From left: Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm (Ward 2); Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). In color are the only two councilmembers on that side of the table who are not running for mayor. (Photo art by The Chronicle.)

The pedestrian safety and access task force appeared on the agenda because confirmation of its nine members was a question before the council. As part of that vote, as well as during council communications, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) revived the recent controversy over an attempted repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance – an effort that mayor John Hieftje ultimately vetoed. The task force was appointed at Tuesday’s meeting, after Kunselman established that he was still interested in revising the city’s crosswalk ordinance so that motorists would be required to stop for pedestrians only if they could “do so safely.”

In other business, the council approved the site plan for a revised, expanded version of the 624 Church St. project, located in the block just south of South University Avenue. The revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The approval came after an hour and a half of debate on the site plan, focusing on the way the project is satisfying a zoning requirement to provide parking spaces – through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had approved three five-year extensions for the CIL monthly permits – beyond the standard CIL term of 15 years. When Kunselman’s bid to eliminate the extended term failed – a move that would have jeopardized the project’s financing – he told Sean Spellman, representing the developer: “I’m sorry if I scared you …”

Also related to downtown development, the council moved along a process to revise downtown zoning regulations. The council accepted the planning commission’s recommendations, and in turn tasked the planning commission to develop ordinance language to implement the recommendations. In general, the planning commission’s recommendations were intended to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods. Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional by-right floor area ratio (FAR).

During its Tuesday meeting, the council added some direction of its own: (1) consider rezoning Huron Street from Division to Fourth Avenue to conform with the East Huron 1 character district, and consider incorporating 25-foot minimum side setbacks and 10-foot front setbacks where feasible in the East Huron 1 character district; and (2) consider whether other D1-zoned areas that do not have buffering from adjacent residential neighborhoods, including some areas of South University and Thayer Street, should be rezoned to D2. A date certain was also added by which the planning commission is to report to the council on all its work on this issue – Oct. 20, 2014.

In other zoning action at its Jan. 21 meeting, the council gave initial approval for the zoning of two unzoned properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. They are proposed to be zoned C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

In another item related to South State Street property, the council approved with no discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services to evaluate 2500 S. State St. That’s the Edwards Brothers Malloy property for which the council is currently exploring options to purchase. The item was added to the agenda on Friday, Jan. 17, after the initial publication of the agenda.

Delayed by the council was a six-month extension of the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, and a proposal to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. The postponement was made amid concern about the remaining $839,507 unallocated balance in the now-defunct Percent for Art fund. The political horse-trade made at the council table was to postpone the contract extension, with the expectation that it would be supported at the council’s next meeting – but at the same time, a process would start to return the better part of the $839,507 to the various funds from which that money was drawn.

The city’s new public art program relies on the idea of integrated or “baked-in” art for capital projects. It was developed by a five-member council committee, which included all four of the councilmembers who have announced that they’re running for mayor in 2014 – Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The fifth member of that committee was Margie Teall (Ward 4), who cast the only vote against postponing the contract extension for Seagraves – as she wanted to approve it at Tuesday’s meeting.

Also at its Jan. 21 meeting, the council approved $6,818 of general fund money to build a sidewalk from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward – to connect to a path leading the rest of the way to King Elementary School. The item, which has a history of at least four years, drew about 15 minutes of discussion.

Taking a half hour of council deliberations was another sidewalk-related item. The council approved the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road. Debate centered on a proposal from Kunselman to ask the city administrator to consider city funding for 80% of the project.

The council dispatched quickly two liquor-license related items: recommendation of a special downtown development liquor license for The Lunch Room at 407 N. Fifth Avenue, and a change in the classification of Silvio’s Organic Pizza license from a Tavern License to a Class C License.

Public commentary was highlighted by concerns about fracking.

Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

Councilmembers were asked to confirm nominations made at the council’s Jan. 6, 2014 meeting for members of a pedestrian safety and access task force. Members of the task force are: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

The task force was established at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. The group is supposed to “explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to Council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.” The group is asked to deliver a report by February 2015.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

During council communications time at the start of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) read aloud from several sources, calling it a “collage of the crosswalk ordinance working as intended.” The first item he read aloud was an email from Chelsea resident Diane Locker, who questioned the city’s crosswalk ordinance, based on an experience she had. The subject line to the email was “Crosswalk law caused a recent near-accident.” The email asked for help in understanding how to comply with the city’s crosswalk ordinance. She’d never received a traffic ticket, nor had she been involved in causing an accident, she wrote.

The previous day she’d had an experience on W. Eisenhower near Waymarket Drive that nearly caused a serious accident, she wrote. Under the city’s ordinance, she felt, she should have received a ticket, like a half-dozen cars behind her. She also felt that the father and child who were waiting to cross Eisenhower would have been within their right to start crossing but would have been seriously injured or killed, if they’d started crossing. To date, that’s the closest she’d come to having an accident since the crosswalk law’s repeal had been vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Locker said she sees pedestrians waiting at the curb to cross on her commute to work and would hate to think that an accident is inevitable. She described other occasions when she’s proceeded without even attempting to stop – because the pedestrian was not walking and the car following her was too close to react to her braking.

Kunselman then read aloud from the ordinance:

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

Kunselman then read aloud from Hieftje’s statement vetoing the ordinance:

Referred to as the “Crosswalk Ordinance,” existing Section 10:148 in the Ann Arbor City Code differs from Rule 702 of the Michigan Uniform Traffic Code (“UTC”) in that it explicitly requires drivers to stop, if they can do so safely, for pedestrians stopped on the curb, curb line or ramp. [.pdf of the Dec. 9, 2013 veto statement]

Kunselman then read aloud from an interview with Hieftje in Concentrate magazine:

Given that you had to use your veto to stop council eliminating the requirement for drivers to stop for pedestrians waiting to enter a crosswalk, are you concerned about how the issue will change without your vote in play?

No, I’m pretty happy with the task force that I’ll be naming at our next council meeting. Their mandate is to study the issue. There’s absolutely no data to show that our crosswalk ordinance isn’t working as intended. So I would hope that the task force would be allowed to work.

Kunselman highlighted the part of Hieftje’s veto statement that requires drivers to stop “if they can do so safely.” He ventured that the city attorney’s office had reviewed the language of Hieftje’s veto statement. So now, Kunselman said – citing the email from the Chelsea driver – people are making decisions as to whether they can stop safely.

A few minutes later, the council was asked to confirm appointment of the nine members of the pedestrian safety task and access force. Kunselman asked what the task is for the task force: Is it to come up with recommendations to amend the ordinance?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) replied that the task force was conceived independently of the heated controversy about the crosswalk ordinance. There are a whole slew of things related to pedestrian safety in addition to crosswalks, she said, which the task force would be reviewing. She alluded to a manual put out by the federal government that will guide the task force’s work. She also said that the task force will be given a book about walkable cities.

Kunselman contended that Briere’s explanation had made clear that the council can continue to consider the question of amending the crosswalk ordinance. He returned to his previous focus on the phrase from the mayor’s veto statement that said drivers should stop “if they can do so safely.” He ventured that an attempt might be made to amend the language of the ordinance to include that phrase.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm all the pedestrian safety and access task force appointments.

624 Church Street

The council considered approval of the site plan for 624 Church Street. This project would be located south of South University Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, next to and over the two-story Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church. A previous version went through the planning review process and was given approval by the city council almost a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

The current, revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down.

Rendering of 624 Church apartments, looking south from South University. Zaragon Place is pictured to the west, immediately next to the proposed 624 Church building. (Image included in the planning commission meeting packet.)

The original plan was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. But after the original plan received site plan approval, the developer purchased an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building eventually to be constructed. [.pdf of site plan] [.pdf of draft development agreement] [.pdf of staff memo]

Premiums offered in the D1 zoning district – for buildings with residential uses, and LEED silver certification – are being used to allow a larger structure than would otherwise be permitted, gaining an additional 267% in floor area ratio for a total of 667% FAR. To use the residential premium, each bedroom must have a window directly to the outside. The premium also triggers the requirement to provide parking – either by building it onsite or through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program.

The project includes a 1,491-square-foot outdoor dining area for Pizza House, which will be built underneath the apartment structure on the south side of the restaurant, opening onto Church Street. It will be partially enclosed, with large garage-style overhead doors along the front property line opening to the sidewalk.

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

• Two small offices for building management on the ground floor of the addition, with a solid waste/recycling room and bicycle parking room at the rear. There will be no new retail space.
• The top floor will include a small “club room” for residents and a rooftop patio with benches, a small grilling area, and garden trellis.
• The second floor will contain a fitness room, study lounge and five apartments. Other floors will have 11 apartments each. The apartments will be divided into: 23 one-bedroom (19%); 88 two-bedroom (72%); and 11 three-bedroom (9%). The units will range in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.
• The developer will make a contribution of $47,120 to the city’s parks and recreation unit for improvements to the nearby Forest Plaza, adjacent to the Forest Avenue parking structure.
• The development agreement includes a requirement to disconnect 27 footing drains as part of the city’s footing drain disconnect program. That’s an increase from the 20 that were required for the previous version of the project.

The new version of this development was evaluated by the city’s design review board, which was generally supportive of the project. [.pdf of September 2013 DRB report] The city planning commission recommended approval of the revised plan at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

The development requires 53 parking spaces under the city’s zoning. Five of those will be provided in spaces underneath the building. The previous proposal had no on-site parking. At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority granted the owner the ability to buy a total of 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure, through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. That program requires the developer to pay 20% more than the standard rate for monthly parking permits. The DDA had already granted a request for 42 permits under the original version of the project.

At its Jan. 8 2014 meeting, the DDA board approved a request for the option to extend the monthly parking contracts for three five-year periods. Opus had wanted the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing.

The previous development proposal had drawn concern from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, at 619 E. University. The concerns stemmed in part from the fact that under the previous plan, the new building would have been built up to the lot line next to Zaragon Place. The current proposal calls for setbacks of 10 feet and 20 feet from that property line. According to planning staff, the city hasn’t received any feedback from adjacent property owners about this current proposal.

624 Church Street: Public Hearing

Brad Moore, the architect for the project, led off the public hearing.

Architect for 624 Church Street, Brad Moore.

Moore noted that what’s before the council is a revision to the previous project. He reminded the council that the renovation to Pizza House had been designed with strong enough foundations to facilitate a larger project to be built at a later time. He explained that the portion of the previous project that had zero setback with the adjacent Zaragon building has been redesigned, so that it now has a 20-foot setback. [That had been a point of friction with the owner of the Zaragon building in the previous iteration of the project, but has not been an issue this time around.]

Moore noted that the unit mix is about 90% 1-2 bedroom units, with 11 3-bedroom units.

Eppie Potts spoke about the parking permit issue. She questioned the contribution-in-lieu policy that allows a developer to pay for permits in the public parking system, instead of building parking spaces onsite. That’s not good for the public, Potts said. She won’t be able to get to her favorite restaurant, she feared. The public is being crowded out. If the developers can build that big of a building, they could also find a way to build some parking, she contended.

Next to speak was Scott Munzel, who is a local attorney representing Opus, the developer. He noted that the project complies with all the applicable zoning requirements. He called the project a creative use of a “difficult site.” That’s why it’s difficult to construct parking onsite, he said, and that’s why the developer is making use of the city’s contribution-in-lieu program. The project is consistent with the downtown plan, he said, and it’s consistent with other city goals, like creating a sense of place.

Maggie Ladd, director of the South University Area Association, told the council she supports the project. She said that the zoning was changed before the A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) process, and that A2D2 lowered the height restrictions.

624 Church Street: Council Deliberations

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) led off the discussion. She asked for planning manager Wendy Rampson to come to the podium. Kailasapathy wanted to know about the contribution to parks – as $72,450 had been requested. The developer had made a smaller contribution – $47,120. Rampson noted that the parks contribution is voluntary. Brad Moore, the project’s architect, responded by saying the city parks staff member had modified the request downward, based on the specific parks improvements at Forest Plaza that the city wanted to undertake.

Kailasapathy then expressed dissatisfaction with the extension option for the contribution-in-lieu parking program that the DDA had granted – three five-year periods past the standard 15 years for parking CIL permits.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, described the usage pattern of the Forest Avenue parking structure, which is heavy during the school year. She ventured that a circulator bus downtown could allow for relocating the permits to a different parking structure sometime in the future. Mayor John Hieftje noted that the developer is taking advantage of an existing policy – the CIL program.

Pollay described an “experiment” or “pilot” program the DDA had tried where parking permits would be granted not on a first-come-first-serve basis but rather to property owners based on square footage. The number of parking permits that were being granted to the project fell within the square-footage guidelines of that pilot program, she said. [Property owners turned out not to be interested in managing parking permits on behalf of their tenants.] Hieftje elicited the fact that the CIL program requires a 20% premium to be paid on the regular price for a monthly parking permit.

About the Forest parking structure, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked: Is there a wait list? Yes, answered Pollay, 325 are on the list, and 153 of those have joined the list since 2012.

Kunselman said the extension of the CIL by three 5-year periods “irked” him. He asked what the DDA’s discussion had been like in terms of “fairness.”

Pollay said that fairness is the point of the “pilot” program. But the DDA had learned that the property owners didn’t want to manage parking permits for their own tenants. Pollay said the conversation about fairness was ongoing. About the South University area, Kunselman noted that “we’re running out of land over there.”

Kunselman wanted to know what other developments had contracts for parking permits. How many spaces are available to the public at the Forest parking structure?

Pollay said the Forest structure has almost 900 spaces, but the University of Michigan had been a partner on the expansion of the structure. So not counting the spaces allotted to UM, just under 590 spaces are available to the public, she said. There are 131 monthly permits that have been sold to the public now. She explained how the gate arms keep track of public usage versus UM usage.

Pollay noted that the current monthly permit system is on a month-to-month basis – which means that the DDA can choose not to renew a monthly permit. Kunselman wanted to know if the 48 permits for the 624 Church Street project would be taken out of the 131 existing permits. He elicited the fact that the 48 permits sold to the 624 Church Street project will jump ahead in line of those currently on the wait list. Pollay said that many people on the wait list may already be parking in the Forest structure on an hourly basis, adding that having a monthly permit is a matter of convenience.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said the council keeps hearing that for new developments that are built, the residents are going to bring cars. She was not sure that all 48 of those spaces would be needed for the project.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thought that if a more diverse housing mix is desired, not all residents would find it convenient to not have a car. She expressed concerns about the lengthened parking agreement. She was glad that flexibility on the location of the structure where they’d be granted had been built into the agreement. She asked Pollay if this relocation of the permits to a different structure during the extension period had been a point of discussion with the developer. Yes, answered Pollay. Pollay also noted that the CIL program had been approved by the council.

Lumm said she didn’t want to see cars parked in the neighborhood if people can’t get into the structure. Hieftje, who lives in the North Burns Park area, responded to Lumm’s remarks by indicating that the residential parking program is effective in preventing people from storing cars on the streets. Hieftje ventured that if the council wants to review the CIL program, it should do that separate from its consideration of the 624 Church Street project.

Kailasapathy responded to Hieftje by saying that the 15-year extension was outside the CIL policy. She called the use of the CIL policy “externalization of costs” associated with the development.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated support for the site plan –because it conforms with the zoning requirements. It would add useful residential units, he said. Previously the area had been challenged and desolate and it’s no longer so, he said.

On the parking permit issue, Taylor allowed that fairness is an issue, but said he’s relying on the DDA to take a longer view of managing the demand of the parking system. On the parking permit spaces, Taylor said: “They’re being used by Ann Arbor residents – they just don’t live here, yet.”

Kunselman asked if the DDA has looked at subsidizing lower-income students for their parking costs. Pollay replied by saying that the DDA’s strategy has been to make as many options available as possible and to let people choose.

Kunselman asked if the monthly permits allow someone to park 24/7. Yes, Pollay answered. That’s a problem, Kunselman said.

Kunselman then asked if long-term parking had been explored for people to park at a satellite lot for “storage parking.” Pollay said a pilot had been done at the Fingerle lot to explore the idea of “storage parking.” Not many takers had been found, she said.

Kunselman ventured that developments in D1 and D2 zoning districts are “parking exempt,” so he wanted an explanation for why the 624 Church Street project needed parking. Rampson explained that parking can be required for the larger buildings that result from premium FAR (floor area ratio).

Kunselman asked the city attorney what happens if the council amends the development agreement. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald suggested that instead of trying to amend the development agreement, the council should make changes in the resolved clauses of its resolution.

Kunselman asked for the developer to come to the podium, and asked about striking the CIL’s extended term and location from the development agreement: Will that be a deal-breaker? Yes, answered Sean Spellman with The Opus Group. The national lending market has spoken, Spellman added.

Spellman noted that for the extended term of the CIL, the location of the parking structure where the permits would be granted wouldn’t necessarily be the Forest parking structure. But having the extended term was essential to obtaining financing, Spellman said. Kunselman replied: “Your financing is not my concern.”

Kunselman said that all these years he’s participated in this kind of site plan review process, he’s always told citizens that the council is voting on the zoning, not the financing, and it’s up to the developer to put the financing together.

Spellman said that the council could move the spaces wherever it wants, but the development really needed the extension. Kunselman said that if the project can’t get financing without the parking, then maybe it’s too big. About the DDA board’s decision to agree to the extended term, Kunselman said: “The DDA rolled over for ya.”

Kunselman continued by saying that the DDA doesn’t sign contracts, and the developer would have to go to the bank with a DDA resolution, not a contract. Kunselman added that he’d be content not to have any parking required for the project.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) then reviewed with the developer the availability of spaces in the Forest structure. Pollay reviewed how a monthly parking permit is not transferable, and cannot be sublet.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked Rampson if the developer could meet the parking requirement by providing Zipcar spaces. Rampson reviewed the lessons learned from The Varsity project, and noted that Zipcar doesn’t necessarily accept locations on a private site.

624 Church Street: Council Deliberations – Proposed Amendment (Location)

Kunselman then offered an amendment to the resolution. Kunselman’s added “resolved” clause stated that the development agreement is to be renegotiated to eliminate the designation of the Forest parking structure and the three 5-year extensions.

Teall appreciated the sentiment of Kunselman’s amendment. She wished there were more parking in the South University area. But she didn’t think Kunselman’s amendment was practical.

Hieftje said he understood the financing issue. He also understood the value of the additional units the project would provide. He called Kunselman’s amendment a “poison pill” for the development.

Hieftje said the DDA has thought deeply about this issue and knows more about the parking system than the council does. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald suggested that the word “negotiate” should be eliminated from the amendment, because it’s just council’s direction to be followed and nothing would be “negotiated.”

Lumm wanted the question divided. So the designation of the Forest parking structure as the location for the monthly permits was one question. The three 5-year extensions were a separate question.

First up was the location of the permits. Briere asked Pollay if she understood the amendment to mean that the spaces couldn’t be assigned in the Forest structure, and that the DDA would be constrained to look at other parking structures. Pollay replied that she did not know what the DDA board members would think, but what she interpreted the amendment to mean was direction from the council that the council would prefer that the spaces not be allocated in the Forest structure, and the DDA would take it as direction to find spaces for the permits elsewhere in the system.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said the question should actually be directed to Kunselman as to what his intent was. Kunselman said he didn’t mind if the permits were assigned in Forest – and he wanted the DDA to have the flexibility to assign them wherever it deems suitable.

Taylor asked if the location of the parking spaces had an implication for the financing. Spellman indicated the assumption had always been that the majority percentage of the permits would be in the Forest structure. Taylor ventured that the DDA has already indicated that the spaces are available in the Forest structure. Petersen noted that the council had already approved 40 spaces in Forest, in conjunction with the previous version of the project.

Outcome on the location amendment: The amendment failed with support only from Kunselman, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

624 Church Street: Council Deliberations – Proposed Amendment (Term)

Next up was the question of three 5-year term extensions. Lumm said she’d support the amendment, but noted that she wasn’t sure why the DDA agreed to the extensions.

Hieftje brought Spellman back to the podium. He got clarification that Opus needs the “capacity” to extend the term for the permits for 30 years. The location for that entire period is not important. About the chances for getting financing without the 30-year term, Spellman said: “It’s zero.”

Eaton asked if the project could get financing if the project were parking-exempt. Spellman indicated that if the project were exempt, then it would already be zoning-compliant.

Briere wondered what the expectation was for a building becoming compliant with zoning in year 16 – after the standard term for a CIL permit agreement. McDonald explained that the policy was to require a minimum for 15 years. The 20% additional payment is to provide an enhancement to the parking system, McDonald said. He noted that banks are concerned that the building could become out of compliance. He said it was the city that came up with the 15-year requirement.

From right: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Lumm ventured that not having the parking agreement could kill the project. McDonald said that the conversations with the developer have been extensive. He pointed out that the DDA’s initial response to the request of a 15-year extension was to reject that in favor of three 5-year extendable terms.

Taylor called it “nonsensical” to deny the permits, knowing it would stop the project. “This makes no sense to me,” he said.

Kunselman ventured that the previous project was apparently financeable without the parking permit term extensions. He then shifted to a somewhat conciliatory tone, saying the project won’t get killed, because his amendment would be voted down. But later he would be bringing forth a proposal to kill the CIL program. Hieftje ventured technically the vote could come out for the amendment, which would kill the project.

Outcome on amendment on the parking permit extensions: The amendment failed, with support from Kunselman, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy. [Lumm hesitated, saying she was counting votes, then voted no.]

624 Church Street: Council Deliberations – Continued

With the main question before the council again, Lumm worried about the CIL program eating away at the capacity of the parking system.

Petersen said she voted no on Kunselman’s amendment, but wanted the CIL program re-examined. She hoped it could be “Zipcar in lieu of parking.”

Kunselman said he’d had no intention, coming into the meeting, of raising these issues, but as he listened, he thought that the fairness issue was important. He allowed that the developer might have found the council’s discussion to be scary: “I’m sorry if I scared you, but as we work this through, that’s what we do.”

Briere said she’d bring up this issue with the planning commission, as the CIL program is related to D1 zoning and premiums. She ventured that many in the community would advocate for requiring a developer to provide parking for tenants. The issue needs to be considered carefully, she said.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the site plan and development agreement for 624 Church St.

Downtown Zoning Recommendations

The council considered a resolution giving direction to the planning commission to develop revisions to the city’s downtown zoning ordinance.

Downtown Zoning Recommendations: Background

By way of background, a downtown zoning evaluation began last year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2013. That direction was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1, 2013.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

The commission continued the public hearing and debated most of these recommendations at its Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. The group did not tackle the most controversial item that night: Possible changes to the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William.

On Dec. 3, commissioners picked up the topic and heard from three people during the ongoing public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main. Following that, the commission’s discussion focused on 425 S. Main, as well as revisiting a recommendation related to the design guidelines.

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

Downtown Zoning Recommendations: Planning Commission to Council

In general, the final recommendations made by the planning commission at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Three of the recommendations related to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.

Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage. Those recommendations are: (1) Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts; (2) Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing; (3) Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms; (4) Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

Prior to the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) distributed amendments that she intended to bring forward. [.pdf of Briere's possible amendments to the downtown zoning resolution]

At its Jan. 21 meeting, the council considered a resolution that accepted the recommendations as completing the planning commission’s assignment. The resolution further directed the planning commission to translate its recommendations into proposed ordinance language, which would require review and a public hearing. The specific ordinance language would then be recommended by the planning commission to the city council, which would make the ultimate decision after a public hearing.

Downtown Zoning Recommendations: Public Hearing

Peter Nagourney led off the public hearing.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) spoke with Doug Kelbaugh before the start of the council meeting.

He supported the work of consultant Erin Perdu. He called the master plan “the constitution” and the zoning ordinance “the law” – a sentiment he attributed to resident Tom Whitaker. In some cases, the consultant’s recommendations went beyond the council’s direction, he noted, but that was in order to achieve overall consistency.

Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, was next to address the council. He said the fallout from 413 E. Huron had resulted in a productive process.

Going from 180 feet to 60 feet (D1 to D2) is too abrupt, he said. Kelbaugh asked that the rest of Ann Street also be considered as part of the zoning review. He alluded to Briere’s possible amendment as addressing the Ann Street concerns. He told the council that the recommendations in front of the council are supported by many people.

Tamara Burns, an architect and chair of the city’s design review board, told the council that the board does not support tying the award of premiums to compliance with the recommendations of the design review board. The design guidelines need to be revised and the process for the design review needs to be updated, she said – before making premium FAR (floor area ratio) contingent on design review board recommendations.

Steve Kaplan said that in recent history, his observation was that having design guidelines is a great start, but it’s easy to ignore them. He asked that some attention is given to how much teeth the guidelines can have – so that people follow them in the future.

From left: Eleanor Linn, Chris Crockett and Ray Detter.

Chris Crockett thanked the council for providing the direction to re-evaluate the downtown zoning. She said there are some changes to the recommendations that she would suggest. She wanted consideration of zoning changes all the way to Fourth Avenue on Ann Street. She called 413 E. Huron a sad experience because of a misapplication of character areas. Crockett said she has respect for Tamara Burns, saying she’s known Burns since Burns was in high school. But Crockett ventured that there could be some way to put some additional teeth into the design guidelines.

Hugh Sonk spoke representing the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association. Sloan Plaza is located on the north side of East Huron, next to the 413 E. Huron development. He called on the council to support the additional recommendations made by the near downtown neighborhood group. [.pdf of Near-Downtown Neighborhood Group letter]

Piotr Michalowski said he’s very concerned about the corner of Main and William. He asked the council to support the current recommendation to rezone that parcel as D2. He noted that residents of the neighborhood have already been “burned” once with a project he said he would not name. [He was referring to City Place, on South Fifth Avenue south of William.] He asked the council to maintain the transition between residential areas and Main Street.

Cy Hufano, a resident of Sloan Plaza, spoke next. On the technical side, he addressed the second recommendation – for the D1.5 zoning proposal, which includes a height limit of 120 feet, and the use of diagonals.

Cy Hufano.

As far as the process goes, Hufano felt there were a lot of loose ends. He cautioned against making decisions based on the threat of lawsuits. He said he was speaking from the heart. He visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. and looked at a mural. There was a figure holding a halter, he said: “People have got to watch what government is doing.”

When Ray Detter addressed the council, he essentially reprised the same comments that he delivered at the Jan. 8, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. He agreed with Hufano’s comments.

Eppie Potts strongly urged support for the resolution to start the process of much-needed amendments. D1 and D2 have been tried, but found to be controversial, she said. To avoid future controversy, additional revision is needed. She cited problems with overlay districts. She gave The Varsity on East Washington as an example of a problem with front setbacks. She asked the council to keep the door open to reviewing other troublesome aspects of D1 and D2.

