Warpehoski had sponsored the item along with mayor John Hieftje, with the title “Resolution to List for Sale 415 W. Washington and Appropriate Funds for Allen Creek Greenway Master Plan.”

As of mid-day Friday, July 18, no text or memo was included in the resolution. Warpehoski responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle by saying that the resolution might be pulled, depending on the outcome of a meeting of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy on July 18. [The agenda item was later updated with text. The amount to be allocated for the master planning effort was $250,000.]

On July 19, however, Warpehoski announced that he’d be withdrawing the resolution. An excerpt from the comment he left on The Chronicle’s meeting preview article reads as follows:

At the request of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy Board, I am withdrawing the resolution from the Council agenda.

The resolution to fund the creation of a greenway master plan and development of the greenway through the sale of the non-floodway portion of 415 W. Washington was developed in partnership with Bob Galardi, chair of the Greenway Conservancy, and Jonathan Bulkley, chair of the Greenway Roundtable.

Bob and Jonathan had discussed the potential resolution with the Conservancy board. They found some initial support from the board. At their meeting on July 18, the Conservancy Board reviewed the final resolution, but were not able to come to agreement to support the resolution at this time. As the conservancy does not have clarity in supporting the resolution, I am withdrawing it. From the beginning, the my approach to this was that if the Conservancy was supportive then we could bring it forward. If the conservancy was not in support then we would not move forward in this way.

The city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel is highlighted in yellow.

Warpehoski indicated to The Chronicle that one reason a master plan for the greenway is important is that the lack of such a plan hurt the city’s application for funding from the state of Michigan to support renovations to the 721 N. Main property. The city did not receive the state grant after applying for it in early 2013.

In addition, Warpehoski wrote, there’s an opportunity to partner with the University of Michigan and a class taught by Larissa Larsen, a professor of urban and regional planning and natural resources. Such a partnership would reduce costs of the planning effort.

The idea of funding work on a master plan for the Allen Creek greenway was discussed most recently at the June 16, 2014 council meeting, in the context of a resolution that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had brought forward that would have jump-started an effort to redesign Liberty Plaza at the corner of Division and Liberty streets. Taylor’s resolution would have appropriated $23,577 for the work, which was to have included input from a variety of stakeholders, including adjacent property owners.

That resolution was ultimately referred by the council to the park advisory commission (PAC). At PAC’s July 15 meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to advocate for an integrated approach to the “library block,” which includes Liberty Plaza. But PAC postponed discussion related to Liberty Plaza and the council resolution, as only five of nine voting members were present. Taylor is an ex officio non-voting member of PAC, but had not discussed the resolution at previous PAC meetings. He attended PAC’s July 15 meeting.

The June 16 council meeting discussion featured the following exchange between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Hieftje, recorded in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting:

10:15 p.m. Kunselman asks if this means that Liberty Plaza would jump ahead of developing a master plan for the Allen Creek Greenway. Hieftje says that if Kunselman can be a bit patient, there will be a master plan proposed soon.

10:18 p.m. Hieftje says that an Allen Creek Greenway master plan might be prepared before the end of the budget year. Kunselman asks if there’d been any council direction to start any of the activity that Hieftje has described. Yes, Hieftje says, there was a resolution involving 415 W. Washington. Kunselman reiterates the fact that staff has not been directed specifically to develop a greenway master plan. He’s reiterating the lack of resources for park planning. There are 157 parks in the city and he wonders why Liberty Plaza has become the most important one. Kunselman will support the referral to PAC.

If the council had directed the 415 W. Washington property to be listed for sale, it would have been be the third downtown city-owned property to be listed for sale in the last year and a half. The council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a broker for the old Y lot at Fifth and William at its March 4, 2013 meeting. And on Nov. 18, 2013, the council authorized the sale of the lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

And the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting to confirm its earlier decision to direct the city administrator to list the development rights for the top of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. On July 1, city administrator Steve Powers notified the council that he’d selected CBRE to market and broker the sale of the development rights.

The 415 W. Washington parcel is currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system, which has averaged about $18,000 in revenue per month, or about $216,000 a year over the last two years. The parcel also includes several buildings that previously served as the road commission facility and the city maintenance yard. A study commissioned by the city of the property concluded that the cost of stabilizing and renovating all of the buildings could be as high as $6 million. [.pdf of Aug. 29, 2013 report] That study came after the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios had stepped forward with an interest in the possible renovation and reuse of the building as artist studio space. For additional background on that, see “City Council Parcels Out Tasks: Open Space.”

Ultimately the city moved toward demolishing the buildings. The city administrator’s proposed FY 2015 budget included $300,000 for the demolition of the buildings, but the council amended out that allocation during its deliberations on May 19, 2014:

1:40 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition. This proposal will simply eliminate general fund support for demolition of the city-owned buildings at 415 W. Washington. [Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin]

1:54 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman, Taylor and Warpehoski.

Two pieces of land immediately adjacent to 415 W. Washington have been in the news recently. At their July 1, 2014 meeting, city planning commissioners approved The Mark condo project for the parcel on Liberty Street where a car wash is currently located. The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units.

And at the July 2, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, it was announced that the final site recommendation for a downtown stop for the WALLY rail line is for the east side of the railroad tracks between Liberty and Washington streets – opposite of where the former city maintenance yard was located at 415 W. Washington. It was reported at that meeting that it would not be a full station. Rather, it would be a platform with canopies and a ramp to Washington Street to the north and a sidewalk connection to the south onto Liberty. The stop would be built entirely within the railroad right-of-way – and there would be no taking of public or private property. The site would be contingent on the WALLY project moving forward.

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

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.]

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!

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.

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. 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. [.jpg of map showing the task force's recommendations]

They 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 authorized at its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. The physical testing is supposed to be completed by May 31. , which coincides with the application deadline for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant.

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.

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]

Chart showing projected greenhouse gas emissions if the city of Ann Arbor does nothing, compared to enacting steps outlined in the climate action plan, which was adopted by the city council at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

The council approved two grant applications for future development of at least part of the city-owned property at 721 N. Main St. as a park. It’s seen as an element of a future Allen Creek greenway that would arc northward along the railroad tracks, starting from the East Stadium bridges to the Huron River. The applications were for unspecified amounts from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) and the Washtenaw County parks & recreation Connecting Communities program. Last year the city received two $300,000 grants from the MNRTF – for the future skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park, and for renovations to the boating facilities at Gallup Park.

The current grant applications came in the general context of an initial recommendation made by a council-appointed task force that has been meeting since the summer. That task force has a much broader geographic charge, which includes the North Main corridor, extending eastward to the Huron River and over to the MichCon property. The task force is due to make recommendations to the council on that broader area by the summer of 2013. However, the group was asked to weigh-in specifically on the 721 N. Main property by the end of this year – because of the grant application deadlines.

The North Main task force had been appointed at the same May 7, 2012 meeting when the council had heard from representatives of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios on the physical survey work necessary for another city-owned property – at 415 W. Washington. At least part of that property is also envisioned as part of a future Allen Creek greenway. After appropriating $50,000 for physical testing at its July 16, 2012 meeting, the council on Dec. 17 allocated another $32,583 after bids came back.

In addition to green space, the council’s Dec. 17 agenda included two “green” resolutions – one that adopted a climate action plan and the other calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Air Act. Ann Arbor’s climate action plan calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 8% by 2015, 25% by 2025, and 90% by 2050. The reductions are compared to baseline levels measured in the year 2000. The action steps identified in the climate action plan are divided into four main categories: energy and buildings; land use and access; resource management; community and health. Those categories align with the city’s sustainability framework. The plan is also coordinated with a similar effort by the University of Michigan.

Other business handled by the council included another request to the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office in connection with stormwater infrastructure for a street reconstruction project. The petition requested an application for $1.4 million in low-interest loans for a three-year project in the Platt-Packard neighborhood. Also connected to bricks-and-mortar infrastructure was an additional allocation of about $148,000 for the 2012 sidewalk repair and ramp installation program – the first year of a five-year cycle, corresponding to a millage approved by voters in 2011. The total mount of the 2012 sidewalk program was about $965,000.

The council also gave its recommendation to grant a micro brewer license to Biercamp Artisan Sausage & Jerky, a retail shop located at 1643 S. State St.

Initial approval was given by the council for a revision to the city’s ordinance regulating parking on front lawns. The change will make it easier to make arrangements for events other than University of Michigan football games.

And the council approved a $90,000 project budget that will allow for documents to be submitted digitally to the planning and development department. The project includes a public kiosk for reviewing plans.

The council also heard its typical range of public commentary, with topics including pedestrian safety, towing, and Palestinian rights.

721 N. Main Grants

The city-owned parcel at 721 N. Main was the subject of two grant applications the council was asked to consider. One application was for a Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant. The other was to the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission’s Connecting Communities program.

The city considers its proposal for 721 N. Main to be a strong candidate for the Connecting Communities grant, because it incorporates paths and trails through the site that could potentially be extended to connect to the cross-county Border-to-Border Trail.

The conceptual site plan includes the following: (1) open space on the floodway portion of the site; (2) using the floodway portion of the site for stormwater management; (3) making a trail connection from Felch and Summit streets to encourage future connections to the Border‐to‐Border Trail, by looping a trail through the site; (4) areas not identified as lawn, stormwater management, or other use are assumed to be a native prairie-type landscape; (5) interpretive elements will be included; (6) parking is proposed to be provided off Summit, outside of the floodplain – parking is prohibited in the floodway; and (7) recommendations for future use of the existing building will be based on additional research.

A conceptual site plan for 721 N. Main St. The top of this image is oriented west.

The recommendation to apply for the grants stems from the work of a task force appointed by the city council at its May 7, 2012 meeting, to study an area much broader than just the 721 N. Main site. The larger area includes the North Main corridor, extending to the Huron River and including the MichCon property. The connections from 721 N. Main to the Border-to-Border Trail might be given a clearer vision when the task force delivers its recommendation to the city council in the summer of 2013. The task force was asked to provide a recommendation on the 721 N. Main site earlier than that, due to grant application deadlines.

The Connecting Communities grant application is due by the end of the year, while the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Grant is due April 1, 2013. Historically, Ann Arbor has competed successfully for the statewide grants, last year receiving two MNRTF grants, each for $300,000. One was for renovations to the Gallup Park boating facilities, and the other was for the skatepark to be built in Veterans Memorial Park. Construction on the skatepark is expected to begin in the spring of 2013.

Since 1976, the MNRTF has awarded about $0.4 billion statewide. Of that, about $19 million (4.4%) has been awarded to projects in Washtenaw County. Of the projects in Washtenaw County, those in the city of Ann Arbor have received $6.4 million (32.3%). [.jpg of pie chart of statewide NRTF allocations by county] [.jpg of pie chart of countywide NRTF allocations by jurisdiction]

721 N. Main Grants: Public Comment

Bob Galardi thanked councilmembers for their service. He introduced himself as the president of Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. He supported the grant applications. The grant money would enable transformation of the floodway portion of the 721 N. Main property into a segment of the Allen Creek greenway, he said. The conservancy considers the 721 N. Main project as a first step to create the greenway, he continued – from the newly reconstructed bridges at East Stadium and South State north to the Huron River. It’s consistent with a prior city council resolution [Aug. 15, 2012] indicating the floodway portions of the 721 N. Main site should be a part of a future greenway.

Alice Ralph and Bob Galardi sat in the audience before the city council’s Dec. 17 meeting started. Both addressed the council in support of the 721 N. Main resolutions. Ralph focused on the city’s climate action plan and also talked about the role of the city’s 415 W. Washington site. Both are board members of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. (Photos by the writer.)

The development of the 721 N. Main site will be integral in connecting the existing Border-to-Border Trail to downtown Ann Arbor, Galardi said. The branch will be a key element in the development of the greenway’s master plan. After the work is done on the 721 N. Main property, he said, it would be a real and inspiring place for people to experience the greenway. And that experience people have will generate support for future greenway work. Among the benefits Galardi listed for the greenway were: space for safe, off-street non-motorized traffic; recreational space; a connector to great commercial and residential offerings; responsible floodway management; and economic benefits.

721 N. Main Grants: Council Deliberations

During communications time, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) began the deliberations on the resolutions concerning the grant applications. He traced people’s interest in the idea of a greenway back to the 1970s. It’s moving slowly, but it’s still moving forward and has momentum, he said.

When the council reached the items on the agenda, mayor John Hieftje added some background on the 415 W. Washington city-owned site, which had been the focus for a couple of years of work by the greenway and arts communities. Out of that work came the idea of trying to start with the city-owned 721 N. Main site. He said that the 721 N. Main site was more likely to win a grant from the Natural Resources Trust Fund.

Hieftje pointed out the connection to the rest of the county through the potential to Border-to-Border Trail. It’s an important step toward realizing the dream of the greenway, he said. He indicated that next year he hoped that 415 W. Washington would be the next candidate for development as part of the greenway.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) represents the council on the park advisory commission (PAC) – noted that PAC had been fully briefed and is in support of the applications. [See Chronicle coverage: "Grant Applications Recommended for 721 N. Main."]

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked how much money the city was applying for. Hieftje indicated that it would be $300,000 from the Natural Resources Trust Fund. Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, was less specific, saying that the budget for the project was still being estimated. He described how the Connecting Communities grant would be used to provide matching funds for the Natural Resources Trust Fund.

Outcome: The council approved the two grant applications on two separate unanimous votes.

415 W. Washington Study – More Funds

The council was asked to authorize an additional $32,583 for the study of the city-owned property at 415 W. Washington from the general fund balance reserve. The authorization included contracts with Tetra Tech Geo for $44,498 (environmental investigation) and Rueter & Associates for $26,935 (historic structure assessment).

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.

The council received a presentation at its May 7, 2012 meeting from representatives of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios on the physical survey work. The 555 group has assumed responsibility for the art community’s component of an initiative established by the city council on Feb. 1, 2010 to explore a collaboration between the greenway and art communities for adaptive reuse of the property. The 555 group stepped in when the Arts Alliance could no longer devote staff time to the project. Prior to that initiative, the city had gone through an RFP (request for proposals) process for the property that did not lead to the selection of any of the three proposals that were submitted.

415 W. Washington: Public Commentary

Alice Ralph introduced herself as a Ward 3 resident on East Stadium. She was speaking as an individual, but noted she serves on the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy board of directors. She was there to support the two resolutions that she described as steps toward a more sustainable Ann Arbor: adoption of the climate action plan, and the additional expenditure of money to do testing on the 415 W. Washington site.

The climate action plan demonstrates community support for meeting the challenges of climate change, she said. It includes reducing energy consumption, diversifying our energy and transportation choices, and improving the performance of existing and new housing stock, among other goals.

The work on the 415 W. Washington site will complete work that’s preliminary to the development of the floodway portion of the site, she noted. The investigations will also facilitate the dispositions of the buildings, which are mostly on non-floodway properties.

Both are good steps for a sustainable Ann Arbor, Ralph said, and they fit nicely together with the grant applications for 721 N. Main.

415 W. Washington: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje noted that because the resolution altered the city budget, the vote required an eight-vote majority, and that’s how many councilmembers were present. [Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4), and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she felt that taking funds from the general fund balance should be infrequent. However, she felt that in this case it was appropriate.

Hieftje concurred with Lumm, saying no matter what happens to the buildings [rehabbing or demolition] the information is needed.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the additional allocation for testing and study of the 415 W. Washington site.

Climate Action Plan, Clean Air Act

The council was asked to adopt a climate action plan for the city.

Also at the meeting, the council considered a separate resolution that urges the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Air Act. A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case gave the EPA the authority to regulate emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants – such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).

