advisory commission as well as the State Street Area Association. The board also invited Doug Kelbaugh, a University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning, to share his thoughts on parks versus plazas – and why he thinks the site on top of the Library Lane parking garage is more likely to succeed as a plaza instead of a park.

FY 2013 Budget Revisions, Audit

The board was asked to consider $2.6 million in changes to the current year’s budget – FY 2013, the 12-month period starting July 1, 2012. They stem primarily from costs that had been budgeted for the previous year for construction of the Library Lane underground parking garage, but not paid for.

The result of those changes leaves a budget with $22,237,924 in revenues against $26,339,555 in expenses for the year – which translates to a planned use of the DDA’s fund balance reserve of $4,101,632. That’s about half of the existing fund balance. The FY 2013 budget projects a fund balance at the end of FY 2013, on June 30, 2013, of $4,380,341. [.pdf of revised FY 2013 DDA budget]

The budget originally approved by the DDA board on March 7, 2012 showed revenues of $22,097,956 against $24,101,692 in expenditures – for an excess of expenditures over revenues of $2,003,736.

Much of the roughly $2 million in additional expenses in the adjusted budget is attributable to construction costs of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed in July 2012. That money had been budgeted, but not spent in FY 2012. To account for Library Lane parking structure construction, the adjustments to this year’s budget show an additional $850,000 to be expended from the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) fund and $1,792,388 from the DDA’s parking fund.

The DDA’s audited finances show that for FY 2012, the DDA spent about $2.5 million less than anticipated for that year – because the construction invoices were not all submitted to the DDA by the time books closed for the year. The board was also asked to adopt the auditor’s report.

Budget Adjustment: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt introduced the agenda items by explaining that the completion of the Library Lane underground parking structure had come near the end of the fiscal year.

In addition to the construction cost adjustments, Hewitt highlighted changes to the DDA housing fund budget. Those changes included the additional expense of a $246,000 allocation made as a grant to replace the roof on Baker Commons – an Ann Arbor Housing Commission property. That was balanced against the $400,000 that would not be spent to support the Near North affordable housing project, because that project has fallen through.

But given the energy saving grant allocation ($50,000) and the Dawn Farm grant ($150,000) approved at the board’s same meeting, Hewitt noted that the budget adjustments the board would be approving were already $200,000 off from the actual expenditures.

Outcome: Without substantive deliberations, the board unanimously approved the budget adjustments.

Audit: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt noted that the audit report, from Rehmann, had been reviewed previously at a meeting of the operations committee, which Rehmann’s Mark Kettner had attended. The highlight that Hewitt wanted to draw out from the report was this: “The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.” [.pdf of DDA FY 2012 audit]

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to accept the auditor’s report.

Dawn Farm Grant

The board was asked to consider awarding Dawn Farm a $150,000 grant to reduce the debt on two of the organization’s existing properties. By way of background, Dawn Farm is a nonprofit offering both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. In 2001, the DDA had made a $135,000 grant to Dawn Farm to assist with the purchase of the property at 112 Chapin St.

The current request being made to the DDA is for $150,000 to help pay down the debt on two other Dawn Farm properties, at 343 Beakes and 324 Summit. The grant from the DDA would free up cash to expand the existing total 159 beds in Dawn Farm’s residential treatment facilities to 200 by early 2013, according to the nonprofit.

Jim Balmer, president of Dawn Farm, had addressed the DDA board at its Dec. 5, 2012 board meeting, asking the DDA to support the request.

Dawn Farm: Board Deliberations

Joan Lowenstein introduced the item on Dawn Farm, saying that the organization had approached the DDA to ask for money that would help the nonprofit refinance existing property. That would allow Dawn Farm to provide additional transitional housing units and free up money for services in the downtown area.

Newcombe Clark said that independent of all the work Dawn Farm does, the organization has very detailed capital expenditure and depreciation schedules. Dawn Farm has been setting money aside for capital costs. The reason the DDA asks for that, Clark said, is because it shows rigor. He indicated that in general, helping an organization to pay off debt is not something he thinks the DDA should get in the habit of doing. But in the case of Dawn Farm, he was satisfied that the DDA would not be backfilling a legacy of a failure to set aside sufficient funds. He described it as “refreshing” to see an organization have rigor in the way it approached capital costs. He felt that fact made it easier to approve Dawn Farm’s request without contention.

John Splitt indicated his concern that the DDA housing fund was being tapped to provide the funding – because he felt that Dawn Farm was more of an “outreach program” than a housing program. If this were the “housing and outreach fund,” he said, he’d be more willing approve the grant – but he added that the work Dawn Farm does is marvelous. Clark pointed out that Dawn Farm would be able to add beds as a result of the DDA’s grant – but Splitt indicated he already knew that when he’d made his comments.

Outcome: Despite reservations from Splitt, he joined his board colleagues in voting unanimously to approve the grant.

Energy Audit Grant

The board was asked to consider a $50,000 allocation to its existing energy saving grant program to support additional costs for energy audits ($40,000) and the administrative support of those audits ($10,000). The idea is to leverage energy audits completed through the DDA’s program for use in the Michigan Saves program, which offers low-interest financing for energy improvements – in the form of loans from $2,000-$150,000.

The DDA’s energy grant program provides funds to cover the complete cost of energy audits for downtown businesses and a rebate on the cost of undertaking the actual improvements indicated by the audit.

Sandi Smith reviewed the point of the energy saving grant program and described the connection to the Michigan Saves program. Michigan Saves has offered to provide food and staff support to help the DDA promote the new program.

Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that the city’s Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program staff could be tapped for expertise and assistance as well.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the $50,000 allocation to the energy saving grant program

Varsity Parking Permits

The board was asked to consider granting the right to purchase two monthly permits in Ann Arbor’s public parking system to The Varsity, in order to satisfy the project’s 76-space parking requirement under the city’s zoning regulations. The project, located on East Washington Street, is a 13-story, 173-unit, 178,380-square-foot apartment building for approximately 418 people. Construction on the project is well underway.

The request from The Varsity was before the DDA board, because the DDA manages the public parking system – including parking permits – under contract with the city. The DDA in turn subcontracts out the day-to-day parking operations to Republic Parking.

The developer of The Varsity had originally planned to satisfy part of its parking requirement through a contract with Zipcar, a car-sharing service. That arrangement turned out not to be feasible.

The purchase of the two monthly permits will be arranged through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program, which allows a developer to meet a parking requirement by making an upfront payment of $55,000 per space or by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits – with a commitment of 15 years.

The D1 zoning district, where The Varsity is located, does not have a parking requirement for construction that has less than a 400% floor area ratio (FAR). However, if a development exceeds 400% FAR – which is allowed for projects that include residential units – then parking spaces must be provided. The number of spaces provided is based on a formula of 1 space per 1,000 square feet in excess of 400% FAR.

The approval of The Varsity’s monthly permits is just the second time the CIL program has been invoked. On Oct. 3, 2012 the DDA voted to approve the purchase of up to 42 monthly permits by the 624 Church St. project, another residential development.

The specific parking structure where the permits can be purchased has not been determined for either of the two projects. The topic of location – and the idea that a general policy should be developed to guide the choice of which parking structure can be used for permits sold under the CIL program – was part of the DDA’s operations committee meeting on Dec. 19, 2012.

Roger Hewitt described the arrangement for his board colleagues.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to sell two monthly permits to The Varsity, with the location of the parking structure to be determined.

Connecting William Street Parcel Plan

On the board’s Jan. 9 agenda were recommendations related to future development of five city-owned parcels in the DDA district – known as the Connecting William Street project. The recommendations cover: (1) the Kline lot (on the east side of Ashley, north of William), (2) the lot next to Palio restaurant (northeast corner of Main & William), (3) the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure, (4) the old YMCA lot (on William between Fourth and Fifth), and (5) the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth, north of the downtown library. [.pdf of presentation made at Dec. 5, 2012 board meeting]

The recommendations stemmed from a directive given to the DDA by the Ann Arbor city council in an April 4, 2011 resolution to engage in a public process with experts, stakeholders and residents, and then to develop a plan for those parcels. The council’s resolution describes a step in the process when the city council and the planning commission would adopt the recommendations on the five parcels into the city’s downtown plan. The downtown plan is one component of the city’s master plan. Other components include: the land use element, the transportation plan, the non-motorized transportation plan, parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, and the natural features master plan.

Streetscape view looking down William Street toward the east from Ashley Street – a schematic rendering of the Connecting William Street recommendations.

Based on the phasing described in the council’s April 2011 resolution, any request for proposals (RFP) to be made for the five parcels would come after the planning commission and the city council formally adopt recommendations on the five parcels into the downtown plan.

The vote on the recommendations came as preparation for the DDA’s presentation scheduled for a joint DDA/city council work session on Jan. 14. That session will begin at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron.

Also on the DDA board’s Jan. 9 meeting agenda was a policy on grants to be made by the DDA in the Connecting William Street area of study. Among other things, the policy gives priority to projects that promote public benefits related to connectivity and walkability improvements; environmental design features; significant architecture and design investment; public landscaping & plazas/urban open spaces; and infrastructure investments.