Eleanor Linn introduced herself as a resident of Forest Court, near Zaragon and the Landmark apartment buildings in the South University neighborhood. She ventured that another large building will be built on Church Street, depending on the council’s action later that night. [The council later approved the 624 Church St. project.] She supported the possible amendments to be offered by Briere – which would direct the planning commission also to consider revisions to zoning in the South University area. Linn recalled intricate details of the history of past planning exercises.

David Blanchard introduced himself as chair of the city’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). He said he wanted to keep the idea of affordable housing alive, with a diversity of housing choices for different income levels. He remembered the PUD (planned unit development) system where cash-in-lieu of affordable housing units could be contributed. He also noted that the current zoning has a “super-premium” for building affordable housing. The current recommendation is to remove that premium, because that premium wasn’t being used. That might be the right recommendation, he allowed, but he wasn’t sure enough thought had gone into it. He urged the planning commission to work with HHSAB to make affordable housing a reality in Ann Arbor.

Downtown Zoning Review: Council Deliberations – Briere Amendments

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who represents the city council on the planning commission, said that the commission had discussed all the communications that had been described during the public hearing. The public had asked the planning commission to expand its scope of consideration, but the planning commission had decided to confine its recommendations to the council’s specific direction.

Briere then offered her amendments. In addition to the direction already given in the original resolution, her amendments directed the planning commission to: (1) consider rezoning Huron Street from Division to Fourth Avenue to conform with the East Huron 1 character district (which has a height limit of 150 feet instead of a 180-foot limit like other D1 areas); (2) consider whether other D1-zoned areas that do not have buffering from adjacent residential neighborhoods, including some areas of South University and Thayer Street, should be rezoned to D2.

Briere’s amendments added a date certain by which the planning commission is to report to the council on all its work on this issue: Oct. 20, 2014, which is the council’s second meeting that month. [.pdf of amendments to the downtown zoning resolution put forward Briere]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked Briere if she’d be willing to add setback language to the amendments so that 25-foot minimum side setbacks and 10-foot front setbacks would be included for the East Huron 1 character district. Briere said she tried to not constrain the planning commission. So she had not suggested any side setbacks in her amendments. She didn’t think front setbacks of 10 feet would benefit all of Huron Street. Briere wanted further discussion before accepting Lumm’s suggestions as friendly.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) wanted to know if Briere would be willing to add Ann Street between Fourth and Fifth as an area for additional consideration. That suggestion was added in a friendly way.

Lumm then phrased her suggestion on setbacks in terms of “considering” changes to the setbacks, which was added to the set of amendments.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he wanted to “chat” about the reference to Thayer in the amendments offered by Briere. He didn’t think there’s residential in that area that needs buffering. But he thought there needs sight-scape buffering to Hill Auditorium, so he’d support the reference to Thayer.

Outcome: Briere’s amendments were approved.

Downtown Zoning Review: Council Deliberations – Taylor Amendment

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said there’s been a lot of good and solid work done on this by the planning commission and the public. He said he hopes that the recommendation on residential premiums means that it’s a reduction in the size of the units – as that would speak to the kind of housing that “millennials” are looking for. He said that the recommendation at the corner of Main and William had been a swift change from the consultant’s initial recommendation. So he wanted to keep an eye on that.

Taylor then offered a specific amendment on the recommendation about the design review board’s role. He said the city needs modest and smart growth. His amendment indicated that the revisions to the design review board process should have the support of the design review board. [That was a reaction to the public hearing comments by design review board chair Tamara Burns, who said that as things currently stand, the design review board did not want to be the arbiter of the award of premium FAR (floor area ratio).]

The phrasing of Taylor’s amendment was to highlight the recommendation on making adherence to core design principles mandatory [numbered (4) in the resolution] by exempting it from the resolution’s general direction to the planning commission to implement the changes.

Briere noted that when Taylor said “save (4)” many people understood it as “save for.” So wordsmithing ensued to ensure Taylor’s amendment did escape the Oct. 20, 2014 deadline.

Mayor John Hieftje said the design review board had all along not wanted to have mandatory compliance. So he appreciated Taylor’s amendment.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said (4) had originally been drafted to say that there would be mandatory compliance. The planning commission had revised the wording to emphasize there should be a focus on the core design guidelines and improving the process, without making the design review board the gatekeeper to the premiums. About Taylor’s amendment, which Rampson said she was seeing for the first time, she concluded that “it looks fine.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Rampson who the gatekeepers to the premiums would be – the planning commission? Rampson responded to Kunselman by saying that the planning commission had discussed various possibilities. Commissioners were reluctant to make compliance mandatory. They wanted the ability to look at each site as unique. Kunselman ventured that the final arbiter would be the council. Rampson suggested that two paths for a project review could be maintained, for site plan and for design review.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked Rampson to comment on the design review board process and the city’s participation in the state’s Redevelopment Ready Communities program. Would the DRB process prevent Redevelopment Ready certification? Rampson said the main thing with the program is that “we have to be clear” so that a developer knows what to expect.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) talked about the idea that the council would be making the judgment about how close a developer had come to meeting the recommendations of the design review board: Is that approach workable? Rampson indicated that the approach works in other communities.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that some developers find out what the neighbors want and build that – while others don’t, and get pushback.

Anglin asked about setbacks. Rampson explained that the idea is that the setbacks allow for some flexibility, but the building should continue a pattern if there’s an existing pattern of buildings set forward on a particular street. The goal was not to crowd the sidewalk, Rampson said.

Lumm asked for confirmation about what the planning commission and design review board will be doing. Rampson indicated that she thought those two groups will be able to chart out a path to work together. Rampson noted that the DRB is not always consistent in its comments – with different members offering different perspectives. So the DRB is looking for a preliminary meeting, with more informal commentary, followed by a more formal process.

Hieftje said he’d always supported mandatory compliance, but he thought the amendment Taylor had offered is very thoughtful.

Outcome: Taylor’s amendment was approved.

Downtown Zoning Review: Council Deliberations – Amended Resolution

When the council had finished its amendment process and focused on the main question, Kunselman said he’d support the resolution. He noted that mandatory compliance can’t be required on a basic project, but it can be required for premiums. He noted that he’d been the only councilmember who’d voted against the A2D2 zoning. He had preferred the previous zoning, which was more of a “mosaic,” he said. He echoed the remarks of Eleanor Linn, who’d described during the public hearing how the “density chips” in the Calthorpe planning exercise were dumped on South U: “They definitely were,” he said.

When the zoning was changed in the South University area before A2D2, the council had not been told about the possibility of parcel combinations, Kunselman said. He added that the current revisions are implementing corrections to the previous policies and the “lust to build more and more housing.”

Briere said she’d support the resolution and she’d try to influence the outcome on the planning commission based on what she’d heard at the council’s meeting.

From left: Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he’d support the resolution – especially because of the deadline that Briere had added. He hoped that the pieces that are clear can be covered quickly, and that not everything will be held up in order that everything is done before anything is done. He was glad the process took a look at the southeast corner of William and Main. He said he’d trust the process, adding that the corner of Main and Packard is not a place for D1 zoning.

Lumm said she’d support the resolution. She ticked through a list of people she wanted to thank. She called the report and recommendations thorough and clear. The recommendations help address the flaws in the A2D2 zoning that manifested themselves in the 413 E. Huron project, she said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said was glad the council was moving forward with this. She’d attended some of the public outreach meetings. What was said at the meetings was reflected in the report, she said. The council’s work session last week [on economic development] gave her pause, she said. She wants to keep Ann Arbor’s housing stock diverse and affordable.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the recommendations, with amendments, to the planning commission for changes to the downtown zoning.

State Street Zoning Request

The council considered initial approval for the zoning of two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. The zoning designation would be C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

The unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

State Street Zoning Request: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective on the Biercamp zoning request, but he wasn’t sure if the current proposal met Biercamp’s needs. He said that it gave him the chance to visit the business to get some jerky and to get a growler so that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was clear about what a growler is. He lifted a growler onto the table, prompting Petersen to ask if it was a gift. [Petersen had previously asked at a council meeting what a growler is. That was the Dec. 17, 2012 meeting, when the council approved a micro-brewery license for Biercamp.]

Warpehoski reported, based on his visit, that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C1 zoning.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the zoning of 1643 and 1645 S. State. It will need a second vote at a subsequent meeting.

Edwards Brothers Land

On the council’s agenda was approval of a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services to evaluate 2500 S. State St. That’s the Edwards Brothers Malloy property for which the council is currently exploring options to purchase.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information. So the site assessment by Atwell is part of that effort. The council is working within a 60-business-day window that began Nov. 27, 2013.

By way of background, the pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013.

Discussion at the city council’s Sunday night caucus on Jan. 19 indicated that conversations could be taking place between city officials and the university about UM’s needs and how the Edwards Brothers property meets those needs – with an eye toward the possibility of the city and the university arriving at a mutually agreeable outcome where the city acquired only a portion of the property.

Caucus discussion also indicated that talks are taking place between the city and developers who might have an interest in purchasing the property from the city. One obstacle in those conversations is the fact that the university could still eventually exercise its right of eminent domain to acquire the property from a developer, even after purchasing it from the city. But that would require convincing a court that the expansion of the university’s athletic campus at that location would be in the public interest.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the contract with Atwell to do a site assessment of the Edwards Brothers property. The council held another closed session on land acquisition at the end of the meeting, which lasted about 40 minutes.

Public Art Administrator Contract

The council considered an extension of the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. A total of $20,500 was to be appropriated from the balance in the public art fund, with the additional money to cover various expenses. Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

By way of background, the city council enacted a public art ordinance in late 2007, setting up a Percent for Art program as a funding mechanism. For each of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – was set aside for public art. The Ann Arbor public art commission oversaw the expenditures. However, the approach proved controversial and the city council changed the ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That ordinance change came after a failed public art millage that was put before voters in the November 2012 election.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Under the new approach, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded. The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

A budget summary provided by Seagraves in response to a Chronicle email shows a current balance of $839,507 in available funds for public art, as of Jan. 14, 2014. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Public Art Administrator Contract: Public Commentary

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, spoke to the council during public commentary at the start of the meeting. The art commission has followed the direction of the city council since the change to the ordinance last year, he reported. He gave a summary of the projects that are currently in the works. The commission looks forward to achieving the goals set by the council, he told councilmembers.

Public Art Administrator Contract: Council Deliberations

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) led off deliberations by saying he couldn’t support continuing to spend funds that were accumulated under the former Percent for Art program. [As a budget amendment, the item needed eight votes to pass on the 11-member council. So if the council had voted on the issue instead of postponing, there was a credible possibility that it would have failed.]

Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said the money in the public art fund balances should be returned to the funds of origin. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that she’s previously said she wouldn’t support continued spending of public art money. Her resolution to return about $800,000 to the funds of origin had failed several months ago. She said a “clean break” should be made between the current program and the old program.

[At the council's June 3, 2013 meeting, the council eliminated the Percent for Art program from the ordinance, and revised the ordinance in a way that allowed the return of money to its funds of origin – but just for money accumulated in the public art fund for the FY 2014 budget year. And the council voted at the same June 3 meeting to return that money, which amounted to $326,464. But a bid by Lumm to revise the ordinance to allow the return to its funds-of-origin money accumulated in previous years did not win majority support on the council.]

By the end of 2013, Lumm said, the council was supposed to have a description of the new program. Based on Ann Arbor public art commission chair Bob Miller’s remarks that night, Lumm said it didn’t appear that has happened.

On the question of the contract extension, mayor John Hieftje said that pretty much nothing happens without a staff member. A lot of citizens have put in a lot of time on a lot of projects that are in the works, he said. He asked Miller if any of the projects could go forward without an art administrator. Miller’s answer: No. Without an art administrator, the public art commission couldn’t function, he said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she thought that money from the streets millage should be returned to that fund. But she saw the need for a public art administrator. This should be the last extension of his contract, she said. After this, part of the public art administrator’s job is supposed to include raising private funds.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) tried to get an estimate from public services area administrator Craig Hupy of the likelihood of having a private funding mechanism in place by June. Hupy, who supervises Seagraves, described a model where a nonprofit would be formed outside of the city. He ventured that the wastewater treatment facility art project, currently in the planning stages, would have 50% private support.

Briere said that the idea of leaving the money in the public art fund was to use some of that as a “bridge” to the new model. She was concerned about how long that might take. She said she thinks an administrator is needed for the next few months, but she didn’t want to see the contract extension for much longer.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked questions about the projects in the works. Hupy said that the East Stadium bridges artwork had run into some issues with the sustainability of the materials and some modifications had been made. That would come back to the public for review.

Kunselman said he’d made a commitment to following through on the transition. But at some point, he allowed, the council has to pull the plug. He felt that the projects left over from the Percent for Art program were a drag on the ability of the city to transition to the new program. Kunselman said it’s also unfair to Seagraves to be subjected to a contract renewal every six months.

Eaton suggested a postponement on the contract extension, and that it be brought back with a simultaneous proposal to revise the ordinance to allow the return of money to the funds of origin. Kunselman said if all the money is put back, you can’t pay for the art currently in the works.

Hieftje got clarification about Eaton’s intent – which was to provide enough money to fund an administrator, but to return the other public art money to the funds of origin.

Eaton’s motion to postpone nearly failed for lack of a second. But Briere offered the seconding motion.

Briere pointed out that an ordinance can’t be changed in one meeting – because it requires a first and second reading. Hieftje responded to Briere’s point by saying a resolution could be introduced at the council’s next meeting to direct the preparation of ordinance language. Kunselman asked what the ordinance amendment would do. Answer: It would allow the return of the money to the funds of origin for previous years.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) ventured that the compromise he was hearing Eaton offer was to take the amorphous wind-down time period of the old public art program and give it some additional structure. Petersen said she didn’t think the vote that night needed to be postponed.

Eaton clarified, saying that he wanted a quid pro quo – his vote in support of the contract extension in exchange for a commitment to return the unassigned money in the public art fund to the funds of origin.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) was not willing to make the deal Eaton was proposing. She said there had not been an agreement to end the public art program, but rather to transition to a new approach. She was disappointed that no nonprofit has yet been found to take the lead on the private funding component. She said she’d support the contract extension that night.

Kunselman said he’d support the postponement because it continues the dialogue and gives Eaton some time. He appreciated Teall’s sentiments, but said there are other areas of the city that have needs. He compared providing parking for wealthy students in the public parking structure – a reference to debate earlier in the evening over parking permits for 624 Church St. – with a tent out on Stone School Road where people are trying to keep warm.

Hieftje responded to Kunselman by saying there’s not a single dollar in the public art fund that could be used for human services.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that art projects that people can actually see would have a positive impact. He indicated support for the postponement.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone extending Seagraves’ contract as public art administrator. Sole dissent came from Teall.

Sidewalks

Two items involving construction of new sidewalks – at two specific locations – appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

Sidewalks: Waldenwood – Background

By way of background, at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting, the city council had approved a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward, connecting to a path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

In its form, that resolution was similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council approved last year. [For example, the council approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting, and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King Elementary School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009.

For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the new 186-foot sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) spoke with Michael van Nieuwstadt before the meeting started.

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King Elementary School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. And the more recent feedback, reflected in the staff memo for the Jan. 21 meeting, indicates that an Oct. 3, 2013 neighborhood meeting attended by 22 people resulted in 15 feedback forms, 10 of which indicated support and 5 of which indicated opposition. [.pdf of letter from the van Nieuwstadts and Weismans]

The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair, but not new construction, can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage.

In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

Only a small amount of the originally approved $10,000 design budget was spent. To cover the $16,000 construction cost, an additional $6,818 of general fund money was requested at the Jan. 21 meeting.

Sidewalks: Waldenwood – Public Commentary

Michael van Nieuwstadt is an owner of property adjacent to the proposed sidewalk near King Elementary School. He asked for clarification about the nature of the agenda item: Did it involve moving the crosswalk as well as construction of the sidewalk? Sabra Briere (Ward 1) departed from the typical city council practice of not responding at all to public speakers, explaining to van Nieuwstadt that it’s just about construction of the sidewalk. He said he’s been asking for a safety report for the last four weeks, and he’d learned that one had been produced just earlier in the day. He wanted some time to look at the report. He described the sidewalk connection as connecting two pieces of “nowhere.” He asked for some additional time for the neighborhood to gather its thoughts.

Kathryn Dacosta also addressed the issue of the sidewalk extension near King School.

Kathryn DaCosta returned to the podium after providing the city clerk with copies of a photograph she had described during her public commentary.

She walks her kids to school every day, so she’s on the front lines of the issue, she said. Before the 2011-12 school year there was no crossing guard. It’s a difficult situation and it’s very unsafe, she said.

Drivers are distracted by saying goodbye or looking for their kids. They’re not watching for kids doing unexpected things. Drivers are committing traffic infractions, she contended. She reported that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) had visited the site that morning. Dacosta said there have been three traffic accidents in the last year.

There’s gridlock, she said, causing angry drivers. Drivers are also on their cell phones. People also park on the side of the street where the extension is proposed. She took a photo to illustrate the situation, which she handed to the city clerk. It showed parents with their children walking in the street.

Sidewalks: Waldenwood – Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she had the same impression as the speaker during public commentary – that the resolution dealt also with the location of the crosswalk. But the crosswalk location was not a part of the resolution. She proposed an amendment to make that clear.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) added that in the many conversations about the sidewalk, concerns had been raised about previous studies. She referred to a Jan. 21 email from Ann Arbor Public Schools director of ancillary services Brad Mellor, saying that the transportation safety committee agreed that the issue of the sidewalk construction adjacent to the school needs to be resolved, and would not benefit from further analysis or additional delay. [.pdf of email from Mellor]

Lumm said she thought that a sidewalk would provide a good location for kids to be dropped off.

Outcome: The council approved the amendment proposed by Petersen, which stated “Resolved, That such approval does not confer agreement to relocate the existing mid-block crosswalk;”

Petersen then wanted to know how a decision would be made to change the location of the crosswalk, if it were changed. Pat Cawley, a project manager for the city, explained the process to go through moving a crosswalk in the future.

Petersen then wanted to make sure that the King Elementary School families would have an opportunity to provide feedback on a change to a crosswalk location.

Lumm thought all the issues that had previously been raised had been addressed. Lumm inquired about the feedback form from a previous meeting and how it was distributed.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Waldenwood sidewalk construction budget.

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail

In separate sidewalk-related item, the council considered taking the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road. The project would also construct a concrete curb and gutter northward from Skydale about 920 feet along the east side of Pontiac Trail and about 1,030 feet along the west side of Pontiac Trail. Those stretches currently don’t have a curb and gutter.

This first step directed the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate.

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail – Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by explaining why the sidewalk is only on one side: It’s not anticipated that there will be demand. If the property owners on the other side, in the township, are annexed into the city, a sidewalk on that side might be added, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if the city was going to be contributing some percent of the cost. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, said there’s no federal or state dollars involved. Kunselman responded by saying he wanted to amend the resolution. He wanted 80% of the cost to be borne by the city. He was comparing the way the city approached special assessments for some projects in the city when there were federal or state funds available. He didn’t think it was OK to sometimes provide a portion of the cost and sometimes not – for other projects that are special-assessed.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked for an explanation from Hupy about other projects. Hupy explained that for some other projects, state or federal funding is available. The federal or state portion is typically 80% of the project cost. Warpehoski ventured that Kunselman’s amendment would establish a new precedent of the city providing funding.

Nick Hutchinson, a project manager for the city, clarified that there would be eight property owners affected by the special assessment for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk.

Mayor John Hieftje agreed with Warpehoski that it would not set a good precedent as a way to fill sidewalk gaps, to commit city funds to it.

Kunselman asked for an estimate of the cost. Hutchinson ventured that it’d be $45,000 for 920 feet. Kunselman stressed that it’s the first step in the special assessment process and doesn’t commit the city to anything. The issue is to let the people know that the city is thinking about them. He said that Pontiac Trail should have federal dollars available and he thought that the city should wait until federal funds are available.

Hutchinson confirmed that the federal surface transportation program is for major streets and Pontiac is a major street, so it’s eligible. But Hutchinson said it would be at least 2018 before federal money might be available.

Kunselman called it an issue of fairness – because Ward 3 residents with a project on Stone School Road would have their project funded with federal monies, but Pontiac Trail wouldn’t. What he was proposing is to resolve the fairness issue with city dollars.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) joined Hieftje and Warpehoski in expressing a concern about setting a precedent. Hieftje spoke again to the issue of fairness by saying that special assessment is the standard way to finance sidewalk construction and always has been.

Briere said her immediate reaction to Kunselman’s amendment was to be intrigued by it. It seems to indicate a commitment by the council to filling sidewalk gaps. But Briere said that if the council determines the fallback position is that the city would pay 80%, then she fears that very few sidewalk gaps would be filled. Briere noted that she would be attending a meeting the following night with property owners on Newport Road who actually want to pay for construction of a new sidewalk.

Kunselman observed that Chapter 13 of the city code, governing special assessment, has been on the books for a long time but sidewalks gaps have persisted. Any neighborhood that doesn’t have sidewalks will have this process applied, he contended. Kunselman continued by saying the city needs to show some empathy for taxpayers instead of just saying that the city is going to assess them for a sidewalk.

Outcome on Kunselman’s amendment: It failed with support from only Eaton, Kunselman and Anglin.

Outcome: The council has voted to direct the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project.

Liquor: Lunch Room, Silvio’s

The council considered two liquor-license related items. First, the council considered recommending that the Michigan Liquor Control Commission approve a special downtown development liquor license for The Lunch Room at 407 N. Fifth Avenue. That category of license was made available by the Michigan legislature in 2006 for cities that established districts where such licenses would be granted. The requirements include investment in the rehabilitation of the building that houses the establishment seeking the license, and a determination that the recipient of the license be recommended “above all others.”

And the council considered approving a change in the classification of Silvio’s Organic Pizza license from a Tavern License to a Class C License. A key difference between a Class C License and a Tavern License is that a Class C allows the sale and consumption of not just beer and wine, but also liquor. Silvio’s is located at 715 N. University Ave.

Liquor: Council Deliberations

For both liquor license items, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reviewed the details of the requirements. She also thanked the various staff involved, including the clerk’s office, fire department, police department, and city attorney’s office. “They do great work,” she said.

Lumm serves on the council’s liquor license review committee, along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Outcome: On separate votes, the council recommended approval of a downtown development district liquor license for The Lunch Room and the change in category from Tavern to Class C license for Silvio’s Organic Pizza.

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: Fracking

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Kurt Gleichman told the council that there’s urgency to implement anti-fracking ordinances. Coalition groups have worked on raising awareness, he said. Corporations don’t have a conscience, he said, and they have huge resources to influence legislators and persuade the public. Those in power take the easy way out, he said. Because of a lack of action by those in authority, the people have to take it into their own hands, he added. Gleichman alluded to a trial that’s starting next Monday in connection with a civil disobedience action against fracking. He asked the council to make this a priority.

Leon Bryson introduced himself as a Ward 5 resident. He called for a local ordinance against fracking. He said he recently attended a meeting with state Rep. Gretchen Driskell on the topic. He said some of the people who attended the meeting had been approached by companies who wanted to buy their mineral rights. He’s concerned that horizontal drilling from locations outside the city could come close to his own house.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Bryson alluded to the Elk River chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the drinking water. “We can take the lead in Ann Arbor” to ban fracking, he said. He alluded to the leadership of Ann Arbor on the pedestrian ordinance, and called on the Ann Arbor city council to show similar leadership on the fracking issue.

During council communications time following public commentary, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that fracking is already banned by the city’s prohibition of any extraction of minerals within the city limits.

But he allowed that there could be loopholes – and said that the city is working to address those.

Ann Arbor is already leading on this issue, Warpehoski said. He pointed out that Ann Arbor, as a home rule city, can ban mineral extraction, but townships surrounding Ann Arbor can’t.

From the city code:

Chapter 56: Prohibited Land Uses
…
5:116. Oil and gas wells
The locating, sinking, drilling, casing, deepening or operating of oil wells, gas wells, and oil and gas wells and test holes for the location of natural crude oil or natural dry gas, or both, in the City of Ann Arbor is hereby prohibited.

Comm/Comm: Green Baxter Court Fire

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) gave an update on what’s being done for former residents of the Green Baxter Court building that was destroyed by fire on Jan. 8. It’s an Ann Arbor housing commission property. Petersen said she and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) held a town hall meeting and were updated by Joan Doughty of Community Action Network. CAN runs a community center at Green Baxter, under contract with the city.

Lumm followed up on Petersen’s remarks on the Green Baxter Court fire. She told people to go to the Community Action Network website to find out how they can help.

Comm/Comm: Cold Weather

During his communications time at the start of the meeting, city administrator Steve Powers told the council that the cold weather has again caused the Delonis Shelter to go into emergency mode. The intoxication and behavior rules have been relaxed. He gave additional information about warm places where people could seek refuge, noting that much of it had been covered previously in an update at the council’s Jan. 6, 2014 meeting.

Powers also described how the extreme cold was beginning to reduce the effectiveness of salting the roads, but the city was salting and sanding known “problem intersections,” hills and curves.

Comm/Comm: Homelessness Advocacy

During council communications at the end of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also recognized advocates for the homeless community – Seth Best and Caleb Poirer, who were in attendance and stayed until the end of the meeting – for their cooperation. He said that they’d given assurances that the tent on Stone School Road would be taken down, because it’s not in conformance with city code.

Comm/Comm: Streetlights

During council communications at the end of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported that streetlights on Packard have been repaired all the way from Jewett to Stone School, so he thanked DTE.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Jack Eaton, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, Feb. 3, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listing 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. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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!

Rendering of 624 Church apartments, looking south from South University. Zaragon Place is pictured to the west, immediately next to the proposed 624 Church building. (Image included in the planning commission meeting packet.)

The project will be located south of South University Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, next to and over the two-story Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church. A previous version went through the planning review process and was given approval by the city council almost a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

The council’s action approving the new version of the project came at its meeting on Jan. 21, 2014, after about 90 minutes of deliberations, primarily about the parking permits that the project has been granted.

The original plan for the development was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. But after the original plan received site plan approval, the developer purchased an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building eventually to be constructed. [.pdf of site plan] [.pdf of draft development agreement] [.pdf of staff memo]

Premiums offered in the D1 zoning district – for buildings with residential uses, and LEED silver certification – are being used to allow a larger structure than would otherwise be permitted, gaining an additional 267% in floor area ratio for a total of 667% FAR. To use the residential premium, each bedroom must have a window directly to the outside.