Ann Arbor’s climate action plan calls for a reduction in GHG emissions of 8% by 2015, 25% by 2025, and 90% by 2050. The reductions are compared to baseline levels measured in the year 2000. The action steps identified in the climate action plan are divided into four main categories: energy and buildings; land use and access; resource management; and community and health. Those categories align with the city’s sustainability framework. The plan is also coordinated with a similar effort by the University of Michigan.

Examples of the 84 separate individual actions include: weatherizing existing housing stock; creating a program that provides incentives to employees and residents who choose to live within two miles of their job; increasing residential and commercial greywater use; and implementing a community net-zero energy home building/renovation contest. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, adoption of the climate action plan does not commit the city to expenditures or other obligations.

The climate action plan was recommended for adoption by the city planning commission at its Nov. 20, 2012 meeting. It had also been recommended by the city’s energy and environmental commissions. The energy commission had initiated the project, forming a task force in August 2011 to develop the plan.

Climate Action, Clean Air: Public Comment

Susan Hutton spoke in support of adopting the climate action plan, noting that she serves on the city’s environmental commission. The city’s task is to lead by example, she said, providing residents and businesses with resources they need to achieve the city’s goals. She encouraged the council to adopt and implement the action steps in the plan. The city itself only generates 3% of the greenhouse gas emissions of the community, she said. The rest comes from residents, businesses and the University of Michigan.

So even if the city “knocks every one of its goals out of the park,” Hutton said, if the rest of us don’t do our share, the plan’s goals won’t be met. We need to understand what we ourselves need to do, she said. The plan indicates a 90% reduction by 2050, she noted. Hutton said she needs to know what she should do to help achieve that 90% goal. She asked if every resident adopting a home composting program would be enough, or if we’d need to put solar arrays on our roofs, or replace our cars with electric vehicles. She mentioned a report that suggested that global temperatures could rise by as much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. She raised the possibility that extreme weather events could become more frequent. She compared the cost of investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the clean-up costs from a major storm.

Wayne Appleyard introduced himself as the current chair of the city’s energy commission. He urged councilmembers to vote for the adoption of the climate action plan – saying that he was hoping for a unanimous vote. He noted that the plan is a lengthy document, which includes 84 separate actions. Climate change is real and it’s happening now, he said, and we need to do what we can now to limit its impact. He quoted from David Orr, a professor of environmental studies at Oberlin College, in support of the idea that “climate change” isn’t a strong enough term, saying that “climate destabilization” is more appropriate:

The capacity and apparent willingness of humankind to destabilize the climate conditions that made civilization possible is the issue of our time; all others pale by comparison. Beyond some unknown threshold of irreversible and irrevocable changes driven by carbon cycle feedbacks, climate destabilization will lead to a war of all against all, a brutal scramble for food, water, dry land, and safety. Sheer survival will outweigh every other consideration of decency, order, and mutual sympathy. Climate destabilization will amplify other problems caused by population growth, global poverty, the spread of weapons of mass destruction…

Appleyard noted that approving the plan doesn’t commit the council to any expenditures.

Clean Air: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the Clean Air Act resolution came from the environmental commission (EC). He and the resolution’s co-sponsor, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), serve as the city council’s representatives to that body. Warpehoski said the EC had been looking at the issue for quite some time. Ann Arbor would be joining communities across the county to ask the Obama administration to use the authority it has under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.

He characterized the resolution and the climate action plan, which the council had later on its agenda, as additional steps in a long history of actions that Ann Arbor is taking. But Ann Arbor recognizes that a global problem like climate change is more than the city can handle on its own. National and international leadership is required, he said, as well as local leadership.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) ventured that another “resolved” clause would be useful to direct the city administrator to forward the resolution to someone in the federal government. Warpehoski felt that the resolution didn’t necessarily need such a clause, but allowed that it’d be helpful to have one.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that some standard language could be added on a friendly basis, without requiring a vote. Hieftje said he was happy to see the resolution and to vote for it. “Every little bit helps,” he said. He hoped that the elected representatives to Congress from this area would pay attention to the resolution, as would perhaps someone at the EPA.

Outcome: The resolution on the Clean Air Act was unanimously approved.

Climate Action: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he felt the people who’d spoken during public commentary had explained it very well – representatives from the environmental commission and the energy commission. It’s been talked about by those commissions and it was now before the council, he said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed her support for the plan, which sets a lot of targets. She thought it’s appropriate to set those goals. But she cautioned that the challenge will be in the plan’s implementation, which will require balancing trade-offs of the multiple priorities of city government. She was encouraged to see the mid-range goal of 25% reduction, which was aligned with the University of Michigan’s goal. The aggressive target of 90% would require implementation of almost all of the more than 80 actions, she observed. That would require large investments from various organizations, including residents and taxpayers.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm asked city environmental coordinator Matt Naud to answer some questions. She noted that after the council’s work session on the issue, she’d asked about the cost implications. She asked Naud to explain how the costs and benefits are calculated for the CO2 reductions – saying that some of the dollar amounts are negative. Naud explained that some of the actions can be implemented without spending any money, so that meant the carbon reduction cost is negative. If you invest in energy efficiency, it can pay for itself, he said. Certain items will cost something, he said.

The city will continue to evaluate where the opportunities are, Naud said. The city is in discussions with utility companies, which want to install solar photovoltaics, potentially on city property. That could generate cash for the city, which could be re-invested in additional installations that could be used for the city’s own energy needs. As the market changes, Naud said, the city would continue to monitor things so sensible investments could be made to meet the goals in the climate action plan.

Responding to another question from Lumm, Naud described the next step as going back to work with the energy commission and staff to talk about which steps will give the city “the biggest bang for the buck” in the immediate future. Whatever is developed as a proposal would be brought back for approval by the city council, he said.

Responding to further questions from Lumm, Naud explained that “no regrets” steps are “things we would do anyway,” which would have significant climate benefits. For example, Naud said, $250 million is spent citywide on natural gas electricity – and about 10% of that could be saved with caulk. If the University of Michigan is $110 million of that, that’s $140 million for businesses and residents. So saving 10% would translate into putting $14 million back into the local economy, Naud concluded. But that is also a huge greenhouse gas reduction, he said. So that’s a “no regrets” option, whether you believe in climate change or not, he said.

It’s also important to integrate the most recent climate science, Naud said. He mentioned the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments as having some of the smartest climate scientists in the country. But they don’t necessarily understand the questions a municipality might have. As an example, he said that the city builds the stormwater system to handle a 10-year storm. Or the floodplain is regulated to contend with a 100-year storm. The city needs to know what a 100-year storm looks like in 2025, Naud said. So it’s important to work with climate scientists to make clear those specific information needs.

Hieftje reminded the council that in 2005 he’d made a green energy challenge, which called for the city to achieve 15% renewable energy by 2010. The energy commission had increased that target to 20%, he said. That target had been missed by a bit, he said, but had been achieved by 2011. He noted that conservation was the city’s key strategy. The next challenge, he said, would be to get residents citywide involved in the effort.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the adoption of the climate action plan.

Stormwater Petition: Springwater

The council was asked to authorize a request of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to apply $1.45 million in state revolving fund loans. It’s part of a street reconstruction project in the Springwater subdivision – with an overall project cost of $5.17 million.

The general location of the area is Platt and Packard roads. Streets that are part of the project include Nordman Road, Butternut Street, Springbrook Avenue, and Redwood Avenue.

The street reconstruction will use a traditional asphalt surface, but the management of stormwater will be achieved through oversized stormwater pipes. Construction is expected to start in late 2013 and will last three years. Sanitary sewer issues will also be addressed as part of the project.

Reimbursement from the city’s stormwater fund to the office of the water resources commissioner will be in installments of $88,677 per year. This petition made by Ann Arbor to the water resources commissioner comes after the council’s approval of three similar petitions, for other areas of the city, at its Dec. 3, 2012 meeting.

Outcome: The council approved the petition without discussion.

More Money Approved for Sidewalk Repair

The council was asked to authorize another $147,962 for repair of sidewalks and construction of ramps in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The vote to approve the change order brought the total contract with Doan Construction Co. for the 2012 program to $964,991. [.pdf of map showing areas where work was done]

The funding source being tapped is the sidewalk repair millage, which was approved by voters in November 2011.

Outcome: The council approved the authorization without discussion.

Micro Brewer License for Biercamp

The council was asked to consider a recommendation that Biercamp Artisan Sausage & Jerky, a retail shop located at 1643 S. State St., be granted a micro brewer liquor license.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Biercamp intends to brew small batches of beer in growlers for off-site consumption to complement their artisan meats. A micro brewer license limits the amount of beer produced to no more than 30,000 barrels per year. A barrel is 31 gallons.

The owners of Biercamp had previously hoped for a rezoning of the parcel to allow for the sale of more products not manufactured on site. That rezoning request was ultimately denied by the city council at its Feb. 21, 2012 meeting.

Biercamp: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted at the council’s Dec. 10 planning session, the topic of increased economic development had been discussed. The recommendation of the micro brewer license was an example of facilitating economic development, he said. He observed that Biercamp was not asking for a subsidy.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2)

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he’d support the recommendation for a micro brewer license, adding that if Biercamp’s beer is as good as their jerky and sausage, he couldn’t wait to try it. Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who serves on the council’s liquor license review committee, noted that the application indicates Biercamp will be brewing “small batches,” and ventured that it sounded like something everyone will want to check out.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked if anyone knew what a “growler” is – it had been mentioned in the staff memo. Mayor John Hieftje explained that it’s a container for beer. [A standard size is a half-gallon.] Hieftje offered a description of Ann Arbor residents of German heritage, who in the past would order a pail of beer to take home.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to recommend Biercamp for the micro brewer license.

More Front Yard Parking

The council was asked to consider a more flexible local ordinance regulating the ability of residents to park cars in their front yards.

The change in local law, if given final approval at a future council meeting, would allow the city council to establish “special event dates” for temporary front open space parking. The current ordinance allows people to use their front yards for parking for University of Michigan football games. The ordinance change includes a provision explicitly to include “scrimmages,” which will accommodate the annual spring game.

The ordinance change was motivated part by the possibility that UM football stadium events might in the future not necessarily be restricted to football games. For example, a National Hockey League game, between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs, had been scheduled for Jan. 1, 2013 at Michigan Stadium. It was canceled earlier this year due to ongoing labor disputes between the NHL and its players’ association.

The city planning commission recommended approval of the change at its Nov. 7, 2012 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted, without deliberations, to give the ordinance changes initial approval. Final approval will come at a future meeting after a public hearing.

Digital Plan Submission Software/Hardware

The council was asked to authorize a $61,000 contract with CRW Systems Inc. in a total project budget of $90,000 for implementing a digital system to submit plans to the city’s planning and development department. The budget includes a kiosk for public viewing of documents and large-screen monitors.

During deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she felt that the switch to digital plan submission made sense, but wondered if there’d been any resistance from those who have to submit plans. City planning manager Wendy Rampson described it as actually quite a “hassle” for people to put the plans in paper form. The city has heard from some people that they’d prefer the city not post AutoCAD files – out of concerns for proprietary information. Files in .pdf form should be adequate, she said, and that format also gives citizens better access.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked if there were specific cost savings associated with the change. Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, gave as an example that when the city planning staff makes comments on drawings, someone has to transcribe the comments onto another set of drawings – which is a manual process with paper drawings, he explained. If a project undergoes 2-3 reviews, someone has to do it over and over. With this software the council was authorizing, he explained, you type it once and it’s done. Another example he gave was that for commercial buildings, the drawings have to be available for the life of the structure. By changing to a digital format, much less space will be required for the physical storage of the drawings.

Outcome: The council approved the digital plan submission item on a unanimous vote.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Video Surveillance

During communications time at the end of the meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) alerted other councilmembers to an ordinance that he and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) would be bringing forward to regulate the use of video surveillance.

Left to right: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and city administrator Steve Powers share a laugh before the Dec. 17 meeting started.

Warpehoski said that the Ann Arbor police department doesn’t currently use that technique, but there’d been some concerns in other communities. So the city’s human rights commission had been working to craft a legal framework that respects privacy concerns. The city’s legal staff is still putting the final touches on the ordinance language, he said.

By way of additional background, former Ward 1 councilmember Sandi Smith had announced at a council meeting over a year ago, on Aug. 4, 2011, that she’d be bringing a video surveillance ordinance for consideration at the council’s Sept. 6, 2011 meeting. And a year before that she’d indicated the human rights commission would be working on the issue.

Comm/Comm: Towing

During communications time at the end of the meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said that after the council had enacted a revision to the city’s towing ordinance – which makes it more straightforward for cars to be towed that are being stored on city streets without being moved – he’d heard from constituents with a question: What happens when I go on vacation?

Warpehoski reported that Ann Arbor chief of police John Seto had advised him and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) that residents can contact the community standards department before leaving to alert the department of their planned vacation. Community standards employees would then either not ticket or delay the enforcement cycle. He compared it to asking the post office to hold your mail.

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, a different type of towing was discussed – when someone parks in a private lot that has a contract with a towing company. Lon Cooke told the council he’d built a house and moved into the area about a year and half ago. [After the meeting, Cooke told The Chronicle he'd moved from North Dakota, to be near family.] He lives on Scio Church Road, west of Zeeb Road, he said, and he often comes into town to go to the market and to shop. He described a recent visit to Kerrytown and to Treasure Mart, when he’d parked in a vacant lot.

After about 15 minutes, Cooke’s car was towed. He didn’t know who had towed the car or who to contact. Eventually they learned that Glen-Ann Towing had towed it. He had to go to the Glen-Ann office to pay the charges: $120 for the towing; $65 for the jacks; a $7 surcharge; a $40 release fee and $30 administrative fees; and $20 for storage. That was $282 that had to be paid in cash, he reported. So he had to go to an ATM. The driver of the wrecker, he said, told him there’s a “fleet of wreckers” from that firm and another firm that patrolled the area targeting potential cars that could be towed. He characterized it as a predatory situation. Cooke indicated he wouldn’t come downtown to Ann Arbor to shop until the situation is rectified.

Comm/Comm: Crosswalk Behavior

During communications time at the end of the meeting, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said she was happy to receive an email from city administrator Steve Powers about enforcement of the crosswalk ordinance near schools. If a community can’t take care of its children, nothing really matters, she said.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Michael Benson spoke about the issue of pedestrian behavior at crosswalks. Based on his observations at the rapid flashing beacons that the city has installed along Plymouth Road, when pedestrians activate the beacons, the signals immediately begin flashing – there’s no delay between activation and flashing, he said. That led to pedestrians entering the crosswalk immediately, assuming they could cross safely. He suggested that the blinking be delayed slightly after activation, which might cause pedestrians to pause before entering the cross walk.

And Kathy Griswold used the council’s agenda item on the approval of the $148,000 for the sidewalk program as an occasion to advocate for a range of pedestrian safety issues. She asked the council to balance out its funding for transit. Transit begins at the sidewalk, she said, not at the railroad tracks or the bus stop. If we want people to use transit, she said, then non-motorized transportation funding needs to be provided. She’d just attended a meeting about the non-motorized transportation plan review. She had reviewed the proposed update of the plan for 2012 and reported that “I have to say, I’m incensed. I’m so angry.” She was angry because the funding mechanism identified is Safe Routes to School, she said. Ann Arbor is a wealthy community – with money to plan for buses and trains. So she said “it’s time we thought about our children.” Some children are walking in the dark to school without sidewalks, she said.

She questioned the appropriateness of using “Pedestrians Rule” as a motto in educational material, because they don’t rule, she said. She felt the use of such material was a result of excluding traffic and transportation engineers from participation in the development of such material. She contended that signage at crosswalks is inconsistent with the crosswalk ordinance. [The signs admonish motorists to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. That's what Ann Arbor's ordinance requires. It also requires that motorists stop and "yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk."] Griswold also complained that the city is not enforcing sight-distance ordinances at crosswalks.

