Before the meeting, Marcia (spelling corrected) Higgins (Ward 4) chats with Sue McCormick (seated), the city's public services area administrator. McCormick is filling in for city administrator Roger Fraser, who is ill. (Photos by the writer.)

Also related to zoning was the council’s second-reading consideration of changes in the city’s zoning code for areas outside the downtown, across most of the city’s zoning classifications. The changes affect area, height and placement (AHP). The final approval of the AHP zoning overhaul had been postponed from council’s first meeting of the month, on Oct. 5, at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

At Monday’s meeting, Higgins brought forth amendments that confined a height cap on buildings to areas adjacent to residential areas. The amendments would allow taller buildings in some non-residential areas, like Briarwood Mall. After some deliberation on the merits of the amendments, Higgins withdrew them, and the council elected to postpone the measure. With Higgins’ amendments, the proposal would be substantively different from the proposal that had already received council approval at first reading, and would thus require an additional reading before final adoption.

In other matters before the council, it was also Higgins who provided much of the impetus for conversation. Two items involved modification to the city’s budget by drawing upon the general fund reserve. One involved a $153,116 expenditure for the city’s planning department to fund corridor planning, and the other was a $160,000 item to purchase furniture for the 15th District Court, which will soon take up residence in the new municipal center at Fifth and Huron. The planning department money was approved over Higgins’ dissent, while the court’s expenditure was postponed, pending the production of an itemized list of what’s being purchased. The two items prompted discussion of the projected budget deficit for FY 2012, which the city’s CFO had estimated in May to be $5 million.

In other business, the council took the final step to enact a special assessment of property owners along Washtenaw Avenue to fund a portion of a new non-motorized path. The council also approved its part of a two-year extension to the consent agreement with Glen Ann Place, which gave site-plan approval for a project at the corner of Glen and Ann streets. Council also gave initial approval to stricter stormwater management rules for impervious surfaces in residential zoning districts.

Council chambers were filled at the start of the meeting with many members of the community who came to hear a proclamation and watch councilmembers vote on a resolution giving council’s support to a similar Michigan Civil Rights Commission resolution. The MCRC condemned the conduct of assistant attorney general Andrew Shirvell, who has written blog posts targeting Chris Armstrong, an openly gay University of Michigan student leader. The Ann Arbor city council’s resolution also calls upon the state legislature to pass a proposed comprehensive hate crime bill and a school anti-bullying law currently before the state Senate.

Ann Arbor Marijuana Law Gets Initial OK

Before the council was a set of zoning regulations that are meant to control how medical marijuana is grown and dispensed in the city. Among other restrictions, the proposed zoning regulations include a provision that medical marijuana dispensaries can only be located in zoning districts classified as D (downtown), C (business), or M (industrial), or in PUD districts where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations. Also, medical marijuana cultivation facilities would only be located in C (business), M (industrial), RE (research), or ORL (office/research) districts.

The medical marijuana zoning was before the council for its first reading – all new ordinances require approval at a first and a second reading.

Medical Marijuana: Public Comment

Chuck Ream spoke during public commentary reserved time on the zoning resolution and began by complimenting the planning commission and the city staff on how they’re moving along with their work on the development of a way to regulate medical marijuana. [Ream had addressed the council back on Feb. 1, 2010 suggesting it explore ways of approaching regulation, but the council did not undertake any public discussion on the subject until Aug. 5, when a moratorium on medical marijuana facilities was passed by the council. A prior closed session by the council held on July 19 concerned medical marijuana, and is currently the subject of litigation filed by The Chronicle for an apparent violation of the Open Meetings Act.]

Much of Ream’s commentary focused on his objection to the idea that inspections might be required by the city. Ream referenced a 63-page paper produced by a consultant for the Michigan Association of Municipal Attorneys (MAMA), which discusses inspection of medical marijuana facilities in various ways via a licensing scheme. For example [emphasis added]:

The sample licensing and regulation ordinance set out in Appendix 1 has been prepared with a general disbursement format, together with provisions calculated to afford greater protection, efficiency, and capability for law enforcement by requiring information about sites used for caregiver cultivation and distribution activities, and requiring inspections of facilities used for cultivation.

The paper was commissioned by MAMA from a consultant, Gerald A. Fisher, who is a law professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. MAMA contends that the views in the paper are Fisher’s own opinion and do not necessarily represent the views of MAMA. Ann Arbor’s city attorney, Stephen Postema, is president of MAMA.

During his commentary, Ream claimed that MAMA is trying to “take over” the Michigan Marijuana Act, which was passed by voter referendum in 2008. Ream’s contention seems to be supported in part by the language of Fisher’s paper, which MAMA makes available on its website through a prominent link [emphasis added]:

The passage of the Act would appear to reflect a sentiment by many in the state that assistance should be provided to those truly suffering, and for this purpose a defined medical use exception should be made to the general policy that activities involving marihuana must be treated exclusively as criminal acts.

Supporters of the act contend that the act’s passage does reflect a sentiment by a majority in the state that use of medical marijuana should not be be treated as a criminal act. Further, Fisher’s paper suggests consideration that a federal declaratory judgment be requested, which could conclude that the act is not valid because it might violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

At the council’s Monday meeting, Ream was adamant that the city council not adopt any ordinance that would require an inspection of medical marijuana facilities, citing Michigan’s act:

Possession of, or application for, a registry identification card shall not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or property of the person to inspection by any local, county or state governmental agency.

Ream cautioned the council that no local unit of government should purposefully contradict the intent of Michigan’s medical marijuana act. He also stressed that no “hit list” be maintained that could be turned over to federal authorities if there is a policy change at the federal level against prosecuting marijuana offenses when the use is medical.

Later during the meeting, Postema left the council table, and invited Ream from the council chambers audience to confer with him in the hallway, which is separated from the chambers by an accordion-style partition – and is not impervious to sound – where the two engaged in an energetic and heated conversation.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) opened council deliberations on the measure, indicating that she’d toured some of the medical marijuana facilities and saying that she supported the zoning change they were considering.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the council’s representative to the city planning commission, noted that the commission had passed two resolution at its Oct. 5 meeting. One was a zoning ordinance recommendation, while the other was a recommendation that the city attorney develop a licensing scheme. Derezinski contended that the licensing and the zoning are interrelated. [See Chronicle coverage: "Medical Marijuana Zoning Heads to Council"]

Derezinski suggested that it would be useful for the city attorney to explain the various amendments that the planning commission had made. Stephen Postema, the city attorney, deferred to Wendy Rampson, the head of planning services.

Rampson summarized the three amendments that had been made to the initial draft:

• The zoning districts where medical marijuana facilities are permitted to be located – originally D (downtown), C (business), or M (industrial) – were expanded to include as well PUD districts where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations.
• A stipulation that landlords provide prior express written permission for a medical marijuana facility was deemed to be unnecessary.
• The ordinance defines medical marijuana as a “home occupation” in addition to “facilities.” Staff had removed a provision that there be no delivery of medical marijuana at medical marijuana home occupations, but the planning commission restored it. In the form that was considered by the city council, the ordinance requires any transfer of medical marijuana to be made at a patient’s home address, not transferred at the “home occupation.”

Rampson also noted there was a gap in the original draft. While the ability of patients to grow medical marijuana in dwelling units other than single-family dwellings is made explicit, the ability of patients to grow in single-family dwellings is not. Postema indicated that a revision could be made at the second reading of the ordinance, and that he did not feel it was substantive enough to require an additional first reading. Rampson also indicated that a zoning compliance section had been omitted due to a “cut and paste” error, and that it needs to be restored.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) inquired about the need to define a home occupation in connection with medical marijuana – couldn’t that be achieved with a special exception use? He also wondered why patients could not pick up medical marijuana from a home occupation – home occupations are limited in the number of trips they can generate, but such trips are allowed by law.

Rampson explained by way of comparison to a daycare home occupation that there’s a difference, because you need a zoning permit for such a daycare center. Even though visits by patients to pick up medical marijuana would be prohibited under the zoning, other visits would be allowed, subject to the usual home occupation restrictions for frequency and off-street parking, she explained – UPS deliveries and employee arrivals, for example.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for clarification concerning Chuck Ream’s concern about inspections that he’d expressed during public commentary. Postema contended that Ream is concerned about the licensing of caregivers. Postema also said it might be the case that fire inspections and electrical inspections would be required, independent of whether a care-giving facility is located there.

Briere offered the analogy of a seamstress who used sewing machines and steam presses, and who might or might not need to pull additional electricity.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wanted to know the rationale behind the location requirement of a 1,000-foot buffer between medical marijuana facilities and schools. He also wanted to know if “schools” included daycare and childcare centers. The explanation given for the 1,000 feet – provided by Kristen Larcom of the city attorney’s office – was that it’s part of the punishment provisions in the criminal code for drug infractions.

By way of background, Public Health Code Act 368 of 1978 provides that [emphasis added]:

… (2) An individual 18 years of age or over who violates section 7401(2)(a)(iv) by delivering a controlled substance described in schedule 1 or 2 that is either a narcotic drug or described in section 7214(a)(iv) to another person on or within 1,000 feet of school property or a library shall be punished, subject to subsection (5), by a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years or more than 3 times that authorized by section 7401(2)(a)(iv) and, in addition, may be punished by a fine of not more than 3 times that authorized by section 7401(2)(a)(iv).

(3) An individual 18 years of age or over who violates section 7401(2)(a)(iv) by possessing with intent to deliver to another person on or within 1,000 feet of school property or a library a controlled substance described in schedule 1 or 2 that is either a narcotic drug or described in section 7214(a)(iv) shall be punished, subject to subsection (5), by a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years or more than twice that authorized by section 7401(2)(a)(iv) and, in addition, may be punished by a fine of not more than 3 times that authorized by section 7401(2)(a)(iv).

(4) An individual 18 years of age or over who violates section 7401b or 7403(2)(a)(v), (b), (c), or (d) by possessing gamma-butyrolactone or a controlled substance on or within 1,000 feet of school property or a library shall be punished by a term of imprisonment or a fine, or both, of not more than twice that authorized by section 7401b or 7403(2)(a)(v), (b), (c), or (d).

The idea is that if a drug offense is committed, the punishment is greater, if that offense is committed within 1,000 feet of a school or library.

Childcare centers are not included in the proposed zoning ordinance as part of the 1,000-foot restrictions, said Larcom, because they are not included in the state law. Hohnke wanted to know if changes to the 1,000-foot requirement could be undertaken at the second reading of the ordinance, without the change being substantive. City attorney Stephen Postema seemed to indicate that the kind of changes Hohnke was contemplating could be undertaken at the second reading of the ordinance.

Postema also weighed in saying that medical marijuana is not legal under federal law, saying, “I can’t hide that fact.”

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the medical marijuana zoning ordinance at its first reading. There is no licensing scheme included in the zoning ordinance.

Medical Marijuana: Council Directive to City Attorney

During deliberations on the zoning ordinance, city attorney Stephen Postema clarified that there was no licensing scheme as part of the zoning ordinance – “we’d need direction from council on that,” he said. He contended that the planning staff has looked at the experiences of other communities and there had been problems. Postema did not specify what the problems were.

Councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Of cities in the U.S., Postema described Oakland, Calif. as having the most regulated system of marijuana distribution. Proponents of medical marijuana, Postema said, recognized that regulation is the key to success, but he repeated more than once that it’s for the city council to decide the issue. Postema warned that there are distributors looking at Ann Arbor who are poised to come into town to set up shop as quickly as possible.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that his understanding is that Oakland has licensing requirements that stipulate that medical marijuana dispensaries be nonprofits – he would be a proponent of that, Kunselman said. He noted that in Los Angeles the number of medical marijuana dispensaries had become something of a joke – there are more dispensaries than coffee shops. He  weighed in for a requirement that the licensing scheme force dispensaries to be nonprofit entities. He felt that it would result in fewer, but larger dispensaries.

After the vote on the ordinance change, Postema stated that he needed direction from the council before he could proceed to develop a licensing scheme. In response, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the city’s planning commission, noted that the planning commission had recommended that a licensing scheme be developed. He indicated that his understanding is that there’s a lot that can’t be accomplished with just zoning regulations.

Postema responded by saying that’s not enough direction. He said he needed a timeframe. [The 120-day moratorium on use of land as a medical marijuana facility was passed by the city council on Aug. 5, and thus expires on Dec. 3.] The second reading for the zoning ordinance is scheduled for the second meeting in November, which is Nov. 15, he said. [The council's first meeting in December is Dec. 6]. The conclusion to the discussion on the timeframe directive to the city attorney seemed to be that a draft of a licensing scheme would be developed for presentation as a first reading at the same time the zoning regulations were presented for second reading, accepting the fact that the two parallel approaches would be “out of sync.”

Outcome: There was no motion made or vote taken on the directive to the city attorney.

AHP Zoning Changes

Before the council as a second reading for approval was a zoning code change for areas outside the downtown, across most of the city’s zoning classifications. The changes affect area, height and placement (AHP).

Not included in the changes to AHP is the R4C (multi-family dwelling) zoning classification. The AHP changes are intended to allow more compact use of land, preserve natural systems, accommodate new growth along transit corridors, and locate buildings to promote non-motorized access. [Previous Chronicle coverage of the city planning commission's deliberations on AHP changes: "AHP Zoning Revisions Go to City Council"]

During a recess of the city council's Oct. 18 meeting to sort out computer connectivity issues, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) discusses area, height, and placement (AHP) issues with resident Joel Batterman.

The measure had been postponed from the council’s previous meeting on Oct. 4 as well, at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who said at that time she’d been unable to get questions submitted in time to receive answers from the city staff. The AHP staff-recommended ordinance changes had, at one time, included no provision for absolute height limits, with building height regulated indirectly by floor-area-ratio and setback and open space requirements. In response to feedback from the public, building height limits were added to the proposal – in large part to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods from undesirably tall buildings.