The grant policy makes clear that the DDA would not forgo its TIF (tax increment finance) capture on any property, but the amount of the grant would be calculated based on TIF revenue. The policy would apply only to the four city-owned properties in the area of the CWS study that are currently surface parking lots. [.pdf of grant policy draft]

CWS: Grant Policy

Sandi Smith pointed out the similarity of the language to that of a policy the DDA had adopted to guide the award of grants for brownfield projects. [The brownfield policy was created to provide guidance on the 618 S. Main project. The policy and the project grant were given approval at the DDA board's June 6, 2012 meeting.]

The policy establishes the public elements that the DDA would consider as items qualifying a project for a grant. The 17-25% of TIF capture that’s specified in the policy is a way to calculate the potential amount of a grant, but Smith stressed that the DDA will not forgo its TIF capture to help.

Joan Lowenstein echoed Smith’s characterization that the grant policy really is similar to what was done with the DDA’s brownfield policy. The idea is to give developers some criteria.

Newcombe Clark drew out the fact that the grant policy applies just to the city-owned parcels in the CWS geographic area, not to all parcels in the area.

Roger Hewitt floated the idea of a friendly amendment, which was accepted, that would characterize the grant calculator as 17-25% of the first 10 years of TIF capture for a completed project.

In discussing one of the criteria in the policy – “Environmental design exceeds City requirements” – DDA board members mulled whether that meant LEED requirements and wondered if there were other standards. From the audience, Doug Kelbaugh – a UM professor of architecture and urban planning – suggested that relevant standards could be found in Architecture 2030.

Outcome: The TIF grant policy for Connecting William Street parcels was unanimously approved.

CWS: Public Comment – Parks, Plazas

Addressing the board during public commentary on behalf of the city’s park advisory commission (PAC), was Ingrid Ault. She told the board she was there primarily because she had attended the CWS forum on Jan. 3, and she wanted to update the board on how PAC had been approaching the issue. She said her takeaway – shared by PAC members Bob Galardi and Alan Jackson – was that there’s a lot of support for some kind of open space in the downtown. But she described the evening’s discussion as yielding no real consensus one way or the other, calling it a spirited discussion.

Ault described a recent retreat held by PAC. An outcome of that retreat was to form a subcommittee to talk about downtown open space. She and Jackson serve on that subcommittee. One of the steps the subcommittee will take is to take an inventory of what’s in place, and talk about what works and doesn’t work – before thinking about what PAC might want to add.

There are 157 parks in Ann Arbor, Ault said. She said that PAC is concerned about adding space that has no active use. PAC doesn’t want to add open space that just sits empty, she said. PAC at this point is in the early stages of its discussion, she said, and had talked about different land uses in the CWS area. There’s no initial consensus on that. She said that the next step for PAC was to provide the DDA board with information, so that they could move forward in a thoughtful manner with the community. [For more background on PAC's discussions, see Chronicle coverage: "PAC: Downtown Park, More Input Needed."]

Introducing herself for public commentary as the new executive director of the State Street Area Association was Frances Todoro. She indicated that the former executive director, Tom Heywood, would still be around for a year to help with the transition.

She was interested in speaking to the board on the subject of adding parks downtown – by first focusing on an existing park downtown, Liberty Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. [Todoro holds a masters in urban planning and geography from the University of North Carolina.] It’s been a struggle to make the park work on a consistent basis, but she allowed there’d been spurts here and there when it’s been cleaned up and it’s worked for a few months. She noted that Sonic Lunch, sponsored by the Bank of Ann Arbor, is a hugely successful program – for a few days out of the year.

The State Street Area Association, she said, would want to see the park maintain a consistent success year round. SSAA was interested in focusing first on that success before bringing any additional parks online, she said. A lot would be learned from solving the existing problem of Liberty Plaza park, she said. And learning from those solutions would be beneficial to the existing community. It would help SSAA realize its vision of a clean and safe community.

During public commentary ~~Eileen~~ Ilene Tyler reported that she attended the Jan. 3 meeting on the CWS, but couldn’t stay until the end. She agreed the city should be proactive in defining the opportunities for development that are compatible with the central area plan. She supported the inclusion of a greenway-streetscape connection between downtown and the University of Michigan campus. She appreciated that the DDA had contracted with a local design professional [SmithGroup JJR] to illustrate the designs, saying she respected their work. [Tyler is an architect with Quinn Evans.]

However, Tyler didn’t see any actual “connecting” going on – especially along William Street. She asked that this be articulated in a more detailed way in the schematics, by adding nodes or oases along the route. That approach would break up the linear street, which is depicted as a straight and narrow “chute,” with a little bit of green cover around the street edge. Things like benches should be included, she said, or variation in paving material, and additional greenery. By including such elements in schematics now, developers might be more inclined to include them, instead of deferring only to minimum zoning requirements – which require no setbacks.

She wanted to be able to point to the CWS project as a positive force by the city to encourage better design from developers. Lawyers and developers are too quick to use precedence, she said, as the sole argument against the need to provide better design. She wanted to encourage the features of good urban design to be included in the final documents.

CWS: Public Comment – 413 Huron Street

The conversation at the board meeting connected concerns about the CWS recommendations and a proposed project outside the CWS area – at 413 Huron St.

The 413 Huron St. project is a proposed 14-story building at the northeast corner of Huron and Division – which calls for 213 apartments, about 3,000-square-feet of street-level retail space, and 163 on-site underground parking spaces. The complex would consist of two main towers and an “inset upper level garden and pool courtyard,” according to the proposal.

Toward the end of her remarks, Tyler noted that the lack of adequate setbacks of buildings in the schematics for CWS was one of the same problems with the 413 Huron St. project.

And when Ray Detter reported out from the previous evening’s meeting of the downtown citizens advisory council, the main highlight of his remarks was the CAC’s strong opposition to the 413 Huron St. project.

Detter supported the commitment to good architecture in the CWS proposal. He called the best public art a good building that’s well designed. Pedestrian-friendly setbacks should also be encouraged. He said he was very pleased that future projects undertaken in the CWS area will allow the planning commission to ask developers how they have responded to the design review board (DRB) process. He allowed that compliance with DRB recommendations was voluntary.

Detter noted that the city’s historic district commission had approved a resolution critical of the 413 Huron St. project, because it would have a negative impact on the Old Fourth Ward historic district. Regarding two members of CAC who live in Sloan Plaza, Detter said that as a result of the 413 Huron St. project “their sunlight will be gone forever.”

And during a presentation made to the board by Doug Kelbaugh, a University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning, he offered as an aside that he agreed with comments by Detter and Tyler about the proposed 413 Huron project – adding that it did not lie within the area he considered to be the “downtown core.”

CWS: Board Response to Commentary

Mayor John Hieftje responded to remarks from Ault and Todoro, by commenting on Liberty Plaza. He said the city is just now in the beginning stages of taking a look at Liberty Plaza. The parks staff have developed a preliminary timeline, he said, but he appreciated the comments people had made. He contended that he feels comfortable in Liberty Plaza, but allowed that some community members don’t feel comfortable there. He said that it needs to be improved so that it’s more inviting to all city residents. [Hieftje had made similar comments in a presentation at the Aug. 21, 2012 meeting of the city's park advisory commission.]

John Splitt indicated that as a member of the State Street Area Association board, he wanted to thank First Martin for doing the best job they can, by contributing their help in emptying trash and helping with the upkeep of the public park. [First Martin owns the building adjacent to Liberty Plaza.]

Sandi Smith responded to Tyler’s points about the specificity in the CWS drawings by saying that the leadership outreach committee had struggled to balance the amount of detail shown in the buildings. They’d started with “blocky” buildings, and by giving them a little more design they didn’t want to go down the path of designing an entire building. Tyler responded that some of the elements she was talking about could be put it in the narrative to the recommendations, if not in the schematics.

Joan Lowenstein told Tyler that she loved Tyler’s use of the word “oasis,” saying that was the intended concept.

CWS: Executive Summary

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, began by thanking the board and others who had worked on the Connecting William Street project. She sketched an overview of the process, but did not go through the PowerPoint presentation that had been shown at the last board meeting and at two subsequent public meetings. [.pdf of CWS presentation made at Dec. 5, 2012 board meeting]

She reviewed how the process had been undertaken over the last 15-18 months, when the DDA got approval from the city council to take charge of an RFP process for city-owned properties in the downtown. The DDA had set out with a belief that the process would build on a lot of good planning that had already been done, she said, without starting from scratch. So the first step was to review all the existing city planning work – the downtown plan, the central area plan, the A2D2 process, the Calthorpe study and the city’s design guidelines.

The community was then asked to speak to that planning in a more granular way. In the past, she said, when the city had issued vague RFPs, potential developers had essentially been directed to those plans and told, “Just look to those plans, they’ll tell you what to do.” The result was “strange polarities,” Pollay said, which were reflected most recently in competing visions for the top of the Library Lane underground garage – as people talked about an ice-skating rink versus a hotel/conference center. She compared the issue to one where you try to choose between a stick or a bagel.