Comm/Comm: Palestinian Rights

Henry Herskovitz reported that he’d read in December’s Washtenaw Jewish News an article with the headline: “Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice condemns synagogue protests.” [.pdf of WJN article] [Herskovitz participates in the weekly demonstrations near the Beth Israel Congregation. Ward 5 councilmember Chuck Warpehoski is the executive director of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice.]

In a previous issue of the Jewish News, Henry Brysk had criticized Warpehoski, who was then a candidate for city council, calling him a “‘nuanced anti-Zionist’ as if that’s a bad thing,” Herskovitz said. Herskovitz quoted from the piece by Brysk: “The ICPJ has refused to condemn the Herskovite harassment of Beth Israel Congregation …” Herskovitz indicated that he felt there’s a cause-and-effect relationship between the Brysk’s criticism of Warpehoski and the ICPJ’s condemnation of the demonstrations. [.pdf of Brysk's letter in WJN, published in the summer 2012 issue]

Herskovitz stated that it was unfortunate that the Jewish community in Ann Arbor wielded more power than its relative percentage of the population. Herskovitz drew a comparison of cause-and-effect from eight years ago, when the council and the mayor received a letter from Barry Gross complaining about the council’s lack of action about the weekly demonstrations. Herskovitz quoted from the letter: “The time when your silence was acceptable is long past. The 470 family units in our congregation virtually all live in Ann Arbor. We are avid voters. We are watching closely for your response.” A short time later, the council passed a resolution condemning the weekly demonstrations, Herskovitz said.

Herskovitz noted that the previous month new councilmembers had been sworn into office. That oath includes a promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which includes the right of free speech. He indicated that he thought the council was abdicating its responsibility to uphold the Constitution, based on “bullying tactics of a small but powerful group.” He asked the council to remember its oath to uphold the Constitution.

Blaine Coleman began by stating, “Ann Arbor city council must boycott Israel at last.” Chuck Warpehoski had won election to the council, because he heads a well-known peace group [ICPJ], Coleman contended. The ICPJ had voted for a resolution urging the city to divest from the Israeli military. However, since being elected, Warpehoski has not abided by the ICPJ’s resolution, he said, and had instead become the “opposite of a peace activist.” Warpehoski has not said one word to defend the people of Gaza, Coleman said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5)

Since his election, Warpehoski has apparently forgotten how to pronounce the word “Palestine,” Coleman said. Coleman accused Warpehoski of joining the Israeli war effort against Palestine by denouncing the only Palestinian rights vigil in Ann Arbor. Since election to the council, Coleman contended, Warpehoski is “all over AnnArbor.com denouncing the Palestine vigils, and he won’t shut up about it.”

Coleman indicated that he felt Warpehoski is acting increasingly like a “racist coward.” He called on Warpehoski to change quickly or quit the council. Coleman described the demonstrators Warpehoski had condemned as “peaceful vigilers for Palestinian rights … silently holding signs against Israeli atrocities on Washtenaw Avenue.” He noted that the demonstrations are entering their 10th year. He described some of them as leaning on canes due to age and infirmity.

By way of additional background, over a year ago Coleman filed suit, represented by the ACLU, against the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority for rejecting a proposed anti-Israel advertisement for the sides of its buses. The court ruled in favor of Coleman’s request for a preliminary injunction, but the nature of the relief was not to force the AATA to place the ad. The AATA has revised its advertising policy, and the court has ordered the AATA to reconsider the original ad or a revised one. In an email sent to The Chronicle by Daniel Korobkin, the ACLU attorney on the case, he indicated that the ad to be re-submitted will be the same as the original ad.

Comm/Comm: Kuhnke Thanked

Carol Kuhnke, judge-elect of the 22nd circuit court, was presented with a proclamation honoring her 13 years of service to the city – on the zoning board of appeals.

Carol Kuhnke was honored for her service on the city’s zoning board of appeals.

The proclamation notes that she was first appointed to that body by then-mayor Ingrid Sheldon, and subsequently re-appointed by mayor John Hieftje. In the race against Jim Fink, Kuhnke won election on Nov. 6 to the open seat being left by retiring judge Melinda Morris.

The proclamation appoints her to the “honorary office of Retired Emeritus Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals.” In her brief remarks to the council, Kuhnke said she enjoyed her time on the ZBA and looked forward to serving justice and the citizens of Washtenaw County.

Comm/Comm: Greenbelt

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), in his role as the city council’s representative on the greenbelt advisory commission, reported on a successful closing of a conservation easement. It was on the Van Natter property, which is about 20 acres located along Joy Road, just west of Zeeb. He described it as contiguous with an existing block of about 1,100 protected acres in Webster Township. Sheep and chickens are raised on the farm, Taylor said.

Comm/Comm: Lame Duck – PPT

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that staff are still sorting through the items from the state legislature’s lame duck session. There’s not a full report yet, but the changes to the personal property tax law (on business equipment) were approved. Powers noted that the budget projections that the council had been shown at their Dec. 10 planning session had assumed those changes would be made to the personal property tax law, which decreases revenue to the city.

The city is projecting the following impacts to the general fund from the change to the PPT law: FY 2014 ($257,573); FY 2015 (257,598); FY 2016 ($422,068); FY 2017 ($471,409). However, the city expects to end this year (FY 2013) with a roughly $100,000 surplus to its general fund, on a budget of $79 million. The city currently projects a $1.2 million surplus for FY 2014, but after that a roughly break-even year in FY 2015 and a deficit of $800,000 and $1.5 million the following two years. The city’s fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30.

Comm/Comm: Newtown Shootings

As a part of his city administrator’s report, Steve Powers indicated that chief of police John Seto had reached out to the Ann Arbor Public Schools to offer any assistance and support that could be provided in the wake of the tragic shooting deaths of elementary school children in Newtown, Conn.

Comm/Comm: Solar Panels

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Kermit Schlansker criticized Detroit Edison for building a power source using photo-voltaic cells. Solar installations on the roofs of large buildings are a far more effective way of spending money, because solar energy shouldn’t just be used for making power, but also for space heating, air conditioning, hot water, and alcohol distillation. He called on the city to demonstrate this idea by putting a power plant on the roof of the city hall building.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Michael Benson lamented the aesthetics of the solar panels that the University of Michigan has installed along Stone Road, which obscure what he described as a lovely city street.

Comm/Comm: What Would Jesus Say?

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge noted that it was nearly Christmas Eve. He wondered what Jesus would say, if he were walking through the Middle East today, an area plagued with turmoil. “Would Jesus not advocate here tonight before this council budgeting … to protect America’s most vulnerable residents by expanding human rights?” Jesus would call for advancing the cause of access to affordable housing and transportation, he said. These issues should always be given priority on the council’s agenda, and in every courtroom, and every place of worship. He called on the council to put first human rights and to advance the cause of the most vulnerable. He characterized as “ironic” the name of the program to which Ann Arbor was applying for support for the 721 N. Main project – Connecting Communities. Ann Arbor had not yet achieved connections within its own community, he said.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for the state senate and house. He called himself an advocate for all those who are not able to attend this and other public meetings. He told the council that he’d been informed that he was held in high regard by many people and is considered the alternate mayor of the city of Ann Arbor. He criticized mayor John Hieftje for disregarding the most significant issues of our time.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Absent: Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Monday, Jan. 7, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [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 city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The 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.

The council received a presentation at its May 7, 2012 meeting from representatives of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios on the physical survey work. The 555 group has assumed responsibility for the art community’s component of an initiative established by the city council on Feb. 1, 2010 to explore a collaboration between the greenway and art communities for adaptive reuse of the property. The 555 group stepped in when the Arts Alliance could no longer devote staff time to the project. Prior to that initiative, the city had gone through an RFP (request for proposals) process for the property that did not lead to the selection of any of the three proposals that were submitted.

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]

Councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asks to be called on during the July 16 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The council considered a resolution that would have placed a question on the Nov. 6 ballot about a charter amendment affecting city parkland. The amendment would require a voter referendum not just for the sale of parkland, but also for leases or other contracts that have a practical effect similar to a sale.

The majority of the council wanted to allow time for the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) to weigh in before taking council action. To facilitate that timeline, PAC is convening a special meeting on Aug. 8 to consider the matter. The council’s postponement was until Aug. 9 – its next regularly scheduled meeting. That’s a Thursday instead of the usual Monday, pushed back because of the Aug. 7 primary election.

Some supporters of the possible amendment had hoped to bring the matter to a council vote before the August primary, because they wanted incumbent council candidates to be judged by the electorate based on their vote on the parkland ballot question. That led Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who is not seeking re-election to a third term, to call the resolution on the ballot question a “poorly disguised political stunt.”

Other park-related items on the agenda included approval of a $89,560 contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the design and construction oversight of a skatepark to be built in the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The council also gave initial approval to the rezoning of two parcels recently acquired by the city for expansion of the Bluffs Nature Area at 1099 N. Main St., north of Sunset Road. On final approval, both parcels will receive the PL (public land) zoning designation. The city expects the additional land to make the entrance to the nature area more accessible.

The Leslie Science and Nature Center will get $115,309 worth of improvements to create accessible pathways at the city-owned site – the council approved a contract with JB Contractors Inc. for that work. The center is operated by a separate independent nonprofit on land and buildings that are owned and maintained by the city of Ann Arbor.

The possibility of a mixed-use park and art center at the city-owned 415 W. Washington property was given a chance to move forward, with the council’s authorization of $50,000 in general fund money to pay for physical surveys of the building on the property. The building, which would potentially house a space for working artists, would need environmental, hazardous materials and topographic surveys done, even if a decision were ultimately made to demolish the building.

Open space outside the city got a boost from the council’s acceptance of $396,900 in federal funds for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on properties in Webster and Superior townships. The federal funds will be matched with city funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage, which supports the city’s greenbelt program.

The wetlands at Plymouth Parkway Park that were impacted by last year’s railroad embankment washout along Plymouth Road will be restored through a $97,687 contract with Fonson Inc. authorized by the council. The funds will come from the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Only tangentially related to parks was the council’s approval of the site plan for the Maple Cove development. Located on 2.96 acres at 1649 N. Maple, north of Miller Road between North Maple and Calvin Street on the city’s west side, the plan calls for combining two sites – 1649 N. Maple and 1718 Calvin – and demolishing an existing single-family home and detached garages there. Two 3-story apartment buildings would be built with a 64-space parking lot. The project also includes building a private street to serve seven new single-family houses near Calvin Street.

The parks connection to Maple Cove is that the city requested a $26,660 contribution from the developer to support the city’s parks – a voluntary contribution, with the amount determined by formula. The developer has declined to make that contribution.

The council also voted to appoint John Seto as chief of police and head of safety services – he’s now permanently in charge of policing the city, including city parkland. Seto has served since April as interim in the wake of Barnett Jones’ retirement.

In other action, councilmembers voted to suspend the use of construction unity board (CUB) agreements in construction contracts – after voting to restore their use earlier this summer. On the CUB issue, the council has been responding to a changing landscape of law, as state legislation is passed and court decisions are handed down.

Park Lease Ballot Question

The council considered a possible ballot question on a charter amendment affecting city parkland. It would require a voter referendum not just for the sale of parkland, but also for leases or other contracts that have a practical effect similar to a sale.

Ultimately, the council voted to refer the issue to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC).

Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confer after the meeting.

The chair of that commission, Julie Grand, had written in an email to mayor John Hieftje on July 12 that she felt “… it is critical for PAC to provide a formal resolution prior to any council vote. I therefore propose to find an alternative time for PAC to hold an open work session with councilmembers [Jane] Lumm, [Mike] Anglin and [Sabra] Briere [co-sponsors of the resolution] in accordance with the deadlines imposed on ballot initiatives prior to council’s vote on this matter.”

In the last two months, the nine-member PAC has seen the departure of three long-time members, because of term limitations: Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen and David Barrett. Nystuen and Offen were replaced by Ingrid Ault and Alan Jackson. Nominated at the council’s July 2 meeting and confirmed on July 16 was Barrett’s replacement – Bob Galardi, a former Ann Arbor Public Schools administrator.  The two city council representatives to PAC – Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – are non-voting ex officio positions.

The special meeting by PAC is scheduled for Aug. 8 at 3 p.m. at city hall. The Ann Arbor city council has until its second meeting in August to put various questions before voters on the Nov. 6, 2012 ballot. A resolution placing a question on the ballot requires a seven-member (2/3) majority on the 11-member council.

The draft language before the council on July 16 was: “Shall Section 14.3(b) of the Ann Arbor City Charter be amended to require voter approval for long-term (greater than 5 yrs) non-park or non-recreational uses of parkland within the city while retaining the section’s current requirement for voter approval of the sale of any city park, or land acquired by the city for a park or cemetery?”

If approved by voters, the charter would be changed to read [added language in italics]: The city shall not sell, lease, or contract for any non-park or non-recreational long-term use, without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park, or land in the city acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof. For purposes of this subsection long-term shall be defined as a period greater than 5 years.”

The existing charter provision, which deals only with the sale of parkland, had been approved in November 2008 by a 81%-19% margin of voters (42,969 to 9,944).

Michigan’s Home Rule City Act already lists among a city’s prohibited powers: “… to sell a park, cemetery, or any part of a park or cemetery, except where the park is not required under an official master plan of the city …”  The council voted to place the question before voters in 2008 over dissent from councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and former councilmember Leigh Greden.

That year, the council had consciously settled on wording that included just selling, as opposed to leasing. In an Oct. 31, 2008 Ann Arbor News article, mayor John Hieftje was quoted as follows: “From time to time, we’ve thought about how nice it might be to have a restaurant near the river. I think it’s something people would really enjoy … That would be impossible if the ballot measure was expanded to include leasing.”

Park Ballot Question: Public Commentary

Several people spoke in favor of the resolution that would place a ballot question before voters, including two candidates for city council who are competing for seats in the Democratic primary. One person spoke against the resolution.

James D’Amour spoke on behalf of the Sierra Club Huron Valley Group. A fundamental value of the Sierra Club is protection of parks, he said. The Sierra Club stands fully behind the effort of councilmembers Jane Lumm and Mike Anglin to “close a loophole” in the charter amendment passed by voters in 2008. [The council resolution was also co-sponsored by Sabra Briere, but she was not mentioned by D'Amour.]

He called the parks a trust meant for future generations. D’Amour described city actions in connection with Huron Hills golf course and Fuller Park since 2008 as demonstrating a fundamental betrayal of that trust, he contended. It could be argued that the events that occurred were within the letter of the law, he said, but the long-term arrangements that were contemplated were a violation of the intent of the voters in 2008. He asked councilmembers to support the resolution.

Rita Mitchell also encouraged the council to vote for the resolution, because it provides support for parkland – which is jointly owned by all Ann Arbor taxpayers, she said, and is enjoyed by residents and visitors. She pointed to the significant environmental benefit that parkland provides to the city as a whole. She said the 2008 charter vote shows that citizens do want a voice in how the city uses parkland. Subsequent actions have challenged the spirit, if not the letter of the charter language. As an example she gave the plan for a large parking structure and train station at Fuller Park. If a good case can be made for land transfer or different use of a park, then that case can be made to the “real owners of the land,” she said.

Lawrence Baird described the proud history of natural area preservation and parkland protection in Ann Arbor going all the way back to 1920 when Huey Eli Gallup was the city’s first parks superintendent and created the first parks development plan. Since then Ann Arborites have placed a high priority on protecting open space and parkland. Baird reminded the council of Washtenaw County’s natural area preservation millage which Ann Arbor citizens had helped pass and renew. He reminded the council of the city’s 2003 open space and parkland preservation millage passed by Ann Arbor voters. [That millage funds the greenbelt program to preserve natural areas and farmland outside the city, as well as park acquisition within the city.]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talks to Lawrence Baird before the meeting.