At Monday’s meeting, Higgins brought forth amendments that essentially would undo the height cap on buildings in areas that are not adjacent to residential areas. In the course of the council deliberations, it emerged that Higgins’ amendments, if approved, would require the proposal to re-start its process before the city council, with a first reading, a second reading and another public hearing.

AHP: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) led off deliberations by recounting at least six public meetings on the topic. She described how restrictions on height near residential areas are essential, but that in areas in the south part of town – near Briarwood Mall, for example – such restrictions are not necessary, because those areas do not abut residential neighborhoods. She noted that part of the intent behind the AHP zoning overhaul is to help make these areas employment and economic drivers for the city – height restrictions might impinge on that.

Higgins introduced amendments to the AHP proposal that removed height restrictions for areas that do not abut residential neighborhoods.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) wanted to make sure that the result of Higgins’ amendments would not have a negative impact on parks. She said she didn’t want to see “towers” being built up along the Huron River or in view of other parks. City planner Jeff Kahan indicated to Teall that it would be possible to add parks – in addition to residential areas – to the kinds of areas that would be buffered by Higgins’ amendments.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the council’s representative to the city planning commission, described the AHP proposal as a complex and widespread zoning change. The inclusion of height limits, he said, had had a possible unintended consequence of restricting growth in areas like Briarwood Mall – but it was amendable, he said. So he suggested adoption of Higgins’ amendment, with other issues to be dealt with as they come up.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he recalled from his previous service on the city’s planning commission that there was an opportunity for a developer to obtain a variance – perhaps the issue that had been identified could be addressed by variances on a case-by-case basis. Kahan explained that a variance would probably not be an appropriate mechanism, but that there was built-in flexibility in other ways: planned projects and planned unit developments.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) with zoning maps during the discussion of AHP revisions.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted to know what the effect is of the airport on building heights. [The municipal airport is located south of Briarwood Mall in the south part of town, which was the area of concern for the AHP heights.] Kahan explained that plans for new developments that are located in the airport’s fly zone are reviewed by the airport, confirming for Taylor that even if building heights were, by city ordinance, uncapped in that area, they would still be functionally capped by federal regulations.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that she and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had been looking at maps during the deliberations and that they’d looked at the North Main Street corridor, which is supposed to be studied by the planning department soon. [The corridor studies to be undertaken by the planning staff were the subject of another agenda item later in the evening, which concerned an additional appropriation to the planning department for the FY 2011 budget.] Briere noted that it’s not merely the Bluffs and Bandemer parks that could be impacted by height restrictions in the AHP plan, but also the Border-to-Border Trail.

Mayor John Hieftje then engaged Higgins in a conversation, which resulted in her withdrawal of her proposed amendment, allowing the council to entertain the possibility of postponing the matter again. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) requested that additional maps be prepared by the staff with pre- and post-AHP setbacks indicated. Higgins thanked the city planning staff for all the work they’d done in the last week in response to her requests.

Outcome: The council again unanimously postponed consideration of the AHP zoning changes until the second meeting in November, which falls on Nov. 15.

City Budget: Two Draws on General Fund Reserve

Two items considered by the city council required modification of the current budget [FY 2011] by dipping into the general fund reserve balance. In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle concerning where the current reserve fund balance could be found in the city’s data catalog, the city’s CFO Tom Crawford responded by pointing to page 4 of the “Monthly Financial Report.” The current reserve stands at $10,760,279 for the $81,617,387 general fund annual budget for FY 2011, which runs from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. The report tracks year-to-date figures for budget line items.

Although the report allows comparison of year-to-date budget amounts to the portion of the year that has elapsed – 17% for the current report – many items do not naturally follow a smooth progression through the year. For example, tax revenues come in to the city at two isolated points in the year. Or on the expense side, certain materials or supplies are purchased one time during the year, not incrementally.

Budget: Council Delays Approval of Court Furniture

Before the council was an item to allocate $160,000 for furniture, paid for out of the general fund reserve, for the 15th District Court, which will be housed in the new municipal center.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by asking CFO Tom Crawford to illuminate how roughly $300,000 could be taken from the general fund reserve that night – she was anticipating another item on the agenda as well, which allocated money to the planning department.

Crawford noted that the expenditures – because they modify the budget – require eight votes on the 11-member council. He also noted that the currently projected fund balance is around $10.8 million, or around 13% of expenditures. He compared that with the minimum range of 8-12%, where they generally like to operate.

How did it happen, asked Briere, that the $160,000 was not in the current FY 2011 budget that the council approved in May? Keith Zeisloft, the court administrator for the 15th District Court, came to the podium to explain that a level of detail had not been reached in the project’s planning that would have allowed for the budgeting of an amount for furniture. He said he did not think it was appropriate previously to simply throw a number into the budget. He also stressed that the language of the resolution specified not $160,000, but rather some amount “not to exceed $160,000.” He indicated that they would try to be as frugal as possible.

Keith Zeisloft, court administrator for the 15th District Court.

Mayor John Hieftje elicited from Zeisloft the characterization of the furniture to be purchased as “essential.” Zeisloft said he had known the expense for the furniture would be coming, but he had not put a figure into the budget because it would have been an “inchoate” figure.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) then stated that she was “flabbergasted” that the furniture expense had not been in the budget. She wanted to know from Zeisloft why he did not have a placeholder line item so that the expense was budgeted four months ago. “We see placeholders all the time,” she said. On the question of the use of placeholder amounts, Zeisloft said, “I will concede that to you.”

However, he stated that his own judgment had been that putting a specific number into the budget would have been difficult to do. “I can accept your discomfort with that,” he told Higgins.

Higgins was adamant in her questioning of Zeisloft, wondering how he didn’t know even roughly what the expense might be just four months ago. She asked if Zeisloft had worked with Tom Crawford – yes, said Zeisloft. However, he continued, four months ago, they did not have finished layouts of the space that the court would occupy.

Higgins then said she was not inclined to support the expenditure – she wanted to see a more detailed list. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) supported Higgins request, saying that he, too, wanted to see a list.

Kunselman then opened up the general topic of the general fund reserve balance, as the council begins to contemplate the FY 2012 budget, which they must approve in May 2011. What’s the projected deficit, Kunselman wanted to know. The number he recollected from projections four months ago was $5 million, he said.

Crawford indicated that they’d done five-year projections, but that he’d not made update projections for FY 2012 yet.  The amount of state shared revenue that the state legislature is allocating, he said, is a significant factor. His office is also analyzing property tax revenues to determine what that part of the revenue stream would look like.

At the May 2010 meeting when the council adopted the budget, the conversation between Kunselman and Crawford on the projected deficit for the following year [FY 2012] was reported by The Chronicle this way:

FY 2011 Budget: Coda – What About FY 2012?

In some concluding remarks about the budget, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said the council would probably feel pretty good about what they’ve done, having saved jobs. But he wondered what the projected deficit might be for FY 2012. Responding to the question, chief financial officer Tom Crawford put that number at $5 million. After the meeting, Crawford clarified for The Chronicle that the projected deficit of $5 million for FY 2012 includes as assumptions: (i) an additional $2 million from the Ann Arbor DDA, and (ii) reductions in the state shared revenue for FY 2011 and FY 2012 of $1 million each year.

At last Monday’s meeting, Kunselman wanted to know how the council could simply pull money out of the general fund reserve, when it appeared that they would need to spend half of the reserve to make up the deficit. Crawford responded by saying that simply spending the general fund reserve to make up the deficit was not good financial practice and not something he expected to happen.

Outcome: The request for $160,000 to purchase court furniture was unanimously postponed, with the expectation that an itemized list would be provided for the items to be purchased.

Budget: Council Approves Corridor Planning Money

Before the council was another revision to its FY 2011 budget [which started July 1, 2010], allocating a total of $153,116 from the FY 2011 general fund reserve to planning and development services. The total is the sum of $83,116 for master planning and $70,000 in corridor planning – amounts that were allocated, but not spent, in FY 2010. The unspent funds reverted to the general fund reserve after July 1, 2010, the start of the 2011 fiscal year. At its meeting, the council authorized moving those funds back out of the general fund reserve. The planning department will focus those funds on corridor planning, not general master planning.

During council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) drew out the fact that the Washtenaw Avenue and State Street corridor studies were winding up to their conclusion and that North Main Street is next in the queue. Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, indicated that the Main Street study could take 18 months.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that she had “real problems” with the request and that she would not be supporting it. The issue is that master planning is a directive from the city council, Higgins said. It’s been a priority, she said, ever since she’d served on the council [since 1999].

In response to questions from Higgins, Rampson indicated that staff had met with city administrator Roger Fraser on the issue around the time he’d become ill and that he is aware of the focus on corridor planning, and she believes he supports it.

Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that the amount to be budgeted had been in the previous year’s budget. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) elicited from Rampson the idea that focusing on corridor planning is considered by the planning staff to be more strategic than master planning. Rampson cited the example of Grand Rapids and suggested that if the city focuses on specific corridors, it can possibly spur new development more quickly.

Outcome: The council approved the allocation of $153,116 to the plannning department. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) dissented.

Glen Ann Place Agreement

Before the council for its consideration was a two-year extension of the 2007 consent judgment that the city reached with Joseph Freed and Associates LLC, developer of the Glen Ann Place project. The extension of the agreement, which currently ends on Nov. 30, 2010, also needs approval from the city’s historic district commission.

Glen Ann Place was a planned unit development (PUD) approved by the council in July 2005, but that did not win subsequent approval from the city’s historic district commission. Freed then filed suit against the city, the outcome of which was a consent judgment. Per the consent agreement, the height of the building was reduced from 10 to 9 stories. Glen Ann Place is planned to include retail and office uses on its first two floors, with residential on upper stories.

With only five of seven members present, the city’s historic district commission postponed action on the extension at its Oct. 14 meeting, and intends to convene a special meeting to discuss the matter, so that all commissioners can be present for the discussion. During their deliberations, the fact that Freed had asked for a five-year extension, not two, was a prominent part of the discussion, with somewhat of a consensus achieved that in two years it’s unlikely that anything would happen on the property.

Glen Ann Place: Public Comment

Addressing a number of topics at the end of the meeting during public commentary – including the Glen Ann Place question – was Jim Mogensen. He noted the historic district commission had postponed their decision at their last meeting. He said it’s interesting that the issue of how to deal with historic districts is still around and the community is still trying to sort through it. He asked what the implications are for the R4C districts directly adjacent to the Glen Ann Place project.

Glen Ann Place: Council Deliberations

At the invitation of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), city attorney Stephen Postema made some remarks on the Glen Ann Place. He was eager to stress the fact that the city felt its legal position on the case was correct, but that the consent judgment was entered because changes to the project had been made that were agreeable to both parties.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Dennis Harder, who represented Freed at the council meeting, to approach the podium, and asked if Freed’s taxes on the property were up to date. Harder indicated they were. Kunselman also inquired about the status of eight employee parking spaces for Angelo’s, a restaurant located across Glen from the site of the project. The eight spaces, said Harder, were being provided elsewhere.

Outcome: A two-year extension was unanimously granted for the Glen Ann Place consent agreement. The city’s historic district commission must still give its approval.

Washtenaw Non-Motorized Path

Before the city council was approval of the special assessment roll to fund a non-motorized path on the north and east sides of Washtenaw Avenue from Tuomy to Glenwood roads. It was the fourth and final step in the special assessment process, which is funding a small portion of the project. [Chronicle coverage: "Four-year Trail to Non-Motorized Path"]

Out of the $1.58 million project budget, the special assessment of property owners totals just under $60,000 for 12 properties, at an average of $4,936 per parcel. Most parcels are being assessed at around $3,500. One parcel, at $16,087, skews the average high.

At a public hearing on Sept. 7, 2010, several residents – whose properties are to have the extra tax levy applied – spoke against the assessment, many of them citing the financial burden.

During council deliberations, mayor John Hieftje elicited the clarification from the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, that the proposed asphalt path is 10 feet wide. Cooper went on to explain that it’s not possible to construct an in-road bike lane along that stretch.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know the basis of the assessement. Cooper clarified that the amount property owners were being required to pay was based on the cost of a standard concrete sidewalk – which is five feet wide. The asphalt material for the proposed path, Cooper confirmed for Higgins, is cheaper than an equivelent amount of concrete; however, the proposed path is twice as wide as a sidewalk.

Outcome: The final assessment roll for the Washtenaw non-motorized path was unanimously approved.

Stricter Stormwater Code Gets Initial OK

At its Oct. 19, 2010 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council gave approval for its first reading of a change to the city’s stormwater code. Under the new requirements, any time more than 200 square feet of impervious surface is added to single- and two-family residential property, controls must be put in place to handle stormwater runoff from a “first flush” downpour. The “first flush” is the runoff from the first 1/2 inch of rain during any rainstorm. About 40% of land area in the city of Ann Arbor is zoned for single-family and two-family uses. The council must still give its final approval of the measure at a second reading, after a public hearing, in order for the measure to take effect.

Stormwater: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the measure, which he said had resulted from work by the Malletts Creek Association and the city’s environmental commission. Stormwater management, Taylor said, is an important part of flood mitigation and improvement of water quality. One of the main culprits, he said, is the amount of impervious surface. The new ordinance, he said, would extend similar provisions already in place for non-residential areas to residential districts. The point of the measure is to help stop the spread of impervious surfaces, he concluded.

Outcome: At its first reading, the city council approved the new stormwater control requirement for increases in amounts of impervious surfaces of 200 square feet or greater. To be enacted, the council will need to give its approval at a second reading, after a public hearing.

Against Hate Crime; For Support of LGBT Community

Before the council was a resolution offering its support for an Oct. 12, 2010 resolution passed by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, which condemned the conduct of assistant attorney general Andrew Shirvell. Shirvell has written blog posts targeting Chris Armstrong, an openly gay University of Michigan student leader. The Ann Arbor city council’s resolution also calls upon the state legislature to pass a proposed comprehensive hate crime bill and school anti-bullying law currently before the state Senate. UM’s board of regents have also expressed their support of Armstrong.

