Jackie and John Farah address the Ann Arbor planning commission at its Aug. 19, 2014 meeting. To the right is Andrew Walters of Metro Consulting Associates, who’s working on the Farahs’ project. (Photos by the writer.)

Both projects required approval of a special exception use from the commission, because the zoning doesn’t allow those uses without it.

It was the health spa/fitness center proposal that drew the most scrutiny from commissioners. John and Jackie Farah want to convert part of an existing office building at 3100 W. Liberty into a facility that would provide personalized training and guidance to help people develop healthier lifestyles. Jackie Farah stressed that the focus is on wellness, not on athletic fitness. The center would be in the same complex as John Farah’s dental practice.

Six people spoke during a public hearing on this project, including the Farahs as well as nearby residents. Concerns from neighbors included the disturbances that additional use of this site would have on their properties. Also speaking against the project was Brian Eisner, owner of the nearby Liberty Athletic Club, who expressed concern about increased traffic on West Liberty. The Farahs stressed that their effort would not increase traffic or negatively impact the residential neighbors.

During deliberations, commissioners considered putting limits on the hours of operation or restricting use to appointments only, but ultimately rejected those constraints. However, they did amend the special exception use to limit the amount of square footage that could be used for fitness center activities – to 9,000 square feet. It does not require additional city council approval.

The other special exception use was granted to the Community Music School of Ann Arbor, allowing it to operate at 1289 Jewett Ave., between South Industrial and Packard. The music school will share the building of Clonlara School, a private K-12 educational institution.

Commissioners also recommended the annexation and zoning of 2115 Victoria Circle, a half-acre vacant site west of Newport and north of M-14. If approved by the city council, the property would be annexed from Ann Arbor Township and zoned R1A (single family dwelling).

Farah Fitness Center

The Aug. 19 agenda included a request for a special exception use to create a fitness center at 3100 W. Liberty.

3100 West Liberty.

The proposal by the owners, John and Jackie Farah, is to convert part of an existing office building on the southern end of a 5.37-acre site into a fitness center that would operate similar to a physical therapy/rehabilitation facility, according to a staff report. The special exception use allows for indoor recreation on a site zoned office (O). It would be part of the Farah Professional Center, which was first developed in 1995 and expanded in 2005.

The site – on the north side of West Liberty, between Wagner and South Maple – includes a 13,000-square foot, two-story building and a 10,000-square foot, one-story building with an 89-space parking lot. The two-story building includes John Farah’s dental practice. The one-story building houses a dental consulting firm and a milling center for dentists and dental labs nationwide. The property is located in Ward 5.

The staff report stated that the proposed center “is a facility available to customers by appointment only, offering less than a dozen pieces of equipment such as treadmills, elliptical, bikes and nautilus machines. Yoga, spinning, massage therapy and acupuncture also will be offered. Hours of operation will be consistent with normal office/health practitioner business hours.” [.pdf of staff report]

The office zoning district is intended as a transition between residential areas and other types of uses that would be incompatible with neighborhoods. In addition to offices – including medical and dental – the office-zoned sites can include salons, funeral homes, artist studios, hotels, and private colleges. With a special exception use, the sites can include veterinarian hospitals and kennels, and indoor recreation.

Separately, the owners have submitted an administrative amendment to the previously approved site plan for changes to the office center’s parking lot. The proposal is to increase the number of spaces from 89 to 104 within the limits of the current parking area. The additional spaces are required to support the proposed indoor recreation use. The modified parking lot would have 70 full-sized spaces, 29 compact-sized spaces, and 5 barrier-free spaces. Of those 104 spaces, 12 would be “deferred” – meaning they will be shown on the planning documents, but not installed.

The administrative amendment does not require planning commission or city council approval. Nor is additional council approval required for the special exception use.

Staff recommended approval.

Farah Fitness Center: Public Hearing

Six people spoke during a public hearing on this project, including the Farahs as well as nearby residents. Some of them had also submitted letters to the commission.

Ira Mark.

Ira Mark told commissioners that he’s a resident of the adjacent subdivision, and lives on Trego Circle. “This building is literally in my back yard.” Almost 19 years ago, he addressed the commission with other neighbors who negotiated significantly with John Farah about the first building that was constructed. He said at that time, the neighbors were guaranteed that the development would have certain hours of operation. Over the years, he’s spent thousands of dollars on landscaping and blackout shades. His neighbors have done the same, Mark said. They still hear cars and see lights from the development.

He indicated that it’s good that the parking won’t be expanded. He hoped that any additional lighting would be minimized. He said he took offense at the Farahs’ statement that the hours of operation won’t be detrimental to the neighborhood. Sometimes there are runners in the parking lot at 5 a.m. – he can hear them talk about where they’ll be running. If the new facility is by appointment only, can people make appointments for 10 o’clock at night or 5 in the morning? Even now, sometimes there are lights on in the building after regular business hours, he said.

Mark said that Farah has been willing to talk to neighbors when they’ve had issues over the years, and those issues have been resolved. He gave the example of trash pickup that used to be done in the early morning. But if there’s a lot of traffic in the parking lot at odd hours, it will be disturbing, he said, and it would potentially impact his property value. [.pdf of Mark's letter]

Brian Eisner introduced himself as the owner of the nearby Liberty Athletic Club – it’s located on the opposite side of West Liberty, in Scio Township. His major concern was traffic. There’s already a problem along that section of West Liberty, he said, citing two very serious accidents in recent years. It’s almost impossible to make a left turn onto West Liberty from the south side, during certain times of the day. His business has been there for 40 years, and he’s seen the traffic pattern change.

Brian Eisner, owner of the Liberty Athletic Club.

Eisner said he knows how many people come to a fitness center, because he owns one. The Liberty Athletic Club has yoga classes with 40 people enrolled, “so these are not small numbers,” he said. The Farahs’ whole business model has been disguised, he said, and he’d like to know what the business model really is. He suggested that the planning commission restrict the number of people that could be in the building at any one time. “I’m just very, very leery about the very, very sketchy information that we have, and how that’s going to impact a serious, serious problem,” he said, referring to traffic. He said he represented the concerns of his club’s members as well. [.pdf of Eisner's letter]

Bill Moorhead, another nearby resident, said his concerns were similar to those stated by Mark and Eisner. He thought that the operation needed to be defined. Is it a spa, or athletic club, or rehabilitation facility? [.pdf of Moorhead's letter]

Andrew Walters of Metro Consulting Associates was attending on behalf of the Farahs, who were also at the meeting. The proposal is for a “modern lifestyle health spa,” he said. It would provide a combination of services that deal with maintaining a healthy lifestyle. The use is consistent with some of the other uses that are allowed without a special exception use, he said, such as health practitioner or beauty salons that provide massage. There is, however, an athletic component to their proposal, Walters added, and that’s what triggered the need for a special exception use.

No parking expansion is proposed, Walters noted. New spaces will be added by re-striping the existing parking lot. Nor is there planned expansion of the parking lot lighting, he said. Ultimately, it will just be a change in tenant of the building, and it won’t be a hindrance to the neighborhood. All the uses will be indoors, and the hours of operation will mostly be during general business hours – 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Regarding traffic, the site currently has office and medical/dental office uses, he said. A health fitness club use would be expected to produce the same or less traffic than a medical/dental office, he said. The people who visit would be spread out during the day, not all at the start and end of the business day.

Jackie and John Farah.

The Farahs also addressed the commission. John Farah said he’s lived in Ann Arbor over 50 years. He’s a runner and believes in fitness. The proposal is to really help people lead a healthy lifestyle, he said. Many of his friends who are his age aren’t in as good of shape as he is, Farah said. “I think I have ways of helping people in the community.”

The place will be limited in size and will be very personalized, Farah told commissioners. He said that Ira Mark knows that any time the neighbors had a problem, he would address it. “I hate to say this,” Farah added, talking to Mark, “but you have never seen any runners in that lot. We have never had anybody congregating there in that lot.”

Before this space became empty, the previous tenants employed up to 22 people at one point, Farah reported. “We will not employ any more than three or four people in that area.” It should not affect the traffic in any detrimental way.

Farah noted that he’s been a member of the Liberty Athletic Club for many years, and he appreciates it. He’s taken many yoga classes there, and there have never been 40 people in a class. Usually the size is 12-15 people, except on Sundays when there are up to 25. That club also has only ??23 bikes in the spinning room, he noted.

Farah said he’s contributed to this community in many ways, and he thinks this new project will benefit the community too.

Farah then introduced his wife, Jackie Farah. There are many interpretations of the word “fitness,” she noted. But their focus is on the healthy lifestyle aspect, “and not fitness in a gym where you work out to become a better athlete.” Their spinning room will have eight bicycles. There will be one private yoga room for one or two people, she said, and the other yoga room will fit 12 people. “We’re really trying to zoom in on a very personal fitness plan for people,” she said. They’re proud of trying to help people, including those who’ve finished physical therapy or are fighting debilitating illness and need to continue with yoga or other instruction. The focus is on wellness, not on being a better athlete, she concluded.

Farah Fitness Center: Commission Discussion

Kirk Westphal wondered whether the description of the operation that’s included in the staff report would be tied to the special exception use – that is, would the special exception use only be valid as long as the fitness center reflects what’s described in the report? For example, the report states that the center will have less than a dozen pieces of equipment. What if the center eventually has two dozen pieces?

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff.

City planner Alexis DiLeo replied that the special exception use would be for an “indoor fitness center.” There are no limitations as to size or hours or maximum membership, she said, and the special exception use would apply to the entire site. However, it could be amended by commissioners to stipulate a limit on square footage, for example, or to put a limit on hours, she said.