He reminded councilmembers of the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage that voters had approved and will likely renew this year. There’s a loophole in the 2008 charter amendment, he said, and recent events show that if the city chooses to do so, it can enter into long-term leases for non-park purposes. That violates the spirit of the 2008 charter amendment, he said. It also violates the spirit of the various millage votes Ann Arbor voters have made, he said. He contended that greenbelt properties enjoy more protection than city parkland. He described Ann Arbor voters as a “smart, informed, passionate bunch,” and they should be entrusted with the bigger decisions now and then.

Jack Eaton, who is challenging incumbent Margie Teall for a seat on the council representing Ward 4, told the council he was there to support the resolution. He was opposed to putting off the vote on the resolution until a meeting after the primary election. He felt it’s important to consider what’s not involved in passing the resolution. The council’s resolution does not amend the charter, he stressed, but merely allows voters to express their opinion on amending the charter. If the council opposes the resolution because of a fear that voters might approve the amendment, then the council is trying to circumvent the will of the people, he contended. But even if voters approve the charter amendment, the new protections don’t prevent putting the train station at Fuller Park – but rather requires that voters approve it. If the council fears that voters won’t approve the train station, he said, then they’re trying to circumvent the will of the voters.

As he talks to voters, Eaton said, he hears that the community holds parkland in special esteem. He asked the council to pass the resolution and to move it to the ballot immediately before the primary so that voters can know who supported the amendment and who opposed it, before residents cast their votes in the Aug. 7 primary. If the council expects voters to trust them with another park maintenance and capital improvements millage, the council needs to trust voters to weigh in on decisions about parkland, he concluded.

Sally Petersen, who is challenging incumbent Tony Derezinski for a seat on the council representing Ward 2, urged the city council to approve the resolution, because not doing so is not consistent with the city’s open space and parkland preservation, the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan and the city’s 2008 charter amendment. The additional clarifying language would close a loophole, she said. She reported the results of an informal poll she’d sent to 160 people measuring their support for the resolution: by 6 p.m. she’d received 70 yes votes, compared to 7 no votes.

Gwen Nystuen, who served on the city’s park advisory commission until recently, told the council that until a few years ago she thought the city’s parks were permanently protected. But she contended that it’s not true – and much of the city’s parkland would be commercially valuable. She then enumerated some of the ways that parks are protected. One way is through deed restrictions, and conservation easements. Another way, she ventured, is if parkland has been purchased with millage money voted by the people. She’d contacted the head of county parks, and found that the county’s parks are considered protected because they’ve been purchased with millage money. Another way parks are protected, she said, is through tradition. Ann Arbor has been acquiring parkland for over a century – and most of our leaders say they’d never ever sell parkland. Beyond that, she said, she can’t find any real protection. The proposed resolution doesn’t prevent the sale or alternate use, but it does require a consensus by the voters, she said.

Elizabeth Colvin told the council she lives on Maiden Lane near the University of Michigan medical center. She urged the council not to support the resolution. She spoke as a supporter of parks and as a supporter of some of the projects that have been proposed for some parkland that don’t involve parks and recreation. The current process of handling projects involving non-park uses provides the public with sufficient opportunity to make their wishes known, she said.

Colvin perceives the current process as consisting of professionals with expertise in their fields – whether running a golf business or planning a train station – studying options, comparing alternatives, making recommendations, drawing up plans, submitting ideas for review and input. During that process, she said, people like her who are interested in a particular process can make their preferences known – by speaking during public commentary at meetings or emailing councilmembers. She felt that requiring a public referendum on top of that process adds unnecessary steps and adds delays to projects that should be completed with all due speed. For her, she said, it hits home with the train station that was initially proposed for parkland at Fuller Road. That project means the most to her, she said, because she feels strongly that improved public transit is absolutely key to the long-term economic health of the community. A new and improved train station in the right location is a critical component of a long-term mass-transit plan for our community, she said. Because that’s important to her, she said, she’d follow those discussions closely and she’d provide input on it. For those projects she doesn’t feel strongly about, she wouldn’t follow them closely and she wouldn’t care if there were a public vote.

Summarizing, Colvin said she thinks the current process works and it gives the public opportunity for input. She was addressing the council on behalf of herself, she said, but knew that several of her neighbors shared her view. She encouraged the council to vote no or at least postpone the issue to get input from the city’s park advisory commission.

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Intro

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off deliberations by noting the resolution had been co-sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). She thanked assistant city attorney Mary Fales for her help in drafting the language of the resolution. Councilmembers had been given the draft a week ago, she said, and it is unchanged from that version. The language has received a preliminary approval from the state attorney general’s office.

Lumm reviewed the purpose of the resolution – to close a “loophole” left when the 2008 charter amendment was approved. That amendment only specifically referenced the sale of parkland. As a result, the city could retain ownership and not sell it, but could still change the use of that parkland to a non-recreational or non-park use. The resolution is not about Huron Hills golf course or Fuller Road Station or about any specific site, she said. Those situations demonstrated the existence of the loophole. It also does not establish a principle that voters have a say in the long-term use of parkland – because that principle was already established with the charter vote in 2008. It’s simply tightening up the language, she said.

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Postponement

Briere said she cheerfully co-sponsored the resolution when it showed up – because she’d heard the same discussion over the last four years as everybody else on the council. However, she looked for unintended consequences. When the ballot measure was placed before voters in 2008, the council anticipated that a problem was being solved. But an unintended consequence was that the city could engage in long-term leases, she said, and indeed had flirted with that idea. The city had not followed through on that – but had talked about it. And that’s what the city is supposed to do, she said – look at its options. It’s that “opening” that the current proposal is intended to close.

From left: assistant city attorney Mary Fales, councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

But there are also unintended consequences for the current proposal, Briere said, which she’d learned of that day. If the current version appears on the ballot, here’s what could occur without a public vote, she said: The city could contract with a company that manages water parks to run Fuller pool – because it would be the same recreational use. The city could contract with a golf-course operator to operate Huron Hills – because it’s the same recreational use. Or the city could build and own a fire station, a homeless shelter, a train station or a parking structure on a park without voter approval – because the city wouldn’t be selling land or engaging in a long-term lease or contract.

She knew that these were not things the framers of the resolution had intended. So she indicated a desire to postpone the resolution to try to work out the details and at the same time refer the topic to the park advisory commission (PAC), to look at any implications she might have missed.

Briere noted that they needed to specify a date to which the resolution would be postponed. Mayor John Hieftje noted that the chair of PAC, Julie Grand, had written to the council, and the PAC meeting for the following day, July 17, had been cancelled. But the intent was to use the first Tuesday in August, which is the scheduled time for PAC’s land acquisition committee meeting, as a time to hold a full PAC meeting to discuss the park ballot question. [Because that day, Aug. 7, coincides with the primary election, it was abandoned as the time for PAC to meet. Currently, PAC is scheduled to meet on Aug. 8 at 3 p.m.]

The council’s first meeting in August is Aug. 9 – due to the primary election. So Briere made her motion for postponement specifically to the council’s second meeting in August – Aug. 20.

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Postponement to When?

Lumm moved to amend the postponement to the first meeting in August.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) responded to Lumm’s proposal to postpone just to Aug. 9 by saying, “I’m not sure why we’re rushing this.” It could be voted on at either meeting in August, Smith said, and that would be soon enough to place it on the Nov. 6 ballot. The only reason that the item was on that night’s agenda [the last council meeting before the Aug. 7 primary], she said, is that “it’s a really poorly-disguised political stunt.” The remark from Smith, who is not seeking re-election to her Ward 1 seat, generated a discontented murmur among some in the audience.

In support of her contention that the timing of the resolution was political, Smith noted that the council had heard from a city council candidate during public commentary [Jack Eaton], which had indicated to her that it was a political stunt. It’s not about parks, she contended. Smith said the council does not as a habit rush things, noting that they had postponed the four-party transit agreement three times. The council didn’t vote on something that significant for three meetings, she said.

What was before the council that night affected the city charter: “This is our constitution! This is what we operate our city on. I cannot see the rush.” Smith noted there’s no memo or cover letter on the agenda, and councilmembers have had very little information delivered to them. The council should slow the whole process down, she concluded.

Responding to Smith, Lumm told her she had the draft of the resolution on June 26. Subsequent to that, she was trying to answer questions, she said, and she had been told [by Smith] that by answering questions she was potentially violating the Open Meetings Act (OMA). She had been trying to be helpful, Lumm said: “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, I guess.”

By way of background on the OMA issue, Smith had emailed questions about the resolution to the city administrator and the city attorney, CC-ing the message to all councilmembers. Lumm responded to everyone with her answers to Smith’s questions and what Smith perceived as possible advocacy of a point of view on the questions. That was the source of Smith’s caution about OMA issues. If more than a quorum of councilmembers engage in back-and-forth via email it could establish a “meeting” that has not been properly noticed to the public and not open to the public.

The strongest rationale for postponement, Lumm felt, had to do with the definition of potential uses of parkland that might not have been addressed. She felt that assistant city attorney Mary Fales was “Thomas Jeffersonian” in her efforts to craft the language. Fales addressed concerns about the things the city wants to continue to do. It’s a matter of not being able to legislate everything and anticipate every eventuality, she said. Lumm stated that it’s not political. She felt it should not be postponed, but if it were to be postponed, it should be just to the first meeting in August.

Councilmembers Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) before the July 16 meeting.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that back in 2008, the moment had been right, even though some members of council at the time didn’t want it to move forward. But the moment was right then, and it moved forward – with its limitations. He believed the moment was right now. It had been addressed at PAC several times, he contended. Mayor John Hieftje cautioned Anglin that the issue under discussion was to postpone to the first or the second meeting in August.

Anglin felt that the historical context was important. He felt that the council had not rushed – that it had been very deliberate and it had been going on for some time. As policymakers, that’s the council’s role. The city would have a continual rehashing of the issue – or it could be settled, by saying that those who own the parks have the right to say what happens to them. So he was not in favor of any kind of postponement. He had not been able during that night’s deliberations to speak to the main issue, because the postponement had been brought up before he’d had a chance do that. Postponement will send a chilling statement to those who support parks, he contended.

Briere appreciated the comments by Lumm and Anglin, and indicated that her discovery of loopholes in the current proposal was also a problem for her. If everyone were to move “extraordinarily expeditiously,” the issue could be resolved by the first meeting in August. If not, then the council still has another meeting in August. It’s important that it go to the public, she said, so it’s important that it be the best legislation that the city could have. She said she was content to bring it back on Aug. 9, knowing there’s another meeting in August.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed with city clerk Jackie Beaudry that the last date for certifying ballot language with the county clerk is Aug. 28. Kunselman ventured that even a special meeting could be possible. He called it the “common practice” to postpone it initially and then postpone it again if necessary. He’d support postponement to the first meeting in August.

Hieftje expressed concern about the timing, but didn’t have a problem postponing to the first meeting in August. But he was not enthusiastic about the kind of special meeting that Kunselman had described.

Smith took exception to something that Anglin had said about a “thorough and deliberate process.” Speaking to Anglin, Smith told him: “You serve on PAC and you didn’t feel this was appropriate to bring it to the commission you serve on.” Smith stated that the council is delaying in part because PAC hasn’t weighed in. PAC consists of citizen volunteers, she said. It disrespects PAC not to include that body in the process, so she questioned if it had really been a careful and deliberate process. The only appropriate way to go forward, Smith continued, is to have PAC weigh in on it. A Thursday council meeting [on Aug. 9] catches the public off guard, she said. It’s not always the best time to do something – because it’s harder to get the word out. Because of the need for PAC to weigh in appropriately, and because of the Thursday council meeting, she couldn’t support a postponement any earlier than the second meeting in August.

Kunselman sought confirmation that PAC would have time to weigh in on the proposal before Aug. 9. Hieftje told him that was the plan that PAC chair Julie Grand had proposed.

Outcome on postponement timing: The council settled on the timing of the postponement as Aug. 9 – over dissent from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Postponement or Not

At that point, the question before the council was to postpone to Aug. 9 or not.

Lumm felt the resolution is very straightforward. She indicated that the concerns people had expressed about the language had already been addressed by the city attorney. She felt the language offered a good framework. And she reiterated that it could not anticipate every eventuality. She reviewed the basic arguments for the resolution. Lumm did not understand the need to postpone or the need for PAC to review it. The charter was not being changed, she said, but rather the issue was being put before the voters. She didn’t have a problem with PAC providing comment. She had a problem with the timing, she said. She said she didn’t receive a response from a question she’d posed to PAC chair Julie Grand about the scheduling of the meeting.

Responding to Smith’s criticism of Anglin for not moving the proposed charter amendment through PAC, Lumm said Smith had taken an unfair “potshot” at Anglin. PAC cancelled its meeting scheduled for July 17, when Anglin had been “poised to speak to this.” Apparently, Lumm said, PAC didn’t have very much on the agenda and had cancelled its meeting.

Smith picked up on the timeline issue that was part of Lumm’s argument. Smith said she was not sure how PAC could inform the council that night if the commission had been scheduled to talk about it the following day.

Smith then recalled the discussions the council had earlier in the year on the four-party transit agreement. She found some parallels that she found ironic. She then cited coverage in The Chronicle from deliberations conducted at the Jan. 9, 2012 meeting. The complete passage reads as follows:

Lumm reiterated many of her concerns, saying she felt the timeline is “backwards.” She said she doesn’t understand how the council could go forward without having critical documents. Lumm said the issue is not about whether regional transit is good. It’s about seeing information about the specific benefits. She described the process as a “rush” and as putting the cart before the horse.

Smith ventured that “parks” could be swapped in for “regional transit” in that quote. In February 2012, Smith continued, Lumm was quoted by The Chronicle during the four-party transit deliberations as saying “If it’s a good concept today, it’ll be a good concept tomorrow.”

If the park proposal is not on the Nov. 6 ballot, Smith said, it can be on a different ballot. She didn’t necessarily care if it was on this November’s ballot, she said, because she didn’t think there was an impending issue that would change things. She didn’t feel that the city council would be taking a vote on a long-term lease anytime in the next year – though she allowed she could be wrong about that. She did not see the need to rush. It’s important that the council have some robust input from citizens, and that night was the first opportunity she knew of that citizens had a chance to come to the podium to talk to the council about it. So it had to be postponed at least until the first meeting in August, she said.

Anglin said he was fearful the proposal would disappear and then never appear again. He felt the presidential election year, with its larger turnout, would yield a resounding yes or no answer. Over the last few years, the issue has been very contentious, he said, costing time and effort by staff and the council. He described most of the work as having been done by the Sierra Club – writing and re-writing language.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Anglin  contended that he’d raised these issues at PAC, but they were dismissed – because PAC members didn’t see them as significant enough to discuss. For his part, if the council goes back to PAC, “We’ll just get an opinion.” He noted that PAC has three new members. So the “real skilled PAC members” who served for multiple years, are now out in the community willing to work. [He was referring to Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen and David Barrett, whose terms recently ended on PAC.] The council does itself a disservice not to see this as a public process, he said. “Just ask the voters – it’s so simple,” he said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward) said he felt that there were good reasons to consider the proposal and to look at the language – but he hadn’t heard any reason not to postpone. Getting input from PAC makes perfect sense, he said. Having PAC’s input can only help, he said. While Anglin might feel PAC’s input doesn’t add value, Hohnke didn’t think it would hurt. In the interest of furthering the dialogue on a thoughtful effort to change the charter, he’d support postponement.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he felt it was important to have PAC weigh in. He lamented the fact that back on Nov. 5, 2009, when the council had approved an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station, the council didn’t get advice prior to voting. But two wrongs don’t make a right, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) weighed in supporting the postponement to the first meeting in August. A problem with the volume adjustment on Higgins’ microphone prompted Thomas Partridge to chime in from the audience with a request that Hieftje make certain to ensure that microphone levels are loud enough for people to hear. Hieftje retorted with, “Could you make certain to keep quiet?”