The project includes a 1,491-square-foot outdoor dining area for Pizza House, which will be built underneath the apartment structure on the south side of the restaurant, opening onto Church Street. It will be partially enclosed, with large garage-style overhead doors along the front property line opening to the sidewalk.

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

• Two small offices for building management on the ground floor of the addition, with a solid waste/recycling room and bicycle parking room at the rear. There will be no new retail space.
• The top floor will include a small “club room” for residents and a rooftop patio with benches, a small grilling area, and garden trellis.
• The second floor will contain a fitness room, study lounge and five apartments. Other floors will have 11 apartments each. The apartments will be divided into: 23 one-bedroom (19%); 88 two-bedroom (72%); and 11 three-bedroom (9%). The units will range in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.
• The developer will make a contribution of $47,120 to the city’s parks and recreation unit for improvements to the nearby Forest Plaza, adjacent to the Forest Avenue parking structure.
• The development agreement includes a requirement to disconnect 27 footing drains as part of the city’s footing drain disconnect program. That’s an increase from the 20 that were required for the previous version of the project.

The new version of this development was evaluated by the city’s design review board, which was generally supportive of the project. [.pdf of September 2013 DRB report]

The development requires 53 parking spaces under the city’s zoning. Five of those will be provided in spaces underneath the building. The previous proposal had no on-site parking. At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority granted the owner the ability to buy a total of 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure, through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. That program requires the developer to pay 20% more than the standard rate for monthly parking permits. The DDA had already granted a request for 42 permits under the original version of the project.

At its Jan. 8, 2014 meeting, the DDA board approved a request that gave the developer the option to extend the monthly parking contracts for three five-year periods. Opus had wanted the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing. This was the point of controversy during the council’s lengthy deliberations on Jan. 21, which still resulted in unanimous approval of the project. [Details of those deliberations are reported in The Chronicle's live updates from the meeting.]

The previous development proposal had drawn concern from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, at 619 E. University. The concerns stemmed in part from the fact that under the previous plan, the new building would have been built up to the lot line next to Zaragon Place. The current proposal calls for a setback of 10 feet and 20 feet from that property line. According to planning staff, the city hasn’t received any feedback from adjacent property owners about this current proposal.

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

The Ann Arbor city council’s second regular meeting in January is shifted to the Tuesday following the national holiday honoring the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. Highlights of the Jan. 21 meeting agenda include three items related to development in the city – one for a specific project downtown and two others related to zoning regulations.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

The council will be asked to approve the site plan for a revised, expanded version of the 624 Church St. project, located in the block just south of South University Avenue. An earlier version of the project went through the planning review process about a year ago, with city council approval coming on March 4, 2013.

The revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would stand adjacent to and over the existing two-story restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down. The city planning commission recommended approval of the revised plan at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

Also on the Jan. 21 agenda are possible future changes to the city’s downtown zoning regulations. A public hearing on the matter will be held at the Jan. 21 meeting. Three of the recommendations relate to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District. Several other recommendations focus on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage.

It’s likely that amendments will be brought forward during the Jan. 21 meeting that would alter the original resolution.

But the decision on the 624 Church St. project will come long before the zoning revisions could be enacted. And the changes – recommended by the city’s planning commission at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting – are focused on parts of downtown Ann Arbor other than the South University area. The council’s Jan. 21 resolution, if approved, would direct the planning commission to translate its recommendations into proposed ordinance language, which would require review and a public hearing. The specific ordinance language would then be recommended by the planning commission to the city council, which would make the ultimate decision. In general, the planning commission’s downtown zoning recommendations aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Also its Jan. 21 meeting, the council will be asked to give initial approval for the zoning of two unzoned properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. They are proposed to be zoned C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The currently unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission.

In another item related to South State Street property, the council will be asked to approve a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services to evaluate 2500 S. State St. That’s the Edwards Brothers Malloy property for which the council is currently exploring options to purchase. The item was added to the agenda last Friday, after the initial publication of the agenda.

Also on the Jan. 21 agenda are two items related to construction of sidewalks. One resolution involves a sidewalk gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward – to connect to a path leading the rest of the way to King Elementary School. The council had already authorized $10,000 for the design and public process budget at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting. A small amount of that was spent. To cover the $16,000 construction cost, an additional $6,818 of general fund money is being requested at the Jan. 21 meeting. The other sidewalk item is the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road.

The council will also be asked to extend the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. It’s a part-time position.

Another agenda item is for a recommendation that the Michigan Liquor Control Commission approve a special downtown development liquor license for the Lunch Room at 407 N. Fifth Avenue. The council also will be asked to approve a change in the classification of Silvio’s Organic Pizza license from a Tavern License to a Class C License, to allow for the sale of liquor in addition to beer and wine. Silvio’s is located at 715 N. University Ave.

The council’s consent agenda includes two contracts related to the sobriety court, one of the 15th District Court’s specialty courts. The consent agenda also includes street closures in connection with three events: Winter Warriors, Shamrocks & Shenanigans, and the University of Michigan Big House 5K.

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

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

624 Church St.

This project would be located south of South University Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, next to and over the two-story Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church. A previous version went through the planning review process and was given approval by the city council almost a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

The current, revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down.

Rendering of 624 Church apartments, looking south from South University. Zaragon Place is pictured to the west, immediately next to the proposed 624 Church building. (Image included in the planning commission meeting packet.)

The original plan was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. But after the original plan received site plan approval, the developer purchased an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building eventually to be constructed. [.pdf of site plan] [.pdf of draft development agreement] [.pdf of staff memo]

Premiums offered in the D1 zoning district – for buildings with residential uses, and LEED silver certification – are being used to allow a larger structure than would otherwise be permitted, gaining an additional 267% in floor area ratio for a total of 667% FAR. To use the residential premium, each bedroom must have a window directly to the outside.

The project includes a 1,491-square-foot outdoor dining area for Pizza House, which will be built underneath the apartment structure on the south side of the restaurant, opening onto Church Street. It will be partially enclosed, with large garage-style overhead doors along the front property line opening to the sidewalk.

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

• Two small offices for building management on the ground floor of the addition, with a solid waste/recycling room and bicycle parking room at the rear. There will be no new retail space.
• The top floor will include a small “club room” for residents and a rooftop patio with benches, a small grilling area, and garden trellis.
• The second floor will contain a fitness room, study lounge and five apartments. Other floors will have 11 apartments each. The apartments will be divided into: 23 one-bedroom (19%); 88 two-bedroom (72%); and 11 three-bedroom (9%). The units will range in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.
• The developer will make a contribution of $47,120 to the city’s parks and recreation unit for improvements to the nearby Forest Plaza, adjacent to the Forest Avenue parking structure.
• The development agreement includes a requirement to disconnect 27 footing drains as part of the city’s footing drain disconnect program. That’s an increase from the 20 that were required for the previous version of the project.

The new version of this development was evaluated by the city’s design review board, which was generally supportive of the project. [.pdf of September 2013 DRB report]

The development requires 53 parking spaces under the city’s zoning. Five of those will be provided in spaces underneath the building. The previous proposal had no on-site parking. At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority granted the owner the ability to buy a total of 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure, through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. That program requires the developer to pay 20% more than the standard rate for monthly parking permits. The DDA had already granted a request for 42 permits under the original version of the project.

At its Jan. 8 2014 meeting, the DDA board approved a request for the option to extend the monthly parking contracts for three five-year periods. Opus had wanted the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing.

The previous development proposal had drawn concern from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, at 619 E. University. The concerns stemmed in part from the fact that under the previous plan, the new building would have been built up to the lot line next to Zaragon Place. The current proposal calls for a setback of 10 feet and 20 feet from that property line. According to planning staff, the city hasn’t received any feedback from adjacent property owners about this current proposal.

Downtown Zoning Recommendations

By way of background, a downtown zoning evaluation began last year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13. That direction was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1, 2013.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

The commission continued the public hearing and debated most of these recommendations at its Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. The group did not tackle the most controversial item that night: Possible changes to the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William.

On Dec. 3, commissioners picked up the topic and heard from three people during the ongoing public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main. Following that, the commission’s discussion focused on 425 S. Main, as well as revisiting a recommendation related to the design guidelines.

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

In general, the final recommendations made by the planning commission at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Three of the recommendations relate to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.

Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage. Those recommendations are: (1) Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts; (2) Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing; (3) Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms; (4) Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years. [.pdf of possible amendments to the downtown zoning resolution that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) might bring forward]

The council’s Jan. 21 resolution would accept the recommendations as completing the planning commission’s assignment. The resolution would further direct the planning commission to translate its recommendations into proposed ordinance language, which would require review and a public hearing. The specific ordinance language would then be recommended by the planning commission to the city council, which would make the ultimate decision after a public hearing.

State Street Zoning Request

On the city council’s Jan. 21 agenda is initial approval for the zoning of two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. The zoning designation would be C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

The unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

Public Art Administrator

The council will be asked to extend the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. A total of $20,500 would be appropriated from the balance in the public art fund, with the additional money to cover various expenses. Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

By way of background, the city council enacted a public art ordinance in late 2007, setting up a Percent for Art program as a funding mechanism. For each of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – was set aside for public art. The Ann Arbor public art commission oversaw the expenditures. However, the approach proved controversial and the city council changed the ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That ordinance change came after a failed public art millage that was put before voters in the November 2012 election.

Under the new approach, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded. The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

A budget summary provided by Seagraves in response to a Chronicle email shows a current balance of $839,507 in available funds for public art, as of Jan. 14, 2014. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Sidewalks

Two items involving construction of new sidewalks – at two specific locations – appear on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

Sidewalks: Waldenwood

By way of background, at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting, the city council had approved a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward, connecting to a path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

In its form, that resolution was similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council approved last year. [For example, the council approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting, and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King Elementary School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009.

For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the new 186-foot sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King Elementary School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. And the more recent feedback, reflected in the staff memo for the Jan. 21 meeting, indicates that an Oct. 3, 2013 neighborhood meeting attended by 22 people resulted in 15 feedback forms, 10 of which indicated support and 5 of which indicated opposition. [.pdf of letter from the van Nieuwstadts and Weismans]

The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair, but not new construction, can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage.

In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

Only a small amount of the originally approved $10,000 design budget was spent. To cover the $16,000 construction cost, an additional $6,818 of general fund money is being requested at the Jan. 21 meeting.

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail

In a different sidewalk-related item, the council will be asked to take the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road. The project would also construct a concrete curb and gutter northward from Skydale about 920 feet along the east side of Pontiac Trail and about 1,030 feet along the west side of Pontiac Trail. Those stretches currently don’t have a curb and gutter.

This first step directs the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate.

Sobriety Court

On the council’s consent agenda are two items related to the sobriety court, which is a specialty court within the 15th District Court.

One is a contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) to provide mental health treatment services to defendants who appear in the sobriety court. The amount of the contract is $45,271 and is funded with a grant from the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Michigan Drug Court Grant Program (SCAO-MDCGP).

The second is a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening services of defendants in the sobriety court and the veterans treatment court. The amount of the contract is $23,200 and is paid for through the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Veterans Treatment Court Grant Program (SCAO-MVTCGP) and the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Drug Court Grant program (SCAO-MDCGP).

Street Closings

Three street closings appear on the council’s consent agenda:

• Feb. 1, 2014: Winter Warriors. The event will shut down a half block of E. Washington outside the Arbor Brewing Company. The fundraiser to “terminate” hunger with a special batch of Terminator Doppelbock entails sitting outside in the cold.
• March 9, 2014: Shamrocks and Shenanigans 5K Run/Walk. The course is straight up Main Street from the corner of Main and Stadium into downtown Ann Arbor, where it loops around. [.pdf of Shamrocks and Shenanigans street closures]
• April 6, 2014: University of Michigan Big House 5K. Streets to be closed are in the vicinity of the university campus. The finish takes runners into Michigan Stadium down the tunnel with a finish at the 50-yard line.

Liquor: Lunch Room, Silvio’s

Two items added to the council’s agenda on Jan. 17 after the agenda’s initial publication are related to liquor licenses. The council will be asked to recommend that the Michigan Liquor Control Commission approve a special downtown development liquor license for The Lunch Room at 407 N. Fifth Avenue. That category of license was made available by the Michigan legislature in 2006 for cities that established districts where such licenses would be granted. The requirements include investment in the rehabilitation of the building that houses the establishment seeking the license, and a determination that the recipient of the license be recommended “above all others.”

And the council will be asked to approve a change in the classification of Silvio’s Organic Pizza license from a Tavern License to a Class C License. A key difference between a Class C license and a Tavern License is that a Class C license allows the sale and consumption of not just beer and wine, but also liquor. Silvio’s is located at 715 N. University Ave.

Edwards Brothers Land

Another item added to the agenda on Jan. 17 is the approval of a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services to evaluate 2500 S. State St. That’s the Edwards Brothers Malloy property for which the council is currently exploring options to purchase.

The University of Michigan has made an offer to Edwards Brothers to purchase the property for $12.8 million, but the city has a right of first refusal. At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information. So the site assessment by Atwell is part of that effort. The council is working within a 60-business-day window that began Nov. 27, 2013.

Live updates will begin closer to the 7 p.m. scheduled meeting start time.

4:11 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) might be bringing forward some amendments to the council’s resolution that directs the planning commission’s work on revisions to downtown zoning. In addition to the original resolution’s direction to implement as a part of the zoning code a set of the planning commission’s own recommendations, Briere’s amendments would also direct the planning commission to (1) consider rezoning Huron Street from Division to Fourth Avenue to conform with the East Huron 1 character district (which has a height limit of 150 feet instead of a 180-foot limit like other D-1 areas); (2) to consider whether other D1-zoned areas, which do not have buffering from adjacent residential neighborhoods, including some areas of South University and Thayer Street, should be rezoned to D2. Briere’s amendments add a date certain by which the planning commission is to report to the council on all its work on this issue: Oct. 20, 2014, which is the council’s second meeting that month. [.pdf of possible amendments to the downtown zoning resolution that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) might bring forward.]

4:14 p.m. Staff’s written responses to questions about agenda items are now available: [.pdf of Jan. 21, 2014 agenda responses] Highlights include the clarification that in the resolution authorizing the contract with Atwell for the Edwards Brothers land site assessment, the acronym ACM stands for “asbestos-containing materials.”

4:55 p.m. Five people are signed up for public commentary reserved time. Two are signed up to speak on the Waldenwood sidewalk project: Michael van Nieuwstadt and Kathryn Dacosta. Two people are signed up to talk about a fracking moratorium: Kurt Gleichman and Leon Bryson. And Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, is signed up to give an update on public art.

6:27 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

6:29 p.m. CTN staff has installed microphones for councilmembers at the table. Replay of most the recent Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority meeting is playing on the monitor. Council chambers are empty except for The Chronicle. Odile Hugonot Haber arrives.

6:41 p.m. A UM political science graduate student who has been attending city council meetings for the last year and a half has arrived. Dissertation to come in a year or so. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive.

6:52 p.m. Chambers are starting to fill up. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived. Several high school students here to satisfy a course requirement are here.

6:54 p.m. Usual interested parties on zoning issues are here: Eppie Potts, Piotr Michalowski, Peter Nagourney. City administrator Steve Powers and city attorney Stephen Postema have arrived. Bob Miller from the public art commission is here.

7:05 p.m. All the councilmembers have now arrived.

7:07 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje is twirling the gavel. We’re close to starting.

7:07 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:09 p.m. Approval of agenda. The agenda has been approved.

7:10 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. Steve Powers says that the cold weather has again caused the Delonis Shelter to go into emergency mode. The intoxication and behavior rules have been relaxed. He gave additional information, noting that much of it had been covered previously in an update at the council’s Jan. 6, 2014 meeting.

7:10 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.] Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking is: Michael van Nieuwstadt and Kathryn Dacosta, speaking on the Waldenwood sidewalk project; Kurt Gleichman and Leon Bryson to talk about a fracking moratorium; and Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, to give an update on public art.

7:14 p.m. Michael van Nieuwstadt is an owner of property adjacent to the proposed sidewalk near King Elementary School. He asks for clarification about the nature of the agenda item: Does it involve moving the crosswalk as well as construction of the sidewalk? Sabra Briere (Ward 1) tells him it’s just about construction of the sidewalk. He says that he’s been asking for a safety report for the last four weeks, and he’d learned that one had been produced just today. He wants some time to look at the report. He described the sidewalk connection as connecting two pieces of “nowhere.” He asks for some additional time for the neighborhood to gather its thoughts.

7:17 p.m. Kathryn Dacosta is also addressing the sidewalk extension. She walks her kids to school every day, so she’s on the front lines of the issue, she says. Before the 2011-12 school year there was no crossing guard. It’s a difficult situation and it’s very unsafe, she says. Drivers are distracted by saying goodbye or looking for their kids. They’re not watching for kids doing unexpected things. Drivers are committing traffic infractions. She reports that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) visited the site this morning. Dacosta says there have been three traffic accidents in the last year. There’s gridlock, she says, causing angry drivers. Drivers are also on their cell phones. People also park on the side of the street where the extension is proposed. She took a photo to illustrate it, which she hands to the city clerk – parents with their children walking in the street.

7:19 p.m. Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, is now addressing the council. The art commission has followed the direction of the city council since the change to the ordinance last year, he reports. He’s giving a summary of the projects that are currently in the works. The commission looks forward to achieving the goals set by the council, he tells councilmembers.

7:22 p.m. Kurt Gleichman expresses that there’s urgency to implement anti-fracking ordinances. Coalition groups have worked on raising awareness, he says. Corporations don’t have a conscience, he says. Corporations have huge resources to influence legislators and persuade the public, he cautions. Those in power take the easy way out, he says. Because of a lack of action by those in authority, the people have to take it into their own hands, he says. He alludes to a trial that’s starting next Monday in connection with a civil disobedience action against fracking. He asks the council to make this a priority.

7:27 p.m. Leon Bryson introduces himself as a Ward 5 resident. He calls for a local ordinance against fracking. He says he recently attended a meeting with state Rep. Gretchen Driskell on the topic. He said some of the people who attended the meeting had been approached by companies who wanted to buy their mineral rights. He’s concerned that horizontal drilling could come close to his own house. He alludes to the chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the drinking water. “We can take the lead in Ann Arbor” to ban fracking, he said. He alludes to the leadership of Ann Arbor on the pedestrian ordinance, and calls on the Ann Arbor council to show similar leadership on the fracking issue.

7:27 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:27 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) notes that fracking is already banned by the city’s prohibition of any extraction of minerals within the city limits. But he allows that there could be loopholes – and says that the city is working to address those. Ann Arbor is already leading on this issue, he says. He points out that Ann Arbor, as a home rule city, can ban mineral extraction, but townships surrounding Ann Arbor can’t.

7:30 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) gives an update on what’s being done for former residents of the Green Baxter Court building that was destroyed by fire on Jan. 8. It’s an Ann Arbor housing commission property. Petersen said she and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) held a town hall meeting and were updated by Joan Doughty of Community Action Network. CAN runs a community center at Green Baxter, under contract with the city.

7:33 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is reading aloud a communication from a driver who questions the city’s crosswalk ordinance, based on an experience she had. Kunselman now is reading aloud from the ordinance, and from mayor John Hieftje’s veto statement. Kunselman then reads aloud from an interview with Hieftje in Concentrate magazine.

7:33 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is following up on Petersen’s remarks on the Green Baxter Court fire. She tells people to go to the Community Action Network website to find out how they can help.

7:35 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) announces a meeting on Jan. 22 at Forsythe Middle School about a sidewalk. Lumm announces a Millers Creek sediment accumulation study meeting.

7:35 p.m. MC-1 Pedestrian safety and access task force appointments. The council is being asked to confirm appointment of the nine members of the pedestrian safety task force, which was established by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. The members of the task force are: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

7:36 p.m. Kunselman asks what the task is of the task force: Is it to come up with recommendations to amend the ordinance?

7:39 p.m. Briere says the task force was conceived independently of the heated controversy about the crosswalk ordinance. There are a whole slew of things related to pedestrian safety in addition to crosswalks, she says. She alludes to a manual put out by the federal government that will guide the task force’s work. She also says that the task force will be given a book about walkable cities.

7:40 p.m. Kunselman says that Briere’s explanation makes clear that the council can continue to consider the question of amending the crosswalk ordinance. He’s focused on a phrase from the mayor’s veto statement that says that drivers should stop “if they can do so safely.” He ventures that an attempt might be made to amend the language of the ordinance to include that phrase.

7:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the pedestrian safety and access appointments.

7:42 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Nominations to city boards and commissions to be voted on at the council’s next meeting include the following: Jim Simpson is being nominated to fill the vacancy of Malverne Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013. Daniel Lee is being nominated to serve out the rest of Marta Manildi’s term on the Ann Arbor housing commission. Manildi’s term ends this spring, but she said she’d step down early if someone could be appointed. Paige Morrison is being nominated to serve out the rest of Jennifer Geer’s term on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Geer resigned. Peter Woolf is being nominated to fill the vacancy of Lindsey-Jean Hard on the public market advisory commission.

7:42 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Tonight the two public hearings that are scheduled are on (1) the downtown zoning recommendations, and (2) the 624 Church St. project, a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms.

7:46 p.m. PH-1 Downtown zoning amendments. Peter Nagourney is first up. He supports the work of consultant Erin Perdu. He calls the master plan the constitution and the zoning ordinance the law. In some cases the consultant’s recommendations went beyond the council’s direction, he notes, but that was in order to achieve overall consistency. He’s arguing for specific points of rezoning.

7:49 p.m. Doug Kelbaugh is now addressing the council. He says the fallout from 413 E. Huron has resulted in a productive process. Going from 180 feet to 60 feet (D-1 to D-2) is too abrupt, he says. He asks for the rest of Ann Street to be considered as a part of the reconsidered zoning. He alludes to Briere’s possible amendment as possibly addressing the Ann Street concerns. He tells the council that the recommendations in front of the council are supported by many people.

7:51 p.m. Tamara Burns, an architect and chair of the city’s design review board, tells the council that the board does not support tying the award of premiums to compliance with the recommendations of the design review board. The design guidelines need to be revised and the process for the design review needs to be updated, she says – before making premium FAR (floor area ratio) contingent on design review board recommendations.

7:52 p.m. Steve Kaplan says that in recent history, his observation is that having design guidelines is a great start, but it’s easy to ignore them. He asks that some attention is given to how much teeth guidelines can have so people follow them in the future.

7:55 p.m. Chris Crockett thanks the council for providing the direction to re-evaluate the downtown zoning. She says there are some changes to the recommendations that she would suggest. She wants consideration of zoning changes all the way to Fourth Avenue on Ann Street. She calls 413 E. Huron a sad experience because of a misapplication of character areas. Crockett has respect for Tamara Burns, saying she’s known Burns since Burns was in high school. But Crockett ventures that there could be some way to put some additional teeth into the design guidelines.

7:56 p.m. Hugh Sonk represents the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association. Sloan Plaza is located on the north side of East Huron, next to the 413 E. Huron development. He calls on the council to support the additional recommendations made by the near downtown neighborhood group. [.pdf of Near-Downtown Neighborhood Group letter]

8:00 p.m. Piotr Michalowski says he’s very concerned about the corner of Main and William. He asks the council to support the current recommendation to rezone that parcel as D-2. He says that residents of the neighborhood have already been “burned” once with a project he says he will not name. [He's referring to City Place, on South Fifth Avenue south of William.] He asks the council to maintain the transition between residential areas and Main Street.

8:04 p.m. Cy Hufano is a resident of Sloan Plaza. On the technical side, he addresses the second recommendation – for the D-1.5 zoning proposal, which includes a height limit of 120 feet, and the use of diagonals. As far as the process goes, he felt there were a lot of loose ends. He cautioned that decisions get made based on the threat of lawsuits. He says he’s speaking from the heart. He visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. and looked at a mural. There was a figure holding a halter, he said: “People have got to watch what government is doing.”

8:07 p.m. Ray Detter is now addressing the council and essentially reprising the same comments that he delivered at the Jan. 8, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. He agrees with Hufano’s comments.

8:10 p.m. Eppie Potts strongly urges support for the resolution to start the process of much-needed amendments. D-1 and D-2 have been tried, but found to be controversial, she says. To avoid future controversy, additional revision is needed. She cites problems with overlay districts. She gives The Varsity on East Washington as an example of a problem with front setbacks. She asks the council to keep the door open to reviewing other troublesome aspects of D-1 and D-2.

8:13 p.m. Eleanor Linn introduces herself as a resident of Forest Court, near Zaragon and the Landmark apartment buildings in the South University neighborhood. She ventures that another large building will be built on Church Street, depending on the council’s action later that night. She supports the possible amendments to be offered by Briere that would direct the planning commission to consider revisions to zoning in the South University area. Linn recalls intricate details of the history of past planning exercises.

8:16 p.m. David Blanchard introduces himself as chair of the city’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). He says he wants to keep the idea of affordable housing alive and a diversity of housing choices for different income levels. He remembers the PUD (planned unit development) system where cash-in-lieu could be contributed. He also noted that the current zoning has a “super-premium” for building affordable housing. The current recommendation is to remove that premium, because that premium wasn’t being used. That might be the right recommendation, he said, but he wasn’t sure enough thought had gone into it. He urged the planning commission to work with HHSAB to make affordable housing a reality in Ann Arbor.

8:16 p.m. That’s it for PH-1.

8:16 p.m. PH-2 624 Church site plan. Brad Moore, the architect for the project, is first up.

8:19 p.m. Moore notes that what’s before the council is a revision to the previous project. The renovation to Pizza House was designed with strong enough foundations to facilitate a larger project. He’s explaining that the portion of the previous project that had zero setback with the adjacent Zaragon building has been redesigned, so that it now has a 20-foot setback. [That had been a point of friction in the previous iteration of the project, but has not been an issue this time around.] Moore notes that the unit mix is about 90% 1-2 bedroom units, with 11 3-bedroom units.

8:21 p.m. Eppie Potts is speaking to the parking permit issue. She questions the contribution-in-lieu policy that allows a developer to pay for permits in the public parking system, instead of building parking spaces onsite. That’s not good for the public, Potts says. She won’t be able to get to her favorite restaurant, she fears. The public is being crowded out, she says. If the developer can build that big of a building, they could find a way to build some parking, she contends.

8:23 p.m. Scott Munzel is a local attorney representing Opus, the developer. He notes that the project complies with all the applicable requirements. He says that it’s a creative use of a “difficult site.” That’s why it’s difficult to construct parking onsite, he says. That’s why the developer is making use of the city’s contribution-in-lieu program. The project is consistent with the downtown plan, he says, and it’s consistent with other city goals, like creating a sense of place.