Westphal wondered if city code for this zoning district puts any limit on hours of operation. No, DiLeo replied. There are city code limits on construction hours, but for not general business or retail hours.

Westphal also clarified with DiLeo that the special exception use would stay with the parcel, not the owner. “It’s not like a functional family,” she noted – a reference to a controversial request by local Jesuits for a function family special exception use earlier this summer.

Sabra Briere asked about the proposed use for the adjacent property that’s located in Scio Township. DiLeo replied that it’s owned by the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, and is part of the Sister Lakes drain. It’s open space, she said.

Briere ventured that the land creates a buffer between the residents on Trego Circle and the Farahs’ site. How wide is that buffer? DiLeo said she’d check to be sure, but she thought it was around 100 feet. Andrew Walters of Metro Consulting Associates reported that it’s at least 35 feet wide.

Ira Mark gives some information to Sabra Briere, who serves as the city council’s representative on the planning commission. Mark raised concerns about a proposed fitness center near his property off of West Liberty.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that in addition to the drain property, there’s also a landscape buffer for the parking lot. DiLeo said that it’s a conflicting land use buffer, so it should be a minimum of 15 feet. She added that some additional landscaping is being put in, as part of the redesign of the parking lot, in order to meet the city’s current square-footage requirement for a “vehicular use area.” DiLeo explained how the redesign was being handled. Walters reported that three trees are being added to the landscaping, mostly on the eastern side of the site – nearest to the residential area.

Eleanore Adenekan asked about the hours of operation, confirming with John Farah that it would be from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Farah said they haven’t worked out details about whether there would be weekend activity. It might be necessary to be there a few hours, to accommodate the schedules of certain individuals. He doubted they would do anything on Sundays.

Jeremy Peters asked whether the fitness center would take up the entire building – if not, how much space would be used? Farah replied that the building is two floors. His dental clinic is on the second floor, so the center would be on the first floor, with about 6,400 square feet.

Replying to another query from Peters, Farah said there would be trainers available to work with clients by appointment.

Bona commended the Farahs, saying that they’re proposing a great business, so her comments weren’t a critique of their business plan. “Creativity and keeping people healthy is all a good thing – it’s whether or not it’s appropriate in this location,” she said.

Bona said she’s struggling with the use of an indoor fitness center. What zoning district would allow for a more traditional fitness club, like Liberty Athletic Club? DiLeo replied that the bulk of the city’s zoning ordinance was developed in the 1960s, and terms like “gym” and “yoga” are not included. The ordinance does mention indoor recreation – for court games like raquetball, which were popular at that time.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

But the ordinance has to be interpreted for modern times, DiLeo said. So the staff has interpreted and applied the ordinance to allow for a gym or fitness use on sites that are zoned as commercial districts, as well as in other zoning districts – office and light manufacturing – that allow for indoor recreation as a special exception use.

Wendy Woods asked what entity is responsible for West Liberty Street? Briere responded that the road is actually in Scio Township. DiLeo noted that the road is under the purview of the Washtenaw County road commission.

No traffic study is required for this project, DiLeo explained. A study is triggered only if the Institute of Traffic Engineers manual indicates that a site’s use will generate more than 50 trips in a peak hour, she said. Based on this project’s square footage and type of use, it fell below that amount.

Bona said the concerns she’s heard relate to hours of operation, traffic, lighting, and the amount of parking. The principal uses that are allowed in an office district – such as beauty salons, institutions of higher education, hotels, health practitioners – vary widely in their hours of operation, she noted. The district allows for a lot more flexibility than what perhaps the neighbors would like, she said.

Bona added that she was struggling to figure out how the Farahs’ proposed use was different from a health practitioner. She wondered why a special exception was needed in the first place, and it didn’t make sense to limit the hours of operation when some of the other allowed uses would have even longer hours.

Planning commissioner Kirk Westphal.

Diane Giannola said she saw things a bit differently. In a commercial area, there are more comings and goings during the day. For an office area – including a medical center – there would be less coming and going, she said, because people would primarily be entering and exiting at the beginning and end of the work day. So a commercial fitness center would have much more traffic than an office, she said.

Giannola’s concern with this item was that the special exception use would be attached to the property. The Farahs’ project appears to be appointment-only, she noted, which would limit the number of people coming into the site. She suggested amending the special exception use so that it would be limited to appointment-only centers. That would limit it for future uses too, so that businesses like Curves wouldn’t be allowed to operate there.

Responding to a query from Briere, John Farah said the dental consulting firm and milling center combined employ about two dozen people, who work during standard business hours. The same is true for employees of his dental office, though in that case there are also patients who arrive and depart throughout the day. Briere noted that in a way, the fitness center would be like adding dental patients, because they’d have scheduled appointments.

Farah thought the flow of people to the fitness center would be much lower than for his dental office. Walters added that the fitness center wouldn’t be adding to peak-hour traffic.

Planning commission chair Wendy Woods.

Briere pointed out that the entire site won’t be used for one purpose, but it will continue to be used for multiple purposes. She agreed with Bona, saying she’s hard-pressed to see why this fitness center requires a special exception use. She suggested it might be time to revisit the city code, since it’s so outdated.

Bona clarified that her intent isn’t to change the rules, but rather to define businesses that exist today that are consistent with those already allowed. “We’re not talking about allowing things that would have characteristics dramatically different from what’s already allowed,” she said.

Westphal wanted to make sure commissioners all understood what would be allowed under this special exception use, which applies to the whole site. The lot hasn’t been developed as much as it could be, he noted, so if the property changed hands, this special exception use could allow for a significantly expanded fitness center, like a Planet Fitness. He didn’t doubt that the Farahs planned a smaller operation, but he wanted to be clear that in the future, something like a large gym would be a possibility.

DiLeo noted that the staff typically recommends some kind of quantity limit on any special exception use. For example, a special exception use for veterinary kennels would typically limit the number of dogs. Most schools come with a maximum number of students. So perhaps in this case, she said, it would make sense to limit the square footage allowed for a fitness center.

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Westphal said he’d be open to that, as well as to some kind of “generous” limit on hours of operation.

Peters supported a limit on square footage, and also suggested limiting the usage to appointments only. That might address at least some of the traffic concerns, he said.

Bona said she’d like to see this business operate at this location. Regarding the suggestion on limiting use to appointments only, she noted that this zoning district allows institutions of higher education – without a special exception use. Such institutions hold classes, she observed, and those are often held in the evening. “It’s a little odd to put restrictions on a use when some of the allowed primary uses can do more,” Bona said.

However, Bona added that in the interest of allowing this to move forward, the appointment limitation and square footage are reasonable, “especially since it looks like we need to have a more robust discussion about how we define primary use.” She suggested that if revisions to the city code are made, the district shouldn’t be called “office” if there are a lot of non-office uses that are allowed. It misleads the neighbors into making certain assumptions about what could be located there, she said.

Giannola asked whether Farah intended to sell unlimited-use passes for the facility.

Farah responded by saying he was trying to be creative with this project, and to accommodate people in various ways. “I mean, how many restrictions can you put, you know?” Farah asked.

Planning commissioner Eleanore Adenekan.

They’ve thought about whether to offer classes or a lecture to small groups, on topics like nutrition. They’ll probably experiment with different ideas, he said. But in general, it would be geared toward very small numbers of people. That makes it different from places like Liberty Athletic Club, he said.

Regarding limits on hours of operation, Farah said they want to cater to individuals – so occasionally, someone might need to be there until 8 p.m. He didn’t think it made sense to put time limitations. Giannola replied that it’s not a concern with his business, but if he sold the building, someone else could put in a different operation. “I’m not selling the building,” Farah said.

Giannola noted that in 10 or 20 years, that might change. The city can’t take back a special exception use, if all of the requirements are being met, she noted. So that’s why commissioners are being cautious.

Based on the discussion, Westphal said he’d withdraw his suggestion to limit the hours. He also questioned the enforceability of restricting the use to appointments only. However, he’d continue to support a limit on square footage.

Peters proposed amending the special exception use to limit it to 9,000 square feet.

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously on a voice vote.

There was no further discussion.

Outcome on amended special exception use: It passed unanimously and does not require additional approval from city council.

Community Music School

The planning commission was asked to grant a special exception use to the Community Music School of Ann Arbor to operate at 1289 Jewett Ave., between South Industrial and Packard. It would allow the private music school to use the Clonlara School building with a maximum of 150 students at any time.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff gave a report on the Community Music School request.

Clonlara School, a private K-12 institution, is located in a district zoned R1B (single family dwelling), which permits private schools if given a special exception use approval. Most of the surrounding properties are single-family homes or duplexes. Clonlara already has a special exception use to operate with a maximum of 150 students. No changes are planned for the exterior of Clonlara’s 16,900-square-foot, single-story building.

The music school will primarily use the facility on weekdays from 3:30-9 p.m., on Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and on occasional Sunday afternoons. Over the last three years, the music school has enrolled 220-250 students, but on an average day, only about 25-30 students come in for lessons.

Even if there were an overlap in classes between Clonlara and the music school, there could only be a total of 150 students in the building at the same time.

Clonlara School’s 2.46-acre site includes 22 parking spaces in a parking lot off Jewett Avenue, plus three spaces behind a rental house located north of the school building. A one-way drive runs north from Jewett to Rosewood Street.

The city’s traffic engineer reviewed this request and thought that the number of instructors and students on that site at any given time would have a negligible traffic impact. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff reported that there’s good public transportation access to that location, with a bus stop near the corner of Jewett and South Industrial, and other nearby stops on Packard. [.pdf of staff report]

Thacher said she’d received two calls from neighbors about this request, both of them inquiring about how loud the music would be. Clonlara windows don’t open, she noted, so that helps to contain sound. “They don’t intend to hold lessons outdoors on the site,” she added.