Hieftje said the worst thing the council could do is put a flawed proposal on the ballot – a proposal that doesn’t do what voters think it will. So he’d support postponement.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the proposal until Aug. 9, over dissent by Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Skatepark Design Contract

The Ann Arbor city council was asked to authorize a $89,560 contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the design and construction oversight of a skatepark to be built in the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The city’s park advisory commission had recommended approval of the contract on June 19.

City council action on the skatepark at that location dates back to a Dec. 1, 2008 approval of a memorandum of intent. [.pdf of memorandum of intent]

The roughly $1 million project – including an anticipated $100,000 endowment for ongoing maintenance – will be financed through a combination of funds. Those include private donations – primarily solicited through the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – as well as a $300,000 state grant, and up to $400,000 in matching funds from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is acting as fiduciary.

Selection of Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the work came after a selection committee reviewed six responses to a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the city of Ann Arbor in April. The committee selected two California firms – Wally Hollyday Skateparks and Wormhoudt Inc. – as finalists. Additional review and interviews resulted in the choice of Wally Hollyday Skateparks as the recommended designer. Wally Hollyday had already been involved in the project to some extent, leading design workshops for the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark in 2009 and 2010.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the skatepark design contract as a part of its consent agenda.

Initial Rezoning for Bluffs

The council considered giving initial approval to the rezoning of two parcels that were recently acquired by the city for expansion of the Bluffs Nature Area at 1099 N. Main St., north of Sunset Road. The city planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 5, 2012 meeting.

A 1.12-acre parcel to the north of the Bluffs – connecting the existing parkland to Huron View Boulevard – is currently zoned O (office), and had been donated to the city by a nursing home near that site. A 0.57-acre addition to the south connects the existing parkland to Sunset Road and is currently zoned R4C (multiple-family dwelling). It had been purchased by the city from the Elks lodge, using funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. Both parcels were recommended to be rezoned as PL (public land).

City planner Alexis DiLeo told planning commissioners at their June 5 meeting that the parcels make the nature area more accessible. Though there is frontage onto North Main, there’s no easy access there for pedestrians or cyclists.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the rezoning of the parcels.

Accessible Path Work at Leslie Science Center

The council considered approval of a $115,309 contract with JB Contractors Inc. to construct barrier-free pathways at the Leslie Science and Nature Center. The recommendation includes a 10% contingency, for a total project cost of $126,840.

The city’s park advisory commission had recommended approval of the contract at its June 19, 2012 meeting.

JB Contractors provided the lowest of two bids. Fonson Inc. had submitted a much higher bid of $197,459. Funding is available from the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Francie Krawcke, raptor program director with the Leslie Science & Nature Center, brought a snowy owl to the June 19, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The owl did not fly around council chambers, but did enjoy a few snacks at the meeting.

PAC had been initially briefed on this project – the first phase of a larger renovation – at its Feb. 28, 2012 meeting. The center, located at 1831 Traver Road, was previously part of the city’s parks system, but since 2007 has operated as an independent nonprofit. However, the city still owns and maintains the buildings and property.

Parks planner Amy Kuras told commissioners at PAC’s June 19 meeting that the goal of the changes to the pathways is to make the center compliant with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and to make the pathways and overall organization of the site less confusing. The project includes replacing the paths that connect various buildings on the site, and constructing new paths to connect the center’s raptor enclosures.

At the council’s July 16 meeting, mayor John Hieftje expressed general support for Leslie Science and Nature Center, mentioning the Mayfly annual fundraiser. [Hieftje is a former board member for the center.] Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) added that representatives of the LSNC attended the July 16 Townie Party and brought the center’s raptors.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with JB Contractors Inc. for work at the Leslie Science & Nature Center.

Physical Testing of 415 W. Washington

The Ann Arbor city council considered a resolution approving $50,000 of general fund reserve money to be used for various physical surveys on the city-owned 415 W. Washington property. The 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.

From left: Carl Goins, executive director of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios, and architect Chuck Bultman before the city council’s July 16 meeting.

The council received a presentation at its May 7, 2012 meeting from representatives of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios on the physical survey work. The 555 group has assumed responsibility for the art community’s component of an initiative established by the city council on Feb. 1, 2010 to explore a collaboration between the greenway and art communities for adaptive reuse of the property. The 555 group stepped in when the Arts Alliance could no longer devote staff time to the project. Prior to that initiative, the city had gone through an RFP (request for proposals) process for the property that did not lead to the selection of any of the three proposals submitted.

Chuck Bultman, an architect who is working with the 555 group, had attended the Sunday night city council caucus on July 15. He had compared the physical surveys to be done on the 415 W. Washington property to a through medical workup for a patient. It would be more than taking blood pressure, and would include “drawing blood samples.” For the buildings, the work will include taking core samples to evaluate the structural integrity of the concrete and steel.

Besides the structural testing, other work to be done includes: an environmental survey; hazardous materials assessment; a topographic and boundary survey; a site survey; and architectural drawings of the existing buildings.

Bultman, along with several other professionals, have thus far volunteered their time to move the project forward. Others include: Paul Dannels (a structural engineer with Structural Design Inc.), Shannan Gibb-Randall (a landscape architect with Insite Design Studio Inc.), and Matt Grocoff (an energy performance consultant with Thrive).

Much of the survey work – in particular, the environmental, hazardous materials and topographic surveys – would be required regardless of the parcel’s future use.

415 W. Washington: Public Comment

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Carl Goins – executive director of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios – told the council that a team of local professional had been working with the city’s task force. He noted the 555 group’s experience in transforming underused spaces into facilities that provided resources to hundreds of artists. The 415 W. Washington building’s size, location and historic character make it an ideal candidate for that kind of re-use, he said. The project could be a model for public, private and nonprofit collaboration. The physical surveys could put things on track for the building to become a regional hub for the arts.

415 W. Washington: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led off deliberations by saying that the funding would move the process along. The city had been working with the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy and the Arts Alliance for the last couple of years, on the idea of developing a greenway park and art center. He alluded to an “outshoot” of the North Main corridor task force that was focusing on the greenway. The first greenway park, he said, would be the 721 N. Main city-owned parcel. The effort on 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main need to be coordinated and connected, he said. He mentioned hooking up the greenway to the county’s Border-to-Border trail. Even if you don’t agree that the dream of an art center will come to pass, the surveys would need to be done, he concluded.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) agreed that it was an important and judicious investment in preserving options for the building. Absent a clear understanding of the potential for re-use, he said, the move would be toward seeing the building demolished. [The city's historic district commission would need to grant the city a notice to proceed with that demolition, which is not a foregone conclusion.] Hohnke noted there are a number of people now involved with the effort, who have experience with this type of repurposing. The expenditure increases the likelihood that something exciting happens at the site, he said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called it pretty exciting that the city is going forward with the work. She made a note that the terminology used in the resolution refers to the future “conveyance” of the land. The council’s deliberations on the ballot question then spilled into the 415 W. Washington item, when Smith said she’d love to have a legal opinion on what the city would need to do in order to “convey” the property. It was an excellent example, she said, of a situation where a special election might have to be called in order to enter into an eventual long-term lease. She wanted to know what the impact would be of the proposed city charter amendment on the 415 W. Washington project – not that night, but eventually.

Responding to Smith, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) ventured that the 415 W. Washington project would not be affected at all – because the proposed charter amendment speaks to parkland and cemetery use. The 415 W. Washington site is public land, not parkland. So it has nothing at all to do with the 415 W. Washington site. Responding to Lumm, Smith said, “Thank you very much, councilmember Lumm. I’d love to have a discussion with the attorneys at a later time.” Lumm wrapped up the exchange with “Sorry, I was just trying to help.”

Lumm continued with her remarks by thanking Chuck Bultman, the architect who’s been working with the 555 group. Bultman had given her and others a tour of the site last week. Bultman really has a vision for the future of the building, she said. She understands that what’s contemplated is finding a positive use for the city-owned site. She asked city administrator Steve Powers to outline what the resolution does. Powers reviewed the physical surveys of the building that would need to be done – regardless of its future re-use. To provide more detail on what’s been done to date, Powers told Lumm he’d need to prepare that information and provide it at a later time.

Lumm wanted more information about what the phase 2/3 environmental surveys would tell us. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy was called on to address that question. Hupy described a phase 1 environmental assessment as an analysis of past use. The site does have a history of past uses that causes a suspicion of contamination. A phase 2 study looks at the ground more in depth to see if pollution exists, and if so, to what level.

Lumm asked why the funding was not included in the FY 2013 budget. Powers characterized it as an oversight and nothing more. He was not aware of the momentum of the project at the time the budget proposal was put together, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported to her colleagues that the previous night at the council caucus, she heard from people who are working with the 555 group [Bultman and Trevor Stone] and had heard quite a bit about what could be learned from an environmental assessment – from taking core samples of concrete, looking at groundwater, studying what part of the flooding is caused by the water table and what part is caused by grading of the site and the additional gravel that’s been added to create the parking lot. At the caucus meeting, she’d also learned there is a section of the site that is inaccessible.

Responding to Lumm’s concern about the failure to include this item in the FY 2013 budget, from Briere’s perspective, she was not surprised to see the item come forward until after the budget was approved. Frequently, she said, an item is not “ripe” until after the budget has been approved. It’s a one-time expense, she continued, and she indicated that it’s typical for such items to be approved outside the regular budget cycle.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated all the words of support from other councilmembers. She’s excited about this project, she said, which she contended she’d been working on for a decade – a public space for the arts and the performing arts. She characterized it as a first step. The surveys will tell us whether the building is usable, she said, and she hopes the answer is affirmative.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he supported the resolution and viewed 415 W. Washington as a roadmap for how to deal with 721 N. Main. He noted there’s a lot of community interest in how to use the 721 N. Main property for community needs – whether it’s a day-use center or not. [The council has heard frequent public commentary at its meetings since the fall of 2011 on the idea of a day shelter and warming center. And 721 N. Main has been a property that organizers asked the city to turn over for such use.] How the city handles 415 W. Washington sets up a framework for other city-owned properties, and he’s excited to hear what information the city gets from the work, Kunselman concluded.

Hieftje responded to the 721 N. Main thread that Kunselman had picked up. Hieftje indicated that 721 N. Main is moving forward as part of a state Natural Resources Trust Fund application by the city – because 721 N. Main already has its environmental “clearance.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the $50,000 expenditure for physical surveys on the 415 W. Washington building.

Federal Money for Greenbelt

The council considered approval of the acceptance of $396,900 in federal funds from the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on properties in Webster and Superior townships owned by the Robbin Alexander Trust (90 acres) and Robert Schultz (136 acres). The grant amount represents 49% of the purchase price.

Ann Arbor greenbelt as of June 2012 (not including the properties the council voted on at their July 16, 2012 meeting). The large square-ish area is the greenbelt boundary area – the land eligible for protection with Ann Arbor greenbelt millage funds. Darker green areas indicate protected property. (Image links to dynamic map.)

The council had approved the application for the federal funds at its Feb. 21, 2012 meeting. The local share will be provided through the city’s parkland and open space preservation (greenbelt) millage.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council representative to the greenbelt commission, noted that the applications for federal grant money had been approved by the council in February 2012. He highlighted the fact that the federal grants covered 49% of the purchase price, which is the maximum amount that the FRPP will approve. Hohnke said that 49% reflects the quality of the applications that the city staff are submitting. He characterized it as great leverage for the millage funds that Ann Arbor voters have approved.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she certainly supported accepting the funds but contended that it could be better – if other sources of local funding (from the townships) besides the city’s greenbelt millage had factored into the local match component. She ventured that this was not the funding proportion that had been anticipated when the millage was approved.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the receipt of the FRPP funds.

Wetland Restoration at Plymouth

The council considered approval of a $97,687 contract with Fonson Inc. for restoration of a wetland in Plymouth Parkway Park that was filled in as a result of a railroad embankment collapse caused by heavy rains in July 2011. The funds will be taken from the park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Immediately after the collapse, about half of the soil from the embankment washout was removed from the site, and the rest was removed last month, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution. The staff memo also states that  Ann Arbor Railroad worked with the city to restore and improve drainage systems in and around the railroad embankment.

The work covered by the contract with Fonson is to repair underground drainage systems in the park, complete final site grading and replanting the wetland with appropriate species.

Council deliberations consisted of a remark by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) that she is delighted the restoration will go forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with Fonson Inc.

Maple Cove Site Plan

The council considered the site plan for the Maple Cove development located on 2.96 acres at 1649 N. Maple, north of Miller Road between North Maple and Calvin Street on the city’s west side.

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

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

The project has a somewhat unusual history. Planning commissioners originally approved it at their March 20, 2012 meeting. But that vote was rescinded because Scio Township residents on Calvin Street had not been included in an original public notice mailed out for the commission’s March meeting.

There were no changes to the plan in the interim period, but at their May 1, 2012 meeting, planning commissioners voted to postpone action to get more information from the traffic engineer about whether the proposed two separate entrances to the property created a health, safety and welfare hazard. According to city planning staff, the city’s traffic engineer raised some concerns, but he subsequently confirmed that the site plan – with two entrances off of North Maple – does conform with city code.

Planning commissioners ultimately approved the project at their June 5 meeting on a unanimous vote, but three of the nine commissioners – Bonnie Bona, Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal – were absent. Bona and Eric Mahler had dissented on the commission’s March 20 original approval. Part of their objection stemmed from concern that no sidewalks were planned for the private street.

At the Sunday night city council caucus held on July 15, the project’s developer indicated the possibility that the private street portion of the project might be sold to another developer – and that developer would have the option to submit a revised site plan that includes sidewalks.

Maple Cove: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge spoke, describing himself as an advocate for the most vulnerable residents of the city. He contended that amendments should be made to the proposal that would require a percentage of the units to include affordable housing.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, mayor John Hieftje responded to Partridge’s mention of an affordable housing requirement by saying that with a planned unit development (PUD), the city could require affordable units; but for a “by right” development like Maple Cove, something like that couldn’t be required.

Maple Cove: Council Deliberations

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

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began by saying that there are some positive aspects to the proposal, including the fact that it will help fill in Maple Road. He noted there had been a healthy discussion by the planning commission on the site plan. The developer had been asked to consider some minor improvements – not required by code, but that would have improved the experience for future residents of the project and for the public at large. The developer had not undertaken the suggested changes. He was disappointed, Hohnke said, but did not feel it rose to the level of concern that would cause him to vote against the project.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wouldn’t support the project. As city councilmembers, he said, they have a right to do everything they can to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Because the developer did not want to include some things that affect safety – like sidewalks on the private street – he would not support the project. He characterized that as “cutting corners,” saying the developer should be held to the same standards as everybody else.

Mayor John Hieftje then asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to the podium to ask her a single question to which everyone already knew the answer: “Is this a by-right development?” Rampson told Hieftje that yes, Maple Cove meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance.

Hieftje then ventured that if Kunselman requested it, the council could have a closed session to discuss the ramification of voting no. [Assistant city attorney Mary Fales whispered to Hieftje words to the effect that Hieftje's idea for a closed session wouldn't work, because the council would need a written memorandum from the attorney's office to discuss in order to justify the closed session. That had been part of the point of a lawsuit filed by The Chronicle in September 2010. Since that time, closed sessions held by the Ann Arbor based on the attorney-client privilege have become rare events, when previously they were regular occurrences. Hieftje subsequently relayed Fales' comments at the table.]