8:25 p.m. Maggie Ladd, director of the South University Area Association, tells the council she supports the project. She says that the zoning was changed before the A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) process, and that A2D2 lowered the height restrictions.

8:25 p.m. That’s it for PH-2.

8:25 p.m. Approval of previous meeting minutes. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the previous meeting’s minutes.

8:25 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Approve a contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services to provide mental health treatment services to sobriety court defendants ($45,271) .
• CA-2 Approve contract with the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office to provide drug abuse screening services to veterans treatment court and sobriety court defendants ($23,200).
• CA-3 Approve a purchase order for Enertron LLC for the city hall network cabling project ($39,704)
• CA-4 Approve a purchase order to New World Systems for financial system annual software support and maintenance agreement ($64,040).
• CA-5 Accept board of insurance administration minutes of Dec. 17, 2013.
• CA-6 Close E. Washington for Winter Warriors (Saturday, Feb. 1, 2014).
• CA-7 Close streets for Shamrocks & Shenanigans 5K (Sunday, March 9, 2014)
• CA-8 Close Streets for UM Big House 5K (Sunday, April 6, 2014).

8:26 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does.

8:26 p.m. Outcome: All items on the consent agenda have now been approved.

8:26 p.m. C-1 Hofmann zoning. The council is being asked to give initial approval of the zoning of the parcel as C1 (local business district). This parcel houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The owners of Biercamp had wanted C3 zoning two years ago, which was denied. C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.This is just the initial approval to establish zoning, after annexation from the township. [For more detailed background, see State Street Zoning Request above.]

8:29 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) notes that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he wasn’t sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. He says that it gave him the chance to visit the business to get some jerky and to get a growler so that Sally Petersen was clear about what a growler is. He lifts a growler onto the table. [Petersen had previously asked at a council meeting what a growler is.] Warpehoski says that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

8:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has given initial approval to the Hoffman zoning. It will need a second vote at a subsequent meeting.

8:30 p.m. DC-1 Recommend approval of downtown development district liquor license to The Lunch Room, LLC. [For more detailed background, see Liquor: Lunch Room, Silvio's above.]

8:30 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reviews the details of the requirements. She thanks the various staff involved including the clerk’s office, fire department, police department, and city attorney’s office.

8:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend approval of a downtown development district liquor license for The Lunch Room.

8:31 p.m. DC-2 Approve request from Silvio’s Organic Pizzeria Inc. to transfer classification from a Tavern License to a Class C License. A key difference between a Tavern license and a Class C license is that Tavern licenses are restricted to beer and wine. Class C includes other alcohol. [For more detailed background, see Liquor: Lunch Room, Silvio's above.]

8:32 p.m. Lumm reviews the item, noting it’s not a new license, but rather a change in the classification. She reiterates her thanks to the various city staff: “They do great work,” she says.

8:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the change from a Tavern license to a Class C license for Silvio’s Organic Pizza.

8:32 p.m. DC-3 Approve a contract with Atwell, LLC for environmental site assessment (ESA) services ($25,550). The property in question is the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on S. State Street. The city is now gathering information in advance of a decision on whether to exercise its right of first refusal to purchase the land. The University of Michigan has made an offer of $12.8 million. [For more detailed background, see Edwards Brothers Land above.]

8:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the contract with Atwell to do a site assessment of the Edwards Brothers property.

8:33 p.m. DB-1 Downtown zoning amendments. These are recommendations for changes to downtown zoning that came from the planning commission, prompted by the controversy last year surrounding the 413 E. Huron project. If the recommendations for the changes are approved, the planning commission will then be tasked with crafting ordinance language to implement the recommendations. After the planning commission has completed that task, held a public hearing and voted on it, the ordinance revisions will be forwarded to the city council. The council would then need to give initial approval, hold a public hearing, and then give the changes final approval. [For more detailed background, see Downtown Zoning Recommendations above.]

Here’s a .pdf of possible amendments to the downtown zoning resolution that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) might bring forward.

8:36 p.m. Briere, who represents the city council on the planning commission, says that the commission had discussed all the communications that had been described during the public hearing. The public had asked the planning commission to expand its scope of consideration, but the planning commission had decided to confine its recommendations to the council’s specific direction.

8:40 p.m. Briere offers her amendments. [.pdf of amendments]

8:42 p.m. Lumm asks to add setback language to the amendments. Briere says she tried to not constrain the planning commission. So she didn’t suggest any side setbacks. She didn’t think front setbacks of 10 feet would benefit all of Huron. She wanted further discussion before accepting Lumm’s suggestions as friendly.

8:43 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) wants to know if Briere would be willing to add Ann Street between Fourth and Fifth to an area for additional consideration. That’s added in a friendly way.

8:45 p.m. Lumm now phrases her suggestion in terms of “considering” changes to the setback.

8:47 p.m. Taylor says he wants to “chat” about the reference to Thayer. He doesn’t think there’s residential there that needs buffering. But he thinks there needs sight-scape buffering to Hill Auditorium, so he’ll support the reference to Thayer.

8:47 p.m. Outcome: Briere’s amendments are approved.

8:50 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says there’s been a lot of good and solid work done on this by the planning commission and the public. He says he hopes that the recommendation on residential premiums means that it’s a reduction in the size of the units – as that would speak to the kind of housing that millennials are looking for. He says that the change at the corner of Main and William had been a swift change from the consultant’s initial recommendation. So he wants to keep an eye on that.

8:53 p.m. Taylor offers a specific amendment on the recommendation about the design review board’s role. He says the city needs modest and smart growth. His amendment indicates that the revisions to the design review board process should have the support of the design review board. [This reacts to the public hearing comments by design review board chair Tamara Burns, who said that as things currently stand, the design review board did not want to be the arbiter of the award of premium FAR (floor area ratio).]

8:55 p.m. Briere says that when Taylor said “save (4)” many people understood it as “save for.” Some wordsmithing ensues to ensure Taylor’s amendment does not escape the Oct. 20, 2014 deadline.

8:56 p.m. Hieftje says the design review board has all along not wanted to have mandatory compliance. So he appreciates Taylor’s amendment.

8:58 p.m. Planning manager Wendy Rampson says (4) had originally been drafted to say that there would be mandatory compliance. The planning commission had revised the wording to emphasize there should be a focus on the core design guidelines and improve the process, without making the design review board the gatekeeper to the premiums. She concludes about Taylor’s amendment that “it looks fine.”

9:00 p.m. Kunselman asks Rampson who the gatekeepers to the premiums would be – the planning commission? Rampson said the planning commission had discussed various possibilities. Commissioners were reluctant to make compliance mandatory. They wanted the ability to look at each site as unique. Kunselman ventures that the final arbiter would be the council. Rampson suggests that two paths could be maintained, for site plan and for design review.

9:01 p.m. Petersen asks Rampson to comment on the design review board process and the city’s participation in the state’s Redevelopment Ready Communities program. Would the DRB process prevent RR certification? Rampson said the main thing with RR is that “we have to be clear.”

9:02 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) talks about the idea that council would be making the judgment as to how close a developer had come to meeting the recommendations: Is that workable? Rampson indicates that this works in other communities.

9:05 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that some developers find out what the neighbors want and build that. Others don’t and get pushback.

9:07 p.m. Anglin asks about setbacks. Rampson says that the idea is that the setbacks allow for some flexibility, but the building should continue a pattern if there’s an existing pattern of buildings set forward. The goal was not to crowd the sidewalk, Rampson says.

9:10 p.m. Lumm asks for confirmation about what the planning commission and design review board will be doing. Rampson indicates that she thinks those two groups will be able to chart out a path to work together. Rampson notes that the DRB is not always consistent in its comments. So the DRB is looking for a preliminary meeting, with more informal commentary, followed by a more formal process.

9:11 p.m. Hieftje says he’s always supported mandatory compliance, but says he thinks the amendment Taylor has offered is very thoughtful.

9:11 p.m. Outcome: Taylor’s amendment is approved.

9:15 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution. He notes that mandatory compliance can’t be required on a basic project, but it can be required for premiums. He notes that he’d opposed the A2D2 as the only councilmember who did so. He preferred the previous zoning, which was more of a “mosaic,” he says. He echoes the remarks of Eleanor Linn, who’d described how the “density chips” in the planning exercise were dumped on South U: “They definitely were,” he said.

When the zoning was changed in the South University area before A2D2, the council had not been told about the possibility of parcel combinations, Kunselman said. He says the current revisions are implementing corrections to the previous policies and the “lust to build more and more housing.”

9:16 p.m. Briere says she’ll support the resolution and she’d try to influence the outcome on the planning commission based on what she’s heard tonight.

9:19 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support this – especially because of the deadline that Briere has added. He hopes that the pieces that are clear can be covered quickly, and that not everything will be held up in order that everything is done before anything is done. He’s glad the process took a look at the southeast corner of William and Main. He said he’d trust the process. He says the corner of Main and Packard is not a place for D-1 zoning.

9:20 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support the resolution. She’s ticking through a list of people she wants to thank. She calls the report and recommendations thorough and clear. The recommendations help address the flaws in the A2D2 zoning that manifested themselves in the 413 E. Huron, she says.

9:23 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) says she’s glad the council is moving forward with this. She’d attended some of the public outreach meetings. What was said at the meetings was reflected in the report, she says. The council’s work session last week [on economic development] gave her pause, she said. She wants to keep Ann Arbor’s housing stock diverse and affordable.

9:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the recommendations, with amendments, to the planning commission for changes to the downtown zoning.

9:23 p.m. Recess. We are now in recess.

9:34 p.m. And we’re back.

9:34 p.m. DB-2 624 Church site plan. The current, revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down. [For more detailed background, see 624 Church St. above.]

9:37 p.m. Kailasapathy leads things off. She asks for planning manager Wendy Rampson. Kailasapathy wants to know about the contribution to parks – $72,450 had been requested. The developer had made a smaller contribution. Rampson notes that the parks contribution is voluntary. Brad Moore, the project’s architect, responds. He says that the city staff member had modified the request downward based on the specific parks improvements that the city wanted to undertake.

9:38 p.m. Kailasapathy is now expressing dissatisfaction with the extension option for the contribution-in-lieu parking program that the DDA had granted – three five-year periods past the standard 15 years for parking permits.

9:40 p.m. Executive director of the DDA, Susan Pollay, is describing the usage pattern of the Forest Avenue parking structure, which is heavy during the school year. She ventures that a circulator bus downtown could allow for relocating the permits to a different parking structure sometime in the future. Hieftje notes that the developer is taking advantage of an existing policy.

9:42 p.m. Pollay describes an “experiment” or “pilot” program where parking permits would be granted not on a first-come-first-serve basis but rather to property owners based on square footage. Hieftje elicits the fact that the CIL program requires a 20% premium.

9:42 p.m. Kunselman asks: Is there a wait list? Yes, says Pollay, 325 are on the list, and 153 have joined the list since 2012.

9:43 p.m. Kunselman says the extension of the CIL by three 5-year periods “irks” him.

9:44 p.m. Kunselman asks what the DDA’s discussion was in terms of “fairness.” Pollay said that was the point of the “pilot” program. The DDA had learned that the property owners didn’t want to manage parking permits for their own tenants. Pollay said that the conversation about fairness was ongoing. Kunselman noted that “we’re running out of land over there.”

9:45 p.m. Kunselman wants to know what other developments have contracts for parking permits. How many spaces are available to the public at Forest, he asks?

9:47 p.m. Pollay says the Forest structure has almost 900 spaces, but the UM had been a partner on the expansion of the structure. So just under 590 spaces are available to the public, she says. There are 131 permits now. She explains how the gate arms keep track of public versus the UM usage.

9:50 p.m. Pollay notes that the current monthly permit system is on a month-to-month basis. Kunselman wants to know if the 48 permits would come out of the 131 existing permits. Kunselman elicits the fact that the 48 will jump ahead of line of those on the wait list. Pollay says that many on the wait list may already be parking in the Forest structure on an hourly basis, and having a monthly permit is a matter of convenience.

9:52 p.m. Teall says we keep hearing that for new developments that are built, the residents are going to bring cars. She was not sure that all those spaces would be needed.

9:55 p.m. Lumm says that if a more diverse housing mix is desired, she thinks not all residents would find it convenient to not have a car. She expresses concerns about the lengthened parking agreement. She was glad that flexibility had been built in terms of the location of the structure where they’d be granted. She asks Pollay if this relocation of the permits to a different structure had been a point of discussion with the developer. Yes, says Pollay.

9:55 p.m. Pollay notes that the CIL program had been approved by the council.

9:57 p.m. Lumm is speculating about what kind of people are on the wait list. Lumm and Pollay are in an extended back-and-forth.

9:59 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t want to see cars parked in the neighborhood if people can’t get into the structure. Hieftje, who lives in the North Burns Park area, responds to Lumm’s remarks by indicating that the residential parking program is effective in preventing people from storing the cars on the streets. Hieftje ventures that if the council wants to review the CIL program, it should do that separate from this project.

10:00 p.m. Kailasapathy responds to Hieftje by saying that the 15-year extension was outside the CIL policy. She calls this a case of “externalization of costs.”

10:03 p.m. Taylor says he’ll support the proposal, because it conforms with the zoning requirements. It would add useful residential units, he says. Previously the area had been challenged and desolate and it’s no longer so, he says. On the parking permit issue, he allows that fairness is an issue, but says he’s relying on the DDA to take a longer view of managing the demand of the parking system. On the parking spaces, Taylor says: “They’re being used by Ann Arbor residents, they just don’t live here, yet.”

10:04 p.m. Kunselman asks if the DDA has looked at subsidizing lower-income students for their parking. Pollay says that the DDA’s strategy has been to make as many options available as possible and to let people choose.

10:06 p.m. Kunselman asks if the monthly permits allow someone to park 24/7. Yes, Pollay says. That’s a problem, Kunselman says.

10:07 p.m. Kunselman asks if long-term parking had been explored for people to park at a satellite lot for storage parking. Pollay says a pilot had been done at Fingerle to explore the idea of “storage parking.” There had not been many takers, she says.

10:08 p.m. Kunselman ventures that D-1 and D-2 are parking exempt. Rampson explains that for residential use and premiums, parking can be required for the larger buildings that result from premium FAR.

10:09 p.m. Kunselman asks the city attorney what happens if the council amends the development agreement. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald suggests that the council should make changes in its resolved clauses of its resolution.

10:11 p.m. Kunselman asks for the developer to come to the podium: Will that be a deal breaker? Yes, says Sean Spellman with The Opus Group. The national lending market has spoken, he says.

10:12 p.m. Spellman notes that for the extended term of the CIL, the location of the parking structure where the permits would be granted wouldn’t necessarily be the Forest parking structure.

10:13 p.m. Kunselman says: “Your financing is not my concern.”

10:14 p.m. Kunselman says that all these years he’s participated in this kind of process, he’s always told citizens that the council is voting on the zoning, not the financing, and it’s up to the developer to put the financing together.

10:16 p.m. Spellman says that the council could move the spaces wherever it wants, but he really needs the extension. Kunselman says that if the project can’t get financing without the parking, then maybe it’s too big. “The DDA rolled over for ya,” he says.

10:17 p.m. Kunselman also contends that the DDA doesn’t sign contracts, and the developer would have to go to the bank with a DDA resolution, not a contract. Kunselman says that he’d be content not to have any parking required for the project.

10:20 p.m. Briere is now reviewing with the developer the availability of spaces in Forest structure. Pollay is reviewing how a monthly parking permit is not transferable, and cannot be sublet.

10:22 p.m. Petersen asks Rampson if the developer could meet the parking requirement by providing Zipcar spaces. Rampson reviews the lessons learned from The Varsity project, and noted that Zipcar doesn’t necessarily accept locations on a private site.

10:25 p.m. Kunselman now offers an amendment to the resolution. The added resolved clause says that the development agreement is to be renegotiated to eliminate the designation of the Forest parking structure and the three 5-year extensions.

10:26 p.m. Teall appreciates the sentiment of Kunselman’s amendment. She wishes there were more parking in the South University area. But she doesn’t think Kunselman’s amendment is practical.

10:28 p.m. Hieftje says he understands the financing issue. He also understands the value of the additional units. He calls Kunselman’s amendment a “poison pill” for the development.

10:29 p.m. Hieftje says that the DDA has thought deeply about this issue and knows more about the parking system than the council does. McDonald suggests that the word “negotiate” should be eliminated from the amendment, because it’s just council’s direction to be followed and nothing would be “negotiated.”

10:30 p.m. Lumm wants the question divided. Designation of the Forest parking structure is one question. The three 5-year extensions are a separate question.

10:34 p.m. First up is the location of the permits. Briere asks Pollay if she understood the amendment to mean that the spaces couldn’t be assigned in the Forest structure. Pollay says the message she is taking away is that the council doesn’t want the spaces assigned in Forest. Eaton says the question should go to Kunselman as to what his intent is. Kunselman says he doesn’t mind if they’re assigned in Forest – and he wants the DDA to have the flexibility to assign them wherever it deems suitable.

10:36 p.m. Petersen and Pollay discuss 10 of the parking permits in use currently by Pizza House.

10:37 p.m. Lumm wants to know if there are implications for the developer’s ability to satisfy the premium requirements.

10:41 p.m. Taylor asks if the location of the parking spaces has an implication for the financing. Spellman indicates the assumption is that the majority percentage would be in Forest. Taylor indicates that he thinks the DDA has already indicated that the spaces are available in Forest. Petersen notes that the council had approved 40 spaces in conjunction with the previous version of the project.

10:43 p.m. Outcome on location amendment: The amendment fails with support only from Kunselman, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

10:44 p.m. Now up is the question of three 5-year term extensions.

10:44 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support the amendment, saying she’s not sure why the DDA agreed to the extensions.

10:45 p.m. Hieftje brings Spellman back to the podium. He gets clarification that Opus needs the “capacity” to extend the term for the permits for 30 years. The location for that entire period is not important.

10:46 p.m. About the chances for getting financing without the 30-year term, Spellman says: “It’s zero.”

10:47 p.m. Eaton asks if the project could get financing if the project was parking-exempt. Spellman indicates that if the project were exempt, then it would already be zoning-compliant.

10:50 p.m. Briere wonders what the expectation was for a building becoming compliant with zoning in year 16. McDonald says the policy was to require a minimum for 15 years. The 20% additional payment is to provide an enhancement to the parking system, McDonald says. He notes that the banks are concerned that the building could become out of compliance. He says it was the city that came up with the 15-year requirement.

10:53 p.m. Lumm says that it could kill the project without this parking agreement. McDonald says that the conversations with the developer have been extensive. He points out that the DDA’s initial response to the request of a 15-year extension was to reject that in favor of three 5-year extendable terms.

10:55 p.m. Warpehoski raises a point of order so the council can vote to start its closed session after 11 p.m. The council votes to suspend the rule.

10:56 p.m. Taylor says that it’s “nonsensical” to deny the permits, knowing it would stop the project. “This makes no sense to me,” he says.

10:59 p.m. Kunselman ventures that the previous project was apparently financeable without the parking permit extensions. He says the project won’t get killed because the amendment would be voted down. But afterwards, he would be bringing forth a proposal to kill the CIL program. Hieftje ventures that the vote could go toward killing it.

10:59 p.m. Outcome on amendment on the parking permit extensions: The amendment fails.

11:00 p.m. Lumm worries about eating away at the capacity of the parking system.

11:02 p.m. Petersen says she voted no on Kunselman’s amendment, but wants the CIL program re-examined. She hopes it can be “Zipcar in lieu of parking.” Kunselman said he had no intention, coming into the meeting, of raising these issues, but as he listened, he thought that the fairness issue was important. He allows that the developer might have found the council’s discussion to be scary. “I’m sorry if I scared you, but as we work this through, that’s what we do.”

11:04 p.m. Briere says she’ll bring up this issue with the planning commission, as the CIL program is related to D-1 and premiums. She allows that many in the community would advocate for requiring a developer to provide parking for tenants. The issue needs to be considered carefully, she says.

11:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for 624 Church St.

11:06 p.m. DB-3 Approve amendment to the contract with Aaron Seagraves as public art administrator ($18,500). This resolution would extend Seagraves’ contract by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. A total of $20,500 would be appropriated from the balance in the public art fund, with the additional money to cover various expenses. Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week. [For more detailed background, see Public Art Administrator above.]

11:08 p.m. Eaton says he can’t support a continuation of spending funds that were accumulated under the former Percent for Art program. Kailasapathy says that the money in the public art fund balances should be returned to the funds of origin. Lumm notes that she’s previously said she wouldn’t support continued spending of public art money. Her resolution to return about $800,000 to the funds of origin had failed several months ago. She says a “clean break” should be made between the current program and the old program.

11:09 p.m. By the end of 2013, Lumm says, the council was supposed to have a description of the new program. Based on Bob Miller’s remarks that night, Lumm says that it doesn’t appear that has happened.

11:11 p.m. Petersen is getting clarification about what the status of the funds is.

11:12 p.m. Hieftje says that pretty much nothing happens without a staff member. A lot of citizens have put in a lot of time on a lot of projects that are in the works, he says. He asks Bob Miller, chair of the public art commission, if any of the projects could go forward without an art administrator. Miller says: No. Without an art administrator, the public art commission couldn’t function, he says.

11:14 p.m. Petersen says she thinks that money from the streets millage should be returned to that fund. But she sees the need for a public art administrator. This is the last extension of his contract, she says. After this, part of the public art administrator’s job is to raise private funding.

11:17 p.m. Briere is getting an estimate from public services area administrator Craig Hupy of the likelihood of having a private funding mechanism in place by June. Hupy is describing a model where a nonprofit would be formed outside of the city. He ventures that the wastewater treatment facility art project would have 50% private support.

11:20 p.m. Briere says that the idea of leaving the money in the public art fund was to use some of that as a bridge to the new model. She was concerned about how long that might take. She says she thinks an administrator is needed for the next few months, but she didn’t want to see the contract extension for much longer.

11:24 p.m. Kunselman is asking questions about the projects in the works. Hupy says that the East Stadium Bridges artwork had run into some issues with the sustainability of the materials and some modifications had been made. That would come back to the public for review. Kunselman says that he’d made a commitment to following through on the transition. At some point, he allowed, the council has to pull the plug. He felt that the projects left over from the Percent for Art program were a drag on the ability of the city to transition to the new program. Kunselman says it’s also unfair to Seagraves to be subjected to a contract renewal every six months.

11:26 p.m. Eaton suggests a postponement on the contract extension, and that it be brought back with a simultaneous proposal to revise the ordinance to allow the return of money to the funds of origin. Kunselman says if all the money is put back, you can’t pay for the art.

11:27 p.m. Hiefte gets clarification about Eaton’s intent, which is to provide enough money to fund an administrator, but to return the other public art money to the funds of origin.

11:28 p.m. Eaton’s motion to postpone nearly fails for lack of a second. Briere offers the second.

11:31 p.m. Briere ventures that an ordinance can’t be changed in one meeting – because it requires a first and second reading. Hieftje says a resolution could be introduced to direct the preparation of ordinance language. Kunselman asks what the ordinance amendment would do. Answer: It would allow the return of the money to the funds of origin.

11:32 p.m. Warpehoski ventures that the compromise he’s hearing is to take the amorphous wind-down time period of the old public art program and give it some additional structure. Petersen says she doesn’t think the vote needs to be postponed.

11:34 p.m. By way of background here, it requires 8 votes.

11:37 p.m. Eaton is saying that he wants a quid pro quo, a vote in support of the contract extension in exchange for a commitment to return the money to the funds of origin.

11:37 p.m. Teall says she’s not willing to make the deal Eaton is proposing. She says there was not an agreement to end the public art program, but rather to transition to a new approach. She’s disappointed that no nonprofit has been found to take the lead on the private funding component. She says she’ll support the contract tonight.

11:39 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll support the postponement because it continues the dialogue and gives Eaton some time. He appreciates Teall’s sentiments, but says there are other areas that have needs. He compares providing parking for wealthy students in the public parking structure, with a tent out on Stone School Road where people are trying to keep warm. Hieftje says there’s not a single dollar in the public art fund that could be used for human services.

11:41 p.m. Anglin says that art projects that people can actually see would have a positive impact. Anglin supports the postponement.

11:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone extending Seagraves’ contract as public art administrator. Sole dissent came from Teall.

11:42 p.m. DS-1 Waldenwood sidewalk ($6,818). The resolution would authorize the construction budget for a sidewalk from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward – to connect to a path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School. The council had already authorized $10,000 for the design and public process budget at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting. A small amount of that was spent. To cover the $16,000 construction cost, an additional $6,818 of general fund money is being requested tonight. [For more detailed background, see Sidewalks: Waldenwood above.]

11:43 p.m. Petersen says she had the same impression as the speaker during public commentary – that the resolution dealt also with the location of the crosswalk. But the crosswalk location is not a part of the resolution. She proposes an amendment to make that clear.

11:46 p.m. Lumm adds that in the many conversations about the sidewalk, concerns had been raised about previous studies. She refers to this email: [email from Mellor]

11:47 p.m. Lumm says she thinks that a sidewalk will provide a good location for kids to be dropped off.

11:47 p.m. Outcome: The amendment proposed by Petersen is approved.

11:49 p.m. Petersen now wants to know how a decision would be made to change the location of the crosswalk if it were changed. Pat Cawley, a project manager for the city, is explaining the process to go through moving a crosswalk in the future.

11:50 p.m. Petersen wants to make sure that the King Elementary School families would have an opportunity to provide feedback on the change to a crosswalk location.

11:52 p.m. Lumm says she thinks all the issues that had previously been raised had been addressed. Lumm inquires about the feedback form from a previous meeting.

11:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Waldenwood sidewalk construction budget.

11:55 p.m. DS-2 Special assessment resolution #1 for Pontiac Trail sidewalk. This is the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road. The project would also construct a concrete curb and gutter northward from Skydale about 920 feet along the east side of Pontiac Trail and about 1,030 feet along the west side of Pontiac Trail. Those stretches currently don’t have a curb and gutter. [For more detailed background, see Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail above.]

11:57 p.m. Briere explains why the sidewalk is only on one side: It’s not anticipated that there will be demand. If the property owners on the other side in the township are annexed into the city, a sidewalk on that side might be added.

11:58 p.m. Kunselman asked if the city was going to be contributing some percent of the cost. Hupy says there’s no federal or state dollars involved. Kunselman says he has an amendment.