So the Connecting William Street project was a chance for the community to decide for itself what it would like to see on the five sites, without immediate development pressures.

Pollay noted that part of the public input had included a survey to test whether the goals distilled out from previous planning efforts were still embraced. She stressed that the survey was not an attempt to conduct a vote for a particular use on a particular site. What they’d heard consistently was that the values reflected in previous planning were confirmed – walkability, density, diversity of use, and quality of buildings.

Scenarios were developed to test in more detail what public reaction was, and Pollay said that what they’d heard in several different meetings was consistency. People might not have agreed with the building height as depicted in a scenario, but weren’t opposed to having a building there at all. Or people did not oppose having active uses on the first floor. They’d found many areas of agreement, she said.

There are many areas where the plan has to come together and work together, Pollay said. As an example, she said there are opportunities to pursue jobs in the downtown by providing for large floor-plate office space. But there are also opportunities to provide housing for the workers who might be employed in those jobs. There are a great number of opportunities not just in the downtown, but also specifically in the area of downtown that makes up the study area, she continued, pointing out that the AATA’s Blake Transit Center is located there. Something like 600,000 people a year visit the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, she said, which is a great strength. [The downtown library is located at the northeast corner of Fifth and William.] But that meant that surrounding uses needed to be complementary to that.

Pollay said that for 95% of the plan, there was very little controversy. There was some quibbling about density, but generally there was a lot of agreement, she said. They’d strived for a diversity of voices in gathering input, and made a point to reach out to as many neighborhood groups and civic organizations as possible – at least 100. A mailing list of interested citizens was developed that had over 700 people on it. A total of 300 people had attended meetings and over 2,000 people had responded to a survey.

They’d strived for a diverse and robust response, she concluded. About the question of parks and open space, Pollay ventured, “We are saying different things, yet saying the same thing: We want more open space downtown, whether it’s a park or a plaza, whether it’s green, whether it’s sized this way or that.” She said there was still some dialogue going on.

The previous evening, she’d met with the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) and talked about affordable housing. There was no one of the five sites that seemed to call for affordable housing – but instead there seemed to be a lot of consensus at HHSAB for selling the property and rebuilding the city’s affordable housing trust fund. That would give flexibility for the location of affordable housing.

The idea was discussed that a contribution in lieu program could be provided for the density incentives that are available under by-right zoning. [Currently, up to 900% FAR (floor-area ratio) is allowed in by-right projects, if the use of a project includes a suitable amount of affordable housing.] There was a strong willingness to explore a contribution to the affordable housing trust fund in lieu of providing the affordable housing units within a project.

She concluded by thanking everyone, and cautioning that there is a lot of work yet to be done.

Sandi Smith noted that some of the outreach for the project that had been directed was to connect to the University of Michigan. So she invited Doug Kelbaugh, a UM professor of architecture and urban planning, to present some of the work his students had done.

CWS: Kelbaugh Connection

In the summer of 2011, Kelbaugh had pitched his services to facilitate a public process for the Connecting William Street project [though it had not yet been given that name], but ultimately the DDA board declined the offer.

Kelbaugh began by discussing the question of whether the open space on the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage should be a plaza or a park. He offered three reasons why it should be a plaza, not a park.

Urban rationale – downtowns need outdoor living rooms that are:
(a) spatially well defined, enclosed by buildings on at least three sides (ideal width is 100 feet – which is the distance at which you can recognize somebody’s face);
(b) activated by programmed, spontaneous and informal activities for diverse demographics – so that it’s not dominated by rich, poor or anybody in between;
(c) with lots of entrances, windows, retail on the edges, as well as “eyes” on the plaza. Kelbaugh contended that Ann Arbor has great streets and great parks but not a lot of good plazas, i.e. “outdoor living rooms.” These characteristics meant that Liberty Plaza will never actually be a plaza – it will always be a park. It could become a better park, but would never be a plaza – because the historic building to the south [Kempf House] would never have windows and doors opening onto it from that side. However, the Library Lane site had the potential to be a plaza, he said. Kelbaugh said that the side of the Earthen Jar restaurant would never be an adequate activator of a plaza.
Architectural rationale – a plaza is better suited structurally for construction on top of a parking garage than a park, which needs deep soil for trees and berms.
Environmental rationale – it’s greener to have a dense, complete downtown than suburban sprawl (urban residents have smaller ecological footprints per capita).

Kelbaugh then showed the board some student projects for the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage, highlighting how they made a connection from a plaza on the Fifth Avenue side of the parcel to the Liberty Plaza park. For one of the buildings that the students had designed, the connection went through the buildings – with an elevated exterior “public street” that led past retail shop entrances. When you come out the other side, he said, you are greeted with a “true green park” – where Liberty Plaza is. That would require the cooperation of Bill Martin and his son, Kelbaugh allowed – because of property that is owned by Martin, situated between the Library Lane parking garage and Liberty Plaza.

Kelbaugh included in his remarks a sketch of how he imagined it might be possible to get from the Kline lot on the western edge of downtown to the University of Michigan campus, using mid-block cut-throughs.

CWS: Board Deliberations

Newcombe Clark ventured that what the DDA board would be approving was a snapshot – saying that the minute you collect data, it starts to degrade. It could become more or less relevant as time goes by and various macro forces act on the situation. He ventured that the plan will be trotted out years later as proof of something. He felt it might not hold up well if it’s put on a shelf.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he appreciated all the work that had been done. He asked for an amendment to the resolved clause [added text in italics, bolded type for contrast]:

Resolved, The DDA approves the Connecting William Street Plan, and anticipates that the Plan will be presented to City Council later this month, with the expectation of working to implement this Plan in the future, following further input from city commissions and the public.

Sandi Smith indicated that unfortunately she didn’t consider that amendment to be friendly. Joan Lowenstein suggested tweaking the change as follows, which was amenable to Smith and to Hieftje:

Resolved, The DDA approves he Connecting William Street Plan, and anticipates that he Plan will be presented to City Council later this month, with the expectation of working to implement this Plan in the future, in conjunction with further input from city commissions and the public.

Smith called it a significantly different statement. John Mouat expressed some caution about the added language, saying that the project had already lasted one and a half years, so he hoped to see some timely action on it. Clark ventured that the next step could be for the DDA to develop an RFQ (request for qualifications).

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to adopt the Connecting William Street recommendations.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: Parking Report

Roger Hewitt delivered the report on monthly parking, which has been covered in more detail in previous reporting: “Parking as Residential Incentive: Where?”

Comm/Comm: Downtown Marketing Task Force

Mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board as mayor, reminded DDA board members of a first-Tuesday monthly meeting – of the downtown marketing task force. He called the meetings productive and encouraged DDA board members to attend.

Comm/Comm: WATS

John Mouat reported that the executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), Terri Blackmore, had resigned. Blackmore is taking a position at North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization in Fort Collins, Colorado. Mouat indicated that Leigh Greden is leading the effort to find a replacement for her at WATS. [Greden sits on the WATS policy committee – in his capacity as the executive director of government and community relations for Eastern Michigan University.]

Comm/Comm: River Up!

Elizabeth Riggs, deputy director of the Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC), addressed the board on the topic of River Up! She told the board that she and HRWC director Laura Rubin had met with DDA executive director Susan Pollay a couple of times, and that Pollay had suggested Riggs make a presentation to the DDA board.

Left to right: DDA board member Sandi Smith and Huron River Watershed Council deputy director Elizabeth Riggs.

She said the point of the presentation was to start a dialogue and to promote future communication between the DDA and HRWC about River Up! She described River Up! as “nothing short of a renaissance for the Huron River.” She said the partners on the project were “thinking big.” Partners include the HRWC, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation and a group of community and business leaders called the Wolfpack. [For previous Chronicle reporting on River Up!, see "River Up! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"] It’s a group that has worked in the past on environmental initiatives on the state and the national level, she said. River Up! is an initiative to look at an asset in “our own backyard – the Huron River.”

Riggs told the board that the HRWC has been around since 1965 working to protect the river and the eco-system. She called River Up! a bold initiative to turn the communities on the river to face the river – as a new Main Street. In the past, the Huron River has been a working river, she said, and it showed signs of that. It was understandable that people wanted to put their backs to the river – because it didn’t smell very good. But in the last few decades, she said, there’s been quite a turnaround, and the river is now something to celebrate. It’s the only river in this part of Michigan with a “natural river” designation. It’s an important place for recreation and respite. The river could be a part of the place-making effort for Ann Arbor, helping it to be an economic engine. Other river towns besides Ann Arbor are Milford, Dexter, Ypsilanti, and Flatrock. The concept is very broad but there are three specific areas that the River Up! project involves: (1) fix up; (2) clean up; and (3) build up.

Fixing up means investing in the river, making it safer and more accessible, she explained. The creation of a 104-mile paddling trail is part of that effort, which includes fixing portages and installing wayfinding. And soon a waterproof flipbook map of the whole river will be available.