Linda Lombardini, local real estate professional and partner of Sandi Smith (Ward 1), with her son Jason Frenzel, who coordinates volunteer and outreach for the city's natural area preservation program.

The city council meeting began with a mayoral proclamation declaring October to be Transgender, Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual History Month.

Hate Crime, LGBT: Public Commentary

Andre Wilson identified himself as a member of the city’s human rights commission, but said he was speaking as a community member in support of the resolution condemning the conduct of Andrew Shirvell, saying that Shirvell had harassed Christopher Armstrong because he was an “out” gay leader. Wilson recalled being an “out” lesbian student leader at the university in 1978 and that following a transgender transformation, he had come out as transgender. “When Chris is targeted,” he said, “we’re all targeted.” Wilson stressed that it’s not merely the actions of the city council that are important, but rather the actions of each member of the community.

Leslie Stambaugh introduced herself as a member of the city’s human rights commission and spoke in support of the council’s resolution. She described how Shirvell had followed, photographed and blogged about Chris Armstrong, just because Armstrong is gay. Shirvell’s conduct, Stambaugh continued, had caused the University of Michigan to bar him from their campus.

Hate Crime, LGBT: Council Deliberations

The council resolution was sponsored by Sandi Smith (Ward 1). She said she was in some ways happy that the council was considering the resolution, but in other ways sad that a resolution like it was necessary. She said she’d come to Ann Arbor because of its progressive attitudes. She cited the 40-year record of LGBT leaders in the city. She said that she did not want the resolution to reflect a punitive moment, but that it was, in fact, punitive.

Nobody deserves to be harassed, Smith said. She ticked off names of young people across the county country who have taken their own lives as a result of harassment they’d been subjected to. She noted she’d had a chance to meet Chris Armstrong, president of the Michigan Student Assembly, who’s been the target of harassment by Andrew Shirvell, an assistant attorney general with the state of Michigan. She stated that Armstrong did not need to fear for his safety, because he’s got the whole community supporting him.

Outcome: The council unanimously passed the resolution condemning the harassment of people based on sexual orientation and calling on the state legislature to pass legislation addressing hate crime and school bullying.

Confirmation of Appointments

The nominations and appointments on the agenda were confirmed without comment by the council. However, mayor John Hieftje separated out the confirmation of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission to highlight the fact that Appleyard was uniquely qualifed to continue his service on that commission, despite the fact that he does not live in the city of Ann Arbor.

Communications and Comment

There are multiple slots on every agenda 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: Other Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a senior citizen and a disabled person. He recalled how he was a college student back when John F. Kennedy had visited Ann Arbor. Partridge said that we are on the eve of another historic decision, to elect Democrat Virg Bernero, the current mayor of Lansing, who is running against Republican Rick Snyder, an Ann Arbor resident. Snyder represents himself as being smart, Partridge said, but has no experience in government and shows no support for civil rights.

Lily Au addressed the council during public commentary reserved time on the issue of coordinated and integrated funding of nonprofits. Currently, the city and the county are collaborating on the allocation of money to nonprofits, but a proposal to add the Urban County as well as the United Way of Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation into the mix would result in a much larger pool of funds to be administered jointly. [See Chronicle coverage: "Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned"] Au raised several questions about the proposal for integrated funding, including the administrative overhead costs and conflict-of-interest issues.

Montatip Krishnamra presented the council with a large petition regarding Huron Hills golf course.

Montatip Krishnamra addressed the council on the topic of the RFP (request for proposals) that has been issued by the city for private operations of Huron Hills golf course. She presented the council with a giant piece of paper which more than 60 people with a wide range of ages had signed. She encouraged the council to preserve the course as a valued natural feature of the city. [See Chronicle coverage: "Potential Bidders Eye Huron Hills Golf"]

Henry Herskovitz described the regular demonstration he and several others have conducted – for more than seven years – on Saturdays at the Beth Israel synagogue on Washtenaw Avenue, saying they were peaceful vigils. He allowed that some of the 1,000 motorists who drove past expressed annoyance at their activity – which includes holding signs calling for the end of U.S. aid to Israel. But he contended that more motorists would be supportive of them if more people got their news from sources other than the New York Times, which many residents of Ann Arbor now rely on, since the demise of The Ann Arbor News.

The Times, Hersovitz said, had failed to cover the report endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council on the investigation into events surrounding a Gaza-bound aid flottilla on May 31, 2010, which resulted in nine deaths. Six of the killings, said Herskovitz, were described in the report as consistent with summary execution. Herskovitz described a visit to Ann Arbor by the Jerusalem Quartet, performing on Thursday evening, Oct. 21 at the Rackham Auditorium, as an attempt to put a “human face on inhuman behavior,” and he indicated that he would be there to protest against the performance.

Diahann Chatman waited through the entire meeting to address the council at the public commentary general speaking time. She introduced herself as a resident of public housing and a disabled veteran. She reported that she had a neighbor who uses illegal drugs in a way that impinges on her ability to live there comfortably, and that she’d tried to work with the Ann Arbor housing commission. She suggested that new appointees to the commission board need to be able to address people who have health and mental health issues.

After the meeting, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s liaison to the housing commission, approached Chatman and collected contact information for followup.

Comm/Comm: Design Guidelines

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) announced that work on the design guidelines component of the A2D2 downtown zoning project could wrap up in November, but the committee might ask for an extension.

Comm/Comm: City Administrator’s Report

Filling in for city administrator Roger Fraser, who is ill, Sue McCormick – the city’s public services area adminstrator – reiterated several announcements that the city has also made via its website. Those informational items included:

• a free furniture dropoff and pickup from Oct. 22-24 in the wake of the city council’s passage of a porch couch ban;
• an announcement that the city would still be running street sweepers in the fall to address leaves that fall from trees directly into the street – the leaf collection program that invited residents to sweep their leaves into the street has been discontinued;
• the Ann  Arbor Transporation Authority continues to hold public meetings on the development of a countywide transportation plan;
• the opening of a bicycle-pedestrian bridge over the Geddes interchange at US-23; and
• voting among three different city facilities in a contest sponsored by Stonyfield Farms yogurt had resulted in a $15,000 donation to the Ann Arbor Senior Center.

Comm/Comm: Leaves

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that the discontinuation of the loose leaf collection program – where in previous years residents have been able to rake their leaves into the street at prescribed times for en mass collection with front-end loaders – is very controversial in his ward. Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area adminstrator, indicated that there are several private vendors who looked at the change to containerize leaf collection by the city as a market opportunity. She also indicated that the city would still run street sweepers over the streets to pick up leaves that fell there naturally.

Comm/Comm: Email Rule

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported out from the council rules committee that in November they would likely have a recommendation for a change to email rules. By way of background, as part of a lawsuit settlement, the council agreed to formally consider a rule on use of non-government email accounts. The council satsified the requirement of the settlement in the spring by remanding the question to its rules committee, which – by council rule – should have reported back to the council at the council’s subsequent regular meeting.

Comm/Comm: Campus Neighbors Meeting

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported on a University of Michigan campus neighbors meeting, where city staff had given a presentation on fire safety. Students who had attended the meeting, Briere said, were interested in learning how to keep their off-campus homes safe.

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

Absent: Stephen Rapundalo

Next council meeting: Thursday, Nov. 4, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Jim Kosteva (left), University of Michigan's director of community relations, and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) peruse the University Record before the meeting. This week's edition of the Record includes an article on the founding of the Peace Corps. On Monday, the council approved a street closing on Oct. 14 in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps founding. (Photos by the writer.)

First, the council voted to discontinue a pilot program to turn off selected streetlights. The program was designed to save $120,000 for the current fiscal year’s budget [FY 2011]. No additional streetlights will be turned off, and those that were switched off as part of the pilot program will be turned back on.

And the council voted to authorize the issuance of $9 million in general obligation bonds in connection with the parking deck to be built as part of Village Green’s City Apartments project at First and Washington. The bonds could take the form of conventional tax-exempt bonds, or other bonds, depending on which are legally available and most advantageous to the city when they’re issued. The bonds won’t be needed until the construction of Village Green’s project is completed.

In 2008 the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority passed a resolution authorizing that the bond payments be made from revenues generated by the city’s public parking system, which is managed by the DDA. The city council approved an extension to the purchase option agreement for the land at its Aug. 5 meeting.

Two expected votes did not take place. Revisions to the city’s zoning code that would change the specifications for area, height and placement in most zoning districts of the city outside the downtown were postponed at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who said that she had questions she’d been unable to submit in time to get answers.

And in the absence of Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – who arrived late to the meeting – Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked for postponement of a five-year extension of the 2007 consent judgment the city reached with Joseph Freed and Associates LLC, developer of the Glen Ann Place project.

Glen Ann Place was a planned unit development (PUD) approved by the council in July 2005, but that did not win subsequent approval from the city’s historic district commission. Freed then filed suit against the city, the outcome of which was a consent judgment. Per the consent judgment, the height of the building was reduced from 10 to 9 stories. Glen Ann Place is planned to include retail and office uses on its first two floors, with residential on upper stories.

In other business, the council approved a handful of recommendations for liquor licenses, approved a rezoning for the land where the University of Michigan’s new soccer facility has been built, and approved an overhauling of the ordinance that governs how false alarms to fire and police are penalized.

The council also received a variety of updates from staff, including one on the traffic control plan for the East Stadium bridges when they are reconstructed next year, as well as a response from the city’s CFO to recent community discussion of significant unpaid taxes that might be owed to the city.

The city council also accepted a gift on behalf of the city from the Ann Arbor Summer Festival – a giant print of a photograph by Myra Klarman.

Streetlights

Before the council was a resolution to reverse course on a previous decision council made when it approved the budget for the current fiscal year, FY 2011, at its May 17, 2010 meeting. As part of the city administrator’s budget proposal, the city was to begin turning off 17% of the city’s streetlights in areas that by lighting standards were “overlit.” The move was expected to save the city $120,000 a year.

During deliberations back in May on a revision to the budget – to allocate some of the $2 million paid by the DDA to the city to parks mowing – Sandi Smith (Ward 1) saw the issue as one of public safety versus parks maintenance. From The Chronicle’s May 17, 2010 meeting report:

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) was not convinced that mowing and trimming in parks was the best use of the money. She was looking ahead to another amendment that proposed to undo the proposed de-energizing of some streetlights. She said she saw it as a safety versus shagginess-in-the-parks issue.

After the parks mowing amendment was approved over Smith’s dissent, she later proposed an amendment of her own, that would keep all the streetlights on. She got support for the idea from her ward-mate, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), as well as Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). From The Chronicle’s meeting report:

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) worried about the possibility of de-energizing streetlights. He thought it was perhaps a highway exception to general governmental immunity. Public services area administrator Sue McCormick noted that there was variability in lighting already – some residential areas have no lighting, some of them had lighting just at the street corners. She also noted that the areas where the de-energized lights were proposed were already lighted at twice the standard. Mayor John Hieftje asked if it was possible to get a demo.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was apprehensive about the designation of certain areas as “overlit.” He indicated that there were certain areas of the city classified as overlit that he did not find to be overlit. Hieftje indicated he would not support the amendment but would support a demonstration. He said he was concerned about the $120,000 that would need to come out of the city’s reserve, if the city did not go through with turning off some of the streetlights.

Outcome: The amendment to keep all the streetlights on failed, with support only from Briere, Derezinski, Kunselman, and Smith.

On Monday night, the resolution to cease the demonstration/pilot program and to turn the lights back on was sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). The pilot program had been conducted in the general neighborhood where the two men live, and they’d made a nighttime field trip with neighbors, which Taylor had reported on at the council’s July 19, 2010 meeting:

Communication: Streetlights

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported on a field trip at night he’d made with neighbors of the Brockman area to assess the initial result of a city program to deenergize some streetlights in order to save money. The measure was approved as part of the city’s FY 2011 budget, adopted in May 2010, and is expected to save around $120,000. The reaction of neighbors, Taylor said, was uniform: “They did not care for it.”

On Monday night, it was Taylor who introduced the resolution. Kunselman indicated he supported it. He noted that in many neighborhoods, given the large setbacks from the street, and the tree canopy, the porch lights from houses were not adequate illumination for sidewalks. Regarding the residents who complained about the lights being turned off, he said, they had “every right to be discombobulated.”

Mike Anglin asked if it might not be possible to lower the height of the streetlights to gain better illumination under the tree canopy. Hieftje pointed out that many of the lights are owned by DTE and there was considerable expense associated with changing the height of the lights.

Kunselman inquired about a possible city council work session with DTE. In the course of the conversation, Sue McCormick and Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager, clarified that DTE is regulated by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and that DTE proposes rates that must then be approved by the PSC.

By way of background, rates are particularly relevant to streetlights, because they are not metered for actual energy used. Rather, a rate is determined based on the number and kind of lights. With newer, more energy-efficient lighting technologies like LED bulbs, even though less electricity is used by them, there is no cost savings, unless there is a rate established for the bulbs.

Brix explained that in January of 2010, the PSC had required all utilities to file an LED streetlight rate with the commission. From The Chronicle’s background provided in one of the spring budget meeting reports ["Budget Round 4: Lights, Streets, Grass"]:

According to Michigan Public Service Commission spokeswoman Judy Palnau, the MPSC issued an order on Jan. 11, 2010 that required DTE to file an application with MPSC seeking approval of rates on un-metered streetlights that would accommodate newer lighting technologies. The deadline for submission was Feb. 10, 2010. However, the issue of these LED rates is still pending at the MPSC.

At Monday’s meeting, however, Brix said that DTE had not articulated a rate in terms of “here’s your equipment, here’s your cost” but rather had provided a paragraph indicating a willingness to work with customers on installation of alternative lighting technologies.