11:59 p.m. Kunselman wants 80% of the cost to be borne by the city. He doesn’t think it’s OK to sometimes provide a portion of the cost and sometimes not – for other projects that are special-assessed.

12:02 a.m. Warpehoski asks for explanation from Hupy about other projects. Hupy explains that for some other projects, state or federal funding is available. Warpehoski ventures that Kunselman’s amendment would establish a new precedent of the city providing funding.

12:05 a.m. Nick Hutchinson, a project manager for the city, clarifies that there would be eight property owners affected by the special assessment.

12:07 a.m. Hieftje agrees with Warpehoski that it would not set a good precedent for a way to fill sidewalk gaps.

12:11 a.m. Kunselman is asking for an estimate for the cost. Hutchinson ventures that it’d be $45,000 for 920 feet. Kunselman stresses that it’s the first step in the special assessment process and doesn’t commit the city. The issue is to let the people know that the city is thinking about them. He says that Pontiac Trail should have federal dollars available and thinks that the city should wait until federal funds are available. Hutchinson says that the surface transportation program is for major streets and Pontiac is a major street, so it’s eligible.

12:13 a.m. Hutchinson says it would be at least 2018 before federal money might be available.

12:13 a.m. Kunselman says it’s an issue of fairness – because Ward 3 residents with a Stone School project would have their project funded with federal monies, but Pontiac Trail wouldn’t. What he’s proposing is to resolve the fairness issue with city dollars.

12:14 a.m. Lumm is concerned about setting a precedent.

12:16 a.m. Hieftje speaks to the issue of fairness by saying that special assessment is the standard way to finance sidewalk construction and always has been.

12:17 a.m. Briere says her immediate reaction to Kunselman’s amendment was to be intrigued by it. It seems to indicate a commitment by the council to filling sidewalk gaps. But Briere says that if the council determines the fallback position is that the city would pay 80%, then she fears that very few sidewalk gaps would be filled.

12:19 a.m. Briere notes that she’s going to a meeting of property owners tomorrow night with property owners on Newport Road who actually want to pay for construction of a new sidewalk.

12:20 a.m. Kunselman notes that Chapter 13, governing special assessment, has been on the books but sidewalks gaps have persisted. Any neighborhood that doesn’t have sidewalks will have this process applied, he contends.

12:21 a.m. Kunselman says we need to show some empathy for taxpayers instead of just saying that the city is going to assess them for a sidewalk.

12:24 a.m. Briere asks Hupy to comment on funding proposals for filling sidewalk gaps.

12:25 a.m. Outcome: Kunselman’s amendment fails with support from only Eaton, Kunselman and Anglin.

12:25 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project.

12:25 a.m. DS-3 Approve contract with Transmap Corporation Data Collection Services for the sign inventory and pavement assessment project ($272,490). According to the memo accompanying this resolution, the city needs to do a sign inventory and pavement assessment to meet federal regulations. It will also use the result of the work to improve efficiency in operations and maintenance, capital improvements planning and integrate the results with an asset maintenance management system. According to the memo, both projects – the pavement assessment and sign inventory – can be achieved for about the same cost as each would have cost over the next three years: “By approving the resolution, the City is using technology and market place changes to generate savings.”

12:26 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Transmap Corporation Data Collection Services.

12:26 a.m. DS-4 Approve a five-year lease to University of Michigan for city-owned property behind 926 Mary Street ($4,000 annually). The University of Michigan currently leases the 12-15 parking spaces for $225 per month, which translates to an annual cost of $2,700. The lease hasn’t been renewed or re-evaluated since approval of the month-to-month terms by city council in 1987.

12:26 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the lease with the University of Michigan for the city-owned property on Mary Street.

12:28 a.m. Communications from council. Kunselman says that streetlights on Packard have been repaired all the way from Jewett to Stone School, so he thanks DTE. He also recognizes Seth Best and Caleb Poirer (who are here in the audience) for their cooperation, saying that they’d given assurances that the tent on Stone School Road would be taken down because it’s not in conformance with city code.

12:28 a.m. Clerk’s report of communications, petitions and referrals. Clerk’s report is received.

12:28 a.m. Public comment general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary. No one speaks.

12:29 a.m. Closed session. The council votes to go into closed session for discussion of land acquisition and pending litigation.

1:10 a.m. We’re back.

1:10 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Jan. 21, 2014 meeting agenda.

The council will be asked to approve the site plan for a revised, expanded version of the 624 Church St. project, located in the block just south of South University Avenue. An earlier version of the project went through the planning review process about a year ago, with city council approval coming on March 4, 2013.

The revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would stand adjacent to and over the existing two-story restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down. The city planning commission recommended approval of the revised plan at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

Also on the Jan. 21 agenda are possible future changes to the city’s downtown zoning regulations. A public hearing on the matter will be held at the Jan. 21 meeting. Three of the recommendations relate to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District. Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage.

But the decision on the 624 Church St. project will come long before the zoning revisions could be enacted. And the changes – recommended by the city’s planning commission at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting – are focused on parts of downtown Ann Arbor other than the South University area. The council’s Jan. 21 resolution, if approved, would direct the planning commission to translate its recommendations into proposed ordinance language, which would require review and a public hearing. The specific ordinance language would then be recommended by the planning commission to the city council, which would make the ultimate decision. In general, the planning commission’s downtown zoning recommendations aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Also its Jan. 21 meeting, the council will be asked to give initial approval for the zoning of two unzoned properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. They are proposed to be zoned C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The currently unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission.

Back in 2011, Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site. C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

Also on the Jan. 21 agenda are two items related to construction of sidewalks. One resolution involves a sidewalk gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward – to connect to a path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School. The council had already authorized $10,000 for the design and public process budget at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting. A small amount of that was spent. To cover the $16,000 construction cost, an additional $6,818 of general fund money is being requested at the Jan. 21 meeting. The other sidewalk item is the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road.

The council will also be asked to extend the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. It’s a part-time position.

The council’s consent agenda includes two contracts related to the sobriety court, one of the 15th District Court’s specialty courts. The consent agenda also includes street closures in connection with three events: Winter Warriors, Shamrocks & Shenanigans, and the University of Michigan Big House 5K.

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

624 Church St.

This project would be located south of South University Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, next to and over the two-story Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church. A previous version went through the planning review process and was given approval by the city council almost a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

The current, revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down.

Rendering of 624 Church apartments, looking south from South University. Zaragon Place is pictured to the west, immediately next to the proposed 624 Church building. (Image included in the planning commission meeting packet.)

The original plan was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. But after the original plan received site plan approval, the developer purchased an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building eventually to be constructed. [.pdf of site plan] [.pdf of draft development agreement] [.pdf of staff memo]

Premiums offered in the D1 zoning district – for buildings with residential uses, and LEED silver certification – are being used to allow a larger structure than would otherwise be permitted, gaining an additional 267% in floor area ratio for a total of 667% FAR. To use the residential premium, each bedroom must have a window directly to the outside.

The project includes a 1,491-square-foot outdoor dining area for Pizza House, which will be built underneath the apartment structure on the south side of the restaurant, opening onto Church Street. It will be partially enclosed, with large garage-style overhead doors along the front property line opening to the sidewalk.

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

• Two small offices for building management on the ground floor of the addition, with a solid waste/recycling room and bicycle parking room at the rear. There will be no new retail space.
• The top floor will include a small “club room” for residents and a rooftop patio with benches, a small grilling area, and garden trellis.
• The second floor will contain a fitness room, study lounge and five apartments. Other floors will have 11 apartments each. The apartments will be divided into: 23 one-bedroom (19%); 88 two-bedroom (72%); and 11 three-bedroom (9%). The units will range in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.
• The developer will make a contribution of $47,120 to the city’s parks and recreation unit for improvements to the nearby Forest Plaza, adjacent to the Forest Avenue parking structure.
• The development agreement includes a requirement to disconnect 27 footing drains as part of the city’s footing drain disconnect program. That’s an increase from the 20 that were required for the previous version of the project.

The new version of this development was evaluated by the city’s design review board, which was generally supportive of the project. [.pdf of September 2013 DRB report]

The development requires 53 parking spaces under the city’s zoning. Five of those will be provided in spaces underneath the building. The previous proposal had no on-site parking. At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority granted the owner the ability to buy a total of 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure, through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. That program requires the developer to pay 20% more than the standard rate for monthly parking permits. The DDA had already granted a request for 42 permits under the original version of the project.

At its Jan. 8 2014 meeting, the DDA board approved a request for the option to extend the monthly parking contracts for three five-year periods. Opus had wanted the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing.

The previous development proposal had drawn concern from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, at 619 E. University. The concerns stemmed in part from the fact that under the previous plan, the new building would have been built up to the lot line next to Zaragon Place. The current proposal calls for a setback of 10 feet and 20 feet from that property line. According to planning staff, the city hasn’t received any feedback from adjacent property owners about this current proposal.

Downtown Zoning Recommendations

By way of background, a downtown zoning evaluation began last year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13. That direction was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1, 2013.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

The commission continued the public hearing and debated most of these recommendations at its Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. The group did not tackle the most controversial item that night: Possible changes to the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William.

On Dec. 3, commissioners picked up the topic and heard from three people during the ongoing public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main. Following that, the commission’s discussion focused on 425 S. Main, as well as revisiting a recommendation related to the design guidelines.

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

In general, the final recommendations made by the planning commission at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Three of the recommendations relate to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.

Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage. Those recommendations are: (1) Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts; (2) Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing; (3) Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms; (4) Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

The council’s Jan. 21 resolution would accept the recommendations as completing the planning commission’s assignment. The resolution would further direct the planning commission to translate its recommendations into proposed ordinance language, which would require review and a public hearing. The specific ordinance language would then be recommended by the planning commission to the city council, which would make the ultimate decision after a public hearing.

State Street Zoning Request

On the city council’s Jan. 21 agenda is initial approval for the zoning of two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. The zoning designation would be C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

The unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

Public Art Administrator

The council will be asked to extend the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. A total of $20,500 would be appropriated from the balance in the public art fund, with the additional money to cover various expenses. Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

By way of background, the city council enacted a public art ordinance in late 2007, setting up a Percent for Art program as a funding mechanism. For each of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – was set aside for public art. The Ann Arbor public art commission oversaw the expenditures. However, the approach proved controversial and the city council changed the ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That ordinance change came after a failed public art millage that was put before voters in the November 2012 election.

Under the new approach, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded. The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

According to a budget distributed at the Ann Arbor public art commission’s Jan. 23, 2013 meeting, the public art fund had at that time an available balance of $1.453 million. Of that, about $607,800 was already allocated for projects already underway, including artwork for East Stadium bridges ($400,000), Argo Cascades ($150,000) and in a rain garden at First and Kingsley ($27,000). The remaining funds totaled about $845,000. [.pdf of Jan. 2013 budget summary]

Updated after publication: A budget summary provided by Seagraves in response to a Chronicle email shows a balance of $839,507 in available funds for public art, as of Jan. 14, 2014. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Sidewalks

Two items involving construction of new sidewalks – at two specific locations – appear on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

Sidewalks: Waldenwood

By way of background, at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting, the city council had approved a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward, connecting to a path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

In its form, that resolution was similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council approved last year. [For example, the council approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting, and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King Elementary School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009.

For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the new segment of sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King Elementary School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. And the more recent feedback, reflected in the staff memo for the Jan. 21 meeting, indicates that an Oct. 3, 2013 neighborhood meeting attended by 22 people resulted in 15 feedback forms, 10 of which indicated support and 5 of which indicated opposition.

The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair, but not new construction, can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage.

In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail

In a different sidewalk-related item, the council will be asked to take the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road. The project would also construct a concrete curb and gutter northward from Skydale about 920 feet along the east side of Pontiac Trail and about 1,030 feet along the west side of Pontiac Trail. Those stretches currently don’t have a curb and gutter.

This first step directs the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate.

Sobriety Court

On the council’s consent agenda are two items related to the sobriety court, which is a specialty court within the 15th District Court.

One is a contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) to provide mental health treatment services to defendants who appear in the sobriety court. The amount of the contract is $45,271 and is funded with a grant from the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Michigan Drug Court Grant Program (SCAO-MDCGP).

The second is a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening services of defendants in the sobriety court and the veterans treatment court. The amount of the contract is $23,200 and is paid for through the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Veterans Treatment Court Grant Program (SCAO-MVTCGP) and the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Drug Court Grant program (SCAO-MDCGP).

Street Closings

Three street closings appear on the council’s consent agenda:

• Feb. 1, 2014 Winter Warriors. The event will shut down a half block of E. Washington outside the Arbor Brewing Company. The fundraiser to “terminate” hunger with a special batch of Terminator Doppelbock entails sitting outside in the cold.
• March 9, 2014 Shamrocks and Shenanigans 5K Run/Walk. The course is straight up Main Street from the corner of Main and Stadium into downtown Ann Arbor, where it loops around. [.pdf of Shamrocks and Shenanigans street closures]
• April 6, 2014 University of Michigan Big House 5K. Streets to be closed are in the vicinity of the university campus. The finish takes runners into Michigan Stadium down the tunnel with a finish at the 50-yard line.

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 The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board’s action to approve up to three five-year extensions came at its Jan. 8, 2014 meeting.

At its meeting on Nov. 6, 2013, the DDA board had already approved the purchase of 48 parking permits under the contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program – for a new version of the proposed residential development at 624 Church St. in downtown Ann Arbor. The spaces were approved to be provided in the Forest Avenue parking structure. The DDA board’s resolution indicates that for the extension periods, the DDA might choose to allocate the spaces in some other structure than the Forest facility.

The CIL program allows a developer the option of purchasing permits to satisfy a parking requirement that would otherwise be satisfied by providing parking spaces on-site as part of the project. The request for an extension on the CIL monthly parking permit contracts was driven by an interest in the financial backers of the project to see contracts in place that would cover the 30-year period of a mortgage.

Brad Moore, architect for the 624 Church St. project, had appeared before the DDA board at its Dec. 4, 2013 meeting to request the ability to extend the contracts on the 48 permits for up to two 10-year periods past the standard 15-year period associated with the city’s CIL program. After discussion of the matter, the board opted at that meeting to table the question. What the board ultimately approved was thus five years shorter than what Moore had requested, but still covered the 30-year financing period that had motivated the request for the ability to extend the contracts.

The original proposal for the 624 Church St. project, which received site plan approval from the city council at its March 4, 2013 meeting, was for a 13-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds. And for that version, the Ann Arbor DDA had authorized the project to purchase up to 42 monthly permits through the city’s CIL program.

The newly revised 624 Church St. project, which received a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission on Dec. 17, 2013, is larger than the original project, with roughly 122 units and 232 beds. The parking requirement is a function of the by-right premiums for additional square footage beyond the basic by-right of 400% floor area ratio (FAR). So the parking requirement for the revised project is greater than for the original version of the project. That’s why the DDA was asked to increase the number of permits from 42 to 48. The number of required parking spaces for the revised version of the project is actually 53, but five of them will be provided on site. The overall revised project still requires city council approval.

The DDA makes the decision about whether there’s adequate capacity in the parking system to allow the sale of additional monthly permits – because the DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Ann Arbor’s “contribution-in-lieu-of-parking” program was authorized by the city council on April 2, 2012. That program allows essentially two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space. It’s option (1) that the 624 Church St. project is using.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

Rendering of 624 Church apartments, looking south from South University. Zaragon Place is pictured to the west, immediately next to the proposed 624 Church building. (Image included in the planning commission meeting packet.)

The largest proposal was a revised version of a 14-story apartment complex at 624 Church St. The development, located in Ward 3, was expanded after an additional property was acquired next to the original site. The project is a 116,167-square-foot building with 123 apartments and about 230 bedrooms. It would stand adjacent to and over the existing two-story Pizza House restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located.

Questions from commissioners covered a range of topics, including concerns over the 48 parking permits that the developer has secured from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in the Forest Avenue parking structure. Two commissioners expressed concern that the structure is frequently full already, and that additional spaces taken up with 624 Church St. residents will make it even more difficult to park there.

Other issues raised during deliberations related to the location of the bike storage room, the use of a proposed outdoor plaza space next to Pizza House, the type of materials to be used in the building and design of the building. The vote to recommend approval of the project was unanimous.

Also recommended for approval on Dec. 17 was the zoning of two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State – as C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The land had been annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011. That same year, a previous request for zoning the land as C3 had been recommended for denial by commissioners.

Another State Street project – a revised version of an expansion at Germain Motors – was recommended for approval by commissioners in a unanimous vote. The commission had voted to postpone action on Nov. 19, 2013, pending issues that were resolved in the version presented on Dec. 17.

624 Church St.

An expanded proposal for a residential development at 624 Church St. was on the Dec. 17 agenda. Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of both the site plan and draft development agreement. [.pdf of site plan] [.pdf of draft development agreement] [.pdf of staff memo]

Nearly a year ago, the planning commission had recommended approval of an earlier version of this development at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. Subsequently, the developer bought an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project, which is located next to and over the Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church, south of South University. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building eventually to be constructed.

The original plan was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. The current plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would stand adjacent to and over the existing two-story restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down.

Premiums offered in the D1 zoning district – for buildings with residential uses, and LEED silver certification – are being used to allow a larger structure than would otherwise be permitted, gaining an additional 267% in floor area ratio for a total of 667% FAR. To use the residential premium, each bedroom must have a window directly to the outside.

The project includes a 1,491-square-foot outdoor dining area for Pizza House, which will be built underneath the apartment structure on the south side of the restaurant, opening onto Church Street. It will be partially enclosed, with large garage-style overhead doors along the front property line opening to the sidewalk.

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

• Two small offices for building management on the ground floor of the addition, with a solid waste/recycling room and bicycle parking room at the rear. There will be no new retail space.
• The top floor will include a small “club room” for residents and a rooftop patio with benches, a small grilling area, and garden trellis.
• The second floor will contain a fitness room, study lounge and five apartments. Other floors will have 11 apartments each. The apartments will be divided into: 23 one-bedroom (19%); 88 two-bedroom (72%); and 11 three-bedroom (9%). The units will range in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.
• The developer will make a contribution of $47,120 to the city’s parks and recreation unit for improvements to the nearby Forest Plaza, adjacent to the Forest Avenue parking structure.
• The development agreement includes a requirement to disconnect 27 footing drains as part of the city’s footing drain disconnect program.

The new version of this development was evaluated by the city’s design review board, which was generally supportive of the project. [.pdf of September 2013 DRB report]

City planner Matt Kowalski

The development requires 53 parking spaces under the city’s zoning. Five of those will be provided in spaces underneath the building. The previous proposal had no on-site parking. At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority granted the owner the ability to buy a total of 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure, through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. That program requires the developer to pay 20% more than the standard rate for monthly parking permits.  The DDA had already granted a request for 42 permits under the original version of the project.

At the DDA board’s Dec. 4, 2013 meeting, board members considered a request, which was ultimately tabled, for an extension of the contractual agreement under which parking permits for 624 Church could be purchased. The developer wants the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing. The DDA board ultimately voted to table the question pending further review by the board’s operations committee.

City planner Matt Kowalski reported that planning staff and the city’s design review board had some concerns about the placement of the building’s bike storage room. To address concerns about the room’s location and safety, the architect has added more glass windows to increase visibility into the room. Even so, staff would still prefer that the room be located in a more prominent part of the site, Kowalski said. Other recent developments have included bicycle rooms that aren’t used very much, he reported.

The previous development proposal had drawn concern from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, at 619 E. University. The concerns stemmed in part from the fact that under the previous plan, the new building would have been built up to the lot line next to Zaragon Place. The current proposal calls for a setback of 10 feet and 20 feet from that property line. Kowalski reported that the city hasn’t received any feedback from adjacent property owners about this current proposal.

624 Church St.: Public Hearing

The only speaker during the public hearing was Brad Moore, the project’s architect. Several other members of the development team, including Dennis Tice, attended the meeting but did not formally address the commission.

Brad Moore, architect for the 624 Church development

Moore noted that the previous project had been approved. That project had resulted in concerns from the adjacent property owner to the west regarding the lack of any setback on the property line, he said. So the building has been redesigned to address some of those concerns.

In the process of that redesign, they became aware that the owner of the property to the south was willing to sell, Moore reported. So that’s been folded into the redesign and has resulted in a better project overall, he said. The city’s design review board agreed, and liked it better than the previous version, he added.

Moore highlighted some of the changes. Using different fenestration patterns helps break up the mass, he noted, as do changes in color and materials. An outdoor space for residents on the roof was added.

He pointed out that one of the biggest concerns from the design review board for the original proposal was that the outdoor plaza on the ground level hadn’t been “definitively programmed.” The owners of Pizza House had reported that they didn’t have much outdoor seating, so the new design includes overhead glass, rolling garage doors, which will help control the wind that might move through that space. The interior designer for Pizza House has come up with a “garage bar” concept, Moore explained, with the idea that it would be a very active space on the street.

Regarding the bicycle parking issues, Moore said they’ve done as much as they can to address the concerns, by adding transparency to the room. There’s a conflict over “who gets the street space,” he noted. The design review board really wanted to have active space near the street, and he didn’t feel that a bike room would qualify as active streetscape – and that’s why the room wasn’t moved to the front of the building. He said the developer plans to promote the bike room, which will be well-lit and under security observation at all times, Moore said.

Moore concluded by saying that other representatives of the design team were on hand to answer any questions.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Trash Collection

Sabra Briere asked about the trash and recycling collection. Her understanding was that containers would be wheeled out into what looks like a “blind alley.”

Planning commissioner Sabra Briere, who also serves on city council

Brad Moore explained that there will be a trash room with compactors and recycling bins in it.

On trash days, the trash collection truck will pull into an alley off Willard. Dumpsters that are similar in size to those used by Zaragon Place will be wheeled out from the trash room, he said. The truck will lift and empty the dumpster, which will then be wheeled back into the trash room.

Moore said that designers met on site with city staff – including drivers of the trash collection trucks – to make sure it was a workable solution.

Briere said that, in general, she’s heard complaints from residents about the “warning claxon” from trash trucks – the sound that’s made when those trucks back up. She said she didn’t see a way around that issue, but she was eager to come up with a different mechanism for devising alleys so that they aren’t blind and don’t require trucks to back up.

Moore replied that he understood those concerns, but he noted that the alley already serves a dumpster for a neighboring property. “So we’re not doing anything that isn’t already occurring in that location,” he said.

Briere pointed out that now there will be several hundred more people listening to the “beep beep beep … and I will get complaints.”

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Plaza

Briere then asked about the street-level plaza area, asking Moore if he had a good rendering of that. Kowalski noted that some renderings of that area were included in the commission’s meeting packet. Moore said the renderings were uploaded to the city’s eTRAKit site.

Briere asked if the space would be for use in three seasons or four seasons. Moore replied that it won’t be used year-round, because there’s no way to heat it. The space could be used on rainy days, however, because it’s covered. He described its use as primarily from mid-April through mid-October.

Image of proposed Pizza House plaza at 624 Church

In response to another query from Briere, Moore noted that there will be security cameras monitoring the space, and that it won’t be open 24 hours a day. The site will be secured by closing the garage doors on one side. The other side is secured with chain-link fencing, he said. There will be a door into the plaza from the inside of Pizza House. People who use the space will be “age-verified,” Moore said.

Kirk Westphal asked about the materials of the garage doors. Moore described the doors as being completely transparent, made out of polycarbonate glazed panels in a steel frame. Westphal said it seems a shame to not be able to use the space during colder periods, and he wondered if space heaters that are used in other outdoor locations could be used there too. Moore said he’d have to check with the city’s fire marshal. The ceiling will need to be fire-rated, he said, but he wasn’t sure if space heaters would be permitted.

Diane Giannola clarified with Moore that this plaza would be part of Pizza House, and wouldn’t be a “party room” for apartment residents.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Parking

Wendy Woods asked about parking. Moore explained that 53 spaces are required by city code, and five will be provided on site. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board had already granted permits for the remaining 48 spaces in the Forest parking structure about a half-block away, he noted. What the developer is asking for now is an extension option for the term of the permits, he said. The zoning ordinance calls for a 15-year term, but the developer needs a longer term than that in order to get financing for the project, Moore explained.

Woods reported that she parks at the Forest structure, because she works for the University of Michigan at East Quad – which is located near the proposed development. The parking structure is shared by the university and the city, she noted. The structure sometimes fills up, Woods said, adding that she’s always wondered whether the DDA is overselling some of these spaces. She said she understood that it’s not the developer’s problem. People are encouraged to bike or walk, but the reality is that it’s difficult to find available spaces in the parking structures that are near campus, she said.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Paras Parekh

Woods described it as “a problem in the making,” and she wanted to highlight it. “Already there are days when you get there and you can’t get into that lot because it’s already full.” She joked that some people say a UM parking pass is just a license to look for a space – it doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get a space.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson responded, explaining that the construction of the Forest parking structure had been a partnership between the city and UM. A percentage of the spaces are designated for the city, with the other portion for university parking. [The DDA's website indicates that 497 spaces are available for public parking. There are 854 total spaces in the structure.]

Paras Parekh noted that he also works for the university and parks at the Forest structure on occasion, “and it’s been a frustrating experience.” He wondered if the DDA has indicated why the 48 permits would be acceptable. Moore replied that he didn’t have data from the DDA about the percentage of parking that’s still available. He pointed out that the DDA staff had looked at the entire parking system’s capacity, and had determined where those permits would be located. They could have given out parking permits in multiple structures, he said, adding that “I wasn’t privy to that analysis.” [The developer had requested that the permits would be located in the Forest structure.]

Parekh said that whenever he’s parked at the Forest structure, it’s always been a challenge to find a spot. He thought that adding 48 parking permits could increase the challenging experience that everyone faces there. He joked that perhaps there’s been a study showing that if you look long enough, you’ll eventually find a spot. Moore reiterated that it’s a DDA decision.

Bonnie Bona continued the focus on parking. She clarified with Moore that the development was seeking a contribution-in-lieu by securing permits from the DDA. She asked whether there is an option to buy parking and not use it.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor DDA, which operates the public parking system under contract with the city, had approved its recommendation of a specific contribution-in-lieu-of-parking policy more than two years ago, at its July 7, 2010 board meeting. The city council then formally adopted the DDA’s recommended policy, at its April 2, 2012 meeting, with the policy’s two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona

At the Dec. 17 planning commission meeting, Moore responded to Bona by saying he wasn’t aware of a buyout option for parking. [Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified details of the CIL options later in the meeting.]