Community Music School: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during the public hearing, both in support of the special exception use.

Kasia Bielak-Hoops, executive director of the Community Music School (formerly the Ann Arbor School for the Performing Arts).

Kasia Bielak-Hoops, executive director of the Community Music School (formerly the Ann Arbor School for the Performing Arts), explained why the school would like to move to Clonlara. “We feel that it is an incredible capacity-building opportunity for us,” she said, and also an opportunity to collaborate with a similar organization.

The music school’s activities will not disturb the peace of the neighborhood, she said, and it might even be a resource to the community. She quoted from an email she’d received from a resident who lives on Jewett. The resident described the move as a “win-win” for the neighborhood, enlivening it with kids and families. Maybe some nearby residents would even sign up for classes.

Bielak-Hoops said she’d be happy to answer any questions that commissioners might have.

Martha Rhodes, Clonlara’s campus director, also described the compatibility of the two schools and their focus on lifelong learning. Clonlara has worked hard to become a “green” school, she said, and this change would continue that effort – because it would bring more activity to a large building that sits empty after 3:30 p.m. and on weekends.

The music school also offers the opportunity for deeper programming for Clonlara’s students, Rhodes said, “and an opportunity for both programs to grow together.” She hoped the commission would see it as a really good use of empty space, and would approve the special exception use.

Community Music School: Commission Discussion

Diane Giannola asked why the music school needed a special exception use, since there’s already an active special exception use for a school at that location.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Jill Thacher replied that music schools are considered to be different “because they make more noise than elementary schools,” though she joked that as someone with experience at elementary schools, she might challenge that assumption.

Jeremy Peters noted that he works in the music industry and has a degree in music, so he joked that his question will probably cause his friends to yell at him. He wondered if the school was planning to hold lessons for amplified instruments.

Kasia Bielak-Hoops replied that they do offer a jazz studies program that includes electric guitar. They also have a guitar teacher who gives lessons in both acoustic and electric guitar. “But the plan is to have it indoors,” she said.

Peters cautioned that the music school should be aware of possible concerns from neighbors over noise. He said it didn’t seem like that would be an issue, but he wanted to raise it since the city had heard from residents about it.

Responding to comments made during the public hearing, Kirk Westphal noted that the planning commission does like to see buildings used longer and parking lots filled more times during the day.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously granted the special exception use for the Community Music School.

Victoria Circle Annexation

The Aug. 19 agenda included a resolution to recommend the annexation and zoning of 2115 Victoria Circle, a half-acre vacant site west of Newport and north of M-14.

2115 Victoria Circle.

If approved by the city council, the property would be annexed from Ann Arbor Township and zoned R1A (single family dwelling).

The owner, Abayomi Famurewa, wants to build a single-family home there and connect to the city’s public water and sanitary sewer service. The staff report notes that the city’s storm sewer system does not extend to that area at this point. [.pdf of staff report] Staff had recommended approval.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Victoria Circle Annexation: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere noted that the city has recently annexed several properties on Victoria Circle. Homeowners in the adjacent neighborhood have concerns that driveways would lead onto Newport Creek or one of the nearby streets. She pointed out that the property under consideration looks like it could have a driveway onto Newport Creek. Briere wondered if the city has any restrictions on that type of thing.

City planner Alexis DiLeo replied that Newport Creek is a public street, and the number of curbcuts permitted for any particular property is based on the property’s frontage onto a road. She noted that the property didn’t actually connect to Newport Creek. She didn’t believe the 2115 Victoria Circle site had enough frontage to warrant two curbcuts on Victoria Circle.

Bonnie Bona observed that the property has public land on one side (the Riverwood Nature Area), as well as sites zoned for single-family dwelling (R1A) and two vacant lots zoned as planned unit developments (PUDs). She asked about the history of the PUDs. DiLeo replied those sites zoned PUD are city-owned parkland, though she could not recall why they were still zoned PUD. She explained that the sites are “virtually undevelopable,” because it would require a voter referendum to sell parkland.

Kirk Westphal asked if the city-owned PUD sites were used as cut-throughs to the nature area, and whether the property owner of 2115 Victoria Circle knew that people might use it for that purpose. DiLeo said she wasn’t sure on either count. Briere ventured that there’s not currently a trailhead at that location into the nature area. DiLeo replied that staff could mention it in the letter that would be sent to the owner after annexation is approved.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the annexation and zoning. The item will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods, Jeremy Peters.

Absent: Ken Clein.

Next meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

2115 Victoria Circle.

The action came at the commission’s Aug. 19, 2014 meeting.

If approved by the city council, the property will be annexed from Ann Arbor Township and zoned R1A (single family dwelling).

The owner, Abayomi Famurewa, wants to build a single-family home there and connect to the city’s public water and sanitary sewer service. The staff report notes that the city’s storm sewer system does not extend to that area at this point.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

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

Only five members of the nine-member Ann Arbor planning commission were present on July 15, so Wendy Woods was alone on her side of the table. She was later elected chair of the commission, and moved to a different seat to preside over the meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Developer Tom Fitzsimmons and his partners Peter Allen and Mark Berg were assured that the city council would be informed of the circumstances under which the vote was taken.

The plans call for 22 condos in two new structures and an existing building. The request is for approval of a site plan, development agreement and rezoning – from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface district). The PUD, which has expired, was for a larger development on that same site that was never built – Peter Allen’s Kingsley Lane.

The tallest building at 121 Kingsley West would be 58.4 feet high – just under the 60-foot height limit for D2 zoning.

In other action on July 15, commissioners elected new officers for the coming fiscal year, which began on July 1. Wendy Woods was unanimously elected to serve as the commission’s chair, replacing Kirk Westphal. She has served as vice chair for the past two years. Ken Clein, who has served as secretary, was elected vice chair, replacing Woods in that position. Westphal reported that Jeremy Peters had expressed interest in serving as secretary, though he did not attend the July 15 meeting. Peters was unanimously elected to that position. None of the officer elections were contested.

Planning commissioners also unanimously adopted a master plan resolution and list of resource documents used to support the master plan. This is part of an annual evaluation of the master plan that’s required by the commission’s bylaws. There are no significant changes. Separately, they voted to approve the FY 2015 work program, which planning manager Wendy Rampson characterized as ambitious.

121 Kingsley West

The July 15 agenda included a request to recommend rezoning of 121 W. Kingsley, as well as a site plan and development agreement for a 22-unit condo development called 121 Kingsley West.

Rendering of 121 Kingsley West project, looking south from Kingsley. The existing building is in the left foreground.

The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings above a common parking deck: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building on the south; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the west side of the site, at West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet.

The tallest building would have a height of 58.4 feet, which is slightly below the 60-foot maximum allowed in that zoning designation.

The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The site is surrounded by other D2-zoned parcels on the east, west and south sides. Across the street to the north, the land is zoned R4C, where mostly one- and two-story homes are located. To the west are also one- and two-story homes, though the land is now zoned D2. To the east, most of the homes along Main Street have been converted to offices. And to the south along Catherine and Ashley is a newer office building.

Developer Peter Allen.

Currently, the site includes a two-story brick building on the northeast corner, with a parking lot on the south half of the lot. The far northwest corner of the site, at Kingsley and Ashley, has never been built on, according to Jill Thacher, who gave the planning staff report.

One curbcut is proposed off of Kingsley, which would lead into the parking area between the buildings. There would be 29 “formal” parking spaces below the buildings – though only two spaces are required, based on residential premiums that the project is seeking. The premiums give the project additional floor area, compared to allowable by-right square footage. If premiums were not sought, no parking would be required for D2 zoning.

An elevator for each new building will be accessible from the parking level. The parking level of the east building will include a bike room with 14 spaces, plus three other bike spaces elsewhere in the garage.

Ten street trees will be planted along the Kingsley and Ashley front lot lines, and interior landscaping will be provided.

The developers are requesting that the city change the designation for the street frontage from “front yard,” which has a 15-foot minimum setback, to “secondary street,” which has a zero to 15-foot setback. The proposed new setbacks would be for a 7.35-foot setback on West Kingsley and an 8-foot setback on South Ashley.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff.

Thacher reported that the project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on March 19 and determined that it generally met the intent of the downtown design guidelines. The main objection from board members was their perception of a weak connection between the proposed design of the new building and the existing two-story building.

According to a staff report, the project’s development agreement will address “easements for encroachments onto the City right of way by the existing building, onsite stormwater management, verification of LEED points, six required footing drain disconnects, future façade alterations, and the contribution to Parks and Recreation Services.” [.pdf of staff report]

The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

Developers are Tom Fitzsimmons, Peter Allen and Mark Berg, who all attended the July 15 meeting. Fitzsimmons and architect Marc Rueter answered questions from commissioners.

The project is on the same site as a previously proposed project by Peter Allen called Kingsley Lane. That had been envisioned as a larger development with 46 units in a complex with two “towers” – at four and nine stories. According to a 2006 Ann Arbor News article, pre-sales of the units were slower than expected because of the struggling housing market, and ultimately financing fell through. Last year, at a July 9, 2013 planning commission work session, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the developers had lost the property to the bank, but subsequently secured the land and were expected to submit a new site plan. The PUD for Kingsley Lane had expired.

121 Kingsley West: Public Hearing

Two representatives of the developers were the only speakers during the public hearing. Tom Fitzsimmons said that he and his partners – Mark Berg and Peter Allen – were excited to bring new housing to the downtown area. Allen and Berg have been working on a plan since 2003, he noted. The Kingsley Lane project was a previously approved PUD, with mostly housing. It was 105 feet tall with nine stories, he said.

From left: Architect Marc Rueter and developer Tom Fitzsimmons.