Because Maple Cove is a by-right development, Hieftje said, a vote against it would be a “protest vote” but he felt the course was clear. There are many by-right developments where the developer doesn’t cooperated to the utmost, but the council has to follow the law.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that many councilmembers would like to see sidewalks included in all new neighborhoods, but that’s not a code requirement. While the council could change the city’s ordinance to require sidewalks in the future, it was not an option that night. She indicated she would cheerfully tell the developer that, as she did the previous night at the council’s caucus.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that it’s a complicated project that has generated a lot of discussion by staff and the neighbors. She concurred with Hohnke in his conclusion that the developer had not been very flexible – with respect to the possibility of eliminating one of the driveway entrances (curbcuts) and the voluntary parks contribution. But she concluded that the project met the code requirements. She felt that the project reflected an improvement.

Responding to a question from Lumm about the city staff’s recommendation for approving the project, Rampson said that “as near as we can tell” the project complies with city code.

Rampson noted that city code requires a sidewalk for a private street with eight lots or more, but the private street for Maple Cove includes seven lots, so there’s no requirement for sidewalks. She noted that the project had been reviewed twice by the planning commission, because the township neighbors weren’t notified the first time around. Neighbors from the township had concerns about the different lot sizes in the Maple Cove project compared to those on Calvin Street – and they felt the project reflected an increase in density. However, Rampson pointed out that the property was already zoned, and the proposed lots are consistent with zoning.

On the traffic issue, related to the two driveways, a city traffic engineer took a look at the placement of the two driveways. The conclusion, Rampson allowed, was that the two driveways were “not ideal” – in that they don’t have the desired spacing between each other or the desired distance from the intersection. But the city does not have anything about access management in the code. According to the traffic engineer, Rampson said, if the driveway configuration becomes a hazard, one of the drives can be removed under the city code.

About the parks contribution, she noted that it’s a suggestion based on a formula, but it’s not a code requirement. She noted that there are some amenities included in the project that might actually count toward the park contribution.

Hohnke asked Rampson to share some views of the expected benefit for the development, compared to the existing situation. Rampson told Hohnke that the planning commission had pointed to the fact that the current site is not very well maintained. The project would bring additional housing to the area – both rental and homeowner opportunities. It would also provide a sidewalk link on the public frontage along North Maple, so it’s consistent with the city’s master plan, she said.

Maple Cove driveway configuration. Magenta arrows show the two driveways.

Hohnke said he shared Kunselman’s concerns, but indicated surprise that Kunselman was considering voting against the project. He felt it’s hard to make a reasonable argument that it’s a detriment to health, safety and welfare. He ventured that it could be considered irresponsible [of Kunselman] to put people of Ann Arbor at [legal] risk by denying a site plan that meets code and provides some benefit. He encouraged people to understand the weightiness of denying a by-right proposal.

Kunselman responded by noting that Rampson had said the driveway curbcuts don’t meet the desired standard, but that the city doesn’t have a mechanism in the city code to do anything about that. If it were determined that there was a hazard being caused, he said, and the driveway entrance to the private street had to be closed, then the only access to the private street would be through the other driveway entrance – and that would lead past the additional lot for the multi-family housing in the project, for a total of eight lots. If that’s what happens, Kunselman ventured, the developer will have been able to circumvent the requirement of having sidewalks for the private street.

Kunselman restated his view that it’s an issue of public safety. There are no sidewalks in his neighborhood, he said, and walking down the street last year with the mayor of Tübingen [Ann Arbor's sister city in Germany], they almost got run over. He rejected Hohnke’s suggestion that Kunselman’s would be a protest vote. Kunselman noted that he grew up in that part of town. He wanted to make sure that sidewalks are added.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the city planning commission, contended all these questions were raised and answered. He restated the fact that it’s a by-right development. “When it meets the code, that’s it!” he said. He characterized the application of the rubric of health, safety and welfare as a very “slippery slope.” He felt the council should vote for the project.

Hieftje indicated he would support the project because he did not think there’s any latitude, citing the potential of a lawsuit, and saying the council would be on extremely thin ice to deny it.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Maple Cove project, with dissent from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Ann Arbor Police Chief: John Seto

The council considered a resolution appointing John Seto as permanent police chief and head of safety services.

John Seto at the March 30, 2012 farewell for former chief Barnett Jones.

Seto has served as interim in both roles since the resignation of former police chief Barnett Jones effective March 31.

At his farewell sendoff on March 30, Jones was emphatic about his view that Seto should be hired as permanent chief, describing Seto as “the right person to follow me.”

Seto was hired in 1990 as a patrol officer in the AAPD and achieved the rank of deputy chief in 2008.

Seto’s college degree is from Eastern Michigan University, and his subsequent professional development has included training from the FBI. He also holds certification as a firefighter.

As head of safety services, Seto oversees the fire chief. The administrative position of safety services administrator is appointed by the city administrator. But the city charter requires that the council approve the appointment of police chief.

Police Chief Appointment: Public Commentary

During public commentary, Ann Arbor resident Blair Shelton reprised sentiments he’d expressed at the council’s March 19, 2012 meeting, alleging racism on the part of the Ann Arbor police department and Seto specifically. [By way of brief background, Shelton won a lawsuit against the city of Ann Arbor in the mid-1990s in a case involving racial-profiling in the AAPD's approach to collection of blood samples.] At the July 16 meeting, Shelton told the council that in 1995 when Channel 7 came to his home to interview him about winning his lawsuit, Channel 7′s Bill Proctor told him that on the way there, the AAPD had pulled over the Channel 7 news truck on suspicion of having stolen the vehicle. He invited people to ask Proctor about the ethnicity of the AAPD officer.

[Shelton was implying that the officer was Seto. In a phone conversation with The Chronicle, Proctor could not confirm the episode that Shelton described. Proctor noted that he did not recall interviewing Shelton, noting that the incident in question took place in 1995. Proctor indicated he did not recall ever being pulled over in the news truck because an officer questioned his legal right to be behind the wheel.]

Shelton contended that the “vestiges of racism have been enshrined in the department” since its inception. He pointed to the hiring of the first African American officer in the early 1900s, an officer Thomas Blackburn. He contended that Blackburn had been accused of raping a white university student and that the courthouse had been surrounded by people screaming: “Lynch the ‘n-word’ kill the ‘n-word.’”

In connection with his court case, he said, through the discovery process, they’d learned that the AAPD had wanted to perform DNA testing on the University of Michigan football team, but coach Bo Schembechler had said, “Hell, no.” Shelton told the council, “I am a human being!” with the right to move freely through the community. On the hiring of Seto as permanent chief, he told them, “Good luck.”

By way of additional background on the history of the Ann Arbor police department and racial issues, from former AAPD police officer Michael Logghe’s “True Crimes and the History of the Ann Arbor Police Department“:

Officer Clayton Collins was thought to be the first black Ann Arbor Officer when he was hired in 1950. However, according to Officer Camp’s report, a black officer named Thomas Blackburn, was hired in 1907. I discovered a photo of Officer Blackburn and it does not appear that he was black. Officer Blackburn was with the department for ten years and it is open for debate if he or Officer Collins was the first black officer. …

Officer Collins told me he was asked to apply to the department by Albert Wheeler (Wheeler would later become mayor). He stated Wheeler was always trying to get blacks to apply for positions which they had historically been barred. Officer Collins thought about it and finally applied. The department hired him and thus he became the first black officer in the city’s history. (I should note that in Officer Camp’s report, he stated a black man named Thomas Blackburn was an officer with the department at the turn of the century. Officer Collins had heard about Blackburn and thought he was half-Indian. In any event Officer Collins was the first black officer in the modern era.)

I was surprised to find that Officer Collins encountered very little racism, not only within the department, but within the city. Almost all of the officers were very accepting of him and none made a negative comment to him. At worst, some of the officers were distant to him. He stated his experience as an Ann Arbor Officer was very positive and enjoyable. He said Ann Arbor was a wonderful place in the 1950′s.

Jonathan Marwil’s “A History of Ann Arbor” gives an account of the hiring of Blackburn that’s consistent with Logghe’s. The Chronicle was not able to confirm in those two sources Shelton’s account of the rape accusation against officer Blackburn.

More recently, the AAPD was reviewed for possible racial profiling in a 2004 study of traffic stops, conducted by Lamberth Consulting. The AAPD scored well in the study, according to a Feb. 12, 2004 Ann Arbor News article. [.pdf of the Lamberth Consulting study on AAPD traffic stops]

Police Chief Appointment: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d had an opportunity to work with a few police chiefs in his time as mayor – Dan Oates and then Barnett Jones. Hieftje felt like he knows what it takes to be a good police chief – and whatever it is, John Seto has it. Seto has proven himself in this interim period, he said.

John Seto received a round of applause on his appointment as chief of Ann Arbor police. From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) praised Seto in the context of her work with him over the years. She was pleased to see promotion from within. She said that former chief Barnett Jones did a great job of succession planning. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she wholeheartedly supported the appointment. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Seto to come to the podium so that the public could see him.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) congratulated Seto for his work on sensitive issues. He was impressed with his professionalism and sensitivity. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) hoped that Seto recognized the unanimous support from the council reflected full faith and trust on the part of the council for his ability to lead. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) offered a single word: “Amen!” Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) called Seto’s appointment a recognition of the quality of the department as a whole, saying that it was the department that helped create Seto as he moved up the ranks.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint John Seto as chief of police and head of safety services. He was given an enthusiastic round of applause.

Seto thanked city administrator Steve Powers for the confidence to make the recommendation to appoint him. For the last 22 years, Seto said, it has been a privilege to work with the men and women of the police and fire departments. He’s witnessed first-hand the hard work, dedication and the sacrifices they’ve made to serve and protect the community. More than the honor of being appointed chief, he said, it’s his honor to be a part of this organization. Throughout his entire career, he said, he’d worked very hard to represent the city in the most professional manner and to treat everyone he meets with great respect – and he’d continue to do that, he concluded.

CUB Agreements

The council considered a resolution to reverse at least temporarily an earlier action on restoring the use of CUB agreements. Construction unity board (CUB) agreements are negotiated between local trade unions and contractors, and require that contractors who sign the agreement abide by terms of collective bargaining agreements for the duration of the construction project. In return, the trade unions agree that they will not strike, engage in work slow-downs, set up separate work entrances at the job site or take any other adverse action against the contractor.

The resolution considered by the council at its July 16 meeting suspended the use of CUB agreements for contracts over $25,000. The resolution appeared on the agenda after Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed Public Act 238 of 2012 into law on June 29. The law amends the Michigan Fair and Open Competition Act.

The council’s previous action was taken about a month earlier on June 4, 2012, and had restored the use of such CUB agreements. The July 16 suspension allows for the resolution using the CUB agreements to be restored administratively, pending possible court rulings.

An alternating series of positions by the city of Ann Arbor began with the adoption by the city council of the use of CUB agreements at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting. The resolution required that contractors and subcontractors execute such agreement with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for all city construction contracts.

But last year, the Michigan legislature passed Act 98 of 2011, which prohibited municipalities from signing construction contracts in which contractors were required to make an agreement with a collective bargaining organization.

So on Aug. 15, 2011, in response to the state law, the city council rescinded that requirement. However, the U.S. District Court subsequently found Act 98 to be unenforceable, based on the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act. So at its June 4, 2012 meeting, the city council restored the use of CUB agreements. The lone voice of dissent at that meeting was Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who opposed the resolution on philosophical and practical grounds. She pointed to similar pending legislation (Act 238) that might be enacted.

And the pending legislation was, in fact, passed and signed into law, which led to the city council’s action on July 16 again to suspend the use of CUB agreements.

The staff memo accompanying the resolution states that the suspension of CUB agreements does not affect the city’s living wage ordinance. Not discussed in the memo is how a Michigan Supreme Court order from April 7, 2010 might affect the city’s living wage ordinance. The order affirmed an unpublished court of appeals opinion that found a Detroit living wage law to be unenforceable.

During the brief council deliberations, Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that the way the resolution is intended to work is that the use of CUB agreements will be suspended – but on the outcome of court decisions, the use of the agreements could be restored administratively.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution suspending the use of CUB agreements.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Library Lane Parking Structure

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) reported on the grand opening of the new underground parking garage at South Fifth Avenue, called the Library Lane parking structure. [As of July 20, the parking facility was open with temporary occupancy permits, according to Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Remaining issues to be finalized include one elevator (which has a wall that's damp to the touch) and the water pressure in the fire suppression system.]

Smith invited mayor John Hieftje to reprise his remarks made on the occasion of the grand opening. He held forth at length. Highlights included the fact that the parking structure did not use any city general fund money, but rather money dedicated through the DDA. The parking structure revenue is supposed to pay for the bonds. [The DDA will be drawing on tax increment finance (TIF) capture for some initial capital costs and debt service.]

Later Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would pick up on the bond payment topic, noting that it was Build American Bonds that were used to pay for the structure. He wanted some communication directly from the city’s bond counsel on any restrictions to the possible uses for the parking spaces. By way of background, in April 2010 the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center had sent the council a letter outlining its view of the applicable restrictions. The concern in the letter is that dedicated use of spaces in the structure by private, non-governmental entities could jeopardize the federal subsidy provided to the city through this type of bond. [.pdf of GLELC bonding analysis]

Kunselman’s view is that any problem caused by a private entity undertaking a development on the site could be solved if the Ann Arbor District Library were to build its new building on top of the structure, just to the north of its current location. That same night, the AADL board voted to place a $65 million bond proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot for construction of a new library on its current site. It appears unlikely that the library would follow Kunselman’s suggestion.

Comm/Comm: Non-Partisan Elections, Public Speaking

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Michael Benson noted that of the eight candidates for four city council seats that are contested in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary, the vast majority have responded positively to the idea of converting Ann Arbor’s local city elections to a non-partisan format. Regardless of whether non-partisan elections are a good idea or bad idea, Benson said, he thought it might be good for the council to form a task force to study the issue and report back on it.

Benson also pointed out to the council that for that night’s agenda, more than 10 people had signed up to speak for public commentary at the start of the meeting. So some people who wanted to address the council on an action item had been assigned only an alternate slot and had not been able to address the councilmembers. Benson alluded to the fact that some speakers will meet the condition of speaking on an “agenda item” by referencing attachments of communications on the agenda, like minutes from various boards and commissions. He suggested that the council look at its priorities on allotting public speaking time. [Benson has previously suggested that the time per speaker be reduced from the current three minutes to two minutes, while adding 10 minutes to the current 30-minute time block. That would result in a doubling of the number of possible speakers from 10 to 20.]

Comm/Comm: AATA

Tim Hull related to the council how he had needed to travel to Canton and had discovered there is no way to ride on the Canton Express from Ann Arbor to Canton. [The service is configured for commuters from Canton to Ann Arbor, not the other way around. The issue has been raised by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) when the council has been addressed by Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.] Hull was critical of the AATA’s plan for countywide expansion – it amounts to an effort to get people from the county into Ann Arbor, and running empty buses out to Chelsea and Canton to start the service. AATA remains “woefully inadequate,” he said. He pointed to the New Year’s Day Winter Classic hockey game, a day when there’d be no regular bus service scheduled.

Comm/Comm: Better Services

Thomas Partridge told the council he was there as he has been for over a decade to lobby for increased services, attention and priorities for residents needing and deserving services the most. He told the council he was there as a candidate in the Democratic primary for the state house of representatives 53rd District, which covers most of Ann Arbor. [He's running against incumbent Jeff Irwin.] He called on the council and the public at large to adopt a progressive agenda. He called for expansion of affordable transportation and housing in a way that is balanced and that is backed by adequate appropriations. He contended that the expansion of employment in the city is being neglected.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Partridge repeated his call for expanded services, including an expanded competent public transportation system. He lamented the lack of a public hearing on John Seto’s appointment as permanent police chief. He said the public deserves open, transparent government. It’s not good public policy to approve large contracts without due deliberations on them or to approve site plans that would require little children to walk in the streets, he concluded. [Partridge was alluding in his last comment to the Maple Cove site plan approved by the council that night. The site plan does not include sidewalks for a private street leading to single-family homes.]