Bona said she understood the need of having parking in order to secure financing for the project. She asked what the arrangement is if residents don’t actually have a need for parking. Are the spaces incorporated into the unit’s rent? No, Moore replied – the parking spaces would be a separate rental contract.

Bona asked what happens if it turns out that the development doesn’t use all of the parking permits. Moore said it would be determined by the building’s management. They might choose to discount the permits until the permits were sold – he imagined that would be the first approach. Moore noted that feedback from other high-rise apartment buildings in the area indicates all available parking spots are always rented out to residents.

Bona said she wanted to ensure that the parking spots aren’t tied to apartment rentals, and that there would be some flexibility “so that we’re not encouraging residents to park there if they really don’t need a car.” She said she didn’t know how the resale market for parking permits worked – whether someone could put an ad on Craigslist, for example, and resell a permit.

Regarding bicycle parking, Bona said she was disappointed that the bike room is located in the back of the building. Based on observations of other buildings, a bike room doesn’t get used in that location, she said. “You may become one of our posterchilds for changing the bike storage requirement, and not allow them to be put in places where they’re not actually going to be used,” she told Moore. If residents don’t use the bike storage room, where would they park their bikes?

Moore replied that residents always have the option of taking their bikes to their apartments.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Top Floor

Bona asked whether the roof on the top floor was “solar ready.” It certainly would be available for that, Moore said. He knew that the developers were making a list of features that could be counted as points toward LEED certification, but he didn’t know if solar panels would be a part of that.

Jim Caesar of Opus Group came to the podium to respond. He said the management team is very concerned about putting anything on the roof, because it will be used for hooks to hold scaffolds for window-washing. There will also be a lot of PVC pipes, ducts and other rooftop equipment, he noted. The footprint is so small that he expects it will be “a maze of mechanical equipment” and not suitable for solar panels or a green roof.

Bona asked what mechanicals will be on the roof. Caesar said there will be three or four heat pump plant condensers, which he described as coils with fans beneath them. The heat pump system will be in the mechanical “penthouse” on the roof next to the elevator shaft. The condensers will be outside because they need to blow heat into the atmosphere, he said. Caesar described other equipment that will be on the roof, including 20-22 bathroom exhaust shafts and about 35 plumbing vent stacks.

Bona noted that the sound from that mechanical equipment will also result in phone calls to Briere – a reference to Briere’s previous comments regarding noise from trash trucks. Bona recommended that the development team should be prepared to address the issue of noise from the rooftop when they present the project to city council for approval.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Materials

Kirk Westphal followed up on some issues raised in the design review board report about building materials.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Specifically, the report stated that: (1) the base of the building should be broken up and varied – the east and south side should have as much detail as the other sides of the building; and (2) the horizontal elements at the top of the second floor and top floor of the building are not visually strong enough.

Westphal said that for him, the plane of the windows and the pre-cast concrete is pretty flush, and that might be troubling to people who want more articulation at the second floor and top floor. “It reads pretty flat to me,” he said, “but that’s not our purview.” Westphal indicated that any changes to the design in that regard would be welcome.

Responding to another query from Westphal, Moore replied that one of the design review board members had noticed some fading of the red-colored pre-cast concrete. To address that, Moore said the building will use concrete that balances the red and brown pigments, to try to mitigate concerns that the red pigment tended to fade more quickly.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that the details in the drawings were different in some of the renderings. For example, one of the renderings showed more articulation in the design than was visible in other renderings, she noted. She suggested making sure that when the project is presented to the city council, the intended design should be consistent throughout all of the renderings – “just so everyone knows what they’re approving.”

Sabra Briere noted that one of the lampposts in the rendering is white. Most of the lampposts she’s seen are black. “Or rust,” Westphal quipped – a reference to the rusted-out lampposts on Main Street that are being replaced.

Moore said the lamppost that Briere indicated was an existing one, and he’d make sure that the color was represented accurately.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement for the 624 Church St. development. It will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

South State Zoning

The planning commission was asked to recommend zoning two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State – as C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

The unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. The parcel at 1643 S. State currently houses Biercamp, as well as an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission. Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 limited industrial zoning. The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a Dec. 17 staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this project.

South State Zoning: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona noted that some of the discussion regarding development of the South State corridor plan had involved a desire not to discourage small-scale industrial uses, because there are very few locations in the city where that is allowed. She wondered if there was any opportunity in C1 zoning districts to get a special exception use, that would allow industrial uses.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson

Not for a truly industrial use, replied city planner Matt Kowalski. The existing auto repair shop also wouldn’t be allowed under C1 zoning – so the operation will be considered a non-conforming use, he said. Paras Parekh clarified with Kowalski that even though the auto repair shop is non-conforming, it would be allowed to continue operating, and could change ownership and still remain in operation.

Bona said the storage use and auto repair don’t make a lot of sense to her, in an area where the city wants to encourage a more vital environment.

Sabra Briere recalled the earlier discussion about the proposed C3 zoning of these properties. There had been a desire to have a larger retail establishment at Biercamp, she noted. Will C1 be better for that purpose than C3? Kowalski reiterated the two main restrictions of C1 zoning compared to C3 – that C1 zoning doesn’t allow for drive-thrus, and limits the size of a business to 8,000 square feet. In C3, there are no limits on size.

Briere asked what the zoning was for the adjacent parcel where the Produce Station is located. That parcel is C3, Kowalski reported.

Briere indicated that she’d like to see a map of that entire South State area, with preferred zoning indicated for all the parcels. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the State Street corridor plan didn’t actually have a proposed zoning map. Rather, it showed clusters of properties with recommendations for those clusters – not for specific parcels.

Wendy Woods recalled when commissioners had taken a walking tour of the State Street corridor, and how it had been helpful in understanding the different uses in that area and the traffic flow. [See Chronicle coverage: "South State Corridor Gets Closer Look."] She supported the C1 zoning.

Outcome: The C1 zoning for 1643 and 1645 S. State St. was recommended for approval. It will now be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Germain Motors Expansion

A proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street near the intersection with Oakbrook, formerly Howard Cooper Imports – was on the Dec. 17 agenda. The item had previously been postponed by commissioners on Nov. 19, 2013.

Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of the project’s revised site plan, subject to variances for modifications related to parking lot and landscaping requirements. Those variances will be considered by the city’s zoning board of appeals. Also on the agenda was a request of the planning commission, which does not require review by the city council – to approve landscape modifications that would reduce the city code’s Chapter 61 requirement for depressed landscape islands within the site – was also on the agenda.

The planning staff had supported a recommendation of approval on Dec. 17, noting that the owner had addressed several issues that had previously raised concerns. Changes from the plan presented on Nov. 19 include:

• Adding 5,027 square feet of porous pavers to be installed in the expanded vehicle display areas along State Street and Oakbrook Drive.
• Adding eight new depressed landscape islands to the parking storage areas in the back of the site. The changes means a loss of about 24 parking spaces.
• Changing the landscape modification request. The original request had included reducing the number of required trees to be planted on site by eight. The owner now plans to plant all of the required trees.

The project’s architect also explored the possibility of adding a “green” (vegetated) roof, but ultimately determined that it wasn’t feasible without making significant changes to the existing buildings. The question of whether the architect had considered a green roof to help with stormwater management was raised on Nov. 19.

Other parts of the proposed project, which is located in Ward 4, are unchanged. It calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Owner Steve Germain – who had attended the Nov. 19 meeting with several members of the project team, but did not come to the meeting on Dec. 17 – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. No one spoke during a public hearing on the project.

Germain Motors Expansion: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by asking why the porous pavers were being proposed for that particular location, in the vehicle display area. City planner Matt Kowalski replied that part of the reason was that the owner didn’t want to put the pavers in areas that would be used by customers, because it could be a potential trip hazard. Kowalski noted that the city staff didn’t give advice for the specific location.

From left: Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering, and John Oney of Architectural Alliance in Worthington, Ohio. They were on hand to represent the Germain Motors project.

Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering confirmed that they didn’t want to put the pavers in customer areas, and there really wasn’t another good location – other than the one that’s proposed for display vehicles.

Bona also pointed out that she was the one who had brought up the potential of a green roof for the project. She thanked the architect for looking into it. She referred to a written response from the architect that stated any energy savings would be insignificant. Bona contended that “may not necessarily be true.” She said she knows there’s a significant temperature difference between a white roof and a green roof, and allowed that more data is needed for an analysis.

Regarding the requested variances, Bona said they all seemed reasonable to her.

Wendy Woods thanked the project’s representatives for the work they’d done to make changes in the site plan. She was curious about how the traffic flows in the lower back area of the property. How do cars get in and out? It looked pretty full to her.

Kowalski replied that the aisle will be slightly reduced in a couple of areas, but he’d been out to the site and had seen how the staff handles the vehicles there. The lower storage area doesn’t get a lot of customer traffic, he noted. Wanty confirmed that description, noting that it’s a fairly steep slope between the State Street level and the lower level at the back of the site, and customers generally don’t go there. It’s almost all storage.

Woods asked about snow removal – where does the plowed snow go? Wanty replied that cars are moved so that the plow can go in, and the snow is pushed over to the stormwater detention basin area.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the site plan. It will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The planning commission also approved the project’s landscape modifications.

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

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein, Jeremy Peters.

Next meeting: The regular meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2014 has been scheduled as working session instead. The session begins at 7 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Rendering of 624 Church apartments, looking south from South University. Zaragon Place is pictured to the west, immediately next to the proposed 624 Church building. (Image included in the planning commission meeting packet.)

The planning commission had recommended approval of an earlier version of this development at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. Subsequently, the developer bought an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project, which is located next to and over the Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church, south of South University. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building to eventually be constructed.

The original plan was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. The current plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would be adjacent to and over the existing two-story restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down.

Premiums offered in the D1 zoning district – for buildings with residential uses, and LEED silver certification – are being used to allow a larger structure than would otherwise be permitted. To use the residential premium, each bedroom must have a window directly to the outside.

The project includes a 1,491-square-foot outdoor dining area for Pizza House, which will be built underneath the apartment structure on the south side of the restaurant. It will be partially enclosed, with large garage-style overhead doors along the front property line opening to the sidewalk.

Other features of the development include:

• Two small offices for building management on the ground floor of the addition, with a solid waste/recycling room and bicycle parking room at the rear. There will be no new retail space.
• The top floor will include a small “club room” for residents and a rooftop patio with benches, a small grilling area, and garden trellis.
• The second floor will contain a fitness room, study lounge and five apartments. Other floors will have 11 apartments each. The apartments will be divided into: 23 one-bedroom (19%); 88 two-bedroom (72%); and 11 three-bedroom (9%). The units will range in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.

The new version of this development was evaluated by the city’s design review board. [.pdf of September 2013 DRB report]

The development requires 53 parking spaces under the city’s zoning. Five of those will be provided in spaces underneath the building. At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority granted the owner the ability to buy 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure, through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The DDA had already granted a request for 42 permits under the original version of the project.

At the DDA board’s Dec. 4, 2013 meeting, board members considered a request, which was ultimately tabled, for an extension of the contractual agreement under which parking permits for 624 Church could be purchased. The developer wants the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing. The DDA board ultimately voted to table the question pending further review by the board’s operations committee, which meets on Dec. 18.

The previous development proposal had drawn concern from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, at 619 E. University. The concerns stemmed in part because under the previous plan, the new building would have been built up to the lot line next to Zaragon. The current proposal calls for a setback at 10 feet and 20 feet from that property line. City planner Matt Kowalski reported that there have been no complaints from adjacent property owners about this proposal.

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

On Dec. 4, 2013, city administrator Steve Powers attended his first DDA board meeting as a member. (Photos by the writer.)

The board also considered a resolution added to the agenda on the day of the meeting, related to the contribution-in-lieu (CIL) parking agreement for the 624 Church St. project – but ultimately decided to table that resolution pending further review at the committee level.

The DDA’s Dec. 4 resolution allocating $280,000 for the Main Street light pole replacement ended the political wrangling over who should pay for those downtown Ann Arbor light poles. Replacement of the deteriorating poles was identified by the city as a need in the first half of 2012. The source of an estimated $600,000 required for the project was specified in the city’s CIP (capital improvements plan) that year as coming from the DDA – though the funds were at that time not authorized by the board.

In the spring of 2013, the city council weighed how it might clarify the city’s ordinance that restricts the DDA TIF (tax increment finance) capture. In that context, DDA executive director Susan Pollay told the council that the DDA might not be able to afford to pay for the Main Street light pole project – if the council changed the ordinance language to clarify the calculations in a way that did not favor the DDA. The question of the DDA’s TIF capture was not ultimately settled until the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

In the interim, the city council voted at its May 20, 2013 meeting to request that the DDA allocate at least $300,000 for the $580,000 light pole project. After the council then declined at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting to approve a budget allocation for the remaining $280,000 that was needed for the project, the DDA board passed its Dec. 4 resolution, citing the urgency of replacing at least 36 of the poles as the reason for its decision.

According to the DDA’s resolution, staff will use the DDA funding to begin now with replacement of those poles most in need of being removed, with the remainder replaced in the summer of 2014.

Also at its Dec. 4 meeting – in connection with the city’s pending sale to Dennis Dahlmann of the former Y lot, at William Street and Fifth Avenue – the DDA board passed a resolution that waived claim to $1,439,959 in reimbursements from the sale that the DDA has calculated it might be owed. The city council adopted a policy on Oct. 15, 2012 that included depositing net proceeds (after reimbursements) from the former Y lot sale into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

So the DDA board’s action is an attempt to increase the amount that will be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund. The resolution passed by the DDA board also calls on the city council to waive the city’s claim to reimbursements. The city purchased the property in 2003 for $3.5 million and has made interest-only payments for the last 10 years on a loan for that amount. The agreed-upon sale price to Dahlmann is $5.25 million.

In another formal action taken on Dec. 4, the DDA board accepted the audit report from the most recently concluded fiscal year – FY 2013, which ended June 30, 2013. The auditor issued an “unmodified” or clean opinion.

The board also considered a request, which was ultimately tabled, from the developer of the 624 Church St. project. The developer is asking for an extension of the contractual agreement under which parking permits could be purchased using the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. The program allows a developer to satisfy certain zoning requirements that parking spaces be provided for a project – by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system at a premium rate, instead of building the spaces on site. The developer of the 624 Church St. project wants the ability to extend the 15-year minimum to cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing. The DDA board ultimately voted to table the question pending further review by the board’s operations committee.

The board’s newest members introduced themselves at the meeting: city administrator Steve Powers and Main Street retailer Cyndi Clark.

Also at its Dec. 4 meeting, the board heard a range of updates on various projects and public commentary. Highlights included a report from the Main Street BIZ (business improvement zone), which has enough money in its fund balance to handle sidewalk snow removal for the coming winter, without collecting the winter tax assessment to which it is entitled. In a separate update, there’s a possibility that downtown ambassadors could be hired by the DDA as soon as the summer of 2014.

Other topics covered in updates included the effort to save the State Theater, the NHL’s Winter Classic on New Year’s Day, and The Puck Drops Here festivities on New Year’s Eve.

Main Street Light Poles

The need to replacement the Main Street light poles due to rusting bases has been known since last year – in early to mid-2012.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on northeast corner of Main & William. Photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor, taken in April 2012.

This spring, at city council meetings, replacement was characterized as an urgent public safety issue, because the bases of some of the poles are rusting. Various statements were made about the number of light poles that had failed, but responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced.

The poles were part of the city’s CIP last year with the source of the funds identified in the CIP that year as the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) fund. The status of the funding – estimated at that time to be $600,000 – was identified as not yet authorized.

Over the course of the year, the replacement of the light poles became part of the fractious politics between the city council and the DDA.

In timeline overview form:

• April 1, 2013: Initial approval of DDA TIF capture ordinance revision (Chapter 7). Main Street light poles were cited as a project the DDA might not be able to pay for if the Chapter 7 revisions were approved.
• April 15, 2013: City council approves an amendment put forward by Sally Petersen (Ward 2) to the Chapter 7 revision, which delayed applying the revised language until FY 2015.
• May 20, 2013: City council approves FY 2014 budget amendment that affects DDA budget.
  

  Whereas, The DDA is forecasted to receive $568,343 more in TIF revenues than anticipated in the proposed FY14 budget;
  Whereas, Council desires to support the public housing program in the DDA area;
  RESOLVED, The DDA TIF fund revenue and expenditure budgets be increased by $568,343 for the purposes of creating a one-time transfer;
  RESOLVED, The DDA Housing fund revenue and expenditure budgets be increased by $300,000 to reflect Council’s desire for the DDA to support affordable housing in the DDA area; and
  RESOLVED, Ann Arbor City Council requests that the DDA allocate at least $300,000 for the replacement of the light poles on Main Street.

• June 5, 2013: DDA board meets and executive director Susan Pollay reports the council’s action. She tells the board that she’s meeting with city staff to figure out how the light poles will be paid for.
• July 3, 2013: DDA board allocates $300,000 for the light pole replacement project at the same meeting it allocates $250,000 for other capital projects, and $59,200 to support the creation of a business improvement zone in the South University area. One “whereas” clause characterized the council’s action in a way that is not based on the wording of the city council’s May 20 budget amendment.
  

  Whereas, Through the 2013/14 budget approval process it was determined that the City would undertake this street light replacement in calendar year 2013, with the DDA allocating $300,000 toward the cost of the project, and the City allocating $216,000; [.pdf of complete DDA light pole resolution]

• Oct. 21, 2013: City council resolution allocating $280,000 toward the project fails on a 7-4 vote. It needed eight votes for approval.
• Oct. 31–Nov. 1, 2013: City staff inspect the 81 light poles, determining that 36 need to be replaced within 6 months and the remaining 45 within 1-2 years.

Until the Oct. 21 council resolution failed, according to city of Ann Arbor public services area administrator Craig Hupy and DDA executive director Susan Pollay, their intent was that a cost-sharing arrangement between the city and the DDA would allow for the DDA to purchase the fixtures for all the poles, with the city paying for the poles. The DDA proceeded with the purchase of the fixtures. That left insufficient funds to deal with the 36 Main Street light poles most in need of replacement. The initially planned splitting of the costs, which did not come to fruition, appears to have contributed to the timing of the DDA’s resolution to allocate the additional $280,000 on Dec. 4.

Main Street Light Poles: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt began deliberations on Dec. 4 by indicating he believed it was back in May when it was determined that the light poles on Main Street were rusting out at the bases, and that they all needed to be replaced. [The need to replace the poles was identified a year earlier in 2012, with the source of the funds identified in the city's CIP that year as the DDA's TIF fund. The status of the funding – estimated at that time to be $600,000 – was identified as not yet authorized in the CIP.]

Hewitt indicated that in May, the DDA passed a resolution that it would allocate $300,000 of the $580,000 for the total cost of the project – which would be carried out by the city, he said. [The DDA's resolution was actually passed on July 3, 2013. What was passed in May – on May 20, 2013 – was a city council budget amendment that included a request for the DDA to allocate at least $300,000 toward the light pole project.]

Hewitt continued by saying that the city’s portion was going to be $280,000, but when asked to approve the additional funds, that resolution “was not successful at the city council.” There was therefore a shortage of $280,000, Hewitt said. An examination had been done, and many of the light poles are a safety hazard, he said. So the DDA was recommending that $120,524 be allocated in this fiscal year. That’s the amount remaining in a bond fund for State Street improvements that were done back in 2000 or so, Hewitt said. It’s money that had been sitting in a fund that had been unspent for about 10 years. This would require changing the budget, he said. And then in the next fiscal year [FY 2015], Hewitt continued, the remaining money would be allocated. Hewitt alluded to the fact that the FY 2015 budget has not yet been adopted by the DDA board.

DDA board chair Sandi Smith.

DDA board chair Sandi Smith offered what she described as a “super friendly amendment” to change the description of the fiscal years to match the city of Ann Arbor’s labels. [The current fiscal year, which started July 1, 2013 is FY 2014 under the city's labeling scheme. The DDA has historically named the calendar years spanned by the fiscal year – e.g., calling this year FY 2013-14.]

John Mouat asked if there was conversation about the State Street improvement project. He wanted to know what the status of the project was. Hewitt told Mouat that the project was completed over 10 years ago. Hewitt said that in the upcoming fiscal year, the DDA should take a look at improvements in that area. Some of the improvements made back then had taken a beating, Hewitt said, so he felt it would be appropriate to spend some money in the State Street area to do repairs in the existing streetscape.

Mouat wondered whether some aspects of the State Street project had not been completed in the context of the moratorium on new streetlights.

By way of background, the “moratorium” on additional streetlights has its origins in a budget amendment approved by the city council in 2006. The history and current policy (which includes the moratorium) was reviewed in a message to councilmembers from city administrator Steve Powers this past summer. [.pdf of July 9, 2013 email]

At the Dec. 4 meeting, Hewitt said he didn’t think there were any streetlights that were a part of the State Street project plan that were not completed. DDA executive director Susan Pollay explained that as the lights were installed, the DDA discovered that the streetlights that had been selected didn’t cast as much light as they’d hoped. There were some very tall lights that fit that description, she said – at that time, light pollution was a very big concern, she added. The light levels were low, she said. Some light was supposed to be provided by store windows.

Pollay described how “dollars were held back” so that additional light could be added to the area. Ultimately the design, which looked good on paper, was not successful in achieving the desired light levels, she said. There’s an unofficial understanding that the city’s electric bills are not supposed to be increased by adding more lights. As the DDA waits to understand what the city policy on replacing streetlights might be, Pollay said it was appropriate to use that money to replace the light poles on Main Street. At some point, the light levels on State Street would be revisited, she said.

Mouat thanked Pollay for that clarification. John Splitt wanted to reaffirm that he hoped something could be done in the coming year in the State Street area – in connection with the lighting, as well as with the planters. Russ Collins offered what he called a “niggling point” about the Washington Street area: The streetlights on Washington Street are off – they’re not functioning on the south side, Collins said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the additional $280,000 in funding.

Proceeds of Y Lot Sale

By way of background, at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved the sale of city-owned property downtown – a parcel north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues – to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million. The city purchased the property for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. The DDA has been shouldering roughly half of the interest payments on the loan taken out by the city.

The former Y building offered 100 units of single-resident occupancy (SRO) low-income housing. Soon after the city’s purchase, the mechanical systems in the building failed, and all the residents needed to be relocated. The building was subsequently demolished, which the DDA paid for. Equipment was installed so that it could be used as a surface parking lot until its ultimate disposition was determined.

At its Nov. 18 meeting, the council did not delve into the question of how the net proceeds of the pending sale would be defined, but some councilmembers indicated they were pleased that the result would be a deposit into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, councilmembers adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

That council policy was approved after the DDA board passed its own resolution on Sept. 5, 2012, encouraging the city to return to a previous policy that dedicated the net proceeds of sales of all city-owned land (not just the Y lot) to support affordable housing.

On Dec. 4, Keith Orr offered a replacement to the resolution that was included in the board packet. Orr alluded to the fact that he was bringing forward the resolution – because he served in the “Dave DeVarti seat” on the DDA board – even though many people had worked on it.

By way of additional background, during his period of service on the DDA board, DeVarti was a staunch supporter of funding for affordable housing. DeVarti was not reappointed, and in late 2008 Orr was appointed to replace him. After DeVarti left, board members sometimes have quipped that they were “channeling Dave DeVarti” when they spoke in support of affordable housing.

During public commentary at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, DeVarti addressed the board on the topic of the former Y lot, suggesting that the DDA purchase the lot outright, so that the need to repay the loan would be removed as the impetus toward selling the lot. That approach would give the city a lot more flexibility, he had argued.

The substitute resolution offered by Orr at the board’s Dec. 4 meeting included a separate “whereas” clause establishing the DDA’s position that affordable housing is in the interest of the downtown. The revision also named specifically the net amount that the DDA believes it has invested in the property: $1,439,599. And finally, the revised resolution separately recommended the city council waive its own reimbursement of its costs in connection with the sale of the former Y lot parcel.

Orr pointed out that the address of the property is 350 S. Fifth. He noted that the city now has a purchase agreement. Orr said that part of the sales agreement is that entities that had investment money in the property would be reimbursed. [Later in the meeting, city administrator Steve Powers, who was attending his first meeting as a DDA board member, corrected Orr's statement, pointing out that this was not part of the sales agreement but rather a city council resolution, passed in 2012.] The largest portion of the DDA’s contribution was paying for the demolition of the former Y building and picking up a portion of the interest payments.

A document provided at the DDA board meeting showed the demolition costs at $1.469 million and interest payments totaling $600,426 since 2004. The net contribution, factoring in the income the DDA received from the surface parking operations it established on the parcel after demolishing the building, was $1,493,959. So the resolution asked the DDA board to waive reimbursement of that amount. [The copy of the resolution distributed to the audience named $1,439,959 as the amount of the DDA board was waiving. That's the amount Orr named in reviewing the resolution. A separate document distributed at the meeting with the actual breakdown of payments and costs showed $1,493,959. The correct math based on those figures is the greater amount: $1,493,959.]

The resolution also asked the city council to waive its claim to reimbursements, which Orr said was around $ 2.7 million. The goal, Orr said, was to ensure that a substantial investment in affordable housing can be made.

Joan Lowenstein followed Orr’s description by saying that the DDA’s goal has been to see that the maximum amount from net proceeds of the sale go into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Orr confirmed Lowenstein’s understanding, but added that the resolution reflected everything that the DDA could do to maximize the investment in affordable housing as a result of that property sale. The DDA’s commitment to affordable housing, Orr said, was confined to investments within the district, or within 1/4 mile of the district. The city had more flexibility, Orr said.

Al McWilliams asked about the general motivation to use the proceeds from the Y lot to support affordable housing. Orr said that one reason is historical: The former Y building had included 100 single-resident occupancy units that provided low-income housing.

Orr continued by saying there’s always been this feeling that the proceeds of the sale should help low-income and affordable housing. Orr also pointed out that when board chair Sandi Smith served on the city council, the council was already talking about doing that. “It’s not a particularly new idea,” he concluded.

Bob Guenzel said that in his mind, it was more than a promise that those 100 units would be rebuilt in the downtown area, even if not on the same piece of property. That hasn’t happened for a number of reasons, Guenzel said, but the “substitute” is that the proceeds of the sale would be used for affordable housing. A lot of people remember that community commitment that was made, he concluded.

Russ Collins asked: Does the city have specific plans to build – or cause to be built – affordable housing? Collins wondered if there was any plan to contract with the Delonis Center [a homeless shelter located in Ann Arbor] to operate supportive housing? He wondered if there was any strategic plan to actually execute anything?

City administrator Steve Powers said that the city council’s first action would be to complete the sale of this property. He said he was not aware of any specific steps pending after that.