Fitzsimmons pointed out that he’s done a lot of work in the near downtown area, in both R4 and D2 zoning districts. He thought this project was a good one, in terms of meeting the D2 zoning guidelines, and providing a design that transitions from the near-downtown neighborhoods to the downtown. He hoped the project would receive a recommendation of approval.

Architect Marc Rueter described the design concept. The first objective was to introduce the site to traffic coming off of Kingsley, with the parking almost completely hidden from view. One of the comments from the design review board was that there should be “a little more interest” from Kingsley, he said. At that time, there were fewer windows and no balconies on that side. Since then, the design has been revised to add more balconies and windows on the north side facing Kingsley. Also, some of the materials have been changed from brick to a very dark porcelain tile on the main building.

Rueter also pointed out that the trash dumpsters are completely enclosed in a garage that will be opened on trash day. The mechanical equipment is also completely concealed, he said.

One of the project’s objectives was to try to get as much pedestrian connection to the site as possible, Rueter explained. So there’s a small stairway and ramp coming off Kingsley, leading to a community area on the site. Pedestrians can also enter off Ashley, or off of the alley, which Rueter said would be a good place for pizza delivery, mail, and other service deliveries. All the pedestrian entrances come together in the center of the site, where there’s a fairly large community deck.

121 Kingsley West: Commission Discussion

Before beginning the discussion, Wendy Woods noted that because only five commissioners were present, it would not be possible to achieve the six votes necessary for a recommendation of approval. She characterized that outcome as a “technical denial,” and noted that the council would be aware of the circumstances.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Diane Giannola asked if the existing brick building is historic. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff replied that it was built in 1947, and isn’t located in an historic district. So it’s not considered historic.

Giannola then asked whether the units would be apartments or condominiums. Tom Fitzsimmons from the development team said they planned to market the units as condos. The old building will be converted into one condominium unit, although they’ll be flexible if there’s not the demand for that. He said the project has received a lot of interest from people who want to live downtown.

Kirk Westphal asked about floor-area ratio (FAR). FAR – a measure of density – 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 a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.

The 121 Kingsley West project has a proposed 247% FAR. The maximum allowed by right is 200%, and the maximum with premiums is 400%. Thacher pointed out that the project doesn’t use all the available premiums – only the premiums given for residential development. Planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that it’s not possible to achieve 400% FAR using only the residential premiums.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Westphal noted that it would be possible to achieve a higher FAR, and also pointed out that the project has parking spaces far in excess of the requirements. He asked if the developer would like to comment.

Fitzsimmons replied that they’re designing a building to fit well within the scale of the area. Some of the constraints are the basic zoning guidelines of height, setbacks and other design aspects. They’re keeping the existing building on site, so the design is based around that. “We looked at the whole thing as a package,” he said. They are not trying to max out every possible square foot.

In developing condominiums, there are tradeoffs, Fitzsimmons said. They have to make sure there’s enough available parking, which isn’t as critical if you’re marketing apartments. It would be nice if everyone who lived downtown didn’t have cars, he added, “but that’s just not reality where we’re at.”

Building codes are another issue, he noted. That includes how the project deals with elevator access to the upper floors, and how the mezzanine level is handled. The top floor is really a mezzanine, he explained – covering one-third of the floor below it. That was done so that the top floor wouldn’t visually overwhelm the area, Fitzsimmons said. It’s similar to the Liberty Lofts building on the Old West Side, which also has many two-story homes on two sides.

So they’re not trying to maximize square footage, Fitzsimmons said, but rather they’re trying to do something appropriate within the existing constraints.

Westphal said he appreciated the effort to tuck away the parking.

Eleanore Adenekan clarified with Fitzsimmons that a condo association would be responsible for snow removal.

Developer Tom Fitzsimmons.

Responding to another query from Adenekan, Fitzsimmons explained that units will range between 1,100 and 2,400 square feet. Each condo will have either one or two spaces of dedicated parking, based on the size of the condo. Additional parking spaces will be available on the site. Fitzsimmons noted that Ashley has on-street parking, unlike his other development on North Main Street.

Ken Clein asked about the height. He noted that the zoning allows for streetwall height of two stories minimum and three stories maximum. The zoning comparison chart provided in the staff report lists the project’s streetwall height at three stories. But to him, the streetwall for the building along Ashley looked more like five stories.

Thacher explained that the zoning code has a provision that allows the streetwall height to be averaged. Rueter described it as “an extremely complex site, and zoning is usually written for flat sites.”

Zoning code allows a project to establish an average grade throughout the site by taking into account all the different grades on the site. Everything in the development that’s more than 50% lower than the average grade is considered a basement, he said. It doesn’t count as a story, in terms of calculating height. The building’s plinth establishes the grade line for the first story, he said.

Rueter further explained that the zoning requires a specific setback, but it also allows a project to average that setback. So that’s what this project is doing, he said. That allows them to slightly decrease the mass on the north and south sides.

Clein replied that it still seems like it’s four stories from the plinth – in the renderings, there are four sets of windows going up, he noted. Rampson further clarified that because it’s on a corner lot, they’re allowed to apply the streetwall setback – the setback that starts at the top of the building’s streetwall – to both the Ashley and Kingsley frontages. The developers chose to have no streetwall setback for a portion of the streetwall on Ashley. They’re applying that displaced setback on the Kingsley side, and elevating a portion of the building on the south side. The city’s code didn’t anticipate how to treat a corner lot, she said. Rampson acknowledged that it was hard to describe.

From left: Planning manager Wendy Rampson, and planning commissioners Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

Fitzsimmons noted that the code allows for some flexibility in how to do the setback. Rueter added that a uniform 5-foot setback is not necessarily the best way to utilize decks or public space, or to achieve a strong building facade.

Clein stressed that he liked the design, “but I’m imagining that neighbors or other people will look at that and say ‘That doesn’t look like a three-story wall to me.’”

Clein also clarified with staff that the LEED premiums would be “LEED equivalent” – that is, there’s no requirement that they must be officially LEED certified. Thacher noted that the development agreement will include plans for how to reach that equivalent status, and how they’ll prove it before building permits are issued. Rampson added that a registered LEED professional will have to sign off on it, and it’s intended to be an objective evaluation. The premiums are awarded for “energy and atmosphere” points, she explained, not just general LEED points.

As is his habit, Clein asked about the building materials that are proposed. Rueter replied that originally, the design called for brick on the lower level, to tie in with the existing building. But the design review board had suggested using a different material that would allow them to keep the existing building painted a dark green. So instead of stripping the paint off that building, they decided not to use brick on the other buildings, and instead chose a porcelain tile. Other materials include cementitious panel system, which would be painted a dark color, as well as a lighter-colored HardiPlank and corrugated steel.

Clein also clarified with staff that the stormwater management system will be detaining water underground until it infiltrates.

Wendy Woods said she liked the dark green color of the existing building, saying it reminded her of California. Rueter said the color scheme is taken from Aubrey’s and Sidetrack in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning, site plan and development agreement. However, only five commissioners were present, so it failed to achieve the six votes needed for a recommendation of approval. It will be forwarded to the city council with a recommendation of denial, with an explanation of the attendance.

Officer Elections, Bylaws

The July 15 agenda included organizational items for the new fiscal year, which began July 1. The commission holds officer elections at this time each year. This was the first major item on the agenda.

The elections were held according to the commission’s bylaws:

Section 6. The election of officers shall be held at the first regular meeting in July, provided that if that meeting should occur on July 1, the election of officers shall be held at the next regular meeting.

Section 7. Nominations of officers shall be made from the floor, and the election shall be held immediately thereafter. Voting shall be by secret ballot when more than one candidate has been nominated for the office. If only one candidate has been nominated for the office, the election may proceed on a voice vote at the discretion of the Chair.

Section 8. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire membership of the Commission shall be declared elected and shall serve a term of one (1) year or until the candidate’s successor shall take office.

Kirk Westphal, who has chaired the commission for the past two years, presided over the meeting until the new chair was elected.

Kirk Westphal cast a vote during the July 15 meeting. He presided over the early part of the meeting as chair until Wendy Woods was elected to that position. Westphal is running for Ann Arbor city council in the Ward 2 Democratic primary against Nancy Kaplan.

Wendy Woods was nominated as chair. She has served as vice chair for the past two years. There were no other nominations.

Outcome: On a voice vote, Woods was unanimously elected chair, with no competing nominations.

Westphal and Woods switched seats, and Woods presided over the remainder of the meeting.

Ken Clein, who has served as secretary, was nominated as vice chair, to replace Woods in that position.

Westphal reported that Jeremy Peters had expressed interest in serving as secretary, though he did not attend the July 15 meeting. None of the officer elections were contested.

These three positions make up the commission’s executive committee.

Outcome: In separate voice votes, Clein and Peters were elected as vice chair and secretary, respectively.

This is also the time of year when the commission’s bylaws are reviewed. Planning manager Wendy Rampson introduced staff recommendations for changes to the bylaws, which had also been discussed at a July 8 working session. She noted that when revisions to bylaws are being considered, the commission must provide notice at a meeting before that potential action.

Planning commissioners had originally adopted revisions to their bylaws at a Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. Those changes related to two issues: how city councilmembers interact with the commission; and public hearings.