Cleaning up means supporting ecological improvement. The DTE cleanup of the old MichCon site on Broadway, adjacent to the river, fits in with part of that effort, she said. That cleanup will help establish the connection between the river and the downtown, she said.

Riggs concluded by saying she looked forward to potential future collaboration.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

Roger Hewitt reported that a meeting had been held by the funding partners for the connector study – an effort that’s exploring alternatives for high-capacity transit in a corridor that swoops in a boomerang shape from the northeast part of the city to the south. The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. The city council approved its part of the funding on Oct. 15, 2012 to support an alternatives analysis phase of the study, which will result in identifying a preferred mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops.

At the group’s meeting they’d received a report on the first public outreach effort, which had taken place at six different locations – including Briarwood mall during the Christmas shopping season. The point of the outreach, Hewitt said, was to gauge the public response to the concept of a high-capacity connector. The people who’d been asked had reported their priorities for transportation in the following order: higher frequency of service, extended hours of service, and reduced emissions.

The result of asking people to put dots on maps indicating their desired travel destinations showed a large cluster in the area of downtown Ann Arbor, Hewitt said. Around 90% of people said they wanted some kind of enhanced system – compared to the current bus system. About 275 people total had been contacted at the six locations, he said. The next outreach effort would take place in a couple of months, Hewitt concluded. [.jpg of dot map]

Present: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Nader Nassif, Russ Collins, Keith Orr.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Zoning, Transit Focus of Council Meeting

Dave Askins — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:52:35 +0000

Ann Arbor city council meeting (Sept. 4, 2012): The council handled a mixed bag of items at its most recent meeting, ranging from land use to community events funding.

One item was apparently not handled the way that the majority of the council wanted, due to the absence of two councilmembers – Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Left to right: Ann Arbor city councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). (Photos by the writer.)

That item was a $60,000 appropriation – the city’s portion of a $300,000 local match for continued study of the Plymouth/State corridor, from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, extending south to I-94. The local match is needed for a $1.2 million federal grant that has been awarded for the study. This alternatives analysis phase follows a basic feasibility study. The current study is supposed to result in a preferred choice of technology (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) as well as identifying stations and stops.

Because the $60,000 transfer from the general fund was a change to the city budget, it needed the votes of eight members on the 11-member city council. When Mike Anglin (Ward 5) led off the roll call by voting against it, it was clear that the council would have no more than seven votes in favor – because Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had already made plain during deliberations that she’d be voting against it. So some councilmembers voted against the resolution in order to be on the prevailing side. That gives them the right under parliamentary rules to bring back the item to the council’s next meeting for reconsideration. At that meeting it’s possible, but not certain, that supporters of the funding will have the necessary eight votes.

Several items on the agenda dealt with land use. The council gave final approval to a rezoning request for Knight’s Market, which will allow for expansion of the market at Spring and Miller streets. Winning initial approval was a rezoning requested by the developer of proposed townhouses on Catherine Street – from its current planned unit development (PUD) zoning to R4C (multi-family residential). Rezoning for part of a parcel in connection with a planned Speedway gas station at Maple and Miller also got the council’s initial approval. A related site plan for the station got its one and only required approval.

Also connected to land use was the council’s addition of two more properties to the greenbelt, using about $0.5 million in city funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. The land from the two properties totals around 226 acres. Lumm cast a lone vote of dissent.

The council also authorized disbursements of community events funds to 13 organizations totaling $44,778, the bulk of which went to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival’s Top of the Park.

And the council set a public hearing for Oct. 1 on a tax abatement for Barracuda Networks. The firm is relocating to downtown Ann Arbor from its current location on Depot Street, in part to accommodate an additional 144 employees it expects to hire by July 1, 2014.

$60K for Transit Study

The council was asked to consider allocating $60,000 of general fund money for a study of a transportation corridor from the northeast of Ann Arbor to the city’s southern edge.

The measure needed eight votes to pass on the 11-member council – not a simple majority of six – because it was a change to the budget.

The contribution from the city of Ann Arbor is meant to help the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority move ahead with an alternatives analysis for the corridor. The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, continuing south to I-94. This alternatives analysis phase of the study would result in a preferred choice of technology (such as bus rapid transit or light rail, for example) and identification of station and stop locations.

The city’s $60,000 would be a portion of $300,000 in local funding that had been identified to provide the required match for a $1.2 million federal grant awarded last year to the AATA for the alternatives analysis phase. The breakdown of local support is intended to be: $60,000 from the city of Ann Arbor; $150,000 from the University of Michigan; and $90,000 from the AATA.

In November 2011, Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, had updated the AATA board on the possible timeline for the alternatives analysis. He said that phase, in which a preferred technology and route with stop locations would be identified, would take around 16 months.

The AATA board information packet for its June 21, 2012 meeting described the hoped-for $60,000 contribution from the city of Ann Arbor.

The resolution in front of the council highlighted the fact that the AATA had recently purchased from the city a six-foot-wide strip of land on the former Y lot, immediately to the south of the location for the planned new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. The strip of land was priced at $90,000, based on an independent appraisal. The AATA board approved its side of that deal this spring at its April 26, 2012 meeting. The city council had approved the land sale almost a year ago, at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. The total parcel area was 792 square feet. A more general discussion of the city’s policy on the proceeds of city-owned land sales will unfold over the next few weeks.

A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit or elevated automated guideway transit. That study had been funded through a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, University of Michigan and the AATA. Chronicle coverage of that feasibility study includes: “Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis“; “AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates“; and “Washtenaw Transit Talks in Flux.”

$60K for Transit Study: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had sent several written questions to city staff about the connector study funding prior to the Sept. 4 council meeting. One of those was about the possible use of the city’s alternative transportation fund – instead of the city’s general fund – to pay for the study.

She led off the council’s deliberations essentially by questioning the accuracy of information she’d received about the use of the alternative transportation fund, which receives its revenue from Act 51 money. [Act 51 handles the distribution of revenue from fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees.]

She told city transportation program manager Eli Cooper that she didn’t see why the alternative transportation fund couldn’t be used to pay for an alternative transportation study. The written answer Lumm had received from Cooper was this: “Act 51, the source of the alternative transportation fund, does not allow for capital planning programs beyond street and non-motorized transportation.” Cooper noted that Act 51 has a provision in it called the “comprehensive transportation fund,” which covers a whole array of transportation. But the distribution of Act 51 money to local communities is more narrowly focused, Cooper explained. Local Act 51 money is for major streets and non-motorized transportation. Lumm ventured that major streets are involved in all the various alternatives – unless we’re looking at something out of the Jetsons, she quipped.

Lumm then pressed for an answer to a question she’d submitted about why the item had not been in the FY 2013 budget. The written answer she’d received was this: “It was included in the CIP [capital improvements plan] for FY 2014. The timing of the investment has been accelerated due to the interest of the stakeholders and availability of grant funding.”

Lumm told Cooper that as far as the item being in the CIP, to that she’d say: “So are lots of things.” She noted that the AATA was notified about the grant in December 2011 – well in advance of the development of the budget and the council’s adoption of it [in May 2012].

Cooper told Lumm that although the AATA was notified by Congressional offices in December that the grant would be coming, it wasn’t a certainty and the paperwork hadn’t been completed at that time. The AATA still had to go through the process of negotiating a fair local share amount from the local partners, he explained. The $60,000 request reflects a belief in the feasibility of a higher-capacity advanced technology transportation system in the corridor – and federal support was made available through the work of the Federal Transit Administration and the region’s Congressional delegation. Given the participation of other local stakeholders, this was the best timing staff could do to bring the request forward, Cooper said.

City administrator Steve Powers, who started on the job about one year ago, offered that he’d take responsibility for the timing. He’d been learning Ann Arbor’s budgeting process and was still learning the specific details of the project. The “missed timing” is ultimately his responsibility, Powers concluded.

Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked where Cooper saw the project going after this phase? What would the memorandum of understanding between the city, the University of Michigan and the AATA include? Cooper indicated that it’s an 18-month and $1.5 million project. The feasibility study had shown the city who will benefit – whether that’s the University of Michigan, the downtown, and the community at large. After the alternatives analysis, better information will be available about the type of transportation technology and the cost and the various beneficiaries. At that point, it would be brought back to the city council on a “more informed basis,” Cooper explained.

In the case of the alternatives analysis study, Cooper said, it’s a situation where the one of the local partners – the University of Michigan – had volunteered 50% of the local match. He didn’t have a set answer, but in a year and a half, he expected that he’d have better information about proportionate shares of building a system – assuming the council gave its authorization to the $60,000 request.

Anglin said he had objected to the countywide transportation plan because it had included a rail station at the Fuller Road location, and it looked like the connector study was dealing with that location as well. As the University of Michigan looks at its bus system and the frequency of service that’s needed in that corridor for the university’s needs, this might be a better system for them than they have now. This seems like a system that services the university, he said. On the southern end of the corridor, Briarwood Mall is served by traffic from the interstate. He didn’t see the need to bring a connector service that far south. The part that’s needed is the part that provides a connection between the university’s campuses. He called it unfortunate that this becomes wrapped up in claims of ridership by the AATA. He asked Cooper if UM ever thought the connector could be entirely the university’s project.