Brix then described a limited pilot program in which 58 lights had been converted to LED bulbs in cooperation with DTE, where half the cost had been shared by DTE – otherwise, the conversion would not have made sense to the city from the expense side. The area of that 58-light LED pilot, said Brix, was bounded roughly by Hill, Packard, and East University.

Related to a different streetlight project, Brix also confirmed that the city had initially had trouble getting credit for an agreed-upon reduced rate for LED streetlights installed in downtown Ann Arbor. However, he reported that communication was now better and that the city had been back-credited, so the city had been “made whole,” he said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that there is also an LED streetlight installation in the Glendale area, and that the residents are extremely satisfied. Prompted by Hohnke, Brix confirmed that with LED technology, there is considerable flexibility to choose the spectrum of lighting – the city opts for a rough equivalent of “moonlight” – as well as 0-100% dimming.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) got confirmation that the new streetlights being installed on Stadium Boulevard between Pauline and 7th are owned by the city. She noted that the residents along the corridor had voted for a different lighting intensity to distinguish the residential section from the commercial district.

Bonds for Village Green’s City Apartments

Before the council was a proposal to authorize issuance of $9 million in general obligation bonds in connection with the parking deck to be built as part of Village Green’s City Apartments project at First and Washington.

The bonds could take the form of conventional tax-exempt bonds, conventional taxable bonds, Build America Bonds, Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds and/or Recovery Zone Facility Bonds, depending on which are legally available and most advantageous to the city at the time they are issued.

In 2008 the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority passed a resolution authorizing that the bond payments be made from revenues generated by the city’s public parking system, which is managed by the DDA. The city council approved an extension to the purchase option agreement for the land at its Aug. 5, 2010 meeting.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by expressing his concern about what happens to the bond if the deck does not get built. The city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, explained that the payment is not owed until there is a certificate of occupancy issued for the City Apartments project, and thus the bonds would not be issued until the project was substantively complete. Crawford allowed for some flexibility in that respect, if the city saw that it could get a better interest rate by issuing the bonds a few months before the project is actually complete.

Based on the timeline approved by the council in connection with the extension of the purchase option, Crawford said, the project is supposed to be built by around May 2012.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize the issuance of $9 million in bonds.

Glen Ann Place

Before the council was a request to extend for five years the 2007 consent judgment it reached with Joseph Freed and Associates LLC, developer of the Glen Ann Place project. Glen Ann Place was a planned unit development (PUD) approved by the council in July 2005, but that did not win subsequent approval from the city’s historic district commission.

Rendering of Glen Ann Place. The view is from the northeast. The pedestrian bridges cross Glen Avenue. From this angle, Ann Street is on the far side of the building.

Freed then filed suit against the city, the outcome of which was a consent judgment. Per the consent judgment, the height of the building was reduced from 10 to 9 stories.

Glen Ann Place is planned to include retail and office uses on its first two floors, with residential on upper stories. The site plan approvals in the consent judgment are set to expire on Nov. 30, 2010.

Although Freed was requesting a five-year extension, the resolution the council considered was for a two-year extension. The lawsuit will remain settled regardless of what council action is taken. From the staff cover memo:

The consent judgment granted these approvals … with an expiration of November 30, 2010. The petitioner has requested a five year extension due to current economic conditions. Because the approval of this project was a consent judgment, it is within the City Council and HDC’s discretion to grant this approval if they would like to provide an opportunity for this development to be completed. Whether or not this extension is granted, the lawsuit between the two parties will remain settled. Staff supports an extension of two years, consistent with the City’s policy of extending site plans for two year periods.

The resolution considered by the council also explicitly conditioned any extension on approval by the city’s historic district commission.

The council’s deliberations were led off  by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who had announced during his communications at the previous meeting that the issue would be coming before the council. Derezinski cited the absence of Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) in suggesting a postponement – there would still be time to act before the site plan approvals expired.

The council’s delay, Derezinksi noted, meant that the historic district commission would weigh in first on the extension, at their meeting later in the week.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of an extension for Glen Ann Place.

Area, Height, Placement (AHP)

The proposed revisions to area, height and placement provisions in the city’s zoning code for most zoning designations outside of the downtown area – a notable exception being the R4C area, which is being studied separately – has a history dating at least to September 2008. At that time, the city council asked the planning commission to seek additional public input before moving ahead with recommended changes.

The general spirit of the changes is intended to achieve a variety of goals consistent with best practice in land use, among them, as specified in the city’s planning staff report:

a) more compact use of land and infrastructure;

b) the preservation of natural systems,

c) accommodating new growth along transit corridors in existing urban areas which have existing infrastructure,

d) locating buildings closer to the right-of-way to promote non-motorized access, and

e) mixed land uses.

The anticipated benefits of the changes include, from the city planning staff report:

1. Business and Job Retention and Expansion – The proposed amendments will allow the expansion of existing employment and retail uses that will encourage businesses to remain and expand in Ann Arbor.
2. Revitalization of older Retail and Employment Centers – Many retail and employment centers in Ann Arbor were built more than 30 years ago and have become dated and underutilized. These proposed amendments will encourage these sites to redevelop and be revitalized.
3. Environmental Benefits – Redeveloping sites will trigger a number of code requirements that will result in substantial environmental gains such as: a) storm water management (buildings constructed prior to 1978 typically do not detain storm water), b) landscaping, which will result in additional open space being provided as well as new trees and shrubs, and c) new energy efficiency standards for new buildings.
4. Improved Non-motorized Access – The revisions will result in new buildings being constructed closer to public streets and sidewalks which will improve access for transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians, including those with limited access abilities.
5. Improved Efficiency of Land Use, Mass Transit and Infrastructure – The proposed revisions will allow existing non-residential zoning districts to be used more efficiently and compactly. This will better support transit service, encourage development in existing urban areas instead of greenfields (and other sites without access to transit), and use existing infrastructure more efficiently.
6. Enhanced Housing Diversity – By creating a new small lot single-family district (R1E) and encouraging parking to be located under new residential buildings, these proposed amendments will help expand the continuum of housing choices in Ann Arbor.

AHP: Public Hearing

Jim Mogensen recalled following the issue from the time it emerged from the planning commission’s ordinance review committee. The original proposal, he said, had included no height limits and the city council had caught that fact and sent it back for further public process.

Mogensen encouraged the council to reflect on situations – like the shopping center across from Arborland – that are planning a makeover, but not redevelopment with new construction. Would the new AHP provisions apply? he wondered. He observed that the basic challenge for that shopping center is that it’s “on the wrong side of the street.” In general, he cautioned, there could be cases where an owner had enough capital for a makeover, but not enough to redevelop. The council should think that through, he said.

AHP: Council Deliberations

The council deferred to a request from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) to postpone action for two weeks. She indicated that she had questions about the changes that she had not been able to submit to city staff.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the vote on AHP zoning changes.

Liquor

The council considered recommendations to the state to grant liquor licenses of two types: a micro brewer liquor license for Wolverine State Brewing Company at 2019 W. Stadium Blvd.; and a downtown development district liquor license to Mehak Indian Cuisine at 212 E. Washington.

Before the council were also two ownership transfers of liquor licenses – to Rush Street, at 314 S. Main St., and to Sava’s Cafe at 214 S. State St.

The limited deliberations came from two members of the liquor license review committee, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who noted that the downtown development district license recommended for Mehak was a good sign – investors see downtown Ann Arbor as an opportunity. Derezinski said it would add to the variety of food and social life downtown.

Outcome: The council supported the requests and applications for all four liquor-related agenda items.

Alarms

Before the council was a wholesale repeal and replacement of the ordinance that regulates how false alarms to police and fire are handled when those false alarms are caused by automatic alarm systems. The city itself is moving to an automated system for enforcement and billing of false alarm fees – EnablePoint, which is supposed to reduce city staff time required to track and prepare false alarm billings. The false alarm tracking software will integrate with the recently implemented New World Financial System.

Separately, the council considered a new fee structure for false alarms. Under the new ordinance and fee schedule, registration would be required for fire alarm systems, and the “free” first-time offense is to be eliminated. False alarms from non-registered locations are assessed the registration fee plus the standard fine.

False Alarms Response Fee Schedule (Police and Fire Alarms)

                                   Current     Proposed

POLICE
Annual Alarm System Registration    $37         $ 37
False Alarm Response                $82         $ 82
1st False Alarm Response for
Non-Registered Location             $82         $119

FIRE
Annual Alarm System Registration    none        $ 37
1st False Alarm Response            none        $250
2nd False Alarm Response            $120        $250
3rd and Subsequent Response         $360        $250
1st False Alarm Response for
Non-Registered Location             none        $287

as-

Alarms: Public Hearing

Jim Mogensen suggested that the council be aware that after-hours cleaning services can sometimes trip alarms and that they need to make sure this phenomenon is taken into account.

Alarms: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) expressed some concern on behalf of a resident who had contacted her about the ordinance change. He was worried that a false alarm triggered while he was out of town had previously cost him around $90, but the new arrangement seemed like it could cost him as much as $500.

City fire safety staff explained that there is an appeals process similar to the one used for traffic tickets. By way of background, the $500 figure is not related to the false alarm fee schedule, but rather to violations of the ordinance itself. For example, the new ordinance specifies that alarm companies cannot represent that their equipment has been tested or approved by the city of Ann Arbor:

3. No Person engaged in the business of installing, leasing, maintaining, repairing, replacing or servicing Alarm Systems shall: a. represent to anyone that any of the equipment they sell or service has been tested or in any way approved by the City of Ann Arbor. b. install an Alarm System unless a valid permit is in effect. c. obtain all permits, licenses and inspections required and comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations.

If an alarm company were to claim the city of Ann Arbor had approved their system, then that company would be guilty of an infraction that could be cited and fined for $500. The schedule of false alarm response fees will no longer be graduated. But for frequent false alarms from one location, the new ordinance provides a mechanism for the city to enforce disconnection of that alarm service.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the false alarm ordinance and fee schedule change.

UM Soccer Facility

On the council’s agenda was an item that dealt with annexation of property to the city of Ann Arbor from Pittsfield Township and the zoning of the parcel as public land (PL). The property, owned by the University of Michigan, is located on the east side of South Main Street, south of Ann Arbor Saline Road. The university uses the land for a soccer facility and recently completed the construction of a new soccer stadium. The point of the annexation is to allow the university to hook up water and sewer facilities for restrooms in the new stadium. Fees associated with the hookup include: $37,389 water improvement charge, $97,740 sewer improvement charge, and $14,000 local public improvement charge for storm sewer.

The city’s planning staff and planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning in December 2009, and in the interim, the university has completed construction of the facility.

Soccer: Public Hearing

During the public hearing on the rezoning of the land where the soccer stadium is located, only one person spoke – Jim Mogensen. He characterized it as a “missed opportunity” because the facility is already built. He noted that the planning commission had denied a special use exemption by Arbor Dog Daycare due to noise complaints, and suggested that the same principle could be applicable to the UM soccer stadium. [Chronicle coverage: "Expansion of Arbor Dog Daycare Denied"] The fact that UM was not applying for a special use exemption and was just now bringing the rezoning to the council after the facility was built was characterized by Mogensen as “institutional narcissism.”

Mogensen noted that there are more and more clear commercial enterprises on the university campus. As the university grows, he said, it puts more strain on infrastructure to support it, without a corresponding contribution in property taxes. He encouraged the council to think through what happens when commercial activities take place on public property. He encouraged the council to postpone the rezoning – the facility had already been built. It was worth taking the time to think through the issues, he said.

Soccer: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated her dismay that the facility had already been built before the council rezoned the property. She said that in the future, she hoped the university would “jump through the hoops in the right direction.”

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the rezoning of the university’s land to PL (public land), with the newly constructed soccer stadium, which has been annexed into the city.

Peace Corps

Before the council was a street closing – State Street, from South University to East William – in connection with the 50th anniversary celebration of the founding of the Peace Corps. There will be two events on Oct. 14, 2010, one of them in the wee hours of the morning, to mark the exact anniversary of the 2 a.m. speech by John F. Kennedy from the steps of the Michigan Union. The later event, at 11 a.m. will include as guest speakers  Sen. Harris Wofford, Jack Hood Vaughn, Aaron Williams, Julia Darlow, Mary Sue Coleman and Jennifer Granholm.

The University Record provides additional background: “The Peace Corps: It all started here.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the street closing.

Nominations

The council received several nominations for appointments to boards and commissions that will be voted on by the council at their Oct. 18 meeting. Two of note were Malverne Winborne, to fill a vacancy on the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC), and Tim Hull to fill a spot on the taxicab board.

For background on AAPAC’s own efforts to identify a new member, see “Ann Arbor art commission also seeks two new members.”

Hull has addressed the council during public commentary in recent months on the topic of holding the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority more accountable, and he did that on Monday night as well. He also thanked the mayor for the nomination to the taxicab board.

Tax “Loophole”

Margie Teall (Ward 4), during her communications time, asked the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, about an issue that had been raised at a recent candidate forum by independent candidate Newcombe Clark, who along with Republican John Floyd is contesting the Ward 5 city council seat currently held by Democrat Carsten Hohnke.

Tax Issue: Background

The kind of “tax loophole” in question relates to real estate transactions involving companies that own companies, which in turn own real property – where the transaction itself is not directly about the real property, but which has the end effect of transferring the ownership of that property.

In a court case from 2006, Signature Villas v. City of Ann Arbor, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that in a transaction involving ownership of a company that, in turn, owns real property, the transaction meets the state statutes definition of a “transfer of ownership.”

From the court’s opinion [emphasis original]:

Petitioner asserts that § 27a(6)(h) only applies to the conveyance of ownership interests in legal entities that own property, and does not apply to the conveyance of the ownership of a company that owns a company that owns property. We disagree.