Revisions to bylaws require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office did not forward the Feb. 20 changes to the council for consideration. There was no action until earlier this month, when assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald provided suggested revisions to the bylaws related to public hearings. Those were the changes that were presented to commissioners at their July 8 working session, and again at their July 15 regular meeting. [.pdf of revised bylaws regarding public hearings] [.pdf of bylaws staff memo]

The main changes are in Article VIII Section 5 [deletions in strike-thru, additions in bold]:

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another date. meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original. If a public hearing is continued, individuals who have not previously addressed the Commission during the public hearing may address the Commission following the requirements of Section 3. Individuals who have addressed the Commission previously during the public hearing may only address the Commission for additional time (as limited by Section 3) during the continued public hearing if the Chair, with the consultation of Planning and Development Services staff, determines that: 1) additional public feedback is necessary, or 2) a specific petition has materially changed since the date of the original public hearing date. Agendas for continued public hearings shall specify whether members of the public shall be granted additional time to speak.

There were no changes suggested for the revisions that were passed by planning commissioners on Feb. 20 related to interactions with city councilmembers. That revised section states:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.

Kirk Westphal asked for clarification of the process. Rampson explained that after commissioners discuss these revisions at their next meeting, if they adopt the changes then it will be forwarded to the council for consideration. The bylaws must be approved by the council before taking effect.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. The bylaws revisions will likely appear on the Aug. 6 planning commission agenda.

Master Plan Review

The July 15 agenda included a review of the city’s master plan and list of resource documents used to support the master plan. This is part of an annual evaluation of the master plan that’s required by the commission’s bylaws. No significant changes were proposed. [.pdf of master plan resolution]

From left: Planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein and Diane Giannola.

Seven documents constitute the city’s master plan: (1) sustainability framework, adopted in 2013; (2) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, as adopted in 2011; (3) land use element, as adopted in 2013 to add the South State corridor plan; (4) downtown plan, as adopted in 2009; (5) transportation plan update, as adopted in 2009; (6) non-motorized transportation plan, adopted in 2007; and (7) natural features master plan, adopted in 2004.

On July 15, the commissions were also asked to adopt a revised list of resource documents, with two new additions: (1) the climate action plan; and (2) the North Main/Huron River corridor vision report, which replaces the 1988 North Main Street corridor land use plan. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that commissioners had discussed making these additions at earlier meetings.

Commissioners had held a public hearing on a master plan update at their May 6, 2014 meeting, as part of this annual review process. Only one person – Changming Fan – spoke during the hearing, asking the commission to include his company’s technology in the master plan. The hearing continued on July 15, but no one spoke.

According to a staff report, in FY 2015 – which began on July 1, 2014 – the planning staff and commission will work to update the master plan in the following ways: (1) incorporating a right-of-way plan for Washtenaw Avenue; (2) developing a greenway plan for Allen Creek; and (3) revising the future land use recommendations for the North Main/Huron River corridor. They also will assist the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in creating a streetscape framework plan and help city staff identify a locally preferred alternative for the connector high-capacity transit route.

Discussion was brief. Kirk Westphal asked about the sustainability framework action plan, and whether that would eventually become a resource document. Rampson replied that city staff had discussed using it internally as a way to organize the work of various commissions and staff, and to gauge how that work relates to achieving the sustainability goals. “I think it’s more of a communication tool,” she said. However, if the planning commission at some point feels that it’s important to include in the master plan’s resource documents, that would be an option.

Westphal characterized it as a work plan for all the commissions, in a way.

Ken Clein asked where the Reimagine Washtenaw initiative would fit. Rampson replied that a recently competed study of that corridor had recommended a right-of-way plan in order to implement the Complete Streets approach along Washtenaw Avenue. [.pdf of right-of-way study] One possibility would be to adopt a future right-of-way line, she explained, that could eventually allow for a bike lane or a high-capacity transit lane. It would set a mark from which building setbacks would be measured. So it’s listed as a future possibility for the master plan, she noted, as an amendment to the land use element or transportation plan.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the master plan resolution and update to the resource document list.

Annual Work Program

Commissioners were asked to approve the FY 2015 work plan. [.pdf of FY 2015 work plan]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

“This is your To Do list for the next year,” planning manager Wendy Rampson said. “It’s very ambitious.”

In addition to items that are related to the master plan, Rampson highlighted the affordable housing needs study, and the work of the affordable housing subcommittee. That group includes planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Eleanore Adenekan, as well as members of the city’s housing & human services advisory board and staff of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development (OCED). The needs study includes a survey that OCED is currently undertaking.

The work plan also consists of the capital improvements plan (CIP) review, which will begin this fall, as well as several ordinance revisions:

• A2D2 downtown zoning amendments: Completion target – December 2014.
• Citizen participation ordinance evaluation and amendments: Completion target – January 2015.
• Zoning ordinance re-organization (ZORO) amendments: Completion target – January 2015.
• Redevelopment Ready certification: Completion target – November 2014.
• R4C-R2A zoning amendments: Completion target – March 2015.
• Floodplain ordinance/flood insurance impacts: Completion target – March 2015.
• Accessory apartments/affordable housing amendments: Completion target – TBD.

Rampson reported that in terms of staff work load, most of the numbers had increased – for work like development reviews and site compliance activity, among other things. [.pdf of FY 2014 work plan update]

Ken Clein noted that while this work plan is a blueprint, it also depends on work flow coming into the city for developments and other projects, which would take top priority for planning staff. “So petitioners out there shouldn’t be afraid that we’re going to ignore [their projects] because we’ve got all these other great things to work on, and the community shouldn’t be afraid that if there aren’t petitions, there won’t be enough work for staff to do,” he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously adopted the work program.

Betke Annexation & Zoning

The July 17 agenda included a request to annex an 0.09-acre strip of land from Ann Arbor Township and to zone it as R1A (single-family residential).

Aerial view of 2562 Newport. The dark strip is the parcel to be annexed.

The property is attached to 2562 Newport, which was annexed into the city in August of 2011. The vacant strip – 12 feet wide and 330 feet long – was inadvertently omitted in that original annexation. It’s necessary to annex now in order to clear the title so that the property can be sold.

According to a staff report, there are no plans to build anything on this strip. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff characterized the action as “cleaning up and adding this strange little panhandle onto the main parcel.”

Thacher noted that the parcel doesn’t reach Warrington Drive, and would never be used as a driveway. At one point there was a well on this strip, but now the site uses city services and the well has been removed.

The current owners are Erik and Alicia Majcher. The petitioner is Michael Betke. No one spoke during a public hearing on the item, and there was no discussion among commissioners.

Outcome: The rezoning and annexation were unanimously recommended for approval. The item will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners. No one spoke during either of the opportunities for general public commentary. Here are other highlights from July 15.

At a July 8, 2014 Ann Arbor planning commission work session, architect Robb Burroughs showed concept designs for a Toll Brothers residential development along Nixon Road.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager Update

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that there had been a citizen participation meeting about a proposed development along Nixon Road – a residential complex by the Toll Brothers. It was very well attended, with over 200 people, she said – making it the largest citizen participation meeting since the ordinance was adopted. She wasn’t sure when the project would be submitted to the city. [Representatives of the Toll Brothers had attended the commission's July 8 working session to present a "concept plan" for the project.]

Rampson also noted that the Ann Arbor housing commission has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, south of Packard – so they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. The city council’s July 21 meeting includes an item authorizing the purchase of property at 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the housing commission. That property is adjacent to the existing AAHC site, and would be used for the expanded project.

Rampson clarified that this is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is be considered for affordable housing.

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

Ken Clein, who represents the planning commission on the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, reported that the DDA held another advisory committee meeting for the streetscape framework project on July 8. Committee members met with consultants hired by the DDA to figure out how to proceed. There will be a public forum on the project sometime in September. [The DDA board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.]

Clein said the goal is to complete the project by the end of this calendar year, and to report out in early 2015.

Communications & Commentary: Ordinance Revisions Committee

Kirk Westphal reported that the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) had met prior to the commission’s regular meeting on July 15. They discussed parcels along Huron Street, and are looking at changing height maximums as well as ways of addressing the shape of buildings. This is the next step in a process, based on a city council directive, to review and recommend zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved a set of recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Implementation of ordinance changes related to those recommendations began with a vote at the commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting to rezone a large parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William – at 425 S. Main – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface), a lower-density zoning. The commission also recommended adding new requirements to the Main Street character district, where 425 S. Main is located. At that May 6 meeting, they voted 6-3 to recommend changes that include setting a maximum height of 100 feet for properties in that district that are zoned D2, and requiring upper story stepbacks from any residential property lines. That maximum was 40 feet taller than the 60-foot height limit specified for D2 zoning elsewhere in the downtown.

However, when the changes were forwarded to city council for consideration, the council amended the height down to 60 feet. Councilmembers gave initial approval of that amended version on June 16, 2014. The item is on the council’s July 21 agenda for final approval.

Communications & Commentary: Resolution of Appreciation

Because only five commissioners on the nine-member entity were present, planning manager Wendy Rampson suggested deferring action on a resolution of appreciation for outgoing member Paras Parekh, who is resigning to move to Chicago.

His replacement will be nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. Application forms are available on the city’s website.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters.

Next meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

From left: Ray Detter, Hugh Sonk and Christine Crockett. At the planning commission’s May 6 meeting, they all spoke against a 100-foot height limit for the 425 S. Main site. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning a large parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William – another step in a review of downtown zoning that began last year under direction from the city council. The recommendation is to rezone the site at 425 S. Main from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface), a lower-density zoning. Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion.

In a separate action, commissioners were split on adding new requirements to the Main Street character district, where 425 S. Main is located – but that recommendation was approved. The commission voted 6-3 to recommend changes that include setting a maximum height of 100 feet for properties in that district that are zoned D2, and requiring upper story stepbacks from any residential property lines. That maximum is 40 feet taller than the 60-foot height limit specified for D2 zoning elsewhere in the downtown. Dissenting were Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission.