Cooper told Anglin that as he has been involved in the conversation, it’s not been a matter of trying to measure how much one party would benefit. Instead, he characterized it as a “bunch of stakeholders around a table.” With respect to the future ridership, an unanswered question currently is: Who would be the owner and operator of the system? Cooper pointed out that the university had convened an advanced transit technology forum, which the city had attended. Cooper said he looked at this as collaboration. Ridership on the system – whether it’s a bus rapid transit system or a light rail system – will benefit both the university and the city’s downtown.

Cooper observed that the city had recently completed construction of the underground parking garage in the downtown, and said the city needs to have transit to complement the investment in the parking structure. As a transportation planner with gray hair and many decades of experience, he said, he would recommend continuing to provide support for all types of mobility. The feasibility study had shown that there’s a substantial demand, Cooper said. He allowed that Anglin is correct – a large part of that demand comes from the university.

However, the benefits will accrue to the entire community, Cooper said. The people taking trips provided by a connector transit system will not be competing for space on the road system. We’re moving beyond the automobile and the bus – whether that’s bus rapid transit, light rail or commuter rail, he said. This will continue to require study to find the most efficient and effective way to use public resources. There’s no denying the fact that these are capital intensive programs, he allowed. It will require support from the federal, state and local governments – and private partners as well, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) supported many of Anglin’s questions about who benefits from the system. She also had some basic factual questions.

How many bus trips take place between the UM medical campus and north campus? Briere asked. Cooper gave a per-day passenger figure of 30,000. The frequency of buses is 60-70 per hour during peak periods, he said. That means there’s more than one bus a minute during peak hours, Briere ventured. Given that frequency and assuming 20 people on a bus, that would be a lot of car trips. Briere wondered, however, what that frequency of bus traffic might be doing to the road infrastructure. Cooper allowed that there’s clearly a relationship between gravel haulers and the impact on roads, but said that buses aren’t as heavy as those types of vehicles. He was not aware of any undue wear on Fuller Road as a result of the bus traffic.

Briere clarified that use of Act 51 money to make non-motorized improvements adjacent to Fuller Road is an appropriate use of Act 51 money. Cooper responded by saying that a minimum of 1% of Act 51 money must be allocated to non-motorized transportation improvements. Briere got confirmation from Cooper that it wouldn’t be appropriate to use Act 51 money to study the possibility of constructing a light rail system down Fuller Road.

Lumm followed up by getting clarification that light rail is one of the technologies that could be an alternative. Cooper clarified that this was the case and that each of the alternatives came with a specific associated cost.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got confirmation that the DDA is not contributing to the local match for this particular study. He wanted to know why. Cooper’s understanding was that the DDA is not currently in a financial position to participate. However, the DDA would like to be involved in the ongoing discussion, with the possibility that the DDA could be financially involved in future phases of the project. Kunselman summarized that by saying, “So they don’t have the money.”

Kunselman asked if there’s an expectation that another round of federal grants might be available after the preferred local alternative is selected. Cooper told him, “Absolutely.” The recently enacted MAP 21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) bill continues to support new starts and small starts capital programs. Even in the tight times that are being felt in Washington D.C., with a number of reductions in different categories in the transportation bill, Cooper said, the transit capital starts program is strong in the federal bill.

Kunselman noted that there are a lot of different planning efforts going on – like the WALLY north-south commuter rail, for example. Kunselman was worried that Ann Arbor was “in competition with ourselves,” because clearly not everything could be funded. Cooper responded by saying he wasn’t in a position to say when each one of those planning investments would mature. But in metropolitan areas like Ann Arbor, there’s an ongoing transportation planning process. And federal funding is available for a variety of modes. In any community that has a light rail system, a commuter rail system or a bus rapid transit system, the majority partner has been the federal government. Cooper expected that the federal government will continue to invest in mobility for communities.

Kunselman ventured that a lot of federal grants go to the University of Michigan, but he wasn’t aware of any federal transportation grants going to UM. The connector would predominantly benefit UM, so he wondered if that’s something new and different from the federal government.

Cooper responded with a parallel to his experience with the Fuller Road station. When he spoke to folks in Washington D.C. they had said, “That’s the Ann Arbor station; we don’t know Fuller Road from Main Street.” So in advancing projects of this sort, Cooper said, the feds will see it as an investment in the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor urbanized area. The feds know there’s a university here, but they’ll see it as making an investment in Ann Arbor, he said. The analysis will be blind to who gets the benefit. As the partnership is defined, it’ll be important to look at rider share, Cooper said. However, when the federal government looks at investments of this type, the feds look at the community, and they’ll measure the willingness of all parties to secure the investment that the feds are willing to make, Cooper concluded.

Kunselman expressed his displeasure that the resolution included a sentence about the portion of the YMCA site being sold to the AATA for $90,000, with the description that the $60,000 was thus available. That’s general fund money, and it’s not in its own bucket inside the general fund, Kunselman said. He found the inclusion of that sentence as “over the top,” saying, “We don’t need to hear that part.”

Anglin got clarification that the timeframe for the study would be a year and a half. It would be the same project team that did the feasibility study [URS Corporation], Cooper said, a project that had been finished on schedule.

Anglin stated that he was a little uncomfortable with the request, because there are so many competing distractions we have as a community. He wanted to know how long the study would be valid. He felt that the university would be asking students to relocate to places where they need to be most of the time. He ventured that it might not be clear how many people will be moving between the campuses as time goes on. It’s difficult to project the needs of a community as complex as Ann Arbor, he said.

Responding to the question about the validity of the study, Cooper indicated that the locally-preferred alternative would need to be valid as long as it takes to move to the next step. Comparing the draft environmental assessment (EA) report for the Fuller Road station project, once it’s outside of a three-year timeframe, Cooper said, “we ourselves would want to refresh the data.” Comparing whether the city gets more or less, Cooper pointed out that the entirety of the connector system would be located in the city. He recognized that UM’s configuration will be an important consideration in forecasting travel demand. For that reason, the city and the AATA have worked closely with UM’s planner to understand those needs as they’re seen today, Cooper explained. [Sue Gott, UM's top planner, was the most recent appointment to the board of the AATA. Cooper also serves on that board.]

If assumptions change, Cooper allowed, the project might take on a different character. But overall, the UM planner, the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), the city staff and a consultant team were doing an analysis. Cooper said he was confident they have a grasp on the need, but agreed that it’s impossible to see all of the future. There could be other trip generators that emerge that had not been foreseen – but if the connector system is in place, that additional demand could be accommodated. If not, then a couple of different things could happen, he said. One of those things is that economic growth might not occur. Or the growth could occur without an investment like that of the connector, which would mean more vehicles on the roadway, Cooper cautioned.

Kunselman stated that he’d support the study, but agreed with Anglin that “We’re all over the place.” The idea that the city would make investments in mass transit, without knowing how to pay for operations, caused him a lot of concern, he said.

Kunselman complained that there are basic transportation services not being provided. Kunselman pointed out that if you go past US-23, there’s no bus to the UM medical center, which is a huge need for the community, he said. He then quoted something he’d written to an AATA board member after having lunch with that person. It included a portion of The Chronicle’s Aug. 16, 2012 AATA board meeting report:

AATA board member Charles Griffith, reporting from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, said that Routes #3 and #5, because of the increased ridership, have struggled a bit with staying on time and with overcrowding. So AATA is continuing to look at ways to address that. It’s not in the budget to increase the frequency of the service as the AATA had done for Route #4, he said – at least not at this time. Route #3 runs between Ann Arbor and Washtenaw Community College. Route #5 runs along Packard between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Kunselman’s letter also complained that the AATA was providing commuter service to communities that didn’t support it with tax dollars [Chelsea and Canton].

Kunselman also wrote in his letter to the unnamed AATA board member that he wanted an opportunity to comment on the AATA’s budget as required under a 1974 agreement between Ann Arbor and the AATA. [.pdf of 1974 agreement] “We haven’t seen your budget,” Kunselman read aloud. He then noted the fact that Cooper is also a member of the AATA board, by saying, “Not you, … but you are an AATA board member, so I’m looking at you right there.”

The AATA budget is due to be adopted before the end of the month [September], Kunselman continued. It’s relevant to the $60,000 request, because as far as he was concerned, the city should not be spending that money, doing the business of the AATA, Kunselman said. He called the number of vehicles that are taken off the road through commuter services by the AATA a “drop in the bucket,” and suggested a better approach would be to get people to commute together through car sharing. [The AATA recently launched a service to promote group travel in the form of a vanpool program.]