Whether a transfer of ownership has taken place is important, because when a transfer takes place, the effect of Proposal A [passed in 1994] – which limits the rate at which taxes on a property can increase – is undone. From previous Chronicle coverage on tax issues:

When a property is purchased, the taxable value is reset to be equal to assessed value. And the assessed value is an amount set at roughly 50% of market value. But in years subsequent to that purchase, the assessed value of the property will increase or decrease, depending on overall market conditions.

If the market goes up after the purchase, then the assessed value goes up, and intuitively, taxes paid on the property (that is, the taxable value) should increase, and they do. But Proposal A puts a cap on how fast the taxable value can increase. That cap is 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.

Suppose you buy a home for $200,000. If you’re paying the “right” price, based on the assessor’s assumptions, then the assessed value and the taxable value would be $100,000. Further, suppose that the following year, the properties in your neighborhood appreciate by 10%, putting the assessed value at $110,000. And suppose that inflation for that period is right at 5%. The difference between the 10% appreciation and the 5% overall inflation means that for that year the taxable value can’t increase to match the assessed value . Due to Proposal A, the maximum taxable value for the property would be $105,000. On that scenario, the property would have an assessed value of $110,000 and a taxable value of only $105,000.

If a property’s assessed value is currently greater than its taxable value, then a transaction involving that property will reset the taxable value at an amount greater than its current taxable value – so there’s an advantage to the purchaser if that transaction could be analyzed as not an actual transfer of ownership. That’s the kind of analysis the Court of Appeals ruled against in 2006.

For the city of Ann Arbor, then, the question is: How realistic is this idea that there could be $4.5 million in additional property taxes that are currently not being paid, because there were transactions since 2006 that were not property analyzed and reported as transfers of ownership?

Tax Issue: City Staff Response

In response to Teall, Crawford allowed that on occasion, that kind of transaction could take place, but that the city was not aware of any specific instances – the city would address any such cases, he said. He invited the city attorney to weigh in on the issue. City attorney Stephen Postema characterized the recent community conversation on the topic as treating the subject as if it were surprising or new. In fact, he said, it was the city of Ann Arbor that had established the legal precedent that governs such transactions, so of course the city is aware of the issue.

Teall asked if the city was on the lookout for subsequent transactions – Postema and Crawford confirmed that they were. Crawford noted that the issue applies statewide and that the city had a number of “clever ways” of monitoring all commercial real estate transactions – he expressed reluctance at revealing publicly what those ways are. However, he assured Teall that the city does ongoing due diligence on such transactions. Crawford noted that in cases where property owners are identified as being in violation, they must make historical repayment with interest and penalties.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) inquired whether the city might be able to encourage compliance by looking at the possibility of a “tax amnesty.” Crawford replied that this was not an option for a local municipality – the city could not waive the penalties or interest, either.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the Glen Ann Place property – considered but postponed that evening – had changed ownership and could possibly fit the category of properties that needed to have a transfer of ownership recorded. Crawford told Kunselman he would need to check.

Summer Festival Gift

Making a presentation to the city on behalf of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival were AASF board members Jim Kosteva and Jayne Miller, and festival director Robb Woulfe.

(From left to right): Robb Woulfe, director of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival; mayor John Hieftje; Jayne Miller and Jim Kosteva, members of the Summer Festival board.

Kosteva is the University of Michigan director of community relations, while Miller was, until earlier this year, community services area administrator for the city.

Their presentation to the city was a large print of a photograph taken by Myra Klarman, who is the festival’s photographer. Woulfe thanked the council for their past support, noting that typically the Summer Festival appeared before the council to ask for money or to relax wage requirements, but on this occasion they wanted to make a gift to the city.

He said he hoped the city would find a place to hang Klarman’s print. [For some background on Summer Festival funding and wages: "Living Wage: Insourcing City Temps"]

Communications and Comment

There are multiple slots on every agenda 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: East Stadium Bridges Traffic Control

Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, briefed the council on the traffic control plan for the start of construction on the East Stadium bridge replacement, now scheduled to start in the summer of 2011. There will be an east-west detour for Stadium Boulevard traffic, she explained, that will route traffic via South Main, Eisenhower, and South Industrial. The north-south detour for State Street – which leads under the bridge – will take traffic via Packard and Stimpson. McCormick pointed out that this is effectively the same traffic control plan that the city had used in November 2009, when five beams of the bridge were removed. That plan had included input from the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and the Ann Arbor Public Schools, she said.

McCormick advised the council that the city would approach the community again 4-5 months before the start of construction for additional input and education about the planned detours. She also noted that in November there would be a “traffic summit” with the Washtenaw County Road Commission and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, which would be an opportunity to look at the range of other road construction projects planned for the same period. That would allow the city to coordinate and modify the East Stadium traffic control plan, she said. She noted that the plan could be different, depending on whether construction starts before or after schools end their spring session.

McCormick advised the council that based on the experience in November, there could be up to a 40% reduction in traffic volume along the corridor, which would mean that the detour routes would carry 60% of the traffic that would ordinarily travel unimpeded along Stadium and State streets. That’s because driver awareness of the situation would lead people to find other ways without using the detour.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked that the city take a look at pedestrian traffic and how people might get from Burns Park to Pioneer on foot during the construction period.

Comm/Comm: Commuter Rail Excursion Service

Mayor John Hieftje reported that he’d attended another meeting attended also by the mayor of Dearborn about the Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter rail project. Hieftje expressed his optimism about the project eventually becoming a reality, based on the amount of money the federal government is investing in rail transportation through the ARRA stimulus program. At SEMCOG’s Oct. 28 meeting – to be held at 4:30 p.m. at the Henry Ford, Hieftje announced, the refurbished railcars to be used for the service will be on display. They’re double-decker stainless steel cars.

An excursion service would be offered to Detroit’s Thanksgiving Day parade, as well as to the Big Chill, a hockey game at Michigan Stadium between the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, scheduled for Dec. 11. Hieftje also mentioned the possibility of excursion trains scheduled for the Ann Arbor art fairs. He cautioned, though, that there would not suddenly be commuter rail service – it would be built layer by layer.

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

Two people addressed the city council during public commentary reserved time on the subject of Fuller Road Station, a proposed parking deck to be built in partnership with the University of Michigan on land designated as city parkland.

Nancy Shiffler noted that the city’s planning commission had recommended approval of the project’s site plan at its Sept. 21, 2010 meeting. She felt the commission had not considered the precedent it would set for use of park land without the consent of voters. She alluded to the history of the parcel in question, which she contended was purchased with taxpayer money and federal help and was designated as a wildlife habitat. She also characterized the project as bad transportation planning, saying that a parking deck is counter to a goal of mass transit. She also contended that the planning commission had not appropriately applied private development standards, and called the citizen input activities in connection with the project “bait and switch.”

Gwen Nystuen, who serves on the city’s park advisory commission, noted that the city council would likely be voting on the site plan at its next meeting. She said there are questions about used of dedicated park land for a transportation use. She urged the council to take additional time to consider the proposal, saying that Ann Arbor currently has more time than money, so it makes sense to spend some time. [Coverage of park advisory commission discussions on Fuller Road Station: "PAC Softens Stance on Fuller Road Station"]

Comm/Comm: City-DDA Parking Agreement

Fuller Road Station is a topic that has arisen as a tangential topic in the context of ongoing negotiations between the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city of Ann Arbor on the parking agreement that governs how the DDA manages the city’s parking system. The question has arisen as to whether the Fuller Road deck would fall under any new re-negotiated agreement.

At Monday’s council meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) who serves on the council’s committee that is engaged in the negotiations, gave an update on their status. He said the conversations have moved away from the idea of the DDA taking responsibility for enforcement of parking regulations to focus on reworking the language of the existing agreement and the idea that the DDA would become the implementation engine for development of city-owned surface parking lots in the downtown. He alerted his colleagues to the likelihood of a city council work session when the DDA would present their concept for implementation of DDA-led development.

Comm/Comm: Housing Commission

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, reported on a useful field trip the commission had made to Grand Rapids to look at the diversity of options that Grand Rapids had achieved.

Comm/Comm: Single-Stream Recycling

Two organizations, independently of each other, in their remarks before the council expressed appreciation to the city for implementation of the single-stream recycling system.

For the Inter-Cooperative Council, general manager Eric Lipson and president Jeremiah Devlin-Ruelle were on hand to receive a mayoral proclamation declaring October Co-op Month in Ann Arbor. Devlin-Ruelle cited the single-stream system as providing a way for the cooperative housing organization to do a lot more recycling. He also praised the council for passing the recent ban on porch couches, saying it would make Ann Arbor safer.

During public commentary, Ken Wilson, pastor of Vineyard Church, read forth a resolution, signed by 539 people from his congregation, that expressed appreciation for the council’s service to the community, and highlighted the city’s implementation of single-stream recycling as a specific example.

Comm/Comm: NAP Volunteer

Denise Held was honored for her work as a volunteer in the city’s adopt-a-park program. The city council recognizes the efforts of a park volunteer once a month, typically at the first of its two monthly meetings. Held expressed her thanks to Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, for creating Brookside Park in the first place.

Comm/Comm: Community Policing

Jim Mogensen addressed the council on the topic of community policing and the homeless population. The overall context for his remarks is a recently re-constituted task force to look at panhandling in the downtown area. The council approved on Monday night the appointment of two additional members to that task force – Peter Ludt to represent the State Street merchants, and Mary Campbell to represent the Kerrytown merchants.

Mogensen related two anecdotes based on his experience 20 years ago in Silver Springs, Maryland. One involved a building where people had been living as squatters. The building’s owner boarded up the building to prevent people from occupying it. When asked how the people had reacted to having access to their temporary quarters blocked, his response was “What people?” Several people were then discovered inside, still alive but hungry and dehydrated.

The second anecdote involved a woman who called police about people hanging out on the street corner in view of her apartment window – doing drugs, having sex and the like. On investigation, the police determined that the people in question were simply waiting for the bus. When the calls persisted from the woman, the solution that was found was to move the bus stop a few yards down the road, so that bus riders waiting for the bus were no longer in the woman’s view.

Mogensen offered those two anecdotes as illustrations that the solutions to problems don’t always recognize what the actual problem is. As the city considers how to deal with panhandlers, he cautioned, he asked councilmembers to reflect on the fact that we recognize the interest that food cart vendors have in having access to the pedestrian flow. In the same way, panhandlers have an interest and a stake in having access to the pedestrian flow – something we should be mindful of, he said.

Comm/Comm: Integrated Funding

Lily Au addressed the council on the topic of the coordination of nonprofit funding with the city, the county and the Urban County, which is now proposed to include United Way and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. [For Chronicle coverage of a recent meeting of the Urban County executive committee, which discussed the topic: "Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned"] Votes by the Urban County, the county’s board of commissioners and the Ann Arbor city council will be coming up in late October and early November.

Lily Au makes her point with toy boats.

Using toy boats as props, Au warned that the consolidation meant that a big boat was being built. But the problem with a big boat is that it can’t reach a small stream.

She questioned whether the consolidation would actually save money, pointing to the administrative overhead cost that would be incurred – in addition to the administrative overhead of the United Way and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Au also asked who would be responsible for overseeing how the money is spent in the consolidated approach, once the money is allocated.

Comm/Comm: Zoning Reform

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County Democrat with Christian values. He called on the city council to unite the city, the county, and the state and give inspiration to the entire nation by establishing zoning regulations in support of affordable housing. He called for the election of Democrat Virg Bernero as Michigan’s next governor.

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

Absent: Stephen Rapundalo [arrived towards the end of the meeting], Sandi Smith.

Next council meeting: Oct. 18, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Kirk Westphal, an Ann Arbor planning commissioner, adds a topic to the whiteboard filled with possible projects. Read this article to find out what word he's writing. (Photos by the writer.)

After reviewing ongoing efforts like the A2D2 design guidelines and sign ordinance revisions, commissioners brainstormed ideas that filled a whiteboard with potential projects, and spent much of their session trying to prioritize those ideas.

There was much overlap among the ideas and projects discussed, which included issues of sustainability, affordable housing, transportation, commercial corridor areas and the need for better citizen participation – or, as one commissioner suggested, citizen education.

The retreat, held at the Michigan Information Technology Center on South State, included a bit of a history lesson, too. Commissioners heard about previous efforts to allow more accessory dwellings in residential neighborhoods. In the late 1990s, a prior planning commission had seen accessory dwellings as a relatively non-controversial change. But backlash by some residents was harsh, with the mayor ultimately refusing to bring the recommended changes to council. Jean Carlberg, who was on city council at the time, recalled that period: “It was ugly.”

Updates on Current Projects

For the first part of the retreat, commissioners got updates from staff on several ongoing projects: A2D2 design guidelines; the R4C/R2A zoning district study; the Area, Height and Placement (AHP) project; sign ordinance revisions; historic district work; and the fiscal 2011 budget.

A2D2 Design Guidelines

Jean Carlberg asked for an update on the status of design guidelines for the A2D2 project. Alexis DiLeo, who’s managing that project, reported that a task force appointed by city council in February would be focusing on the review process – including what types of projects would be subject to design review, and who actually reviews them. The task force met on March 24 for the first time.

Wendy Rampson reported that two of the task force members – Norm Tyler and Peter Pollack – thought there would be more of a public input component to the group’s work. City councilmember Marcia Higgins made it pretty clear that the public input had already happened, Rampson said. [Other task force members are Tamara Burns, Bill Kinley and Dick Mitchell. Kirk Westfall is the planning commission representative.]

Rampson also said she sensed some relief on the part of Tyler and Pollack that the work done by a self-appointed citizens review committee, of which they’d been a part, was being respected. [The task force is charged with merging a draft of the A2D2 design guidelines, which were prepared by the consultant Winter & Co., with guidelines prepared by the citizens committee.]