During deliberations on May 6, Briere pointed out that the 60-foot maximum height had been cited specifically in the city council directive, and she opposed raising that height limit. The 425 S. Main property would be the only D2 site in the Main Street character district, if the city council approves the rezoning recommendation. Because the requirements would apply to just one site, it seemed like spot zoning to Briere.

Neighbors and others had previously raised concerns that D1 zoning – which allows the highest level of density downtown – would result in a negative impact to that part of town, and had supported downzoning to D2. Several neighborhood advocates attended the May 6 meeting and again supported D2 rezoning, but strongly opposed the 100-foot maximum height.

Andy Klein, one of the property owners of 425 S. Main, also attended the meeting, saying that the site would be unbuildable with D2 zoning and a 60-foot height limit, and that the property’s value would be destroyed. He supported the 100-foot maximum.

Members of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee – which brought forward the proposal – defended it, saying that the combination of D2 zoning with a taller height would allow for more flexible design and less massive structures.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site. The recommendations approved on May 6 will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. In the coming months, the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee will tackle other aspects of the council’s downtown zoning directive.

The other major item on the May 6 agenda related to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, as part of its major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits. Planning commissioners recommended rezoning for three AAHC properties: (1) Baker Commons, at the southeast corner of Main and Packard, from public land to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Green/Baxter Court Apartments, at the northwest corner of Green and Baxter roads, from public land to R4A (multi-family dwelling district); and (3) Maple Meadows at 800-890 S. Maple, from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

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

Two other properties were also on the agenda for rezoning: Mallett’s Creek Court, at 2670-2680 S. Main; and 805-807 W. Washington, on the southwest corner of Washington and Mulholland. About a dozen neighbors of Mallett’s Creek Court spoke about concerns that the vacant part of the parcel, adjacent to Cranbrook Park, would be sold or developed. Hall assured them that there’s no intent to sell, and in fact federal regulations that govern pubic housing prevent such a sale. She said AAHC hadn’t been aware that the vacant land, which includes a wooded area, was part of the parcel until they started the rezoning process. There are no plans to develop that side of the parcel.

Neighbors of the West Washington property are concerned about the amount of impervious surface on that site, and chronic flooding problems in that area.

Action on West Washington and Mallett’s Creek Court properties was postponed by the commission. AAHC and city staff will continue to evaluate these two properties, which will likely return to the planning commission for consideration at a later date.

In other action, planning commissioners recommended the annexation of an 0.22-acre lot at 375 Glenwood Street – currently in Scio Township – and to zone the site as R1C (single-family dwelling district), which matches the zoning of surrounding sites. It’s located on the west side of Glenwood, south of Dexter Road.

And commissioners held a public hearing on a master plan update, as part of an annual review process. Only one person – Changming Fan – spoke during the hearing, asking the commission to include his company’s technology in the master plan.

The master plan resolution that commissioners will vote on at their next meeting, on May 20, will highlight work that the commission intends to undertake in the coming year that’s related to master planning efforts. That work includes the Washtenaw Avenue and North Main corridor plans; helping the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority develop a streetscape framework; and helping implement the city’s sustainability action plan.

Downtown Zoning

Two items on the May 6 agenda related to an ongoing process of making revisions to the city’s downtown zoning. Planning commissioners were asked to consider rezoning a large parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William – at 425 S. Main – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface), a lower-density zoning. Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff, who’s been working on downtown zoning revisions.

In a separate item, commissioners weighed new requirements to the Main Street character overlay district, where 425 S. Main is located. The changes include setting a maximum height of 100 feet for properties in that district that are zoned D2, and requiring upper story setbacks from any residential property. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

These recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

In response to a council directive, the planning commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

That set of recommendations included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward on May 6. The site’s current zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height.

The city council voted to accept the planning commission’s recommendations on Jan. 21, 2014 – and directed the planning commission to begin implementing changes by proposing specific rezoning or ordinance revisions.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Alexis DiLeo, a city planner who’s been working with the ORC on this effort, presented the staff report on May 6. She said the ORC met four times and approached this task “holistically,” and considered many alternatives – including the option of keeping the zoning as D1 and possibly rezoning other properties too. In the end, the recommendation is to rezone 425 S. Main to D2.

DiLeo noted that the city’s downtown plan recommends D1 zoning for that site, although the plan also has goals that address the livability of residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown, and that encourage sensitivity to that development context.

The historic downtown area is located to the north and west of the 425 S. Main site, but to the east, separated by an alley, is a residential neighborhood zoned R4C. To the south is land that’s currently zoned public land – the site of the Baker Commons public housing complex, at the southeast corner of Packard and Main. But DiLeo noted that the planning commission had earlier that night recommended to change the Baker Commons zoning to D2. [That discussion is reported below.]

Sketch by city planner Alexis DiLeo showing proposed stepbacks for D2-zoned properties in the Main Street character district.

Separately, the ORC was recommending text amendments to the zoning ordinance – Chapter 55 of the city code – for D2 parcels in the Main Street character overlay district. The changes would result in a reduction of the allowable floor-area for this parcel from 400% (or up to 700% with premiums) to 200% (or up to 400% with premiums). [FAR, a measure of density, 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 a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.]

If the site is rezoned, it would be the first D2 lot in the Main Street overlay district. The amendment would set a maximum height of 100 feet, and minimum side and rear setbacks.

DiLeo reported that the ORC evaluated several approaches to limiting the visual and shading impact on the residential district east of the 425 S. Main site. She noted that planning staff suggested an approach based on research regarding setbacks in the city code for Toronto, Canada. That city – which she pointed out is within one degree of Ann Arbor’s latitude – has a 45-degree stepback requirement. The requirement results in an angle that allows sunlight to reach the sidewalk during the seasons and times of day when people are most likely to be out walking, she said.

The stepbacks would apply to any D2 site that’s within 25 feet of residentially zoned property, and would be applied to any floors above the fourth floor of a building – which would be considered a “tower,” for purposes of the zoning code. Above the fourth floor, each additional floor would need to be set back from the edge of the floor below, based on a distance equal to the floor’s height. These upper floors could be designed like a stairstep, or could have a uniform setback – that is, with all floors above the fourth floor having the exact same setback from the edge of the fourth floor.

The ORC also recommended a 100-foot height limit. DiLeo noted that directly across Main Street to the west is the Ashley Mews building, which is about 110 feet tall. To the north, the properties are zoned D1, with a maximum height of 180 feet. The residential district to the east has a maximum height of 30 feet. The ORC’s recommendation of a 100-foot limit at 425 S. Main is roughly in the middle of the 180-foot limit to the north and the 30-foot residential limit to the east, DiLeo said.

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

Downtown Zoning: Public Hearing – D2 Rezoning

Seven people spoke during the public hearing on the proposed D2 rezoning.

Eppie Potts told commissioners that rezoning the 425 S. Main site to D2 was in keeping with public input and the committee work that had been done for months leading up to the original set of recommendations. So she supported that.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Ray Detter said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council. In the past few weeks, he’s gotten calls from people concerned about the rezoning of Baker Commons. He had assured them that the Baker Commons site would be rezoned D2. But now, he’s learning that it would be coupled with a character area that would allow a 100 feet height, rather than 60 feet. [Baker Commons is actually located in a different character district.]

Detter said the citizens advisory council supports D2 as an interface, and their understanding is that the city council wants the height limit to be 60 feet. He suggested that a developer could use the planned project zoning to get additional height, rather than have a 100-foot limit – that’s the approach being taken at 618 S. Main. “We don’t really know where that 100 feet came from – it was not a part of the recommendation to city council,” Detter said, adding that “D2 to us means 60 feet.” He contended that’s what the consultants advised, too.

Detter also objected that ORC meetings were not well-publicized, so people like him didn’t know about the meetings and weren’t able to provide input.

Christine Crockett reminded commissioners that the reason these downtown zoning revisions were undertaken was, at least in part, because of the community’s alarm about very tall “behemoth” buildings going up next to residential neighborhoods. She took issue with the staff report mentioning the Ashley Mews building. She pointed out that it’s not adjacent to a residential district. She said she tried to go to all the ORC meetings “but they are a deep, dark secret.” She’d gone to two of the meetings, but thought the tenor was that the planning commission would adopt what the council had directed them to do – zoning the buffer areas to D2. Crockett also contended that the public and the consultants, ENP & Associates, had recommended D2 at 60 feet.

[By way of background, ENP did not recommend rezoning 425 S. Main to D2. From the report: "...our recommendation is to keep the D1 zoning on the site but with modifications to the maximum height and the addition of diagonal requirements." The maximum height recommendation was 150 feet. .pdf of ENP & Associates report]

Saying that he supported rezoning the site to D2, Steve Kaplan expressed concerns about the overlay district. Having an overlay district that allows for a 100-foot building height fails to achieve the desired effect of protecting the smaller houses to the east, he said. Kaplan noted that he previously owned the parcels that were assembled to build Ashley Mews. That lot is more than triple the size of the 425 S. Main site, he said. The Ashley Mews development took care to ensure that the highest part of the structure was as far away from the Old West Side residential neighborhood as possible, he said. The west side of Ashley Mews, which has only four floors, should be used for comparison – not the Main Street side, which is significantly taller.

From left: Andy Klein, representing the owners of 425 S. Main, and architect Scott Bonney.

Scott Bonney introduced himself as an architect with Neumann/Smith Architects, who’ve been hired by one of the owners of 425 S. Main, Andy Klein, to review the proposed zoning revisions. He said his firm has designed Zaragon West, Zaragon Place, the YMCA and several other projects in Ann Arbor. He noted that the original A2D2 zoning process had designated density along Main Street, and the site was zoned D1 with a 180-foot height limit and up to 900% FAR with affordable housing premiums. The recommendation from ENP & Associates also was for D1, Bonney pointed out, with a height limit reduced to 150 feet, with a 50-foot diagonal requirement that would effectively reduce the size of a tower.