Kunselman was skeptical of Cooper’s report that during peak periods the UM was running a bus a minute, calling it an “outrageous” claim. There’s no way there’s a bus each minute, he contended, and if there is, it’s for a very short period of time. He returned to his point about where the money for operations would come from. At that point, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) raised a point of order – that Kunselman had reached the end of his speaking time. He did not seem to have anything else that he wanted to add.

Lumm said she wouldn’t support the request for several reasons, including budget discipline and transparency. She described the approach as incrementally throwing money at transportation related initiatives, “without any clue” about how operating costs will be paid. Lumm pointed out that there are at least five planning initiatives: (1) Ann Arbor rail station; (2) countywide transportation; (3) east-west commuter rail; (4) north-south commuter rail; and (5) the connector study.

Lumm said there’s no idea of how to pay for any of these. The idea that these projects are of equal priority is simply not reasonable, she contended. She felt that very basic questions were not being answered. If it was a priority, then it should have been included in the budget for the year.

Briere got clarification from Cooper about how much the city had expended to date on the connector study – $80,000. That meant the total to that point would be $140,000, if the city authorized the $60,000.

Briere asked if this would be the last money the city would be spending on studies? Cooper’s response: Not at all. There are future phases, which would include detailed environmental assessment work. Responding to a question from Briere about costs, Cooper indicated that it would depend on the choice of outcome from the alternatives analysis study. If the preferred alternative is bus rapid transit, the cost would be an order of magnitude less than another fixed guideway system. “Got it!” Briere exclaimed.

Briere asked Cooper to explain why he felt that the $60,000 is an investment and not an expense. Cooper said it goes back to the city’s transportation plan update. The “do nothing” alternative – as compared to spending money on a transportation portfolio – would result in substantial congestion along almost every major corridor in Ann Arbor. Investments in transit alternatives would be able to diminish the pressure on the road system, Cooper said, so that more freely flowing conditions could be expected.

Briere asked what might happens if the city decided not to do the study, but then five years from now decided at that point to do it. What’s the chaos that the community would face? Cooper told Briere that “chaos” might be too strong a word. There would be an increasing discomfort created by increasing levels of travel demand – more cars on the road. Over the last decade or so, the city has seen a greater influx of workers – from the university – and now we’re seeing more into the downtown area, he said. The forecast for continued economic prosperity in Ann Arbor is a positive thing, but the side effects are that each new job filled by someone who doesn’t walk or bicycle to that job will put additional stress on the transportation system. That’s the reason for the investment – for the community to be able to move forward while preserving the quality of life, Cooper said.

Briere tried to clarify what she meant by “chaos.” Any construction of a connector system would cause a lot of disruption during the construction. So she was trying to get a sense of whether it would be more prudent to get a clearer sense of the demand before constructing something, or go ahead and try to anticipate demand: “That’s what I’m trying to drag out of you,” she said.

Cooper described the modeling as statistically derived, and said the majority of the future is already here. When the system is operating at 0-90% of capacity, it can still function. Going from 90% to 95% or 100% is a “pivot point” where there’s more demand than the system can sustain and the system breaks down. The timing recommendations are that the planning needs to begin now, so that the investments can begin to be made in the mid-term. In 2009, the mid-term was seen as 5-15 years, he said.

Briere asked what would happen if the council were not to provide the $60,000. Would there be an effect be on the federal dollars and on the UM and the AATA? Cooper responded by saying he was not aware of a specific deadline, but the federal grant processing is such that if the council acted that night, the AATA board can follow. And with the UM’s pledge, the project could begin almost instantaneously. If the council spends more time deliberating, then the project would progress on that adjusted timeline. If the council were to choose not to participate at all, the remaining stakeholders will need to reconsider, Cooper said – but he would not speak on behalf of UM, AATA, or the DDA.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Mayor John Hieftje said he saw the connector as part and parcel of a larger picture. He felt that the city could be sure of future job growth. Jobs would continue to come to the city even if the city did not seek them, because the UM continues to build its workforce, he said. But jobs bring traffic and congestion. The only way we can affect that – beyond carpooling and park-and-ride lots – is to expand transit. We won’t know the costs, and we don’t have a way of talking about the costs, he said. He cautioned against backing away from transit – offering as a sardonic possibility the idea that the council could also vote to say they did not want more jobs in the city.

Hieftje called it wise to invest $60,000 as part of a $1.5 million project. The city can continue to build parking structures, and accept more traffic in the city, or we can invest in transit, he said. He asked that councilmembers show a little bit of vision as the city looks to the future and tries to plan for that.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) sought confirmation from Cooper that UM is not a suitable federal grant recipient for a transportation system. Cooper said that UM is not categorized as a recipient of transportation dollars. But UM can help provide the local matching dollars for a federal grant. Taylor concluded that even though the UM can’t sign on the dotted line, a future city council could conclude: “We’re not going to move forward until we get X from the U.” And X could be operating expenses or the local match. Cooper confirmed Taylor’s understanding.

Taylor said he supported the $60,000 allocation, because he sees the council as a steward of the city – not just today, but also 5, 10 or 15 years from now. That requires an investment in planning, he said. And we can’t plan or invest without data.

Taylor said the objection that “we don’t know how we would fund it” doesn’t make sense to him, because this is not the time we’re planning to pay for it. The city councils in the future will have the ability to plan for that, he said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that transportation is a high priority right now. He said it’s good to study and plan.

Lumm came back to her concern that the city is going down a path with multiple plans. The city’s priority shouldn’t be whatever someone gives it money for, she said.

Outcome: Voting against the allocation were: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Margie Teall (Ward 4). With the absences of Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), the measure got only four votes. Voting for the resolution were: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje.

During the roll call vote, as it was apparent the measure would not reach the eight-vote requirement, Kunselman quipped that perhaps he’d change his mind – after indicating during deliberations that he’d support the resolution. Votes by Teall and Smith can be analyzed as strategic, because only a councilmember who is on the prevailing side – in this case, those who voted no – can bring an item back to be reconsidered. They’d ordinarily be expected to support a resolution like the $60,000 connector study.

If Hohnke and Higgins are at the table for a vote of the full council on Sept. 17, the resolution would at least have a chance at passing. Hohnke would almost certainly vote for it. But passage would depend on Kunselman not changing his mind, and either Higgins or Briere voting yes – neither of which would be a certainty.

Knight’s Market Expansion

In front of the council for final consideration was a plan to expand Knight’s Market, at the ~~northeast~~ northwest corner of Spring and Miller.

The market’s owner, Ray Knight, is well known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave. The grocery store has been on land zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Knight also owns two separate parcels adjacent to the market. One of those parcels – at 306-308 Spring St. – was zoned R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1, and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. was zoned R2A and MI, and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels have been non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

The Knight’s expansion includes several components. What the council was asked to approve was a rezoning of 306, 308 and 310 Spring to C1. That rezoning will allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning will also allow for approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot. In addition, the council approved rezoning to C1 of 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery. The council was also asked to approve the site plan.

The changes to the parking lot include providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curb cut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring will remain a single-family dwelling.

Because the request involved a rezoning – a change to the city’s set of ordinances – the council needed to vote on the item twice, at different meetings, and hold a public hearing. It had given the rezoning an initial vote of approval at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Public Hearing

Eric Cazepis spoke during the public hearing on the zoning change, introducing himself as the owner of the property directly across the street from the market.

Knight’s Market is the parcel highlighted in yellow. The flood plain is the green shaded area. The floodway is the blue shaded area.

He’s opposed to a change in the ordinance, citing his main concern as flooding. He observed that the property is in the flood plain, and it’s located at the bottom of a hill. He alluded to a mudslide that washed out the railroad tracks in May 2011 along Plymouth Road. He’s seen the street become like a river, as it became too much for the storm drain to handle. He grew up in the area, he said, and he’s seen flooding there. He wanted it to be on the record that he’s against the zoning change. He allowed that the Knights are a good family, but as a nearby property owner, he was opposed to the change.

The architect for the project, Dick Fry, also addressed the council. He told councilmembers that he’d studied the site with respect to the flooding issue. The city’s own department was also very thorough in checking calculations, he said. He said that all the stormwater would be kept on the site. It’s so low across the back of the site that it would flow to the north.

Fry showed the council some drawings, which he said the zoning board of appeals had suggested he do. The ZBA had some concern about the “blankness” of the market. He characterized the sketches as “nothing incredible” but he wanted to show the council some concepts for some awnings. And he noted that some nice improvements had already been done to the entrance of the market – for example, a 12-foot sliding door, he said.