Collins ventured that there’s no strategic plan that the city is party to, other than “collect a bunch of money and use it for affordable housing?” “Council has no strategic plan …? If they do, that’s great,” Collins said. Powers responded to Collins by saying that the city is a party to work with the Washtenaw Housing Alliance (WHA) and the county’s office of community and economic development. There’s not a city-specific plan at this time, Powers said. WHA and the county’s office of community and economic development are talking about doing an assessment of affordable housing needs.

There’s a continuum, Guenzel said, from the very poorest to what is called workforce housing. He told Collins that there are a lot of discussions about it.

Historically, Smith said, there were funds in the affordable housing trust fund, and that has been spent down. There was no ability to plan for those funds, she said, because the balance is under $200,000 right now. It’s pretty nominal, she said, and you can’t build a unit for that amount. Guenzel noted that the question of whether some funds could be used for bricks-and-mortar versus supportive services was yet to be determined.

Collins had concerns about how prudent it is to allocate money toward a generally good idea without a clear strategy of what to do. “It’s great to do nice things. The DDA tries to do nice things, and we’re told that we’re a shadow government,” he said. If there’s no community strategy for addressing this, the DDA is doing something that might be nice in the future, he said, but he indicated he didn’t feel this was genuinely addressing the issue.

Smith replied that she didn’t necessarily think the DDA was the organization to tackle affordable housing. Smith noted the DDA has historically set aside money for affordable housing – and it’s now built into the DDA ordinance that the DDA is required to set aside $300,000 annually for affordable housing. She strongly supported the resolution because the DDA would then be able to leverage funds with the city and the county. She pointed to the last “resolved” clause that called on the city to follow the DDA’s example. Then those resources could be used to create a solid plan and move forward, she said.

John Mouat asked if it would be possible to take advantage of the city’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). That would be a good entity to consult with in its advisory capacity. Powers indicated that he thought HHSAB had already had those kinds of discussions.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution waiving the DDA’s interest in proceeds of the sale of the former Y lot.

Proceeds of the Y Lot Sale: Parking Contract

Toward the end of the meeting during communications time, John Splitt indicated that he had some concerns about the sale of the former Y lot, based on the contract – under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city. Under the contract, he said, the DDA is supposed to be given notice about the removal of parking spaces from the system. Sandi Smith stated that “We have not received written notice.”

Roger Hewitt responded to Smith by saying that he’d reviewed the most recent contract and he was not sure that the city actually is required give notice. DDA executive director Susan Pollay said that the contract refers to a “lease” and not a “sale.” Splitt said he just wanted to make sure that there was enough time to move equipment.

City administrator Steve Powers responded by saying that the city would be providing information about that, quipping: “It’s in the mail.” In connection with the sale of the property, the city would work through the removal of the parking equipment with the DDA, Powers said.

From the parking contract [emphasis added]:

The City shall not lease any portion of individual Facilities to third parties where such lease (either alone or cumulatively with other leases in such Facility) would reduce the number of usable parking spaces in such Facility by more than one percent (1%) or five (5) parking spaces, whichever is less, without first (i) providing DDA with thirty (30) days prior written notice; (ii) consulting with DDA about the location and terms of use of such leased spaces to reduce the impact of such use on DDA’s use of the Facility; and (iii) upon DDA’s written request delivered no more than fifteen (15) days after notice of the proposed lease, executing a side letter between City and DDA, the sole purpose of which is to make DDA whole for the loss of Gross Parking Revenue associated with the reduced parking spaces.

FY 2013 Audit

Board member Roger Hewitt made the motion to accept the DDA’s 2013 financial audit. Every year the DDA has an audit performed to ensure the DDA’s financial position is accurately stated. [.pdf of DDA FY 2013 audit]

DDA board member Roger Hewitt.

The DDA uses the same firm as the city [Rehmann], Hewitt said. The audit came back this year with an “unmodified” opinion, meaning there were no changes. He explained that the outcome essentially means that it was “clean” and that the DDA’s financial statements are an accurate reflection of the DDA’s financial position.

There was a suggestion, he allowed, to have an independent review of general journal entries. That’s been put in place, he said. A CPA the DDA has on contract will review those journal entries, he reported.

“Everything is just fine, according to our auditor,” Hewitt said. The conversation with the auditor was a good conversation that will help shape the budget in the upcoming year, Hewitt said.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously to accept the FY 2013 audit report.

624 Church Street Parking CIL

By way of background, on Nov. 6, 2013 the DDA board approved the purchase of 48 parking permits under the contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program for a revision to a proposed residential development at 624 Church St. in downtown Ann Arbor. The spaces were approved to be provided in the Forest Avenue parking structure.

The CIL program allows a developer the option of purchasing permits to satisfy a parking requirement that would otherwise be satisfied by providing parking spaces on site as part of the project.

The original proposal for 624 Church, which received site plan approval from the city council at its March 4, 2013 meeting, was for a 13-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds. And for that version, the Ann Arbor DDA had authorized the project to purchase up to 42 monthly permits through the city’s contribution-in-lieu program.

The newly revised 624 Church St. project, which still needs planning commission and city council review, is larger than the original project, with roughly 122 units and 232 beds. The parking requirement is a function of the by-right premiums for additional square footage beyond the basic by-right of 400% floor area ratio (FAR). So the parking requirement for the revised project is greater than for the original version of the project. That’s why the DDA was asked to increase the number of permits from 42 to 48. The number of required parking spaces for the revised version of the project is actually 53, but five of them will be provided on site.

The DDA makes the decision about whether there’s adequate capacity in the parking system to allow the sale of additional monthly permits – because the DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Ann Arbor’s “contribution-in-lieu-of-parking” program was authorized by the city council on April 2, 2012. That program allows essentially two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space. It’s option (1) that the 624 Church St. project is using.

624 Church Street Parking CIL: Public Commentary

Brad Moore, architect for the 624 Church St. project, appeared before the DDA board during public commentary time at the start of the meeting. He asked board members to consider modifying the terms under which the 624 Church St. project would be able to lease spaces monthly parking spaces under city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. Currently the project has been allocated 48 spaces for the minimum period under the CIL, which is 15 years. It’s come to the attention of the developer (Opus) that as it lines up financing, the financing companies would like to have two 10-year extensions added to the agreement, so that the length of the agreed-upon leasing of the parking spaces would cover at least a standard 30-year mortgage.

Moore said that Opus was asking that the agreement be amended – to add an option for two 10-year agreements that would exceed the minimum financing period. DDA executive director Susan Pollay told Moore that the item could be brought to the board in the next few minutes as an action item during the operations committee report.

624 Church Street Parking CIL: Board Deliberations

A draft resolution was distributed to the board at the meeting that would have addressed the issue that Brad Moore had raised. Roger Hewitt said the issue had only been brought to his attention that day.

He said that in his experience, funding for large commercial real estate projects tended to be for a 20-year financing period. He referred to Village Green’s City Apartments project as well as Ashley Mews as examples.

The resolution would add an additional five years to the existing agreement so that it could run, at the owner’s option, for 20 years instead of 15 years.

The indication from Moore was that the five-year extension would still endanger the financing for the 624 Church St. project. Hewitt indicated a reluctance to commit to a parking agreement for the length of time that Moore was requesting. He wanted to see some evidence that a 20-year financing plan – which in his experience is typical – is not possible before setting a new precedent.

Russ Collins ventured that the matter could be tabled until more information is received. Moore said that the parking would not necessarily be tied up in a single structure. Hewitt reiterated his concern that a 30-year term in this case would set a precedent for other developers.

Al McWilliams proposed an approach that would provide for optional renewal.

After some back-and-forth, Sandi Smith indicated that her preference would be for Moore to come back to the operations committee and allow the committee members to “chew on it” a bit more. The next operations committee meeting will take place on Dec. 18 at 11 a.m. Hewitt said.

Outcome: The board tabled the question of the CIL agreement in connection with the 624 Church St. project.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public commentary. In addition to information reported earlier in this article, here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Main Street BIZ

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Ellie Serras introduced herself to the DDA board as the community relations director for the Main Street Business Improvement Zone (BIZ).

By way of background, the Ann Arbor DDA board voted on April 1, 2009 to award $83,270 to defray various costs associated with the formation of the Main Street BIZ. Those costs included accounting, auditing, operations and legal services.

On Dec. 4, Serras told the board she was there to bring them up to date on the organization’s activities and plans for the future, and to thank the board for their investment from the very beginning. A BIZ allows property owners to establish a vision and to select services compatible with that vision, she said. The DDA’s support of the Main Street BIZ allowed development of a successful campaign that has grown into a fully-functioning provider of important services that have improved the quality of the Main Street neighborhood, she told them.

The Main Street BIZ was established in 2010 according to the state enabling legislation, receiving overwhelming support from property owners in the three-block area of Main Street from Huron Street down to William Street, she said. The Main Street BIZ provides sidewalk snow removal, sweeping, handbill removal and landscape improvements in that area.

The services and contractors had been “skillfully managed” by the Main Street BIZ board of directors within the parameters of an annually approved budget, Serras said. Funding for the BIZ is generated by an assessment added on to the property owners’ summer and winter tax statements, she said. The BIZ board had been diligent in protecting the property owners’ investment and as a result, the existing fund balance is adequate so that even if this winter brings a severe snowstorm, the snow removal could be handled without imposing the winter tax assessment this year.

So the BIZ board has determined that no BIZ assessment would be on their 2013 winter tax statements. Even though the assessment will not be imposed, the area will still receive the same level of consistent services that it has over the last three and a half years, Serras said.

The Main Street BIZ is now currently contemplating the possibility of expanding its boundaries, she reported, based on positive comments from surrounding property owners. As it contemplates such an expansion, she continued, the Main Street BIZ would be using the blueprint that had been developed in connection with the grant that the DDA had awarded to the Main Street BIZ. The blueprint will be updated to include changes to the state statute and the procedures used for establishing a BIZ.

In appreciation to the DDA, Serras said, the BIZ board wanted to invite the DDA board to join the BIZ for coffee and pastries to talk about the BIZ – on Jan. 28 at 9 a.m. at the DDA offices. The BIZ would not be asking the DDA for anything, but wanted to express its appreciation for the DDA’s support. She alerted the board to the BIZ website: annarbormainstreetbiz.com

Comm/Comm: Downtown Citizens Area Advisory Council

Ray Detter addressed the board as chair of the downtown area citizens advisory council. He told the DDA board that the CAC has a holiday party every year when it discusses developments over the last year and things that it wants to work for in the coming year. He said the CAC supports more public art, more trees – and taking better care of those that are already in place. The group also supports improvements to the alley between East Liberty and East Washington near The Liberty Square parking structure, to make it a more public place, he said.

The CAC supports the DDA’s development of a streetscape framework plan, and its parking and transportation management plan. The downtown transportation plan is part of a transportation plan for the entire county, Detter said, that includes Zipcars, mopeds, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s AirRide service and the getDowntown go!pass program. Detter continued by mentioning the north-south commuter rail project (WALLY), and the possible connector. The CAC wanted to avoid any need for additional above-ground parking structures, Detter said.

But the two most important areas of focus, he said, were population and retail. Retail will not thrive, he said, without a commitment to residential. The CAC applauded the success of Urban Outfitters, Bivouac and Renaissance, but was appalled by the loss of Selo/Shevel Gallery and Seyfried Jewelers.

Comm/Comm: State Theater

Ray Detter, speaking on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council, continued by saying that the CAC was committed to the survival of the State Theater as part of a historic theater district in downtown Ann Arbor. The theater helps define the essential identity of downtown Ann Arbor, he said. Detter noted that many people remembered the Campus Theater.

Detter acknowledged the demand for office space, but that can’t equal the value of the two theaters, he contended. The Michigan Theater, Detter said, had provided the venue for the first “talking pictures” in Ann Arbor in 1928 and the State Theater had been around since 1942. [DDA board member Russ Collins, who's executive director of the Michigan Theater, corrected Detter, pointing out that it was the Orpheum that was the first "talking picture" movie theater.]

The State Theater attracts 50,000 people a year, Detter said. Some people “might think it’s a dump at this point,” but there are ways of fixing it up, he said. Detter added that he was looking forward to the expansion of the Cinetopia series with the State Theater as one of the venues.

It’s a challenge to save the State Theater, Detter said. But the Michigan Theater board has taken the initiative to open a conversation with State Theater LLC to work on a way for the community to purchase and retain the State Theater as part of the “theater district.” The DDA should be a part of that process, Detter said. Other DDAs have done this kind of thing, “and we can do it, too.” Detter said he still remembered the $250,000 that had been given by the DDA for the lobby of the Michigan Theater.

Later in the meeting, Russ Collins followed up on Detter’s commentary by saying it was not a DDA matter per se. But regarding the State Theater, the Michigan Theater is in talks with the owners of the State Theater building. He was hopeful that would have a positive outcome with respect to preserving the cinema exhibition capability at the State Theater. He was happy with the owner’s willingness to talk.

Comm/Comm: New Board Members

Board chair Sandi Smith invited the new board members who’d been added since the last meeting to introduce themselves.

City administrator Steve Powers quipped that he would not need four minutes [the time limit afforded public speakers]. “It’s a pleasure to be with you,” he said. When mayor John Hieftje had asked him to serve, he’d agreed with enthusiasm, he reported. He appreciated and understands the importance of the DDA to the overall mission of the city. The city council had confirmed his appointment Monday night [Dec. 2]. He told the board he’d worked as city administrator for a little over 2 years. In that time, he’d gotten to know executive director Susan Pollay and had enjoyed the professional relationship between the city and the DDA. Powers saw his service on the board as strengthening that existing relationship between the city and the DDA.

Cyndi Clark introduced herself as a retail owner on Main Street for Lily Grace Cosmetics. A month ago, she’d just opened up a second business, she said – a spa. She was delighted to be on the DDA board. Her family lives in Ann Arbor and she was born and raised here, she said. She was delighted to be working with everyone. “It’s a full term for me!” she concluded.

Comm/Comm: Connector

By way of background on the connector study, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then farther south along State to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops. A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor.

Roger Hewitt participates on the technical committee for that study. The DDA has contributed funding toward the study.

At the Dec. 4 DDA board meeting, Hewitt reported that three public meetings had been held on the connector project recently. The board then watched a video created to explain the project. After presentation of the video, Hewitt described the public meetings as an effort to get input on the different route options. The turnout was pretty good, he said. The morning session wasn’t all that well attended, with perhaps 10 people, Hewitt said, but the noon and evening sessions each had over 25 people attend, he said. People had a lot of questions and a lot of information was exchanged, he said, but he allowed there wasn’t as much feedback on specific transit routes as they would have liked.

Unless you’re in the “nitty gritty of it,” Hewitt felt that it’s a bit overwhelming to consider all the possibilities. The next meeting of the technical committee would take place on Friday [Dec. 6], he said, with a follow-up meeting the next Monday [Dec. 9]. The study needs to be completed in the first quarter of 2014, he said. The outcome of the study would be the “preferred local option,” Hewitt said, and he’d keep the board up to date on that.

Joan Lowenstein asked Hewitt to confirm that in the context of the basic “boomerang” route, there would still be a significant impact depending on how the route was planned through the downtown. Hewitt confirmed that, and said there had been a lot of discussion about it. One possibility that had been suggested was to just head south on State Street. There are significant problems with the width of all streets. He’d been pushing for the idea that the route needed to come at least as far west as the Blake Transit Center [on Fifth Avenue].

Right now, the group is looking at two stations – one in the central campus (State Street area) and one in the center of downtown (Main Street area). Neither the route nor the station locations have been determined, he said. There was some desire not to cross Main Street, he noted. That’s because the amount of federal support would depend on a demonstration that there’d be a savings in travel time – because “that’s how the feds measure things,” he said.

If the route crosses Main Street, then it would have to cross back over Main Street to get to the South State Street area, Hewitt explained, and with the current traffic backups on Main Street, it would be easy to get backed up during rush hour in the Main Street area. So the group is looking to stay east of Main Street.

From left: John Mouat and Roger Hewitt.

John Mouat asked for an analysis of the economic impact of such a project. In that context, he asked about the planned timing of the project. Hewitt responded by saying, “We’re talking about a while!” He noted that this is the second phase of the study, after the initial feasibility study. That study had shown that the existing ridership justifies a more robust form of transit than is currently in place. The current phase is an alternatives analysis, which would determine the local “favorite” route and mode of transportation. After that an environmental study would be done.

After all of that, you “stand in line for federal dollars,” Hewitt said. For a project that meets the right criteria, the federal government might fund up to half the cost of the project, he said. The cost, depending on the route and the mode, could be as little as $100 million and as much as $500 million. After getting the federal dollars lined up, he continued, you’d have to line up the local match. The University of Michigan has stated publicly that they’d be involved, he said, without putting a particular dollar figure on their participation. After construction and ordering of vehicles, Hewitt said, we shouldn’t expect anything rolling for 10 years.

But this phase of the study, Hewitt said, would be completed in the next three months or so. He felt that a decision was pretty close for the downtown route. It would mean a pretty big change to downtown, Hewitt said. He allowed that it’s hard to get people excited about this now, when the project is 10 years off.

Comm/Comm: Bicycles, Alt Transportation

Keith Orr gave an update on the bike share program. A representative from B-Cycle, the selected vendor, had been brought in by the Ann Arbor-based Clean Energy Coalition (CEC). They looked at potential sites for locating stations. The few on-street spots were too narrow for a station, Orr reported. So as of now, there were no requests from the CEC of the DDA for an on-street parking spot. The CEC still anticipates an Earth Day opening in the spring of 2014. Right now, the plan is for 14 stations, Orr said. Stations will be located as far north as the University of Michigan north campus, and as far west as Ashley Street.

Orr also reported out on the first usage stats for the Bike House – an enclosed facility in the Maynard Street parking structure. Orr reported that people love having it there, saying that it’s largely a commuting option for people. The time records for when people use it show that people use it primarily at the beginning of the day and the end of the day, he said, but it’s not the same people all the time. He concluded that people who are using the Bike House are not relying on one mode of transportation. Discussion is taking place about other locations where similar facilities could be constructed, Orr reported.

And based on recent go!pass stats, it continues to be a very robust program, Orr said. [The DDA funds the go!pass program, which is administered by getDowntown, whose staff are employees of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.] More rides were taken and more cards were sold and used. Orr concluded that it continues to be a very popular and important program.

Comm/Comm: Winter Classic, The Puck Drops Here

By way of background, two major events are scheduled for New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day in Ann Arbor: The Puck Drops Here and the National Hockey League’s Winter Classic Game. In connection with the NHL Winter Classic Game to be played on New Year’s Day, the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is hosting a New Year’s Eve event called The Puck Drops Here, which will mimic the dropping of the lighted ball in Times Square, but with a 6-foot diameter lighted “puck” that is being fabricated by METAL.

At the DDA board’s Dec. 4 meeting, DDA executive director Susan Pollay reviewed highlights of the strategy that will be deployed for the NHL Winter Classic and The Puck Drops Here events.

For New Year’s Eve, the Fourth and William parking structure, as well as the Forest structure, will have a flat rate fee. That way, people will not have to stop at the cashier booth on their way out.

On New Year’s Day, the city council had approved the street closures that will be in place. The NHL has asked that staffing be provided at public garages, Pollay said. That would allow for the reservation of a parking space in advance. If people reserve in advance, that would allow them to drive directly to a specific location.

Staff would also be handing out maps – mostly with an eye to help people after the game find the place where they’d parked. Pollay also told the board that the names of those businesses that are going to be open on Jan. 1 would be listed on the back of the map.

At all structures and lots, Pollay said, a flat fee of $5 would be charged on New Year’s Day. It’s meant to reimburse the DDA for its costs, not to make a lot of money.

John Mouat asked if anyone had developed a projection of how many people will be needing to park. Pollay said that to her knowledge, no. As much as possible, people are being encouraged to use the buses and shuttles that will be provided. They’re also working to communicate to people about the parking that’s available at locations away from the stadium.

City administrator Steve Powers noted that lawn parking will be allowed, as it is on home football game days.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Ambassadors

By way of background, for several years, the Ann Arbor DDA has had an interest in maintaining some kind of additional police patrol presence in the downtown. In the mid-2000s, the DDA entered into a contract with the city of Ann Arbor with the implicit hope that the city would maintain the dedicated downtown beat cops. That contract was structured at the time to pay the city $1 million a year for 10 years, with the city able to request up to $2 million a year for a maximum of $10 million.

That hope was not realized, and the DDA has since discussed the idea of providing additional funding for police or for “ambassadors.” The idea of ambassadors was explored in the context of subsequent re-negotiations of the contract between the city and the DDA under which the DDA operates the parking system. The DDA wanted to be assigned responsibility for parking enforcement (a function performed by the city’s community standards officers) and imagined that activity to be performed in an ambassador-like fashion.

At its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council approved a resolution encouraging the DDA to provide funding for three police officers (a total of $270,000 annually) to be deployed in the DDA district. DDA board members visited Grand Rapids this fall to observe a new downtown ambassador program in that city. The initial report from that visit was given at the Ann Arbor DDA board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.

At the board’s meeting on Dec. 4, Roger Hewitt reported that the operations committee had a lengthy discussion about the idea of hiring ambassadors, based on the visit by some board members to Grand Rapids to see the ambassador program there. A number of views were expressed, Hewitt said, but most people thought it was a good idea and that the Ann Arbor DDA should aggressively pursue it. At the next operations committee meeting, Hewitt said, it would be pursued. Personally, he said, he would like to see something in place for the summer of 2014, if it’s possible to move that quickly.

Comm/Comm: Prosperity

Joan Lowenstein reported out on the partnerships committee discussion about the A2 Ypsilanti Regional Chamber’s annual Impact conference.

Keith Orr and Joan Lowenstein.

The focus this year was based on a presentation made by Lou Glazer of Michigan Future Inc. Glazer’s work suggested that there’s a strong connection between prosperity and placemaking, and attracting young talent. The trends indicate that prosperous states show a higher proportion of wages from the “knowledge industries” – medical, technical and legal professions, Lowenstein said. Prosperous states also have a high proportion of college grads. Taxes don’t play as much of a role in prosperity, she said – it’s all about educational attainment and quality of place. Michigan and Ann Arbor are lagging behind other places in terms of the number of young professionals who are attracted here.

For example, she said, Madison, Wisc. has twice the number of young professionals as Ann Arbor does, Lowenstein reported. Glazer had said that Ann Arbor has an important role to play in prosperity, but the elements that are key to that need to be embraced: transit, private sector growth and density, she said. A lot of people want to attract families, but attracting young professionals will lead to that, she said, because people tend to establish families where they get their first job. Ann Arbor needs to do a better job of engaging young professionals in the community by giving them a better voice, Lowenstein said.

One of the panels at the Impact conference included young people who are reluctant to put themselves out in public positions, because of the nature of the media and social media – because you can get trashed by putting yourself out in public, Lowenstein said. She called it an unfortunate element of our modern life.

DDA board member Al McWilliams will be working on DDA communications.

Lowenstein also reported that the partnerships committee meeting will establish a subcommittee focused on communications. Al McWilliams and Rishi Narayan will head up that subcommittee, she said – noting that McWilliams is involved in that sort of thing all the time. [McWilliams is founder of the ad agency Quack!Media.]

January’s board meeting, which was originally scheduled for Jan. 1 – because it’s part of the first-Wednesday meeting pattern – was shifted to Jan. 8. There was no traction for the possibility of changing the day of the week or the noon meeting time for the regular board meetings.

Comm/Comm: Pedestrian Crashes

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti addressed the board about pedestrian safety issues. He noted the outcome of the city council’s recent action on the city’s crosswalk law [and the announcement by mayor John Hieftje that he would be vetoing the change the council had voted 6-4 to approve]. The current ordinance mostly addresses outside-downtown issues, Vielmetti said, with its reference to non-signalized crosswalks. In preparing for the city council meeting, Vielmetti said, he’d looked at about eight years of car crash data. What he’d noticed consistently is that the majority of pedestrian crashes happen in the downtown and campus area – probably because lots of people are walking downtown.

The narratives in some of the accident reports often describe how the pedestrian was crossing with a walk light, while the car had a green light and was turning, but didn’t see the pedestrian, Vielmetti said. This is an issue that’s within the purview of the DDA to address, he added. There’s only so much education you can do, with a transient student population. And there’s only so much enforcement you can do without adding to the police force. But the engineering could be addressed, he said – through careful attention to the built infrastructure where people cross the street, or near parking structures where there are a lot of pedestrian-car interactions.

Present: Al McWilliams, Cyndi Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Steve Powers, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Rishi Narayan.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

From left: Local developer Peter Allen, 624 Church St. project owner Dennis Tice, that project’s architect Brad Moore, and Ward 1 city councilmember Sabra Briere. Briere accepted congratulations on her council re-election win the previous day. (Photos by the writer.)

Both items were approved on unanimous votes at the meeting, which featured perfect attendance by the 11 current members of the board. The following evening, on Nov. 7, the Ann Arbor city council confirmed the appointment of Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace Cosmetics, to fill a vacancy on the 12-member DDA body. At its Nov. 6 meeting, the board did not discuss either Clark’s appointment or the other council agenda item affecting the DDA – a revision to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA TIF (tax increment financing) capture.

The sale of monthly parking permits for the 624 Church St. development was an issue that the DDA board had previously considered – for an earlier version of the project, which had actually completed the city approval process. It had gone through planning commission review and recommendation, with a site plan approved by the city council on March 4, 2013. For that earlier version, the project was required to provide 42 parking spaces for the additional residential square footage it contained beyond the by-right density under the city’s zoning code. Instead of providing the parking spaces on-site, the owner of the project sought to satisfy the requirement through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program – a request that was granted by the DDA.

For this revised and expanded version of the project – made possible through additional land acquisition – a greater number of parking spaces is required. And the project owner again sought to meet that requirement through the CIL program. So at its Nov. 6 meeting, the DDA board granted the project owner the ability to purchase 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure.

The DDA board also acted on its streetscape framework project. The contract awarded to SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard is meant to provide guidance for developing future streetscape projects, not to design any specific streetscape project. The most recent streetscape improvement undertaken by the DDA was the Fifth and Division project, which included lane reconfigurations and bump-outs.

In addition to its voting items, the board received a raft of updates, which included reports on the first quarter financials. The DDA is essentially on course to realize $4.5 million in TIF capture revenue and about $19 million in parking revenue. Other updates included reports on preparations for the NHL Winter Classic hockey game, debriefing on the International Downtown Association conference attended by some board members and staff, Freedom of Information Act issues, and public commentary.