Carlberg asked how much the two documents differed. DiLeo said there were wording changes – things like “provide social gathering areas” rather than “create a sense of community.” She described it as a lot of refinements. The citizens committee also didn’t like the photos in the report, so Tyler has volunteered to take new ones.

The meat of the citizens committee’s comments, DiLeo said, relate to process. They proposed that projects be reviewed by a design review board, which would provide a non-binding recommendation. Westphal clarified that they proposed a mandatory review, with voluntary compliance. He recalled that at a public forum held last year at the Kerrytown Concert House, it seemed that most people wanted a mandatory review, but there were split views about whether compliance should be mandatory or voluntary.

DiLeo said that the task force seems to be leaning toward mandatory review and voluntary compliance, but that “the lean might move as we get into it.”

[Previous Chronicle coverage: "Mandatory Process Likely for Design Guides" and "Downtown Design Guides: Must vs. Should"]

R4C/R2A Zoning District Study

Tony Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on the city council, wondered what the timeline was for the R4C/R2A Zoning District Study. Matt Kowalski is the project manager for that effort – he reported that they were planning to hold another community workshop in April. In addition, a survey was going out in April to students who live in the R4C/R2A areas, asking about their residential preferences and whether there are any issues related to where they currently live.

Wendy Rampson asked Derezinski – who’s a member of the study committee – whether the work was progressing as he’d envisioned. He told her that he was glad they’d had so much public input, and noted that Jean Carlberg – another committee member – had brought landlords into the discussion.

No additional timetable for completion of the project was mentioned. The Chronicle followed up in an email to Rampson, who responded that the project was originally intended to wrap up in September 2010, but it’s running several months behind schedule. The delay has been caused by taking time to meet with additional stakeholders, according to Rampson.

Area, Height & Placement

Commissioner Evan Pratt asked whether there were any substantive changes in amendments to the Area, Height & Placement (AHP) project. [For a primer on AHP, see Chronicle coverage: "Zoning 101: Area, Height, Placement"] The amendments would adjust the density, height, and setback requirements of existing zoning districts.

Jeff Kahan, AHP project manager, reported that there will be at least three more public meetings on the proposal: A community forum, a public hearing at planning commission, and a public hearing at city council.

For the community forum, Jean Carlberg asked how they’d ensure that commercial interests are represented. Public meetings on AHP tend to be dominated by neighbors, she said. “This is an imbalance.” Should they be doing a different kind of outreach?

Bonnie Bona, who chairs the planning commission, pointed out that the AHP technical advisory committee had several landlords and developers involved from the beginning of the process. Wendy Rampson asked whether they should reconvene that committee, or perhaps tap the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce’s public policy group to get feedback. Diane Giannola wondered whether it would be useful to have a meeting just for business owners.

Kahan noted that he gets a “fair share” of calls from property owners and developers who are waiting to see the revised amendments. Those amendments are likely to be ready for the planning commission to review in May.

Sign Ordinance

Commissioner Jean Carlberg questioned plans to dissolve the current Sign Board of Appeals and move their work to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chris Cheng, project manager for efforts to amend Chapter 61 of the city code on sign and outdoor advertising, said one goal was to reduce the number of committees and boards. Alexis DiLeo pointed out that the Sign Board of Appeals had difficulty finding members to serve, and difficulty getting enough people to a meeting for a quorum. There will be additional training for the Zoning Board of Appeals about their new responsibilities.

Wendy Rampson reported that the former chair of the board, Steve Schweer, had quit because he was unhappy over a lack of enforcement of the sign ordinances. That’s about to change, she added – Cheng would be starting to ramp up enforcement in April. Looking somewhat glum about that prospect, Cheng said, “There are a lot of illegal signs out there.”

[The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce has notified its members of the increased enforcement. From an email newsletter sent out on March 31, 2010:]

Beginning on April 1, 2010, the City Community Standards Unit and Planning Division will contact offending businesses. Businesses will be provided with written notice to remove illegal signage within 24 hours. If prohibited signage is not removed, City staff will pursue enforcement pursuant to Section 5:518 of the City Code. Prohibited signage will be removed, and misdemeanor citations with fines ranging from $100 to $500 will issue. Illegal signage in the public right-of-way may be removed and destroyed without notice.

According to a memo from Rampson to planning commissioners, amendments are being developed to Chapter 61 aimed at removing inconsistencies in language and making the ordinance more understandable. City council will receive recommendations for changes in the next few months.

Historic Districts

Wendy Rampson reported that Jill Thacher is doing a survey of the Old West Side historic district, identifying contributing and non-contributing structures. Jean Carlberg said it’s hard to get support on city council for historic districts, because most property owners within a proposed district don’t want it. She noted that Kristine Kidorf, who’s a project consultant on the South Fourth and South Fifth Avenue Historic District Study Committee, seems to have identified every building within the proposed district as historic. “It’s a big change,” Carlberg said.

Thacher clarified that for the proposed South Fourth/Fifth Avenue district, the boundaries were actually drawn with the intent of capturing as many contributing structures as possible, and avoiding non-contributing structures. The committee felt like all but one building – a garage – could be classified as contributing structures, she said. But because of concerns raised by Diane Giannola and others, the committee would be revisiting their recommendations. It seemed likely that by the time the proposal went to city council, a few more structures would be designated as non-contributing.

Responding to a query from one of the commissioners, Thacher explained that it was easier to do renovations – like replacing windows or adding a porch – if a structure in an historic district was designated as non-contributing.

The South Fourth/Fifth Avenue study committee plans to hold a public hearing on their recommendations in May, and submit their report to council in June. The planning commission will be discussing the committee’s draft report at their April 6 meeting.

Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO)

This project is underway to overhaul 11 chapters of the city code that are related to development. The goal is to present the material in a more concise, user-friendly way. The project is being handled by the consulting firm Clarion Associates – a draft is being reviewed by staff, and will likely be available for public review by early May. Commissioners did not discuss ZORO at the retreat, though it was noted in a list of ongoing projects.

Evaluations: A2D2 and Citizen Participation

Also on the planning commission’s To Do list is the evaluation of the city’s citizen participation ordinance, which took effect Jan. 1, 2009. [.pdf file of citizen participation ordinance] The commission will also be evaluating the new A2D2 zoning changes in the coming year. Wendy Rampson noted that a project being proposed by Zingerman’s Deli on Detroit Street is the first one that’s affected by the A2D2 zoning. [See Chronicle coverage: "Zingerman's: Making It Right for the HDC"] The second one coming along is Zaragon Place 2 at William and Thompson – developers are holding a citizen participation forum on April 12.

Fiscal 2011 Planning Budget

Responding to a query by Evan Pratt, Wendy Rampson reported that for the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1, the planning department’s budget includes $95,000 for a master plan update, $90,000 for a Washtenaw Avenue corridor study and $65,000 for a zoning code rewrite. The money is coming from general fund reserves for one-time projects, but they’ll use some of it for staff salaries as well, she said.

Pratt said the $95,000 for the master plan wouldn’t be sufficient to do the land use update, and Rampson agreed. It could take three times that amount for a consultant to do that work, she said.

As a final budget note, Rampson reported that the upcoming budget kept all five city planners – Chris Cheng, Alexis DiLeo, Jeff Kahan, Matt Kowalski and Jill Thacher – but they are losing some administrative support staff. She praised the staff, who all attended Tuesday night’s retreat. “You have an amazing resource with this planning staff,” she told commissioners.

Brainstorming: What’s the Big Idea?

The second part of the retreat focused on brainstorming projects that planning commissioners are interested in tackling in the coming year or more. Later there was an attempt to prioritize these ideas, which resulted in more of a conceptual exercise that revealed how some commissioners linked the different ideas being considered.

Section of a whiteboard with brainstorming ideas generated during an Ann Arbor Planning Commission retreat. (Links to larger image of entire whiteboard)

First, we’ll present the brainstorming ideas as they were proposed:

• Diane Giannola: A community-wide discussion about historic districts, and their impact on the city and on development. There can be community guidance about how strict or how loose the Historic District Commission should be. For example, she pointed out that the HDC basically ignores enforcement of paint colors.
• Bonnie Bona: A community discussion about all aspects of sustainability, and how that should inform the city’s master plan.
• Erica Briggs: Research on best practices as it relates to citizen participation. There’s frustration among some in the community that their voices aren’t being heard, she said, and frustration from staff that the same people are always in the room. City planner Jeff Kahan added a component of civil discourse – how to encourage it – and Diane Giannola said it was important to encourage people to come out in support of projects, not just in opposition.
• Eric Mahler and Evan Pratt: Pushing forward with the Washtenaw Avenue corridor study, but also to expand that effort to other corridors, including the South State Street and Plymouth Road areas.
• Jean Carlberg: Rezoning of non-conforming properties as it relates to lot size. Some older areas have very small lot sizes, she said, and that hampers what kind of work can be done in those areas.
• Tony Derezinski: Graphic modeling of potential future downtown development. There’s been a focus on development for the city-owned Library Lot, he said, but there needs to be a broader look at that entire area, including the former YMCA site and the AATA Blake Transit Center. He pointed out that the modeling should include public and private land, noting that Bill Martin owns some “nice hunks of property there.”
• Kirk Westphal: The role of land use and economic vitality, as a leg in the “sustainability stool.” The planning commission is charged with looking at land use, and in a way, he said, land is the city’s wallet – since the city gets revenue from property taxes. He wanted to see more information about budget impacts resulting from decisions on land use.
• Wendy Rampson: The Allen Creek Greenway – it’s a topic that keeps coming up, she said, and she wondered if there was a role for the planning commission in discussing it. Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, is looking at the greenway as a stormwater issue, Rampson said. In that context, she added, Jerry Hancock – Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator – could work to acquire land, tear down houses and string together properties for a greenway. Or is that a role for planning?
• Jean Carlberg: Social sustainability, as it relates to a range of housing options. Rampson said this was known as full-spectrum housing – places to live in a wide range of affordability. Erica Briggs noted that part of the issue relates to how people spend their money – places might be affordable, but people instead choose a lifestyle that requires two cars, for example. Different transportation choices could make housing more affordable.
• Tony Derezinski: A comprehensive look at all types of transportation, including non-motorized, and how that affects development. Assuming that mass transit plays a larger role in the future, how will that affect entrances to the city? It’s broader than just the Fuller Road Station project, he said.
• Kirk Westphal: The role of TIF districts (tax increment financing) in the city’s commercial corridors, and how that relates to economic development. There are a lot of misconceptions about how the Downtown Development Authority is funded by TIF, he said. It’s worth exploring whether TIF districts would be an effective way to fund development of the city’s corridors, like Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street. The topic prompted Evan Pratt to observe: “All the entrances to town are ugly.” There need to be goals for those areas, he said, to improve them.
• Wendy Rampson: The floodplain ordinance and brownfields as a planning tool were two additional topics that the commission might consider tackling, Rampson said.

Making Connections and Prioritizing

After taking a break for dinner, the planning commissioners and planning staff discussed in more detail many of the topics they’d raised earlier in the evening.

Corridors and the Master Plan

Eric Mahler took the first crack at trying to prioritize ideas from the brainstorming session, which Wendy Rampson had written down on sticky notes and posted on a whiteboard. He noted that concepts like sustainability, transportation, fiscal impacts and such were fairly malleable, but that they all related to things that were concrete – like zoning.

With that in mind, he pulled out the corridors project, and made that the hub from which other ideas – sustainability, transportation, full-spectrum housing, etc. – tied in as spokes on a wheel. [link to image of his "world view"] Approaching a project in this way would generate a lot of public discussion, he said.

Evan Pratt said that the corridors project was at the top of his list.

Bonnie Bona observed that when viewed in the way that Mahler had organized it, the corridors project was linked closely with the master plan. The master plan really focuses on commercial districts, and that’s what the corridors are. Pratt described it as a matter of scope or scale.

Rampson said that the master plan included a section on the West Stadium Boulevard corridor, but the others corridors weren’t well-articulated. Jeff Kahan suggested that a section on the city’s corridors could be added to the master plan – it’s a document that can continue to be supplemented, he said.

Kirk Westphal said it might be useful to think of areas as “nodes” rather than corridors. That way, areas like Lowertown and Westgate could be included in the discussion. To avoid getting people bogged down in labels, Pratt had yet another suggestion – refer to them as “opportunity areas.”

Sustainability: What’s It Mean?

Jean Carlberg asked Bonnie Bona what she meant by sustainability, which Bona had brought up in the brainstorming session. Bona replied that it was something the community needed to decide: “That’s the first question – what is it?”

She added that sustainability is an all-or-nothing concept – something is either sustainable, or it isn’t. Bona also identified three elements of sustainability: environmental quality, social equity, and economic vitality. “I don’t think we look at any one of them as a planning commission,” she said. [link to image of Bona's arrangement of topics, with sustainability at the hub]

Kirk Westphal said that tangentially, the commission does deal with those elements of sustainability. He also stressed the importance of looking at a “sustainability watershed” – that is, a broader geographic area within which a community is sustainable. For example, adding another resident to the city increases its carbon footprint, he said, but “do we take one for the team?” Westphal also noted that even the worst non-LEED building in the city is better than the greenest structure five miles outside of town, if you have to drive there.

The concept of sustainability also touched on fiscal impacts of development. Westphal noted that when he talked about “the city’s money” earlier in the discussion, Pratt had remarked that it’s everyone’s money. Pratt is right, Westphal said – it’s taxpayers’ money. But the positive aspects of adding to the tax base through development are rarely mentioned. People talk about “greedy developers,” but they don’t look at how the taxes generated from a development go toward plowing the streets, for example.

Pratt noted that as the tax base shrinks, the current levels of service are no longer sustainable – unless people are willing to pay more for the same services.

Jeff Kahan asked if they should care whether a project has financial benefits. Mahler said it’s a gray area. Westphal added that it’s also a question of who decides what “financial benefit” means.