The market will have “eyes on the street” from the butcher area. The building will look better with larger windows, Fry said. He mainly wanted the council to know that the water situation was addressed very thoroughly.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d been able to attend the citizens participation meeting on the project. The big concern she’d heard expressed was about truck traffic. She felt the council needs to keep its mind open to ways to limit large truck traffic through the neighborhood. She allowed that supplies have to be delivered, but all the same, the traffic makes it difficult for neighbors, she said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) stressed the importance of addressing what the zoning is currently – which is light industrial, or the kind of zoning that is appropriate to being adjacent to a railroad track. She noted that neighbors were concerned about what might go in if the Knights ever left. The rezoning would state that this is now “a commercial spot,” which she felt would protect the neighborhood from some of the other things that could be there.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) agreed with Smith’s point and with the planning commission’s recommendation. She noted the rain garden feature and the stormwater management on site. She was pleased to support Knight’s Market, which she called an “iconic Ann Arbor institution.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) described Knight’s as a business that has shown support for the community, saying the family has a lot of history and integrity. He felt that the expansion helps business and jobs for Ann Arbor. Anglin felt that concerns about flooding are addressed by the topography of the area – as there are areas where the water can disappear along the railroad tracks.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, indicated he’d support it – because he felt that it legalizes what’s going on already. He acknowledged some of the reservations and concerns like truck traffic through the neighborhood, but said you can’t foresee every difficulty. He felt that it’s a solid project with solid people behind it.

Mayor John Hieftje said he understands the concern that Knight’s might not be there in the future, and that the zoning might allow a different owner to do something different. But as Smith had pointed out, he said, it’s a change for the better. He added that he hoped the Knight’s family would be there for a very long time.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved both the rezoning and the site plan for the Knight’s Market expansion.

Catherine Street Rezoning

The council was asked for initial approval of a rezoning request for a proposed three-story townhouse development with five housing units at 922-926 Catherine St. The rezoning request associated with the project had been recommended for approval at the July 17, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

The two vacant parcels are on the south side of Catherine between Ingalls and Glen, across from the University of Michigan School of Nursing building. The lots are located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district.

The development – which according to the owner, Tom Fitzsimmons, will be marketed to students, UM employees, young homebuyers, and empty nesters – entails rezoning the parcels from PUD (planned unit development) to R4C (multi-family residential). The PUD zoning is tied to a previous development that was approved but never built. The current site plan is contingent on approval from the city’s zoning board of appeals for variances from the conflicting land use buffer requirement. The two lots must also be combined as a condition before the city issues building permits.

Five garages would be part of the development, with nine parking spaces and bike storage located below the townhouses. A 24-foot-wide curb cut is proposed off Catherine Street for a driveway, which would run along the east side of the site leading to the garages.

The proposed building and site layout plans were approved by the Ann Arbor Historic District Commission on April 12, 2012. The planning commission also recommended approval of the variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals related to the conflicting land-use buffer requirement. That variance was later granted.

During public commentary at the planning commission’s meeting, several neighbors – including residents of the nearby Catherine Commons condominiums – spoke in support of the project. However, some of them raised concerns about backups in the stormwater system, which is already a problem along Catherine Street. Staff indicated that those issues are likely tied to design flaws on the site of Catherine Commons. Members of the development team told commissioners that an underground stormwater detention system on the site could improve the situation, and at the least would not make it worse.

Catherine Street Rezoning: Council Deliberations

At the council’s Sept. 4 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the discussion by asking why the city is only now rezoning the property back to R4C, if the PUD zoning approved in 1979 was not used to actually build the project.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Kunselman that the city has not historically gone back to rezone a property from PUD if the project was not built. Kunselman ventured that back in 1979, the economy had “kind of tanked.” Based on this experience, Kunselman wanted to know if Rampson though it would be a good idea get other PUD zoning “off the books” if the projects for which the zoning was established had not been built. As an example, he gave two North Main Street properties – the former St. Nicholas Church and the Near North project. To just let them sit doesn’t seem to make sense, he said.

Kunselman wanted to know who had initiated the rezoning of the Catherine Street property. Rampson described how the developer had been looking in the area for sites to build on, and identified the site. The developer felt it would be easier to develop under the R4C zoning. Rampson noted that until someone comes along and creates a site plan that fits the PUD zoning, nothing happens.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked if the project would be consistent with the R4C zoning that’s recommended in the report of a study committee that’s currently pending action by the planning commission. Rampson told Smith that it fit the current R4C zoning, except for a variance for a conflicting land-use buffer along the east side, which was granted by the zoning board of appeals. Smith pressed for an evaluation of the project against any recommended changes to the R4C zoning ordinance that are currently pending. Rampson responded by telling Smith that there’s not currently any new ordinance language, but rather just a report. City planning staff had not evaluated the project against that R4C study committee’s report, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the Catherine Street rezoning request.

Speedway Rezoning

The council was asked to give approval to a site plan and rezoning for a portion of a parcel at North Maple and Miller, which will allow for development of a Speedway gas station at that location. The site plan and the rezoning for the gas station had been recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its July 17, 2012 meeting.

The project is located at 1300 N. Maple on a 1.39-acre site. The rezoning request would change the zoning from PL (public land) to C3 (fringe commercial).

Speedway rezoning. The perimeter around the property’s east and north sides is zoned PL (public land) and is being rezoned to make clear that, although an easement exists, the responsibility for the property is the private owner’s.

The plan calls for demolishing an existing 1,500-square-foot vacant service station building, which was built in the 1950s, and constructing a new 3,968-square-foot, single-story gas station and convenience store with five pumps. The gasoline pumps will be covered by a 28-foot by 121-foot canopy. Fourteen parking spaces will be provided next to the convenience store, and six bicycle hoops will be located on the south side of the building, adjacent to a sidewalk leading to Miller.

According to a staff report, underground storage tanks have been removed and an environmental analysis of the site is underway. If any environmental contamination is found, the owner will be required to remediate the site to meet requirements of the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality.

The staff report states that the city’s traffic engineer has reviewed a revised landscaping plan and confirmed that traffic issues have been addressed and the site plan meets the requirements of Chapter 47 (Streets) of the city code.

The plan will preserve all existing trees within the 25 feet at the back of the property, an area that includes an existing 5-foot-wide pedestrian path. In addition, seven oak trees will be planted along the sides of the proposed building, and required landscaping within the site will be provided.

The portion of the parcel that’s subject to the rezoning request is a path that circles the property along the east and north sides.

Speedway Rezoning: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) began by saying he’d walked the easement often during his youth, so he was curious about the description in the staff report that said the city doesn’t own the easement. Who does own it? he wondered. City planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that the property is owned by Speedway. But there’s an easement that provides the public with the right to cross the property. That does not give the city the authority over the easement, she explained, and the private property owner has responsibility for maintenance. If the property owner set up a gate or bollards that prevented people from crossing the property, then the city could enforce the right of the public to have access.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Rampson to explain why the property had ever been zoned as PL (public land). Rampson indicated that by looking through the city’s files, planning staff had not been able to determine that. Every era has its own set of practices, however, and she felt that it’s possible that planning staff at the time thought that the PL zoning would send a message that the property was to be used by the public. Rampson said the city does things a bit differently now. She said if the council chose not to approve the rezoning, it wouldn’t change anything on a practical level. But she felt that it’s “cleaner” to make it clear that the land is owned by the private property owner and that maintenance is the responsibility of the owner.

When the council came to the item on the site plan for the Speedway station, Kunselman called it “exciting” and added that it’s the most development that the Miller and Maple area had seen in decades. The gas station was the center of the neighborhood at one time, he recalled. He hoped it would spur new additional development as well.

Outcome: The council approved the site plan on a unanimous vote. The council also gave initial approval to the rezoning request, which was initiated by city staff.

The rezoning issue will need to come back for a second and final approval, as all rezoning requests must. Rezoning of land is a change to the city’s ordinances, and because of that an initial vote of the council is required, followed by a public hearing and a second vote at a subsequent meeting.

Greenbelt Acquisitions

The city council had two items on its Sept. 4 agenda that had been previously recommended for approval by the greenbelt advisory commission. Both were for the purchase of development rights, and included grants from the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

The council was asked to approve $394,417 for the Robbin Alexander Trust farm in Webster Township. Of that amount, the city’s portion totaled $226,837 with the remaining $167,580 coming from the FRPP grant as a reimbursement. The greenbelt advisory commission had recommended approval of this deal at its June 7, 2012 meeting.

The 90-acre farm is located along Northfield Church Road in Webster Township. According to a staff memo, “the farm is considered large enough to sustain agricultural production and is in a location that will encourage additional farmland preservation activities. The property is surrounded by additional farmland that has been protected by the Greenbelt Program and Webster Township.” [.pdf map showing location of Alexander property]

The second item for consideration by the council was the purchase of development rights for the 136-acre Robert H. Schultz property located along Harris Road and Geddes Road in Superior Township. That deal totaled $523,567, including $294,247 from the city and $229,320 to be reimbursed to the city by an FRPP grant. Like the Alexander property, this land is also considered to be large enough for agricultural production and is located in an area that would encourage other farmland preservation. According to a staff memo, the property is surrounded by additional farmland that’s been protected by the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, Washtenaw County and the greenbelt program. [.pdf map showing location of Schultz property]

Eight votes are required to pass PDR deals.

Greenbelt Acquisitions: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that she supported greenbelt acquisitions that included local participation other than the city of Ann Arbor. She contended that often the city is paying more than half of the cost, however, with no other local participation. The two PDRs on the agenda that night were examples of that, she said.