The board heard from Ray Detter, speaking on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council, about the ongoing downtown zoning review. Detter’s remarks were countered by DDA board members. Detter reprised his comments at the city planning commission meeting later that evening. So that back-and-forth will be reported out in more detail as a part of The Chronicle’s Nov. 6, 2013 city planning commission report.

624 Church Street Parking Permits

The board considered a request by the owner of the 624 Church St. project to purchase additional monthly parking permits as a part of the contribution in lieu (CIL) program – up to 48 such permits. The spaces were requested for the Forest Avenue parking structure.

The original proposal for 624 Church St., which received site plan approval from the city council at its March 4, 2013 meeting, was for a 13-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds. And for that version, the Ann Arbor DDA had authorized the project to purchase up to 42 monthly permits through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. The CIL program allows a developer the option of purchasing permits to satisfy a parking requirement that would otherwise be satisfied by providing parking spaces on site as part of the project.

The newly revised 624 Church St. project, which still needs planning commission and city council review, is larger than the original project, with roughly 122 units and 232 beds. [The architect for the project, Brad Moore, attended the Nov. 6 DDA board meeting, as did the owner, Dennis Tice. Neither of them formally addressed the board nor were they asked to respond to any questions. The new version of the project could be coming before the planning commission in later in November or December.]

The parking requirement is a function of the by-right premiums for additional square footage beyond the basic by-right 400% floor area ratio (FAR). So the parking requirement for the revised project is greater than for the original version of the project. That’s why the DDA was asked to increase the number of permits from 42 to 48. The number of required parking spaces for the revised version of the project is actually 53, but five of them will be provided on site.

The DDA makes the decision about whether there’s adequate capacity in the parking system to allow the sale of additional monthly permits – because the DDA that manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Ann Arbor’s “contribution in lieu of parking” program was authorized by the city council on April 2, 2012. That program allows essentially two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space. It’s option (1) that the 624 Church St. project was pursuing.

624 Church Street Parking Permits: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt reviewed how the board had previously approved 42 parking spaces. The project had increased in size as a result of the acquisition of a house to the south of the original project site, Hewitt explained. The total amount of required parking is 53 spaces, five of which will be provided on-site, he noted. That would increase the number of spaces needed in the parking system from 42 to 48. Hewitt pointed out that the number still falls within the framework of a pilot project the DDA was working on, based on assigning the ability to purchase monthly parking permits to owners of property, on a square-footage basis. At the July 3, 2013 DDA board meeting, Hewitt had described the pilot allocation as 1 monthly permit per 2,500 square feet.

[The DDA manages the system in a manner that sells monthly parking permits on a first-come-first-serve basis. Subsequently, DDA staff has reported little interest in the pilot program among property owners in the South University area. Executive director Susan Pollay said at the Sept. 4, 2013 board meeting that letters had been sent to property owners, but almost none of the property owners were interested in managing the parking permits on behalf of their tenants.]

Mayor John Hieftje said it’s important to note that the monthly parking permits purchased under the CIL program are 20% more expensive, so the parking system would receive more revenue than for a regular-priced permit. Hieftje also recalled a discussion at a downtown marketing task force meeting – which he invited DDA board members to attend – when a representative of the South University Area Association reported the impact of having more residents in the area had been positive. The Church Street development would increase activity and vibrancy in that area, he said.

Hewitt added that as a business owner in the area [of revive + replenish], that part of town has definitely become more vibrant and more active.

Keith Orr said that the allocation still falls within the pilot project square footage guidelines, so he’d be supporting the proposal, saying it made sense.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously to approve the allocation, under the CIL program, of 48 parking permits in the Forest Avenue structure to the 624 Church St. project.

Award of Streetscape Plan Contract

The board considered awarding a contract to SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard to develop a streetscape framework plan for the city’s downtown.

A budget for the project had been authorized by the board at its July 3, 2013 meeting – $200,000 over the next two years. The Nov. 6 resolution set a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 and indicated that the project scope still requires refinement. The resolution establishing the budget referred in general terms to the DDA’s development plan, which the resolution characterized as including “identity, infrastructure, and transportation as key strategies, and also recognized that an enjoyable pedestrian experience is one of downtown’s principal attractions.”

The downtown streetscape framework plan, according to the July 3 resolution, would “align with these strategies, as it would address quality of place in streetscape design, on-going maintenance, and private development projects.” The July 3 resolution indicated there would be considerable collaboration with other entities like the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, and the University of Michigan. The benefit of having a streetscape framework plan, according to the July 3 resolution, would be “shortened planning phases, and thus cost, for future streetscape projects due to the overarching plan guidance.”

The most recent streetscape project undertaken by the DDA related to improvements on Fifth and Division, which included a lane reduction and bump-outs.

SmithGroupJJR provided consulting support for the DDA’s Connecting William Street project. Nelson\Nygaard is the consulting firm the DDA hired to study the parking system, resulting in a 2007 report.

Award of Streetscape Plan Contract: Board Deliberations

John Mouat led off by saying the streetscape framework plan would be a wonderful tool for the city and DDA as well as private developers.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board: Nov. 6, 2013

It’s a good step, he said. There’d been good cooperation between the DDA and city staff on the project. DDA planner Amber Miller had put in a lot of work, he said. A consultant selection committee consisting of DDA staff, city staff and a DDA board member had put together a request for qualifications sent out in mid-October, Mouat said. Four teams responded. Two of the qualified submissions were selected and then invited for an interview in October.

The selection committee recommended hiring SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard, Mouat said. Noting that two firms are being recommended, Mouat said that while SmithGroupJJR will be the lead firm, Nelson\Nygaard will do a bit more of the work. Mouat noted that Nelson\Nygaard had completed similar plans for other cities across the country. SmithGroupJJR brings facilitation skills, engineering and more technical and “nitty gritty” skills, he said.

Mouat noted that the resolution in front of the board is for work not to exceed $150,000. The budget has been approved for up to $200,000 – to add additional services. Two things that might be added, Mouat said, were enhanced civil engineering services that the city staff is interested in. The other thing that might be desirable is to bring in an economist who can analyze the benefits of streetscape projects. Potentially, that work could be extended to gathering base data on what exists now in the downtown.

Roger Hewitt mentioned that the board has worked with Nelson\Nygaard in the past on the parking demand study. The experience with that firm had been very satisfactory, Hewitt said.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the resolution on the streetscape plan.

Quarterly Financial Statements

Roger Hewitt gave the board an overview of the financial statements for first quarter of the 2014 fiscal year. [.pdf of July-Sept 2013 financial statements] That’s the three months of July through September for a fiscal year that starts on July 1. [The DDA's fiscal year aligns with the city of Ann Arbor's fiscal year.]

TIF (tax increment financing) income is slightly below budget, he reported. There’s still some TIF revenue that’s expected to come in later in the year. That amount is anticipated to be about $4.5 million by the end of the year. Operating expenses are also lower than budgeted, he said, but it’s anticipated that they’ll ultimately be within 3% of what was budgeted. Not a lot of capital expenditures have been incurred so far. Most of construction work occurs during the summer and for much of the construction in the latter part of summer, the DDA hasn’t been billed yet. Overall that number is expected to be close to what was budgeted, Hewitt reported.

Parking revenues for the quarter exceeded budget slightly, and it’s anticipated that the DDA will be close to budgeted gross revenue of a bit over $19 million, Hewitt said. Parking operating expenses are “a little off,” he reported. The costs for the First and Washington structure were budgeted in the previous fiscal year, but the work did not take place in that year. That’s because the private contractor doing the project did not finish the work, and did not have a certificate of occupancy for the parking deck portion of that apartment project [City Apartments] during FY 2013. The certificate of occupancy was the trigger, Hewitt said, for releasing the money. A budget revision would be necessary later in the year, he said.

Direct parking expenses were slightly under budget thanks to Republic Parking manager Art Low, Hewitt said. Overall, the numbers are anticipated to being close to budget by the end of the fiscal year.

A lot of maintenance on the parking structures had been done this summer, Hewitt said, but not many bills have shown up yet. He did anticipate spending the budgeted amount of $2.2 or $2.3 million. The housing fund, Hewitt said, is about where he thought it would be. He offered to answer any questions.

Hewitt then reviewed the unaudited income and balance sheet statements for each of the funds. There’s a bit over $1 million in the housing fund, but Hewitt noted that most of that is committed to projects the board has already authorized. The TIF fund balance is $5.3 million, Hewitt said, and the parking fund balance is $3.3 million. The TIF fund is high because the DDA has received almost all the income for the whole year, but not yet incurred the expenses.

Parking Numbers

Roger Hewitt delivered the parking report. For the first quarter of the fiscal year, revenue is up about 8% and hourly patrons are up about 4% compared to the same quarter in the previous year, Hewitt said. In dollar terms, revenue for the first quarter was about $5 million.

Hewitt noted information about weather and the number of University of Michigan football games that might affect the parking activity. He also said there were fewer spaces in the system than a year ago. [7,804 in 2012 compared to 7,727 in 2013. The difference is primarily in the number of on-street spaces and the number of spaces available in the Fifth and William lot due to construction of the Blake Transit Center.]

Keith Orr got clarification that some of the reduction in on-street spaces is due to the use of meter bags.

Revenue per Space: Structures (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the DDA.)

Ann Arbor Public Parking: Patrons (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the DDA)

Ann Arbor Public Parking: Revenue (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the DDA)

Hewitt reviewed a rough draft of a profit and loss statement on each parking structure for the past year. [.pdf of parking structure profit and loss statement FY 2013] He stressed that the information had not been audited. It illustrates that it is solid when considered as an entire system, he said. Newer structures don’t make money until the bonds that funded those structures are paid off, but they’re supported by revenues from other structures and on-street parking spaces, he explained.

As examples, Hewitt gave the Fourth and Washington and the Forest Avenue structures – both of them have lost money even though they have a high rate of occupancy. That’s because the bond payments on them are not yet paid off. Once the bonds are paid off, those structures are expected to become very profitable, he said. That compares to Liberty Square and Ann Ashley – with their bonds paid off, both are very profitable, Hewitt said. Liberty Square, Hewitt said, makes almost $1 million a year.

Russ Collins ventured that there would always be bond payments because there will always be capital maintenance. The expenses are consistent over time if the parking system is properly maintained, Collins said. Hewitt allowed that bond payments would be required if the system expands or needs major capital work.

Collins allowed that there’s a certain value in tracking the bond payments associated with a particular structure. But Collins didn’t want the public to think that at one point all the bonds would be paid off. It’s the DDA’s job to make sure there’s ongoing capital maintenance and investment, Collins said, to look after this capital asset.

Hewitt said that the structures at Maynard Street and Fourth and William aren’t profitable because both have a huge amount of money that has been spent over the years in major reconstruction and expansion. On Maynard, about 10 years ago roughly $11 million had been spent on major reconstruction. Older structures, even with enhanced maintenance, will need major structural improvements. So Hewitt concluded that Collins was right – that a point will not be reached where everything is paid off. It’s a system that needs both routine and major maintenance. He ventured that some of the DDA board members had been around long enough to know what happens when the parking structures are not properly maintained.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: Bike Share

Keith Orr gave an update on the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) bike share program. CEC will need to request the use of some on-street parking spaces for the bike share stations, Orr reported. A report had been received from B-cycle, the vendor selected for the program, and details are still being worked out. The request will come at the November partnerships committee meeting, with board approval requested in December. He allowed the timeline had slipped a bit. The CEC is still on course for targeting Earth Day in 2014 (April 22) for launch. A name for the bike share program has not yet been decided, Orr said, but a contest to name the program is going on. [The deadline to submit a name is Nov. 15.]

Comm/Comm: Abandoned Bikes

Keith Orr noted that many complaints had been received over the years about abandoned bikes. The DDA has always tried to work with the city on the problem, and now a system has been worked out. A process had been created to identify and remove bikes. Orr described how about 50 junk bikes were removed in October with the help of Republic Parking. There’s now storage for “bikes with value” – so a recovery system is now in place. A “sweep” will likely be conducted on a quarterly basis, Orr said.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

Roger Hewitt announced the connector study getting closer to the end. [By way of background, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of locations for stations and stops. A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor.]

The following week a series of public meetings would be held, Hewitt reported. The possibilities had been narrowed down to six different alignments, he said, but they can be mixed and matched. Meetings on Nov. 14 are scheduled at 9:30 a.m. at the Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, at 1 p.m. at the downtown AADL and at 6 p.m. at the library’s Traverwood branch.

Mayor John Hieftje inquired if there had been any discussion of gondolas as a possible mode. Hewitt explained to Hieftje that the consultants were not enthusiastic about that option because of limited capacity. The needed capacity equated to that of a light-rail system, Hewitt said, and a system with gondolas wouldn’t have the needed capacity.

Comm/Comm: NHL Winter Classic

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, reminded the board that she’d mentioned the logistical planning that was going in to preparations for the Winter Classic – an NHL hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The game will be played outdoors at the University of Michigan football stadium.

Pollay said she’d been working with city staff and University of Michigan staff on the preparations. She indicated that the Ann Arbor city council would be asked on Nov. 18 to approve a plan to create transit and parking strategies similar to those that are typically in place for a home football game at Michigan Stadium.

The game is scheduled for New Year’s Day, she noted, when AAATA buses and University of Michigan blue buses aren’t running. The plan will involved charging for use of public parking on that day, when typically no charges would be applied. That will allow people to reserve parking in advance, Pollay said. The idea would be to have as many people park away from the stadium as possible. Arrangements are being made with Briarwood Mall to allow people to part there. Shuttles would be running from hotels, and there’d be downtown shuttles that would stop at parking garages.

The Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is also planning an event – called The Puck Drops Here – for New Year’s Eve, Pollay reported, which is expected to attract around 10,000 people to the downtown area. Michelle Chamuel, who placed second on the most recent season of The Voice, would be performing, Pollay said, well as DJs with a regional draw. Plans are coming together well, Pollay, said, but the city council needs to be comfortable with the logistics decisions.

John Mouat was curious to know how the community has reacted to the upcoming events. Mayor John Hieftje responded to Mouat by saying the downtown marketing task force had received an update from the Ann Arbor Area CVB, and the report was that a lot of people are responding positively, saying that they never really have anything to do on New Year’s Eve. Hieftje noted that Toronto has a population willing to travel, with 45,000 expected to arrive in Ann Arbor on buses. The game is a chance to showcase the city, Hieftje said – and an opportunity for Ann Arbor to really shine. If even 10% of those who attended the game wanted to come back, that would be a really good thing, he said.

Hieftje ventured that Canadians are generally more polite than Americans.

Board chair Sandi Smith asked if the city council needed to pass a resolution to allow for the DDA to charge for parking. Pollay indicated that the Nov. 18 resolution was not about asking permission, but rather just making sure that if there are concerns, those concerns are addressed.

Hieftje felt that the fans who are arriving for the game are paying a whole lot of money for tickets – and they won’t care if they have to pay a bit more for parking. It was important for the DDA to cover its costs, Hieftje said. Keith Orr noted that if the weather is bad for the game, which will be played outdoors at Michigan Stadium, then Jan. 2 would be the back-up date, and it would take place at 7 p.m.

In more detail, the resolution that the Ann Arbor city council will be asked to consider on Nov. 18 will implement many of the conditions that apply during University of Michigan home football games. For example, the newly implemented street closures for home football games would also be authorized for the Winter Classic:

• E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets, limiting access to parking permit holders on Greene Street from E. Hoover to Keech streets
• The westbound right turn lane on E. Stadium Boulevard (onto S. Main Street) just south of the Michigan Stadium
• S. Main Street closed to both local and through traffic from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline

Those closures would be effective three hours before the game until the end of the game – with the exception of southbound S. Main Street, which would be closed beginning one hour before the game until the end of the game.

The council will also be asked to invalidate peddler/solicitor permits and sidewalk occupancy permits in the following areas:

• S. State Street from E. Hoover Street to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks
• Along the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks from S. State Street to the viaduct on W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from the viaduct to S. Main Street
• S. Main Street from W. Stadium Boulevard to Hill Street
• Hill Street from S. Main Street to S. Division Street
• S. Division Street from Hill Street to E. Hoover Street
• E. Hoover Street from S. Division Street to S. State Street
• S. Main Street from Scio Church Road to W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from S. Main Street to Prescott Avenue

The council will be asked to authorize a special temporary outdoor sales area so that the owners of commercially and office-zoned property fronting on the following streets could use their private yard areas for outdoor sales and display:

• West side of S. Main Street between Stadium Blvd. and Hoover Street
• East side of S. Main Street from 1011 S. Main to Hoover Street
• North side of Hoover Street between S. Main and S. State streets
• North side of W. Stadium Blvd. between S. Main and S. State streets

The council would also be asked to designate the Winter Classic game as a date on which the usual front open space parking prohibition does not apply. So residents who customarily offer their lawns for home football game parking would be able to do so for the Winter Classic as well.

Comm/Comm: IDA Conference

Joan Lowenstein reported that the most recent partnerships committee meeting had included a lot of time debriefing from the International Downtown Association Conference in New York City, which took place from Oct. 6-9. Lowenstein said that as usual, the conference was very valuable and attendees had learned a lot from people all over the country.

Ann Arbor DDA board members Joan Lowenstein and Bob Guenzel.

Some of the topics of sessions attended included nurturing downtown streets, the role of arts and culture, and ways to create metrics of success, Lowenstein said. Most of the attendees were members of business improvement districts (BIDs), she noted. Lowenstein described the possibility that the DDA could become a source of statistics. She said there’s evolving technology to capture pedestrian and vehicle traffic – besides hiring interns to stand on a street corner using counters. She ventured that maybe go!pass and Flocktag could be used to gather data.

Lowenstein also mentioned open space management as a topic. She said that New York City had 57 different BIDs throughout the city. Some of those worked with nonprofits to enliven public spaces. Lowenstein stressed that the spaces in New York City exist through the efforts of organizations. The partnerships committee meeting had included the idea of branding downtown as a whole and the possibility of creating a downtown marketing plan.

Sandi Smith talked a lot about metrics, Lowenstein reported. The DDA’s state of the downtown report is a solid base, she said, but there are ways to be more creative.

About the IDA conference, John Mouat said it was interesting to hear about shifting trends in how people shop. He also enjoyed a visit to the High Line – the elevated park on an abandoned rail line. He described how the High Line goes under a building, leading to a big display by Kindle that includes couches and coffee tables.

Smith responded by noting that the High Line is run by a conservancy, which rents out that space and helps fund other nice things, she said.

Comm/Comm: FOIA

During the Nov. 6 meeting, Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director of the DDA, reported to the board in her capacity as the DDA’s Freedom of Information Act coordinator. She described receiving a FOIA request from [Ann Arbor Chronicle editor] Dave Askins [this reporter] for which the DDA had produced records, but which included some redacted content.

An appeal had been submitted, Pollay reported, and as a result of that appeal, the DDA would produce a “clean copy” of the records as requested in the appeal. Board chair Sandi Smith then stated that it appeared that the DDA has been inundated with requests made under Michigan’s FOIA. She wanted the executive committee of the board to review the FOIA policy and consider refreshing the FOIA policy.

[The appeal concerned the redaction of items like the government email address of a state university employee, which had been inappropriately redacted by the DDA under the statute's exception for unwarranted intrusion into someone's private life.]

Comm/Comm: 5-Year Transit Update

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, addressed the board during public commentary at the end of the meeting. She updated board members about a series of public meetings that the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is holding to explain its five-year transit improvement program. Everything is contingent on additional funding, she said.

Comm/Comm: Conquer the Cold

In her remarks to the board during public commentary at the end of the meeting, getDowntown director Nancy Shore plugged the program’s Conquer the Cold commuter workshops and classes. She reported that 80 people had registered for classes this year. Fleeces would be given away for the first 200 people who sign up, she said.

Comm/Comm: Civic Tech Meetup

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti told the board about the Ann Arbor Civic Technology Meetup. It’s an effort he’s started to get citizens involved with technology and the city. The next meeting will take place at Menlo Innovations space on E. Liberty St. on Nov. 25 at 7 p.m. The topic of that meeting would be public data sources, he said.

As an example of using public data sources, Vielmetti reminded the board about an effort that had been made a few years ago to come up with a plan for mobile access to parking availability data. He’d modified that approach and had now developed something for his own use. He said he’d be happy to show everyone. It’s a way to show people which parking facilities are full and which are empty, he said.

Comm/Comm: Former Y Lot

Former DDA board member Dave DeVarti addressed the board during public commentary at the end of the meeting. He told them it was great to see some former colleagues who were still there.

Former DDA board member Dave DeVarti.

He wanted to put forward an idea he’d been thinking about for some time, he said, which he’d already mentioned to some people. He suggested that something might be done in the direction of affordable housing on the former Y lot. [The city-owned parcel is locate on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle a possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. At its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting, the city council directed city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the property.]

DeVarti proposed that the Ann Arbor DDA could ante up the money that’s owed on the city’s loan and remove the need to repay the debt as a consideration. That would give the city a range of options, he said, which would provide some leverage to encourage the development of affordable housing at that site or something else, or the land could be used in other ways. He would be willing to work on a committee to try to flesh out some ideas, he said.

Comm/Comm: Ambassador Program

For several years, the Ann Arbor DDA has had an interest in maintaining some kind of additional patrol presence in the downtown. In the mid-2000s, the DDA entered into a contract with the city of Ann Arbor with the implicit hope that the city would maintain the dedicated downtown beat cops. (That contract was structured at that time to pay the city $1 million a year for 10 years, with the city able to request up to $2 million a year for a maximum of $10 million.)

That hope was not realized, and the DDA has since discussed the idea of providing additional funding for police or for ambassadors. The idea of “ambassadors” was explored in the context of subsequent re-negotiations of the contract between the city and the DDA under which the DDA operates the parking system. The DDA wanted to be assigned responsibility for parking enforcement (a function performed by the city’s community standards officers) and imagined that activity to be performed in an ambassador-like fashion.

At its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council approved a resolution encouraging the DDA to provide funding for three police officers (a total of $270,000 annually) to be deployed in the DDA district.

During communications time at the start of the DDA board’s Nov. 6 meeting, Roger Hewitt reported that he, John Splitt, Keith Orr and DDA executive director Susan Pollay had made a field trip to Grand Rapids and met with Grand Rapids DDA director Kris Larson about that city’s ambassador program.

Hewitt said the group had received a lot of information about the Grand Rapids downtown ambassador program. The ambassadors provide directions to help locate businesses and services, call for medical assistance, provide information on parking, provide social service information for people in need, identify and report hazards and contact police. What had caught everyone’s attention, Hewitt said, was that they’d observed an ambassador holding an umbrella over a woman putting money in a parking meter. Hewitt said he thought it was an idea worth pursuing, and that the DDA’s operations committee should take a look at.

Splitt confirmed that he was along for the ride and said he was very impressed by the ambassador program in Grand Rapids. He thought the Ann Arbor DDA should take a serious look at implementing it here. Orr called it a very informative trip. He noted that besides the ambassador program, the trip had included a look at the structural relationship between the Grand Rapids DDA and the city. There was an umbrella organization that did the visioning for a variety of organizations, Orr said, including the DDA. He said it was interesting to see that structure and the success that had resulted from that approach.

Sandi Smith asked if the ambassadors work with Grand Rapids police department. Yes, Orr confirmed, there’s a direct contact between ambassadors and the police, but ambassadors are not deputized in any way. They act as “eyes and ears” for the police department, Orr said. They’re trained differently, with a social services component, so that situations can be diffused, before they become “police situations.”

Hewitt added that the ambassadors are “not assistant cops or anything.” Orr noted that Grand Rapids hires a company that specializes in this type of thing [Block by Block]. Ambassadors are there to help, but not to enforce the law and not to perform police functions.

Smith confirmed with Hewitt that he’d bring a proposal forward through the operations committee. Mouat indicated support for the idea that if someone is having a problem and they contact a social services organization, it goes directly to someone who can help solve the problem without having to involve the police.

Orr followed up on Mouat’s observation by saying it was important to select the right person with the “right beat.” In a geographic area where there were a lot of social services agencies, the ambassador is actually a social worker – because he was able to help people find the services they needed instead of treating it as a police problem. Orr noted that while the ambassadors are not deputized, they do wear uniforms so there’s a perception of added security and that the area is being patrolled.

Russ Collins said he was not on trip to Grand Rapids, but reported that he was aware of an ambassador program in Schenectady, New York that works with Schenectady’s equivalent of Ann Arbor’s Delonis Center, a shelter for the homeless. He said that the Schenectady program provided a transitional employment opportunity.

Comm/Comm: Ashley Terrace On-Street Parking

Theodore Marentis addressed the board during public commentary at the start of the meeting on behalf of the 111 N. Ashley Condominium Association. He’s vice president of the board of that group. He described the building as located across from the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau. He wanted to talk to the board about one or perhaps half a space of on-street parking. He said there’s a parking shortage due to the higher density of the building – with its 100 units of residential space.

It’s hard for people to drop off kids or things they’ve purchased while out shopping during the day or in the evenings, Marentis said. That’s because they don’t have control of the space right by the entrance to the building. They’d be content if even half of the space could be given over to the building for its control. Marentis suggested some system of a windshield card that could control use of the space, and pointed to the residential parking permit areas located to the north of the building as an example of the regulation of on-street parking that already exists in the area. His board had sent him to address the DDA, and he told the board that the condo association was open to discussion.

Present: Al McWilliams, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The original proposal for 624 Church, which received site plan approval from the city council at its March 4, 2013 meeting, was for a 13-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds. And for that version, the Ann Arbor DDA had authorized the project to purchase up to 42 monthly permits through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. The CIL program allows a developer the option of purchasing permits to satisfy a parking requirement that would otherwise be satisfied by providing parking spaces on site as part of the project.

The newly revised 624 Church St. project, which still needs planning commission and city council review, is larger than the original project, with roughly 122 units and 232 beds. The parking requirement is a function of the by-right premiums for additional square footage beyond the basic by-right of 400% floor area ratio (FAR). So the parking requirement for the revised project is greater than for the original version of the project. That’s why the DDA was asked to increase the number of permits from 42 to 48. The number of required parking spaces for the revised version of the project is actually 53, but five of them will be provided on site.

The DDA makes the decision about whether there’s adequate capacity in the parking system to allow the sale of additional monthly permits – because it’s the DDA that manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Ann Arbor’s “contribution in lieu of parking” program was authorized by the city council on April 2, 2012. That program allows essentially two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space. It’s option (1) that the 624 Church St. project will be pursuing.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]