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

Absent: Christopher Taylor.

Next council meeting: Thursday, Aug. 9, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [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 city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The council received a presentation at its May 7, 2012 meeting from representatives of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios on the physical survey work. The 555 group has assumed responsibility for the art community’s component of an initiative established by the city council on Feb. 1, 2010 to explore a collaboration between the greenway and art communities for adaptive reuse of the property. The 555 group stepped in when the Arts Alliance could no longer devote staff time to the project. Prior to that initiative, the city had gone through an RFP (request for proposals) process for the property that did not lead to the selection of any of the three proposals.

Chuck Bultman, an architect who is working with the 555 group, attended the Sunday night city council caucus on July 15 and compared the physical surveys to be done on the 415 W. Washington property to a thorough medical workup for a patient. It would be more than taking blood pressure, and would include “drawing blood samples.” For the buildings, the work will include taking core samples to evaluate the structural integrity of the concrete and steel.

Besides the structural testing, other work to be done includes: an environmental survey; hazardous materials assessment; a topographic and boundary survey; a site survey; and architectural drawings of the existing buildings.

Bultman, along with several other professionals, have thus far volunteered their time to move the project forward. Others include: Paul Dannels (a structural engineer with Structural Design Inc.), Shannan Gibb-Randall (a landscape architect with Insite Design Studio Inc., and Matt Grocoff (an energy performance consultant with Thrive).

Much of the survey work – in particular, the environmental, hazardous materials and topographic surveys – would be required regardless of the parcel’s future use.

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]

Three parcels received discussion at the council's May 7 meeting, from south to north: 415 W. Washington, 721 N. Main, the MichCon property. (Image links to higher resolution file)

In connection with different agenda items, the council discussed the future of three major parcels within the city, two of which are city-owned: 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main, and the MichCon site near Broadway bridges.

First the council heard an update on the possible future of the city-owned 415 W. Washington property, located across from the Ann Arbor YMCA, which opened in 2005. The Y replaced the old Ann Arbor Technology Center, which had been the home of the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios, along with independent artists and musicians, who rented space at the center. It burned in the course of a 2003 demolition.

The 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios went on to re-locate in Detroit. The group has some experience re-purposing buildings as space for artists, recently hosting a fundraiser for an additional property it has acquired – the 3rd Police Precinct in southwest Detroit. Artists can rent literal jail cells there as work space.

On Feb. 1, 2010, the Ann Arbor city council had established a task force – consisting of greenway advocates and members of the arts community – to explore the future use of the 415 W. Washington property. The Ann Arbor Arts Alliance was the group identified to represent the arts community interests.

Now, the 555 group appears ready to take responsibility for the arts portion of planning for the site. That’s the portion that entails re-using the existing building on the site, which is located in the Old West Side historic district. Carl Goines, a representative of 555, addressed the council on Monday night. Goines had co-founded the group 10 years ago in the tech center.

Goines described how an investment of around $45,000 is needed for surveying and environmental analysis of the 415 W. Washington site. That investment would be required whether the building is preserved or demolished, he said. Mayor John Hieftje indicated in his comments at the meeting that he’d be willing to give the group perhaps a year to establish a viable way to re-purpose the building, but also indicated an eagerness eventually to apply to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund for a grant to develop the entire parcel as a park. If the 555 group could not find a way to rehabilitate the structure within a reasonable time, Hieftje indicated a willingness to pursue the option of asking the city’s historic district commission for permission to demolish the structure.

The other city-owned parcel discussed by the council was 721 N. Main, former site of a city maintenance yard.  That came in connection with a council resolution to establish a task force to study the North Main corridor, and deliver a report in a year’s time, by July 31, 2013. Earlier than that, by the end of 2012, the task force is supposed to provide a recommendation on the use of 721 N. Main.

The city has an already-approved grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to pay for demolition of two buildings on the site – but not the main building. The 721 N. Main parcel will also likely be part of a Natural Resources Trust Fund grant application by the city in the spring of 2013.

The task force is also supposed to provide a recommendation on the future use of the MichCon property, between the Amtrak station and the Huron River. MichCon is currently undertaking an environmental cleanup of the land, and the standard to which MichCon remediates the parcel will depend on its intended future use. Hieftje has been clear about his preference – that the city acquire the land for a park. A possible source of funds the city could use for acquisition of such a park would be money generated by the open space and parkland preservation millage.

By administrative policy, a third of the revenue from that millage is overseen by the land acquisition committee of the city’s park advisory commission. The council confirmed a new appointment to that commission at Monday’s meeting – Ingrid Ault, who replaces the term-limited Gwen Nystuen. The other two-thirds of the millage revenues – for preservation of land outside the city as a greenbelt – is administered by the greenbelt advisory commission. And notice of two upcoming reappointments to that body was also on the agenda – for Catherine Riseng and Peter Allen.

Allen is a real estate developer, who might have alternatives in mind for MichCon’s property that include more than just a park.

415 W. Washington

On the council’s agenda under the “introductions” section was an item updating the status of the city-owned 415 W. Washington site. For the council, the most recent historical touchstone was their Feb. 1, 2010 resolution establishing a task force consisting of Allen Creek greenway advocates and representatives of the arts community to work together to explore uses of the site. Chronicle coverage of that council meeting: ”Council Restarts 415 W. Washington Process.”

But the history of the planning for the site dates back more than just two years.

415 W. Washington: More Context – Current Use

Currently, the part of the parcel not occupied by buildings is used for surface parking in Ann Arbor’s public parking system. The lot offers 161 spaces, and generated $160,274 for 49,818 hourly patrons for the first nine months of fiscal year 2012 – that is, through March 31.

Based on the first three quarters of FY 2012, the annual revenue from 415 W. Washington’s parking lot can be estimated at $214,000 annually. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority operates the public parking system under contract with the city of Ann Arbor – a contract that stipulates 17% of gross parking revenues be paid directly to the city. So currently, the surface parking lot at 415 W. Washington could be estimated to provide about $36,000 annually to the city of Ann Arbor.

415 W. Washington: More Context – Future Use

A 2007 city of Ann Arbor greenway task force’s report included the following alternative recommendations for 415 W. Washington: (a) open space and a community art park; (b) a community building; and (c) new housing and additional open space. The (b) alternative mentioned the arts community specifically, but was not limited to that nonprofit sector. From the report:

Another rationale for maintaining the current structure has been provided by a variety of artists, artist organizations and other non-profit entities such as Kiwanis, many of which have expressed a desire to maintain the building for use by their respective organizations.

The city then issued an RFP (request for proposals) for the site. The RFP included a range of site objectives, but did not specify any one of the three recommended greenway task force alternatives for the site. The RFP site objectives, in excerpted form, are these:

1. Beneficial use of the site. … Preference will be given to proposals that incorporate a use (or uses) that provides a publicly available service to the community, for instance, building space that may be used for public meetings and civic or cultural events. Additional consideration will be given for the development of dwelling units affordable to downtown workers earning between 60% and 80% of Area Median Income (AMI), as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
2. Public greenway linkage. The floodway portion of the site should be reserved in some manner as open space for the Allen Creek Greenway. … The proposal should include provisions for long-term maintenance of the public elements by the applicant.
3. Flood risk mitigation. A successful proposal will employ the best management practices identified in the City of Ann Arbor Flood Mitigation Plan. …
4. Environmental benefits. The development proposal should incorporate to the greatest extent possible environmentally sensitive design and energy efficiency features that follow Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. Preference will be given to proposals that reuse or rehabilitate existing structures, consistent with historic district standards. …
5. Historic preservation. The project design must respect the historic character of the surrounding neighborhood and comply with the Old West Side historic district regulations. …
6. Financial return. The proposal must provide a positive financial return to the City. …

The three proposals received by the city, in severely abbreviated form, were as follows:

Old West Side Design Group: This proposal called for construction of a 3-story artist loft and live/work building totaling 24-36 units with above grade-level parking. The building, which would contain a minimum of 5-8 affordable units, would be located south of the main building on land currently occupied by garage structures. It would be designed for a LEED Silver rating or higher. A 24-unit residential condominium and commercial building is proposed on the adjacent 318 W. Liberty, to be developed under a separate site plan by members of the OWSDG proposal team.

Morningside: Construction of a new five-story, 52-unit condominium building with 48 parking spaces on the grade level under the building. Second floor residences are proposed for artist live/work space. Units would be priced in the mid-$200,000 range. The building, which would be designed for LEED Gold certification, would be located south of the main building on land currently occupied by garage structures.

Ann Arbor Art Center: Renovation of the 415 W. Washington building and garages into a community arts facility, to be owned by the Art Center. The Art Center would occupy approximately 13,000 square feet and rent or lease the remaining space to art groups and individuals.

Membership on the RFP review committee was as follows: Christine Brummer (Old West Side Association), Chris Easthope (now 15th District Court judge and then Ward 5 city council member), Sue McCormick (then director of public services with the city of Ann Arbor), John Mouat (then as now, an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member), and Scott Rosencrans (then a member of the city’s park advisory commission).

After meeting seven times from May to December 2008 to review and evaluate the proposals, the RFP committee offered praise for all three proposals but did not designate any one of the three a recommended choice. From the committee report:

Notwithstanding these positive elements, the Committee finds that no single proposal is able to satisfy all of the site objectives and requirements of the RFP on its own merits. This evaluation is described in the findings below, followed by recommendations for the next steps in the site redevelopment process.

The RFP committee then kicked the process back to council by asking councilmembers to refine the RFP and allow opportunity until mid-March 2009 for revision to the proposals. From the report:

City council should further clarify its vision for the intended uses of the site and revise the site objectives in the RFP accordingly. The Committee recommends that city council include the following elements in its vision for the site:

• A publicly-owned greenway along the existing floodway.
• Renovation of the 415 W. Washington office building for an arts and/or civic use.
• Removal of the garages behind the office building.
• Construction of a new multi-family or live-work residential building at the southwest corner of the site.
• Pedestrian and vehicle connections to both Liberty and Washington streets.

City council should provide each of the three proposers an opportunity to amend their proposal to respond to the revised site objectives and to provide for collaboration between the parties. The charge of the advisory committee should be extended to review the amended proposals and make its recommendation to city council by March 16, 2009.

The city council did not act in the fashion described by the RFP review committee.

Instead, the city council eventually moved ahead with its Feb. 1, 2010 resolution on the 415 W. Washington site. That resolution could be fairly described as taking the concept from the Ann Arbor Art Center’s RFP response and starting a community-based process to explore its realization.

The resolution language referred explicitly to an “innovative process of community collaboration to explore a greenway park and arts center.”

415 W. Washington: Update on  Process – 2011

The Greenway Arts Committee established to engage in the “innovative process” included: mayor John Hieftje, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Christine Schopieray (the mayor’s administrative assistant) on behalf of the city council; Joe O’Neal and Jonathan Bulkley for the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy; and Tamara Real, Susan Froelich and David Esau for The Arts Alliance.

A year ago, at its April 4, 2011 meeting, the council received an update on the process. Esau of the Arts Alliance gave the presentation for the group. Highlights of the work included a report on focus groups conducted with artists. The committee also had made site visits to The Russell in Detroit, the Park Trades Center in Kalamazoo, and the Box Factory in St. Joseph.

At that time, the committee had secured a donation that had allowed a grant writer to be hired, to help submit applications for several grants, but none had yet been secured, Esau reported. He said the next step would be to raise $100,000 for additional studies on the old buildings located at the site, which are protected by the Old West Side historic district.

415 W. Washington: Update on  Process – 2012

At the council’s most recent meeting on May 7, 2012, Esau’s update was less sanguine about his own group’s involvement.

He characterized the group as having completed the work for the skills that are relevant to the Arts Alliance. The group had wanted to see a combination of different kind of spaces for artists and had generated preliminary layouts for the building. The result of that work suggested the building could house the activities that the Arts Alliance would like it to house, and that it could operate on a break-even basis. What was needed was a more sophisticated and detailed revenue/expense analysis, he said.

Funding for grant writing had been arranged, Esau said. However, most foundations offering grants are limited in their scope, he said. Foundations offering grants often are not interested in funding bricks-and-mortar capital projects, especially not early-stage projects like the 415 W. Washington project. The group wound up applying for just one grant, and it turned out that for that grant as well, the kind of capital project the Ann Arbor group had in mind was not a good fit, even though that was not evident from the grant criteria. The balance of the money that had been donated to the group for grant-writing activity has been returned to the donor at the request of the donor, Esau reported.

For the greenway portion of the project, Esau indicated that it would be included as part of the city’s grant application to Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources Trust Fund. [That same entity is funding part of the Ann Arbor skatepark and the renovations to the city's boat facilities at Gallup Park.]

Esau told the council that if the city is serious about redevelopment of the building, there is money that needs to be spent now. Some of that money would be needed anyway – even if the building is demolished. The Arts Alliance still believes a shared arts facility has potential and could be beneficial. However, as supportive as the Arts Alliance is of the concept, that organization can’t continue to do work on the project without compensation. All their work thus far has been pro bono. He noted that a different arts group has emerged that has more experience in adapting existing structures and is interested in participating.

With that, Esau handed over the presentation to Carl Goines, executive director of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios. Goines sketched out the mission and history of the group, as it was founded in the Technology Center, where the Ann Arbor Y now stands, across the street from the 415 W. Washington site.

Vision of 415 W. Washington as complementary spaces with a greenway and space for contemporary artists. The bottom image is an aerial view of the existing site, looking north. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Goines described three locations in Detroit that 555 currently operates, including the former 3rd police precinct building, with around 7,000 square feet, including jail cells. Goines said 555 was interested in working with greenway advocates to create complementary spaces – the greenway portion of the parcel and a building with space for artists.

The first steps that Goines said need to be taken are: hazardous materials assessment ($5,200); Phase 2/3 environmental assessments ($20,000); topographic and boundary survey ($6,200); structural condition survey ($3,000 to $5,000); and architectural/structural as-built survey ($8,000).

So the estimated total for survey work, he said, is $45,000 – but he had an understanding that the first three items were already in the city’s budget. It’s work that would need to be done, whether the building is demolished or rehabilitated, he said. [In subsequent remarks, community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl described the need to have environmental closure on the site, in order to be able to apply for a grant from Michigan's Natural Resources Trust Fund.]

After those first steps, Goines said, the next steps would be: developing a hazardous materials abatement plan; doing a structural feasibility analysis; doing a more detailed analysis of programming and design feasibility; performing a site and environmental feasibility analysis; doing a cost analysis; forming partnerships; and fundraising.

415 W. Washington: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje had introduced some of the history of the site before Esau and Goines addressed the council. When they concluded their remarks, Hieftje noted that 415 W. Washington is a city-owned site. The city needs to do something with it. He characterized it as a magnet for graffiti. Because it’s in the Old West Side historic district, the city can’t simply remove the building. The city would need to petition the city’s historic district commission, Hieftje said. He hoped that a proposal could be brought forward working with people who’ve done a similar project before – the 555 group.

However, Hieftje cautioned that if something couldn’t be brought forward in a year, the task force would have to come back and say they haven’t been able to bring something forward, and a decision would need to be made at that time. A year from now, Hieftje remarked, the building won’t be in better shape than it is now. He echoed the remarks of Esau and Goines in noting that the expenditures they’d identified would need to be made anyway before tearing down the building.

Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, explained that the annual deadline for Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant applications is in April. Bahl reported that staff had looked at 415 W. Washington as the subject of a possible grant application, but had concluded there are a number of elements not yet in place – for example, “environmental closure” on the site.