There are only two funding sources associated with the two acquisitions, Lumm complained – the city of Ann Arbor and the federal government. There’s no other local participation, she said, which she called a lost opportunity. Saying she has raised concerns about the city’s share of funding in the past, she said she wouldn’t support the acquisitions on the agenda. In the past, she said, she’d supported such acquisitions even when she’d been uncomfortable. But for the items on that night’s agenda, she wouldn’t support them. She encouraged the greenbelt advisory commission to come forward with proposals that leverage the greenbelt dollars better, and that come closer to the original objective of the city’s share not being more than one-third of the total cost.

Mayor John Hieftje allowed that the ideal situation would be for the city to pay one-third of the cost and that this had been the discussion at the time of the millage campaign. He said the state of Michigan previously participated in such purchases, but with its financial difficulties, that state support has disappeared.

But for the most part, Hieftje continued, the city has paid about 50% of the cost. For some of the properties, the greenbelt advisory commission just feels they need to make a move, even though the financial arrangement might not be ideal. He observed that the federal FRPP grant was helping out with the purchases on the agenda that night, but it wasn’t known how many more years that program would exist. He described the map of greenbelt properties as starting to create a green “mushroom” that’s forming over the top of the city. The program is doing a whole lot of what voters in 2003 asked to be done, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that when millage dollars are used within the city, the city pays 100% of the cost, which Hieftje confirmed. Lumm responded by saying in those situations, city residents who are paying the millage were also getting 100% of the benefit – so she felt that was fine, because it’s fair to the taxpayers.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the greenbelt acquisitions, although he understands Lumm’s concerns. He pointed out that the people in the county who are not taxing themselves to support a greenbelt program still face a reduction in the taxes generated when development rights are acquired – so those communities are taking a hit, he concluded. He called it a “backdoor contribution” that those communities wind up making. He said it would be nice if there was a greater sharing of financial contribution. The whole point, he observed, is to acquire pieces together so there’s some semblance of a “belt,” and the properties on the agenda were adjacent to other properties.

Kunselman wondered, however, at what point the city has leveraged all the millage money. He noted that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) would not be serving as the city council’s appointee to the greenbelt advisory commission past November. [Hohnke chose not to seek another term on the council. He has attended only one of the greenbelt advisory commission's monthly meetings this year – in April.] At some point, Kunselman felt there should be a status report, so that the council understood how many more acres the commission felt that it could acquire.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt that Lumm’s position is well taken and there are times when more cooperation from other local entities would be preferable. Ultimately, though, the deals that the commission decides on are those they feel are best for the city, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) appreciated the utility of guidelines, but also had faith in the work done by staff and volunteers on the greenbelt advisory commission. He was satisfied that the properties on the agenda meet the goals of the program.

Outcome: In separate votes on the properties, the council approved the purchase of development rights on the two properties. Jane Lumm (Ward 3) dissented on both votes, which meant that the requirement of an eight-vote majority was exactly met. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.

Community Events Fund Allocation

The council was asked to award a total of $44,778 from the city’s community events fund to a total of 13 organizations. The largest amount given to any one organization was $25,000 to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival for its Top of the Park series, followed by $6,000 to the Ann Arbor Jaycees for their summer carnival and Fourth of July parade. In many cases, the allocation from the community events fund was awarded to cover costs assessed by the city – for street closures, for example.

Here’s the complete breakdown of awards: Ann Arbor Jaycees ($6,000 for the Summer Carnival and the Fourth of July Parade); Main Street Area Association ($1,000 for the Rolling Sculpture Car Show); Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau ($1,500 for the NJATC and UA block parties); Ann Arbor Council for Traditional Music and Dance ($578 for the Dancing in the Streets); Kerrytown BookFest ($1,000 for the Kerrytown BookFest); Arbor Brewing ($1,000 for the Oktoberfest); Hikone-Ann Arbor Educational Exchange Program ($2,000 for the Hikone Exchange); Michigan Takes Back the Night ($1,700 for 2013 Take Back the Night); University of Michigan Alice Lloyd Scholars Program ($2,000 for FoolMoon and FestiFools); Champions for Charity ($1,000 for the Big House Big Heart run); Main Street Area Association ($1,000 for the Taste of Ann Arbor); Ann Arbor Summer Festival ($25,000 for Top of the Park); and The Center of Light Ann Arbor ($1,000 for the 3rd Annual Ann Arbor Inner Peace Festival).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that this is an annual disbursement of funds and she felt it’s self-explanatory. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Teall to explain how the community events money gets into that fund. Teall said it’s general fund money. Mayor John Hieftje added that it’s money set aside every year to make sure that events happen to make the city a fun place to live. Teall noted that the amount of money that’s awarded has gotten smaller over the years. Hieftje added that the allocation covers expenses for things like barricades.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to make the community event fund allocations.

Hearing Set on Barracuda Tax Abatement

The third of four steps associated with a tax abatement for Barracuda Networks was considered by the council – setting a hearing on the tax abatement for Oct. 1, 2012.

The council had previously set a hearing on the establishment of an industrial development district (Michigan’s Act 198 of 1974) at 317 Maynard St. in downtown Ann Arbor and voted to establish that district at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting. That set up the opportunity for Barracuda Networks to apply for a tax abatement as it moves from its current location on Depot Street to the downtown site. [.jpg of parcel map showing 317 Maynard] [.jpg of aerial photo showing 317 Maynard]

Barracuda is a computer network security company. On its application for the abatement, expected to be worth $85,000, Barracuda indicates that it currently has 155 employees who will be retained due to the abatement. The firm expects to add 144 employees by July 1, 2014. The property on which Barracuda is requesting the abatement ranges from cubicles and desk chairs to telephone network equipment and wiring.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to set the public hearing for Barracuda’s tax abatement.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Pedestrian Access

Kathy Griswold recognized that the council had a resolution on its agenda to accept an easement [at no cost to the city] on a parcel on the northeast corner of Liberty Street and Maple Road.

Easement at Maple and Liberty mentioned by Kathy Griswold during public commentary. Easement drawing superimposed on aerial photo by The Chronicle.

She noted that a sidewalk leading from a four-way stop to King Elementary School would not require an easement. [Construction of a sidewalk would allow moving the mid-block crosswalk to the four-way stop. It's a topic on which Griswold has addressed the city council many times in the past.] She also called for a review of the city’s crosswalk ordinance by an professional engineer. Included in the review, she said, should also be ordinances involving sight lines.

Comm/Comm: Public Art

Libby Hunter delivered her commentary in the form of a song, which has become her preferred way to address the council. She prefaced her performance by recalling “blue-light specials” at Kmart. That served as a play on the blue lights that are intended as an artistic feature of a fountain designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl. Dreiseitl’s fountain, located in front of city hall, was the first of the projects approved by Ann Arbor’s public art commission. The melody was taken from “Midnight Special,” which has been recorded by a number of artists. Hunter’s version featured lyrics derisive of mayor John Hieftje: “If you ever go to Portland, you see the Dreiseitl Park; mayor Hieftje had to have one, fix was in from the start.”

Hieftje didn’t comment on Hunter’s song during the council communication time following public commentary, but responded a couple of hours later at the end of the meeting. He said that people can say whatever they want at public commentary regardless of whether it’s true. He said he’d never visited Portland, and had never heard of Dreiseitl until his name was mentioned by the public art commission.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Energy

Kermit Schlansker addressed the council on the topic of sustainable energy. He characterized GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s energy plan as “drill and burn,” while president Barack Obama’s plan was “too little too late.” He contended that Europe uses half the energy that the United States does. A first step would be to move poor people into low-energy-use apartment buildings on tillable land, he said.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Housing

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) alerted her council colleagues that for the Sept. 17 meeting, she’d be introducing a resolution to direct proceeds of city-owned land sales, to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The final details are still being worked on, she said. Smith said she was “disheartened” by the city’s current ability to provide affordable housing, especially in light of the recent failure of the Near North project.

The policy has a long history dating back to 1996. The policy of directing proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund was rescinded by the council in 2007. More detailed background is provided in previous Chronicle coverage: “City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy.”

Comm/Comm: Student Conduct

City administrator Steve Powers gave a brief report on activity over the weekend, with University of Michigan students moving back into the city. The Ann Arbor police department issued 112 citations from Thursday through Sunday – for minor in possession, noise, open intoxicants in public and other ordinance violations, he said. AAPD had staffed extra officers using overtime. That staffing pattern would continue for football Saturdays through the fall, Powers concluded.

Comm/Comm: Limousines or Taxis

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) serves as the council’s appointee to the taxicab board. He’d noticed two cases of companies operating in Ann Arbor recently that are known to be limousine companies but that are advertising themselves as taxis. This is not supposed to happen, he said – there’s an ordinance against it. He asked his colleagues to pass along their observations. He said he’d be taking up the issue with the city attorney’s office to look at enforcement against companies that are flouting the city’s taxicab ordinance.

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

Absent: Carsten Hohnke, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Monday, Sept. 17, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor city council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]