Some communities talk about having the infrastructure and processes in place to be “development ready,” Rampson said. But in Ann Arbor, there tends to be a fairly antagonistic attitude toward development, with some members of the community saying they want high-quality development. In that case, Pratt quipped, “sustainability” means “don’t change anything.”

Tony Derezinski pointed out that there are generally two sides to the issue of financial benefits. Those that oppose development typically argue that the city can’t absorb more housing units, for example. Meanwhile, the developer argues that if they’re successful, they’ll generate tax revenue for the city.

Mahler noted that there’s also a distinction between residential projects and commercial projects. It doesn’t make him mad if a new residential development causes slumlords go out of business – they need to step up their game. But the same isn’t true for commercial developments, he said. At any rate, he wasn’t sure it was within the commission’s purview to make those considerations.

Diane Giannola said it seemed like they’d be overstepping their bounds to determine what types of businesses could be located in certain areas. Mahler pointed out that in a certain sense they already do this, with zoning.

Mahler then brought the discussion back to sustainability – how is it determined on a project-level basis?

Bona recounted a lecture she’d attended at the University of Michigan Taubman School of Architecture and Urban Planning. The speaker was developing computer-aided design (CAD) technology to model “interactive neighborhoods.” As an alternative to zoning districts, he’d written a program that would determine how much “happier” or “sadder” a specific site would become, depending on changes made to surrounding sites. Bona said that on a couple of recent planned unit developments (PUDs) that had been presented to planning commission, those zoning boundaries were difficult. Zoning is a hard line on the map, she said, but what difference does it make going a little bit beyond those lines? The CAD modeling approach made it possible to throw out those boundaries.

“It sounds expensive,” Mahler joked.

Rampson pointed out another issue – how would the city codify something like that? You can articulate goals, she said, but you also have to find a way to implement those goals using codes that can be applied generally.

Pratt suggested that coming up with incentives – a “bonus 2.0″ system – would be an easier way to achieve their goals, rather than changing the city’s zoning code. He noted that these ideas were all long-term visions, and he wondered where they should start. Also, he said, they didn’t seem to be winnowing down their list of projects: “We haven’t made our volume of work any less – we’ve expanded it,” he said.

Rampson told commissioners that if they wanted staff to focus on sustainability, they needed to say so – otherwise, it would be easy for staff to get diverted to other projects.

Pratt said although he’d enjoyed the conversation about sustainability, until they had even more discussion, he didn’t want to issue a staff directive to pursue it. He wanted to have a conversation about sustainability at the same time as they discussed the South State Street corridor, which he felt was a more pressing issue.

[Related to the issue of exploring sustainability, Bona has scheduled a joint meeting of the city's planning, environmental and energy commissions on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 in the lower level conference room of the county administration building, 200 N. Main St. The meeting is open to the public and begins at 7 p.m.]

Citizen Participation – or Education – and Civil Discourse

Tony Derezinski picked up the topic of citizen participation that Erica Briggs had introduced during the brainstorming session. Taking that as the hub, he arranged the other topics around it, noting that public input was central to everything they did. [link to image of Derezinski's organization of topics]

Planning commissioners Erica Briggs and Tony Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on city council.

Right now, the community is at a threshold, as it tries to re-envision what it wants to become, he said. Regardless of the subject – whether it’s historic districts, or affordable housing, or alternative transportation – how does the planning commission overcome misconceptions to get out the truth?

Diane Giannola agreed, but added that instead of citizen participation, she’d call it citizen education. Derezinski suggested changing “citizen” to “community.”

Often, the public just doesn’t understand things like historic districts or accessory dwellings, Giannola said. She suggested incorporating a lecture or educational component into each of the commission’s meetings.

Alexis DiLeo recalled a project in the past – one that “withered on the vine” – related to “road dieting” and street standards. She said she spent a lot of time “educating” the engineering staff about the benefits of narrower roads, while they spent time “educating” her about the advantages of wider roads. She cautioned that while planning commissioners might think they needed to educate people about the benefits of higher density, some residents might think the reverse is true – that the planning commission should be educated on the value of low density.

Giannola said she thought of it more as trying to inform, rather than convince.

Pratt said he thought citizen participation was something they could work on constantly. The frustration he had was that after decisions are made, people who don’t like the decision continue to chip away at it. That’s the part of the process that could be more civil, he said.

Briggs contended that there were simple thing that could be done, like answering emails. Conspiracy theories develop when people send an email and no one responds, she said. Rampson said that responding was sometimes difficult when emails came at 6 p.m. on the evening of a planning commission meeting. She noted that they’d discussed setting up an automated response, something that would email a reply to the sender acknowledging that their message had been received.

Westphal expressed some skepticism that it was possible to reach everyone. He reported that he’d encountered someone he knew who was a graduate student in urban planning, and who lived close by to the proposed Moravian project. Even though she was a highly engaged person interested in urban planning issues, she didn’t know about it, he said. “I don’t want to rain on the education parade, but …”

Accessory Dwellings

City planner Alexis DiLeo floated what she described as a possible one-year project: The rezoning of non-conforming neighborhoods, and possibly revisiting the accessory dwellings issue. Though there had been “community discontent” over accessory dwellings the last time changes had been proposed, maybe in light of the economic downturn, she said, it was worth another look.

Kirk Westphal asked for a description of what happened the last time it was proposed, and Wendy Rampson provided a bit of background. People were using accessory dwellings illegally, she said – it was something the market was pushing. The proposal to change city code to allow for accessory dwellings came out of a 1999 blue ribbon committee on affordable housing, which proposed various strategies to increase affordable housing stock. It was seen as a way to achieve that goal without new buildings, she said.

Staff and planning commissioners at the time – including Margaret Leary and Sandy Arlinghaus – thought of it as “low-hanging fruit,” Rampson recalled.

As an aside, Leary had used that exact phrase at a meeting of the Ann Arbor District Library board in December 2009, when board members heard University of Michigan student proposals for development on the city-owned Library Lot. From The Chronicle report of that meeting:

Leary described her experience as a former Ann Arbor planning commissioner, noting that the commission couldn’t even get approval to allow accessory dwelling units in the city – a zoning change that was originally seen as low-hanging fruit, she said, but that was “flattened” after two years of public debate.

How is it possible to focus on the greater community good, she asked, when some people will pick apart each project based on their own pet goals, from affordable housing to green space? Even when those goals are desirable for the community overall, if every project is forced to address them, then creative development is stymied.

At Tuesday’s retreat, Rampson said that people on the Old West Side generally didn’t have a problem with it, since the area had a history of carriage houses and outbuildings. But some residents of North Burns Park and the Orchard Hills-Maplewood neighborhoods opposed the plan. They’d had problems with unscrupulous landlords packing houses full of renters, she said, and felt that accessory dwellings would be used to exploit their neighborhoods for student housing.

After intense debate – which Jean Carlberg described as “ugly” – the planning staff was directed to stop work on the project. “I’ve never had a situation where the mayor refused to take something before council, but that’s what happened,” Rampson said.

Because it was seen as low-hanging fruit, it’s possible that there wasn’t sufficient education and communication about the proposal, Rampson added. Jeff Kahan noted that student neighborhoods had been excluded from allowing accessory dwellings, but even so, people were concerned that duplexes would be allowed.

Accessory dwellings can be used to increase density incrementally, Rampson said, and it especially makes sense in times of economic distress. It would be useful for older adults who want to stay in their homes but who need some help, or for people who need some extra income to cover their mortgage. She reported that in California, the state legislature mandated that accessory dwellings be incorporated into local zoning laws – that measure was necessary because there was such resistance to change on the local level.

There is a way to achieve an accessory dwelling unit now, by applying for a special exception use. Only one such application has been made in more than a decade. Rampson said the process required to get the special exception – which includes a public hearing – likely has a chilling effect. The special exception use also differs from an accessory dwelling in that only someone who’s related to the property owner can live there, and no rent can be charged.

Who Takes the Lead?

Jeff Kahan wondered whether the city council had directives for planning that hadn’t been discussed so far. He noted that of the list of projects underway, half of them had been requests from council. What role do councilmembers want to play in this process – how much do they want to be involved?

Evan Pratt said he was leery of asking staff to pursue a major initiative, without having some kind of discussion with the city council. Tony Derezinski, who presents Ward 2 on city council and is a planning commissioner, said it was his role to keep his council colleagues apprised about what the planning commission was doing. But the council should show some deference to the planning commission, he said, just as planning commissioners should show deference to staff. “There’s a sequence of deference there,” he said.

Communication will also happen in other ways, Derezinski said – there’s a lot of informal discussion among councilmembers, so “council will know what’s going on,” he said, describing it as an “informal network of information.”

Rampson weighed in on the issue too. Planning commissioners have been appointed to be “the voice of planning in the city,” she said. City code supports that view, she added: “You’ve been appointed to provide that leadership in the community.”

Yet as the retreat came to a close, Rampson said her sense was that the group hadn’t reached a consensus about priorities, and others agreed they needed more discussion. Bonnie Bona noted that organizing the ideas by creating “wheels” had been helpful in showing the interconnectedness of topics, but that also made it difficult to pull out individual topics and prioritize them.

The commission plans follow-up discussions in the coming months.

Present: Commissioners Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal. Staff: Wendy Rampson, Chris Cheng, Alexis DiLeo, Jeff Kahan, Matthew Kowalski, Jill Thacher.

Absent: Comissioner Wendy Woods.

City planner Jeff Kahan shows a slide demonstrating the contrast between sprawl and pedestrian-oriented development – the top and bottom images are of the same corridor. (Photo by the writer.)

At Cobblestone Farm on Thursday evening, planning staff from the city of Ann Arbor presented proposed changes in the area, height, and placement specifications for various zoning districts throughout Ann Arbor.

The proposal is not a “rezoning” of all the area outside of Ann Arbor’s downtown – it’s a proposal to adjust the density, height, and setback requirements of existing zoning districts. There are no parcels designated for rezoning as a part of the AHP project. The project is thus different in character from the A2D2 project, which will result in a rezoning of the downtown.

The AHP proposal was actually intended to come before city council for approval in the fall of 2008, but on direction from the council, city planning staff were asked to get more community input.

About two dozen people attended Thursday’s meeting, the fifth in a series of at least seven public meetings to be held over the summer months – one meeting for each of five wards, bookended by community-wide meetings. Though divided by ward, anyone from any ward can attend any of the meetings, including the Ward 5 meeting to be held from 6:30-8 p.m. on July 30 at Forsythe Middle School Media Center.

So what is the AHP proposal? It’s not simply meant to clean up ordinance language in a way that has no material impact on future development. The proposal is meant to have an impact on how land gets used throughout Ann Arbor. What specifically is being proposed? What’s the zoning for where you live and work? What is zoning, anyhow? More after the break.

Zoning Basics: No Printing in My Backyard

All other things being equal, it is expected in the U.S. tradition that property owners have the right to use land in whatever way they see fit. Zoning is one way in which not all other things are equal. The basic idea of zoning is that property owners cede certain rights to use of their property, in exchange for a certain orderliness in the evolution and use of the land – that’s considered to be for the public good.

For example, The Chronicle owns a parcel measuring 40 x 90 feet in the Old West Side of Ann Arbor. We might contemplate the possibility of operating a small iron smelting operation in the backyard. Or perhaps more plausibly, we could contemplate operating a printing press somewhere on the lot for the not-yet-real printed edition of The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

In any case, it’s reasonable to think that large-scale printing is not in the public interest in our current location – in the middle of a neighborhood where the primary activity here is just people living: eating, sleeping, walking around, falling in love, and the like. Through their clatter and vibrations, not to mention the semi-trailer deliveries of ink and paper, large-scale printing on big presses would impose an unreasonable  burden on adjoining property owners, who’ve chosen to do no more than just live on their property.

So what’s to stop us? Zoning. How specifically does zoning stop us from printing The Chronicle in our backyard on gigantic printing presses?

The city code of Ann Arbor specifies that:

Ann Arbor shall be, and hereby is, divided into zoning districts as enumerated in the schedule of use regulations and schedule of area, height and placement regulations.

What’s our zoning district? The city of Ann Arbor’s property tax portal allows access to a wealth of information about properties in the city – no need to be the owner of a parcel to check its taxable value, owner information, purchase price of the property, acreage, photograph from the street, or zoning district.

According to that online source, The Chronicle’s parcel is zoned as an R2A district.

What uses are allowed for a parcel that’s been zoned R2A? One place to check what an R2A district allows is the city code, accessible through the Ann Arbor city code gateway.

Chapter 55 Article 2 Use Regulations

5:10.3. R2A two-family dwelling district.
(1) Intent. This district is intended to provide residential areas in the City which are suitable for 2 single-family attached dwellings occupying 1 lot. The district is intended to create areas of essentially single family residential character utilizing 2 single-family dwelling units which are attached either side to side or vertically. The district is intended to be similar to the R1D district, except for the different type and slightly higher density of dwelling units. Locational criteria for the application of this district should include the availability or provision of adequate services to serve such higher densities. It may be used as a transition zone between single-family areas and other areas.
(2) Permitted principal uses.
(a) Any permitted principal use or special exception use allowed in the R1 districts, subject to all the regulations that apply in that district.
(b) Two-family dwelling.
(3) Permitted accessory uses.
(a) Those allowed in the R1 districts.

The permitted principal use for The Chronicle’s R2A parcel thus includes living in (up to) a two-family kind of way, which is what we currently use it for. What the city code doesn’t say, however, is that we can’t use the land to operate presses for printing The Chronicle by including, for example, language like: “No use shall be made of an R2A area for commercial or industrial purposes.” There is no statement expressly prohibiting that commercial or industrial use. However, the “it doesn’t say I can’t” argument founders on this line from the city’s zoning code:

Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited.

Otherwise put, the permitted uses for zoning districts that are specified in the code should be understood as meaning: “Here’s the only things for which the land in this kind of zoning district can be used.”