At the city park advisory commission meeting on Jan. 2, 2102, Colin Smith – the city’s manager of parks and recreation – had responded to a question from commissioner Gwen Nystuen about the possibility of moving ahead with development of a greenway park at 415 W. Washington. He noted the issue with the historic district as well as the need to master plan a greenway as items that would need to be addressed before a trust fund grant application could be made. From The Chronicle’s meeting coverage:

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that a council resolution was passed on Aug. 4, 2011 expressing general support for the idea of a greenway. There have been conversations, he said, about applying for a grant from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, to turn the 415 W. Washington site into a park. The city staff is looking into that. The process would be similar to the way that the trust fund application for the skatepark had been handled, Smith explained. Staff would first come to PAC for a recommendation to apply. That recommendation would be forwarded to city council, which would need to approve the application.

Smith noted that one issue for the 415 W. Washington property is that it’s located in a historic district – the Old West Side. So in addition to PAC, the city would need a recommendation from the historic district commission too, he said.

Finally, Smith reminded commissioners that the parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan, which PAC approved, recommends that the first action should be development of a master plan to guide the creation of a greenway. That point bears consideration, he said.

415 W. Washington: What about 721 N. Main?

At the council’s May 7 meeting, Bahl explained that because the city could not move quickly with a trust fund grant application for 415 W. Washington, staff were instead considering the city-owned 721 N. Main as a grant application. To apply to the trust fund, he explained, there would need to be environmental closure on the site, a budget and a plan. Even for 721 N. Main, he said, it’d be an aggressive time schedule, but he felt the city could manage it. All the planning work would need to be done by Jan. 1, 2013, he said, to have the application ready for the April 2013 deadline. It would need to be reviewed by the park advisory commission and the environmental commission. Also, community meetings would need to be held and a community consensus achieved.

The introduction of the topic of the 721 N. Main property led to some confusion among councilmembers: Was the city considering applying for Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grants for 721 N. Main or 415 W. Washington, or possibly both?

Back and forth between Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Hieftje, and Bahl established that the city would plan to try for an application on 721 N. Main in April 2013, and for 415 W. Washington the following year, in April 2014. Hieftje said that city staff say they won’t have the capacity to do both at the same time.

Hieftje also indicated there’s a problem with the environmental conditions at 415 W. Washington. The city thinks it can meet the environmental standard at 721 N. Main. Hieftje also indicated that there’s some concern on the part of the city’s lobbyist in Lansing that the Natural Resources Trust Fund might not be as flush in coming years as it has been. In addition, Hieftje said, the Greenway Conservancy needs to have a park established as a part of the Allen Creek greenway so they can point to it, which will facilitate fundraising for additional acquisitions.

Lumm agreed that both properties are key parcels. She ventured that many members of the city council would like to assist with the planning effort for the greenway, and noted that it involved asking city staff to invest the time to master plan the greenway. Bahl said that planning exercise would be a two-year effort.

In his remarks on the 415 W. Washington presentation, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted the relationship between the two parcels, saying a lot things are coming together at the same time. The 721 N. Main property is within the area of the North Main corridor task force, he said, which was an item later on the council’s agenda.

Outcome: The council did not have a voting item on its agenda related to 415 W. Washington.

North Main/Huron River Task Force

The council considered a resolution establishing a task force to study the corridor along North Main Street and the Huron River.

The scope of the task force is described in one of the “Resolved” clauses:

RESOLVED, This task force’s efforts should develop a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway; …

The task force is supposed to submit a report on its vision more than a year from now, on July 31, 2013. The membership of the task force is described as follows:

RESOLVED, That the task force will include one member of the park advisory commission, one member of planning commission, one resident representing Water Hill, one resident representing the North Central, one resident from Old Fourth Ward and one resident representing Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of Huron River Watershed Council;

North Main/Huron River Task Force: 721 N. Main

In addition to the MichCon property, the resolution establishing the North Main/Huron River task force explicitly mentions another parcel – 721 N. Main.

RESOLVED, This task force’s efforts should result in a recommendation to council for the best use of 721 N. Main as part of the Allen Creek Greenway trails by Dec. 31, 2012;

So there are two deadlines for the task force – an outcome that was decided only after confusion and much conversation by the council during its May 7 deliberations. The earliest deadline is for a recommendation on the 721 N. Main property – by the end of 2012. The later deadline, for the overall report, is not until 2013, on July 31.

The 721 N. Main parcel is west of Main Street. The main building on the site is oriented north-south, visible just north of the blue-shaded area (the FEMA floodway) and inside the green area (the FEMA floodplain). The FEMA grant for demolition of buildings does not include the main building. (Links to higher resolution image.)

Council deliberations on the 721 N. Main portion of the task force resolution had already begun in the context of the presentation on 415 W. Washington. At that point in the council meeting, it was already established that the 721 N. Main property would be put ahead of 415 W. Washington for consideration of a Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund application. It’s the trust fund’s April 2013 application deadline that pushed the council to give the task force a Dec. 31, 2012 deadline for a recommendation on 721 N. Main.

Some of the additional background on 721 N. Main, reviewed by community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl, included the fact that the city has received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to demolish two of the buildings – those in the floodway. The main building is in the floodplain, not the floodway, and is not included in the FEMA grant. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there was any intent to save the main building. Bahl said he didn’t know right now, but the FEMA grant is for the demolition of the other two buildings.

The receipt of the FEMA grant is contingent on getting the city’s All-Hazard Plan updated, Bahl explained. It had lapsed, and FEMA requires an updated plan before the grant award can be made. [The city recently hired a new emergency management director, Rick Norman, who was introduced to the council at its Feb. 21, 2012 meeting. Updating the plan will be one of Norman's priorities.]

As funding sources for development of 721 N. Main as a greenway park, Hieftje gave another possibility in addition to the FEMA grant and the possible Natural Resources Trust Fund grant. Hieftje reported that he also had had a fruitful conversation with Washtenaw County parks and recreation on possible funding from that group. [The Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission operates with its own dedicated millage funds.] No formal agreement exists, Hieftje allowed, but the group was happy to see an application for funds go forward.

By way of additional background, Bob Tetens – director of Washtenaw County parks and recreation – told The Chronicle in a recent phone interview that there was not anything yet in front of the parks and recreation commission related to 721 N. Main. He indicated that there’d been conversations with the city about the project, and that the idea of connecting the 721 N. Main property would be a good fit with the county parks and recreation Connecting Communities grant program – a $600,000 annual program over five years, for a total of $3 million. Tetens also said that a project already partly funded through another source (like the state’s Natural Resources Trust Fund) would enhance that project’s application for a Connecting Communities grant. However, there are more applications for various projects every year than Washtenaw County parks and recreation can fund through the program, Tetens said.

Excerpt from the city's 2007 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

At the council’s May 7 meeting, Bahl said that Ann Arbor will work with Washtenaw County parks and recreation as the project moves along. Hieftje also described the possibility of a tunnel under the railroad track that could connect the 721 N. Main side of the railroad tracks to the Border-to-Border Trail. [The two borders to which the trail's name refers are the eastern and western edges of Washtenaw County.]

The city’s 2007 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, which is currently being updated by the city, shows a non-motorized trail underpass for the railroad tracks that would essentially extend a shared-use path from Fifth Avenue at Depot Street under the tracks across the MichCon property, where it could eventually connect with the Border-to-Border trail. [.pdf of map from 2007 Non-Motorized Transportation Plan]

Hieftje commented that he’s hopeful about a railroad underpass, because the Michigan Dept. of Transportation would be soon be acquiring the tracks from Norfolk Southern Railway. Railroad are notorious for being difficult to work with, he said. Hieftje felt that MDOT should be easier to work with than Norfolk Southern.

Bahl responded to Hieftje’s speculation by saying that MDOT might be easier to work with than the Norfolk Southern, but said that working with MDOT is no piece of cake. Bahl’s sentiments were consistent with those expressed by city staff on a March 16, 2012 staff-led tour of the area around the MichCon site and the Broadway bridges. Responding to residents who ventured that MDOT would be easier to work with, city engineer Michael Nearing and city transportation program manager Eli Cooper were both keen to stress that MDOT would not be easy to work with on railroad issues.

North Main/Huron River Task Force: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off the deliberations on the task force resolution. She co-sponsored it with her wardmate, Sabra Briere. She highlighted the fact that it’s meant to be a collaborative effort to look at the North Main corridor along the Huron River. She noted that access to Bandemer Park was difficult – for pedestrians, bicyclists and cars. None of it is being done very well currently, she said. So people use the illegal cut-throughs across the railroad tracks.

The city has given up maintaining a fence there, because it was destroyed so many times, she said. But across the railroad tracks is the only way into Bandemer, unless you go up North Main and cross the tracks at the at-grade crossing. Almost everyone takes the illegal shortcut, she noted. The city is investing a lot of resources in that general area. The Argo Cascades bypass around the Argo Dam has doubled or tripled the number of visitors to the area. People are flocking to it, she said. A connection between 721 N. Main and Bandemer will serve the greenway very well, she said. Getting to the Huron River from that side of the railroad tracks needs to be addressed, she said.

In his remarks, made later in the deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that Smith had served on the Allen Creek greenway task force that had produced the 2007 report. It had a lot of technical detail that’s very deep, he noted. The participation of the greenway conservancy would be an asset, he said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said the task force effort ties in with efforts that had been discussed two years ago. He noted that he and Smith had walked the area to see what the North Main entrance into the city looks like. He said he’d support the resolution as an idea whose time has come.

Briere noted the difference between the work of the task force and the work that city staff would do. She observed that members of the task force are individual citizens, not staff members. She continued by saying she is partial to the resolution language that says the task force will conduct a series of workshops and would work with independent professionals – to help everyone listen to ideas they might not think of inside the box they live in. She stressed that the task force membership includes people who have a real stake in the area. She also stressed that anyone who wanted to attend the task force meetings would be welcome to do so.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated she supported the resolution. But she wanted to know how the work would be funded. Briere indicated the task force would have access to one staff member – Sumedh Bahl. Most of the work would be done by people who don’t get paid. So Higgins ventured that the independent professionals the task force was supposed to consult with would be volunteers – yes, said Briere.

A lengthy discussion then ensued about the work that the task force would do on 721 N. Main, compared with the staff work that would be done specifically in connection with preparing to meet the April 2013 application deadline for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) before the May 7 council meeting.

Bahl indicated that the initially proposed deadline for the task force recommendation on 721 N. Main (which had been March 31, 2013) would be much too late to make a difference for the April grant application. That deadline was revised to Dec. 31, 2012.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) expressed some concern that even that earlier deadline would not give city staff enough time to prepare the grant application. Bahl assured Taylor that the site plan that would be produced in connection with the grant application would be only at the conceptual level, indicating that the deadline would be achievable.

Hieftje stressed that the best thing from the point of view of pushing a greenway forward is to get the funding for 721 N. Main, so that the first of a series of greenway parks could be established. That would be the best approach to establishing 415 W. Washington as part of an Allen Creek greenway, he said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) thanked Briere and Smith for developing the resolution and bringing it forward. He counted it as significant progress since the greenway task force had submitted its report. He also noted that progress had been made on the First and William lot. Hohnke felt that progress was now being made on the other two city-owned parcels [identified by greenway advocates as three key parcels for an Allen Creek greenway.] Hohnke noted that part of the challenge of the First and William site is environmental remediation.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved establishing the task force to develop a vision for North Main/Huron River. Appointments to the task force could come as soon as the next council meeting on May 21.

Appointments to Open-Space-Related Bodies

In addition to eventual appointments to the North Main/Huron River task force, at its May 7 meeting the council considered appointments to two park-related bodies of the city: the park advisory commission, and the greenbelt advisory commission.

Appointments: Park Advisory Commission

The council considered the nomination of Ingrid Ault to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC). Ault – executive director of the nonprofit Think Local First – replaces Gwen Nystuen, who served two three-year terms on the commission starting in 2006. Service on the commission is limited to six continuous years at a time – but an additional appointment can be made after a three-year pause.

During the council’s opportunity to deliberate on the appointment, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) spoke at length in praise of Nystuen’s service to the city on PAC.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved Ault’s nomination to the city’s park advisory commission.

Appointments: Greenbelt Advisory Commission

A parliamentary snafu was associated with the nomination for re-appointment of two members of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission (GAC), which is charged with overseeing a portion of the proceeds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. By administrative policy, two-thirds of the millage proceeds are invested in land preservation outside the city – GAC makes recommendations to city council for those investments. The other third of the money is overseen by the land acquisition committee of PAC, which also acts in an advisory capacity to city council.

The re-appointment of Catherine Riseng and Peter Allen to GAC was on the agenda as a voting item, but was supposed to be a communication. The council agreed informally to postpone the vote until its following meeting, on May 21. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) raised the corresponding point of order – the council should actually vote on the postponement as a matter of form, which the council then did.

Outcome: The council unanimously postponed the reappointment of Riseng and Allen to GAC.

MichCon Site

Also a part of the North Main/Huron River task force scope of work is the MichCon site, bounded roughly by the railroad tracks next to the Amtrak station on the west, the Huron River on the east, and Broadway bridges on the south.

MichCon, a subsidiary of DTE Energy, is currently engaged in the environmental cleanup of contamination that’s related to the site’s history as a coal gasification plant. The cleanup plan for the strip of land alongside the river was presented to the city council recently, as well as to the city’s park advisory commission. [For a more detailed look at that plan, see Chronicle coverage of the March 20, 2012 park advisory commission meeting.]

At an April 10, 2012 public hearing held at Cobblestone Farm, Shayne Wiesemann, a senior environmental engineer with DTE Energy, spoke to The Chronicle about the cleanup. He explained that the cleanup of the area next to the river was the subject of the hearing, not the cleanup for the entire site. While the standards for remediating the riverside strip had essentially been determined, that was not the case for the entire site.

The cleanup standard that DTE Energy would meet for the entire site would depend on its eventual planned use by a future owner, Wiesemann said. He indicated that the MichCon leadership is interested in selling the property – but does not have an immediate sense of urgency to dispose of the land. He indicated that something like a five-year time frame would be appropriate to think about.

"Broadway Mills" – a University of Michigan student project. This rendering is oriented with south at the top of the image. (Image links to large .pdf of class project.)

Mayor John Hieftje and others have spoken about their desire to see the land acquired by the city and become a park. One possible source of funds for acquisition of at least part of the parcel by the city would be the open space and parkland preservation millage. That purchase would need to be recommended by the park advisory commission’s land acquisition committee.

For Peter Allen, who serves on the greenbelt advisory commission in the slot designated for a real estate developer, the vision of the MichCon property is more than just a park. [Allen's service on GAC would not allow him to have say in the expenditure of open space and parkland preservation millage dollars on the MichCon property, which lies inside the city.]

In a recent phone interview with The Chronicle, Allen described how the “buildable” portion of the property is closer to the Broadway bridges, and that he could imagine the parcel as including parkland as well as developed property. He highlighted in particular the possibility of including a performing arts venue at the location.

NoMo – a University of Michigan student project. The view is from the east with the Broadway bridges in the foreground. (Image links to large .pdf of class project.)

Allen teaches a course in urban planning as an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan. Two and a half years ago, The Chronicle reported on a class assignment that Allen gave students to look at the potential development of various sites around Ann Arbor. Two groups of students took on the challenge of evaluating the MichCon property as developable land.

The two projects were called Broadway Mills and NoMo. Both proposals include construction of buildings on the eastern part of the parcel, leaving the western portion as open space.

NoMo proposed a mix of retail (ground floor), office (middle) and residential uses (top). Broadway Mills also included a mix of retail and residential uses, and specifically called for a small amphitheater and a seasonal ice rink. A space the project team dubbed “Depot Plaza” – located roughly where the current Amtrak station is located – would be “a family-oriented space, with a splash fountain, climbable sculptures, and a playground.”

Outcome: The council did not have a voting item on its agenda regarding the MichCon property.

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

Absent: Margie Teall.

Next council meeting: Monday, May 21, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without its own “greenway” of 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!