He thought the ORC’s recommendation might be appropriate – for D2 zoning with a 100-foot height. He noted that the D2 zoning calls for 80% maximum lot coverage, compared to 100% allowed for D1. That’s a “huge difference,” he said. D2 also requires 10% of the lot as open space. These things will protect the residential neighborhood and reduce the volume of the building, he said.

The city’s intent – reflected by allowing the Ashley Mews project – is to enhance the walkability and vitality of Main Street by continuing density south of William, Bonney said. Right across the street to the north of 425 S. Main is a vacant city-owned parking lot zoned D1, he noted, which could have a building that’s 180 feet tall. Bonney thought the ORC’s recommendation was appropriate, and provided transitional zoning while protecting the residential neighborhood.

Hugh Sonk said he wanted to address the issue of “messing with the size limitations” in D1 and D2. In the past, any changes have resulted in lowering the height, not increasing it, he said. The community has bought into the idea of D2 having a 60-foot height limit, he added. If it’s higher than that, it’s a disservice to the community. What if someone comes and wants to build a 250-foot building on a D1-zoned site? A 100-foot height in D2 throws out all the previous work that was done on these zoning revisions, he said. Regarding Ashley Mews, Sonk said the average height on that site is probably closer to 50 feet, if you look at the townhouses and the taller Main Street building.

One of the owners of 425 S. Main, Andy Klein, called it an interesting process in which “everybody and anybody seems to understand the best way to redevelop your site.” The property was developed about 30 years ago during a recession by his family and others, at substantial financial risk, he said. This parcel has been singled out because other sites that are being developed have received a negative reaction from the community, Klein said.

The 425 S. Main site is unique, Klein noted. ENP & Associates had recommended keeping it D1 because it’s part of a gateway to downtown – a special, transitional site. That’s why applying D2 with a 60-foot limitation doesn’t work, he said. But 100 feet does work, he added, and is consistent with the area. It also protects the residential neighborhood by stepping back the higher floors. Even at the 100-foot height, the D2 zoning reduces the buildable square feet by almost 60%, and significantly reduces the development of the parcel, compared to D1 zoning. “It’s not great. I don’t particularly like it,” he said. “But I can live with it and I can still in the future do something unique and valuable for the city.”

If the height limit is set at 60 feet, “I’m going to end up with a non-buildable parcel that pretty much the value’s been destroyed,” Klein concluded.

Downtown Zoning: Commission Discussion – D2 Rezoning

Jeremy Peters asked what would happen if the D2 rezoning were approved, but not the changes to the Main Street character district. Bonnie Bona, a member of the ORC, replied that there would be no height limit in that case – because the character overlay district is what sets the height maximum.

Diane Giannola.

Responding to comments at the public hearing, Bona noted that the ENP & Associates report had recommended D1 zoning for this parcel, not D2, and had recommended reducing the height limit from 180 feet to 150 feet when within 20 feet of a residentially zoned area. It was the planning commission and city council that had later recommended D2 zoning and a 60-foot height at 425 S. Main, she said.

Bona clarified with Alexis DiLeo that the site’s previous zoning was C2A, which had no height limit at 660% floor-area ratio (FAR). It’s now D1, with a by-right FAR of 400% and up to 900% FAR with premiums. The height, as specified in the overlay character district, is limited to 180 feet.

Diane Giannola asked a procedural question – because she wanted to discuss the resolution for the character overlay along with the D2 zoning, or address the overlay resolution first. “Some of our decisions might be based on how the discussion goes for both of those,” she said.

Ken Clein thought the issue of D2 was simply whether the site was a downtown interface – between the downtown core and residential neighborhoods. If it is, then it should be zoned D2, he said. It’s the character overlay district that determines factors like height, setbacks and massing, he said. Clein added that he’d be happy to discuss the two issues in any order, but to him, the D2 zoning was straightforward.

Giannola said discussing D2 separately and first makes it difficult for commissioners who are on the fence about D2, because the character overlay district is a compromise. For her, D2 zoning with a 60-foot height limit would be giving people what they don’t want – a big, massive building, lot-line-to-lot-line that would be 60 feet tall. The compromise of 100 feet is more what people want, she said. It wouldn’t be possible to build a 100-foot-tall building lot-line-to-lot-line, because FAR and setbacks would keep it in check, she said. So for her, the two items are linked and she wouldn’t support D2 unless she knew what would be in the character overlay district.

From left: Commissioners Bonnie Bona and Eleanore Adenekan.

Bona said one of the hardest parts of the city zoning code is the concept of floor-area ratio. The public commentary keeps focusing on height, but the most important issue for this site is the question of FAR. Should it be 200% FAR by right, with 400% for premiums? Or 400% by right, with a maximum of 700% for premiums? “The buildings that have caused the angst in town are at that maximum floor area,” Bona said.

Bona thought it was a question of floor area. She said it’s clear to her that in the master plan, any place that’s adjacent to a residential neighborhood should be an interface zone – that is, D2. She said she’d fight for that.

Peters moved to postpone the item about D2 zoning until after the commission considered the resolution regarding the Main Street character district.

Clein pointed out that most people during the public hearing had supported D2, including the property owner. It seemed like it would be counterproductive not to zone it D2, he said.

Outcome: The move to postpone the D2 zoning item until later in the meeting passed on a 7-2 vote, over dissent from Bona and Clein. That meant the planning commission considered the Main Street character district before acting on the zoning. 

Downtown Zoning: Public Hearing – Main Street Character District

The commission then held a public hearing about revisions to the Main Street character district. Seven people spoke, including six people who’d spoken during the previous public hearing on D2 zoning. They re-emphasized themes from their previous comments.

Ray Detter said this whole process is trying to fix mistakes of the A2D2 zoning. The D1 zoning of 425 S. Main had been a mistake, he said. The concern is that if the city starts messing with the concept of D2, making it something other than 60 feet for a height limit, where does it stop? Detter said planned projects are a good approach, rather than character overlay districts – the 618 S. Main project is a good example.

Ray Detter spoke on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council.

Eppie Potts thought the proposed overlay district is undercutting the work that was done in developing the proposed zoning revisions. “This is a proposal to change what D2 means,” she said. “A hundred foot height is not D2.” She didn’t think D2 should vary based on its location within the city. Potts called it an “unprecedented playing games with zoning.”

Steve Kaplan said he wasn’t sure what the character overlay concept means. If the idea is to preserve the vibrant restaurant and retail character of Main Street, he noted that most of the buildings are three or four floors. There are only a couple of exceptions to that, he said. Six stories – which would be possible with a 60-foot height limit – is a lot of density, he said, and would more than triple what’s currently on the site.

Hugh Sonk expressed concern that by having a 100-foot height limit, it would mess with buildable FAR on the site. He hoped commissioners could address that, to mitigate the fear that some people might have. He thought the community expected that D2 would have a 60-foot height limit.

In talking about zoning, Christine Crockett said it’s not just about a vibrant Main Street. It’s also about having a vibrant place to live. Zoning needs to work synergistically, she said, so that Ann Arbor doesn’t just have “a nice touristy atmosphere where we get the North Woodward crowd on the weekend, and the rest of the time it’s dead.” It’s about having people live and work and find their entertainment downtown. The downtown area citizens advisory council, on which she serves, recently talked about how the change to downtown – lots of restaurants, rather than a variety of other stores that used to be downtown – is posing all sorts of problems, including contributing to global warming. Everyone talks about density, like it’s “some great nirvana of urban planning paradise,” she said. Vibrancy is about the whole picture, and residential neighborhoods shouldn’t be compromised.

Scott Bonney, the architect working with the owner of 425 S. Main, said that many cities have a more stepped approach, with a gradual increase in height as you move farther away from the core urban area. In Ann Arbor, the overlay districts attempt to fine-tune that, he said. So there’s a level of granularity that exists in the overlay districts. He noted that he hasn’t been hired to design anything yet. But if he were asked to design a building there, he’d probably place emphasis on the north side of the site, with low density on the south. “It wants to be part of downtown, if it’s a tall thing,” he said. “It wants to be low if it’s to the south side.” He suggested that the stepbacks might be oriented north to south. Also, the requirement of 80% maximum lot coverage and 10% minimum open space for D2 will do a great deal to make a building with much less impact, compared to D1 zoning.

Pat Martz told commissioners she lived on South Ashley, and can see Baker Commons from her window. Looking up to Main Street, the buildings loom, she said. Even if floors are stepped back from the street, they’ll still loom over the neighborhood to the west. The Old West Side residential neighborhood is lower than Main Street. People tend to avoid walking south on Main, she said – when you reach William, you turn east or west, because the buildings are already too tall and it’s not friendly. There are no eyes on the street, and the buildings are too close to the sidewalk, she said. Character overlays will result in “planning chaos,” she said. And D2 already offers plenty of density, Martz said. “I would say to go to moderation.”

Downtown Zoning: Commission Discussion – Main Street Character District

Before turning to the specific discussion on the character district, Kirk Westphal asked staff to respond to allegations made about the ORC meetings, to review how the meetings are publicized. Planning manager Wendy Rampson replied that the meetings are posted on the city’s planning and development website, and sent to the clerk’s office for noticing. Announcements of committee meetings are not emailed out through the city’s email alert system, she said, nor are they posted on Legistar. The meetings are open to the public, although there are typically less than a quorum of commissioners present. Westphal noted that the media [The Ann Arbor Chronicle] have attended some of the committee meetings.

Kirk Westphal.

Westphal said the commissioners depend on public input, so if there are specific parts of the process that are failing, then those should be brought to the attention of the staff and commission.