Jeff Kahan illustrating the idea of redevelopment of existing structures, with the example of the Armory condo building on Ann Street in downtown Ann Arbor. (Photo by the writer.)

What’s AHP?

In addition to the “use regulations” for each zoning district, the zoning code specifies “area, height, and placement” standards for each zoning district. That’s what the AHP project is intended to address for the area outside of downtown – the part of the city not covered by the A2D2 project for the city’s downtown. Around a year ago, it was common to hear the AHP project described as addressing the city’s “donut” corresponding to the A2D2 “hole,” but that description seems to have fallen out of favor.

Area

For AHP, “area” is a measure of density, specifically floor area ratio (FAR). FAR is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to an FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in an FAR of 200%. It’s worth resisting the inclination to think of FAR percentages as corresponding to stories – as in 100% is one story, 200% is two stories, 300% is three stories, etc. For example, imagine a building constructed on a footprint covering just one-quarter of the lot. If it were built four stories tall, such a building would have an FAR of only 100%.

Height

If the “area” in AHP is an indirect measure of a building’s height, then the “height” in AHP is a direct measurement. Instead of the percentages specified in the “area” regulations, the height regulations are expressed in terms of feet. The interpretation of those height limits has come under close scrutiny over the last several months in connection with the “matter of right” version of the City Place project proposed for South Fifth Avenue.

The height definition for a perfectly rectangular building with a flat roof is straightforward: measure from the ground to the top of the roof. For a structure with a pitched roof, the “top of the roof” is by code definition not the peak of the roof, but rather the midpoint between the eave of the roof and its peak. Critics of the City Place project – located in an R4C zoning (multi-family dwelling) district – have argued that the correct interpretation of that proposed building’s eave corresponds to a “dormer’s” eave, which is higher than the building element identified by staff as the building’s eave.

Placement

For a given piece of land and a given permitted use, it’s reasonable to think that adjoining property owners might care about where a structure is built on that land right next to them. It’s one thing to have a printing plant located in the middle of the piece of land next door, with nice buffer areas all around, but it’s quite another to have a printing plant right on the lot line next door.

It is the “placement” regulations of the zoning code that govern where a building can be constructed within a particular lot. Placement regulations are expressed in terms of “setbacks.” For example, a 25-foot minimum front setback would mean that a building needs to have a 25-foot buffer between it and the front lot line.

City planner Jeff Kahan presents the goals of the AHP project. (Photo by the writer.)

What’s the Goal of the AHP Project?

The idea behind the update of area, height, and placement standards is not just to “freshen” them up with new planning vocabulary, but rather to create development standards that accurately reflect current values for land use, instead of the prevailing values at the time the area, height, and placement standards were established – some 50 years ago.

What were the development values of the 1950s and ’60s? They’re summarized by the city of Ann Arbor as: “… segregated land uses, wide streets, large parking lots, large setbacks, single-story buildings, auto-oriented retail centers, and low-intensity employment centers.”

So one stated goal of the AHP project is to establish area, height, and placement standards more consistent with transit-oriented development – which encourages new development, including residential uses, along major transportation routes. After Thursday’s meeting, Jeff Kahan, a city of Ann Arbor planner and manager of the AHP project, told The Chronicle that he’d coordinated the AHP project with Ann Arbor’s recent Transportation Plan Update. In public presentations of the TPU, Eli Cooper, the city’s transporation program manager, consistently emphasized that  transit-oriented development was crucial to the TPU’s success.

Another stated goal of the AHP project is to improve access to facilities by non-motorized transportation and to encourage more efficient land use – providing an environmental benefit.

How Are Current Values Reflected in Proposed Changes?

In broad strokes, the changes to area, height, and placement regulations across various districts can be summarized as follows:

• Area: Allow increased floor area ratios (FAR) – i.e., increased density – for office, research, local business, fringe commercial, and limited industrial districts. Summarizing the proposed changes across all those zoning districts, they would increase FAR from 40-60% currently, to 75-200% as proposed. To the extent that these districts are located along major transportation routes, it’s straightforward to see how proposed changes fit the notion of transit-oriented development.
• Height: Allow increased height in order that a given density can be “captured vertically” – resulting in more open space – or allowing for parking of cars under a structure, which results in less impervious surface, compared to an ordinary surface parking lot. The proposed height increases range from a 5-foot increase (from 30 to 35 feet ) in some residential districts, to an 80-foot increase (from 40 feet to 120 feet) in hotel districts. There is no height increase proposed for R4C – worth noting for the controversy over the height of the City Place project, which is located in an R4C district.
• Placement: Allow decreased minimum setbacks and/or introduce maximum setbacks across a wide range of residential and other districts. For example, under the AHP proposal, the R2A district would keep its minimum front setback of 25 feet, but add a maximum front setback of 40 feet. For local business districts and community convenience center districts, their 25-foot minimum front setbacks would be eliminated. Moving buildings closer to sidewalks would mean that pedestrians would have easier access to them.

We refer readers to a comprehensive summary all proposed AHP changes for details of each zoning district. Note: At Thursday’s Cobblestone Farm meeting, Kahan indicated that the proposed uncapped heights for office and research districts had already been revised, based on public input from the first four AHP meetings – the uncapped height would likely be scrapped in favor of some specific height limit. More revisions to the proposal could be undertaken, said Kahan, depending on public feedback.

Notes taken by planning staff at the Cobblestone Farm meeting. (Photo by the writer. Photo links to higher resolution image.)

Meeting Feedback

Meeting format

Several of the comments from the public focused on the meeting format. One resident suggested that questions be allowed during the staff presentation so that residents did not have to refer back to previous slides. At the conclusion of the meeting, some residents expressed frustration that time had run out for questions – as it had at previous meetings.

One resident requested contact information for the citizen representatives from each ward to the AHP committee.

Marcia Higgins, one of Ward 4′s city councilmembers, noted that the entire process of the AHP project could always be extended – it wasn’t just a matter of possibly extending individual meetings.

One critique of the meeting was that although there’d been a presentation and time for question and statements, there had been no time allotted for a discussion among the community members.

City planner Connie Pulcipher, who along with Kahan facilitated the AHP presentation, noted that the final community-wide meeting had not yet been scheduled, so perhaps changes to the format could be considered for that meeting.

Some residents questioned whether there had been adequate efforts to really engage the community – given the time of year when many people are away.

Some attendees were unclear about the origins of the project. Kahan explained that the initial draft of the proposal had been developed by planning staff working with the planning commission. The draft had been reviewed by a technical advisory committee with representatives from various stakeholder communities – environmental, design and development. The planning commission’s ordinance review committee had then reviewed the draft and made changes. The revised draft was then reviewed at two meetings of a wider group of stakeholders.

That  proposal had been presented to the city council at a work session in September of 2008. The council directed the planning staff to take it back to the public at large for a greater amount of citizen involvement.

This inclusion of stakeholder groups, but without the engagement of the public at large, was a point critiqued at Thursday’s Cobblestone Farm meeting.

R4D and Implications for Other Districts

The proposed changes for area, height, and placement in the R4D district – which is a multi-family residential district – includes an increase in the existing maximum height from 60 feet to 120 feet. Staff were asked to explain where these districts are located throughout the city. There are three sites citywide that are zoned are R4D, Kahan said. One of them, along Traver, is vacant. Kahan explained that there was no proposed increase in density for those districts, but the idea was to capture the current level of density in a possibly greater height, which would increase the amount of open space.

Noting that R4D is proposed to have its maximum height limit increased from 60 feet to 120 feet, one resident asked what would prevent a different district – say for example, R4B – from being rezoned to R4D, so that the parcel could benefit from the increased height limit. Kahan noted that in any actual rezoning decision, the first question to ask was: Is there any justification for the rezoning? He also pointed out that any rezoning required a planning commission process and permission from the city council, stressing that a rezoning decision was “not a backdoor decision.”

Comparisons to Other Communities

One resident wanted to know if there was an optimal ratio of residential/office/commercial zoning districts that seemed to present itself after city of Ann Arbor staff had studied comparable communities. Kahan rejected the idea that there was some kind of “magic formula,” saying that each city pursues its own path. What was important, Kahan said, was to move away from an automobile-centric model to a pedestrian/transit-based model. Key to that move, he continued, was increasing the floor area ratios along transit corridors.

Connie Pulcipher, a planner with the city of Ann Arbor, sketches a mid-block cut-through in response to a question. (Photo by the writer.)

Mid-block Cut-throughs

One attendee wanted to know if there were any incentives for creating mid-block cut-throughs – ways to get through what would otherwise be a solid frontage of buildings across an entire block. The context of the question related to the idea of moving retail buildings very close to the street and locating parking for those retail establishments behind the buildings.

A mid-block cut-through, suggested the attendee, might facilitate easier access from the parking to the retail establishments. Kahan replied that there was no specific incentive for that within the AHP project. He characterized the issue of establishing incentives for mid-block cut-throughs as relating to a second phase of master planning that would eventually be undertaken by the city.

Dicken Woods

One resident expressed concern about the impact of the proposal on Dicken Woods. Present at Thursday’s Cobblestone Farm meeting was Jack Eaton, president of the Friends of Dicken Woods, who clarified that Dicken Woods was currently still a township island. Marcia Higgins, a Ward 4 city councilmember, added that the area still needs to be annexed to the city. Connie Pulcipher, senior planner with the city, confirmed that the only thing that would change with respect to Dicken Woods is that it would be annexed – it would not be rezoned by the AHP project.

What Will Ensure Mixed Use?

One resident had concerns about situations where a residential zoning district abutted a commercial zoning district – which was slated under the AHP proposal to be allowed a greater floor area ratio. His question: What keeps a developer from simply building a bigger gas station with bigger lights instead of a nice mixed-use building with residential units? Kahan noted that it was impossible to dictate to developers exactly what they built, but that the zoning code helped enforce reasonableness through its list of principal permitted uses.

Given where the questioner lived, the conversation focused on the intersection of Packard and Stadium and the four corners of that intersection. What would happen if the owners of those parcels simply started “packing stuff in”? Kahan noted that there were various practical considerations that mitigated against the “packing of stuff into the parcel.” Among those practical considerations was the requirement of stormwater detention on site for new development. In addition, “conflicting land use buffers” would help ensure a certain protection for adjoining residential parcels. [See Chapter 62 of the city code for discussion of conflicting land use buffers.]

On hearing “conflicting use buffer,” the resident allowed that this made him feel a little bit better that the new proposal would not lead to the creation of an “Über-gas-station.” Pulcipher, for her part, sought to elicit from the resident his views of a facility next door that would not be an “Über-gas-station,” but that would include parking underneath the building, some retail, and residential. That was something that the resident seemed not prepared to express a view on, given the hypothetical nature of the question.

Truth in Advertising?

One resident said she liked the images included in the presentation of the kind of development that these regulations were meant to promote, but asked how the city could ensure that the final built product matched up to what was approved as a part of a developer’s site plan. Kahan said that many of the elements that had caused frustration in the past were now made explicit in the development agreement.

The questioner was possibly alluding to the case of the Corner House Lofts building – also known commonly as the Buffalo Wild Wings building – in which the final built product did not measure up to expectations by some, based on drawings and site plans. One notable feature that is frequently cited anecdotally as missing are balconies on the building. Kahan noted that developers were now required to show elevation drawings that included proposed vegetation and drawings that excluded it for greater ease in evaluating what exactly was being indicated in the site plan.

One Size Fits All?

One resident expressed concern that two parcels with the same zoning district classification might exist in completely different contexts, so that “one size fits all zoning” might not be appropriate. For example, the M1 zoning district along North Main and the Huron River is a different context from the M1 zoning districts that exist south of town.

Parking Area In Exchange for Bus Stops?

One resident suggested that in the interest of transit-oriented development one could perhaps imagine allowing developers to retain surface parking lots if they would guarantee that the parking spots could be used as park-and-ride lots for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. This suggestion relates specifically to AATA’s recent eviction from the Arborland shopping plaza.

Timeline for Impact?

In response to Kahan’s expressed expectation that there would not be a rush of development as a result of the proposed changes to area, height, and placement, one resident expressed skepticism. “Developers are constantly sniffing around,” he said. In an allusion to the City Place project, the resident noted that the result of the “sniffing around” was that all of a sudden seven houses on one block are owned by one person. If not developers, continued the resident, then the University of Michigan is sniffing around. Responding to the quality of the kind of development shown in the slides, the resident suggested that the proposal would result in the “Southfield-ization” of Ann Arbor.

Easing the Process for Developers?

One resident expressed shock and dismay that these proposals would be undertaken, contending it would make things easier for developers. After hearing the frequently-repeated principle that if a project met the code, that made it a “matter of right project,” for which the city council could not deny approval, she concluded the AHP proposal would make it more difficult for the council to say no to a new development.

How Many Unrelated People Can Live Together?

Regulations on residential occupancy in the city code specify that:

(2) A dwelling unit may not be occupied by more persons than 1 of the following family living arrangements:
(a) One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship living as a single housekeeping unit, in all districts.
(b) Four persons plus their offspring living as a single housekeeping unit, in all districts.
(c) Six persons living as a single housekeeping unit in R4 districts. [Emphasis added]
(d) A functional family living as a single housekeeping unit which has received a special exception use permit pursuant to section 5:104.

This part of the code has often led to controversy in the case of projects proposed that essentially target the student rental market. Crtitics contend that the six people occupying the dwelling units of such a private dorm do not in fact constitute a housekeeping unit.

On Thursday, one attendee wanted to know when and how the six-person rule came about. Kahan said he wasn’t sure. The attendee suggested that this part of the code should simply be revised downward to four people, which would have the effect of preventing the creation of “mini-dorms.”

Coda

Heading home along Packard, Hatim Elhady – an independent candidate for Ward 4 city council representative who’d attended the AHP meeting – gave The Chronicle a friendly beep on the horn as he drove past. Chalk one up in the positive car-bicycle interaction column.