Westphal also said there’d been insinuations about negotiations or behind-the-scenes dealings, “and I find those objectionable.” If there are specific instances or concerns, those should be brought to the attention of staff or the appropriate city councilmembers, he said.

Bonnie Bona addressed what she called the continuing confusion of floor-area ratio (FAR) versus height. The floor-area ratio of D2 is consistent throughout downtown. D2 has a 200% maximum FAR, 400% with premiums – that’s true for any property zoned D2. The different character areas modify how the building can be shaped, she explained. You can’t add more square footage based on the character overlay, but you can shape it differently.

The process of reviewing downtown zoning – including input from the public and the ENP & Associates report – considered stepbacks from residential neighborhoods, Bona said, with the focus primarily on East Huron. Other ideas included the use of diagonals, which would result in towers that are tall and thin, rather than buildings that are shorter and squat. But diagonals directly conflict with height limits, Bona noted.

The proposed change to the Main Street character district for D2 properties calls for a maximum base building height of four stories, with stepbacked floors allowed above that. For D2 sites in other character districts, a 60-foot building height is allowed, she noted – so a building could have a 60-foot wall without stepbacks. The Main Street character district wouldn’t allow a building to go straight up that high from the property line, she said.

It would be simple to just set a 60-foot height limit, Bona continued, but the planning commission and city council have wanted to explore the use of diagonals and stepbacks, Bona said. “So this was an opportunity to do that, to provide that nuance.” Zoning to a 60-foot height on the 425 S. Main site would probably mean a developer would use a planned project approach, similar to the 618 S. Main building, she said. [A planned project is one that seeks variations in height and setbacks.] The ORC really struggled with this issue, she added.

Sabra Briere.

Sabra Briere wondered why the ORC didn’t recommend D1, with a character district that sets the building height at 100 feet. That would be in keeping with other character districts in D1, and with the ENP & Associates report. In the past, the city has modified D1 to have shorter heights, but have never modified D2 to have taller heights, she said. “This is a jarring note,” Briere added, especially because the resolution from council that directed this work specified D2 at 60 feet.

Briere was also concerned that having only one parcel zoned D2 in the Main Street character district seems like spot zoning. Why didn’t the ORC recommend that it be part of the First Street character district, where other D2 parcels are located?

In addition, Briere wanted to know how the ordinance language would describe the 45-degree stepbacks. She’d originally thought it was intended to be east-to-west, but the architect, Scott Bonney, had indicated using the stepbacks north-to-south. If the ordinance doesn’t specify the orientation, she wasn’t sure what it would accomplish.

Responding to Briere, Westphal said the ORC didn’t include in its scope a redefinition of the character district boundaries – that’s why the 425 S. Main site remains in the Main Street character district. Setting the boundaries of the character districts had been done as part of A2D2, he noted, and people spent a couple of years looking at it.

Bona said the ORC looked at adjacent properties that might be appropriate for rezoning to D2, but “we couldn’t justify that.” She didn’t consider it spot zoning, since there were D2 properties adjacent to it. The overlay districts “are more of a nuance,” Bona added.

Regarding stepbacks, Bona said the only reason for them would be for the side that’s adjacent to residential property. For 425 S. Main, there would be no stepback requirements for the north, west or south sides. The concept of having a tower on the north side and stepbacks on the east would only work with a 100-foot height, she said – unless a developer wanted to go through a planned project, which allows for variations in height and setbacks. Bona pointed out that if the city wanted to force a developer to build a tower on the north side with stepbacks on the east side, they’d have to write that specifically into the character district requirements.

Westphal added that there’s nothing prohibiting a building from stepping back on the other sides. It’s simply required only on the east side.

Wendy Woods.

Diane Giannola, another ORC member, pointed out that a 100-foot building on a site zoned D1 would not be the same as a 100-foot building on a D2 lot. The shape and size – based on FAR – would be different. So if the 425 S. Main zoning is left as D1 yet the height is lowered to 100 feet, that could result in a bigger building than a 100-foot height with D2 zoning, she noted.

Wendy Woods, describing herself as another member of the “infamous ORC committee,” said it’s difficult to distill hours of discussion that took place during committee meetings. She apologized for those who couldn’t find the meeting times, and said the committee would try to make those meetings more visible in the future.

Responding to Briere, Woods said the reason the ORC was recommending D2 is because the site is an interface area, very near a residential neighborhood, and they were trying to be sensitive to that. She didn’t think it’s spot zoning. Although character district requirements haven’t received much attention, Woods said, they’ve been in place since A2D2 was approved in 2009. By modifying the Main Street character district, “we’re just using one of the many tools as a planning commission to really try to be sensitive to what we’re hearing,” Woods said.

Woods also stressed the need to be sensitive to the property owner of the site that’s being rezoned. “God bless him – because if people were talking about something I owned and acted as if I don’t have much of a say in it, I know I’d be sitting on my hands or zipping my lip trying to not react.”

Everyone who lives in Ann Arbor wants it to be a place where their children and grandchildren will want to live, Woods said, and no one has a corner on that attitude. As a volunteer group, the planning commission is doing the best it can, she added. They hope to get it right, Woods said, but when they don’t, “that’s why we send it on to city council – so they can then make changes. So the buck stops there.”

Paras Parekh.

Paras Parekh asked the ORC members to explain the advantages of their proposal, compared to the city council’s directive – based on previous planning commission recommendations – to pursue D2 zoning with a 60-foot height limit for this site.

Giannola replied that the main advantage is that D2 with a 100-foot height limit would result in a better-shaped building. If the height is limited to 60 feet, she said, the odds are that you’ll get a 60-foot high, blocky building.

Westphal said that the city council hasn’t encouraged planned projects, which allow for variation in height and setback. Rather, there’s a desire for a more predictable process, he added, and to encode in zoning what they’d like to see built.

Briere said that Westphal’s recollection is accurate for the time when there was still the opportunity to do a planned unit development (PUD) or planned project. The council at that time, including mayor John Hieftje, preferred PUDs over planned projects because PUDs offered more flexibility, she said.

But when A2D2 zoning changes were implemented, many councilmembers at the time felt that the creation of D1 and D2 zoning eliminated the need to have PUDs downtown, “because the zoning now allows the very types of things we were encouraging planned unit developments to produce,” she said. In that context, planned projects returned to the forefront in a positive way, she added, to allow developers to have design flexibility within D1 or D2 zoning.

Bona said she thought the city council resolution that directed the planning commission’s work had mentioned the idea of revisiting diagonals, and looking at steps to reduce shading to adjacent residential properties. That was part of the discussion at the ORC meetings, she said. The ORC felt it would be important to look at those issues downtown-wide, not on a parcel-by-parcel basis. That was especially true for diagonals, she said, because it directly conflicts with height limits. But the ORC felt that stepbacks could be tried at that location because of the narrow nature of the 425 S. Main site, she said. A building that’s 60 feet tall next to a residential neighborhood is still pretty tall, she said. So this was an opportunity to try something in one location without being disruptive.

As a designer, Bona said, she thinks a stepback is a better solution than a planned project. But you can’t really do a stepback with a 60-foot height limit. “We have to give them some flexibility to move that square footage somewhere,” Bona said.

Sabra Briere.

Briere indicated that she didn’t find any reference to diagonals in the council resolution. She said she couldn’t get past this specific statement in the council resolution: “Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main from D1 (Downtown Core) to D2 (Downtown Interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.” [.pdf of full resolution, as approved by city council on Jan. 21, 2014]

“That’s the resolution,” Briere said, adding that she couldn’t “get past the fact that we don’t have that result in front of us today.”

A maximum height of 100 feet for D2 exceeds everyone’s understanding of what D2 zoning is, Briere said. So the proposed changes to the Main Street character district are inconsistent with anything else that’s been done before, she added. “It’s not predictable, it’s not consistent, it’s not reliable – it’s just not all those things we’ve said zoning needs to be.”

The community has chosen to have height limits, Briere said.

Giannola asked about the East Huron character district, which has a different height limit for D1 than for D1 sites in other character districts. How is that different than what’s being proposed for the Main Street character district? she asked.

Briere said that when D1 height limits have varied, it has varied to a lower height limit. “And here we are varying D2 up,” she said, so the difference between D1 and D2 “becomes really mushy.” She acknowledged that there was a difference in FAR, but she described that as “inside baseball.”

Giannola pointed out that zoning isn’t just about height. “I know people think that, but we don’t think that,” she said.

Briere replied that perhaps if she knew the ORC’s broader vision, it might be clear. But she was just seeing a single proposal, and “varying upward by right makes me very uncomfortable.” She would be more comfortable with D2 at 60 feet, then allowing for a planned project if a developer wanted greater height.

Eleanore Adenekan asked Briere whether she wanted to make an amendment, so that the commission could vote it up or down. “This is getting to be rather much,” Adenekan said. [It was approaching 11 p.m.] No, Briere said. She’d be more inclined to just vote no on the proposed resolution.

Bona pointed out that the council resolution had indeed mentioned diagonals and stepbacks, though not directly tied to the 425 S. Main parcel. From the resolution: “Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District to 120 feet, include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.”

Bona said the north side of East Huron is a far more sensitive area to massing and height, compared to 425 S. Main – because residential properties are north of D1 sites on East Huron, and sun comes from the south. If council would accept this for the northern side of Huron, it should only be easier to accept it for 425 S. Main, Bona said.

Ken Clein.

Westphal said there’s been dissatisfaction with the bulkiness of buildings in D1, and there’s been talk about possibly making those buildings narrower and raising the height in D1 as a way of decreasing the shading on neighbors. So this hasn’t been the only time they’ve talked about potentially revising height upward, he said.

If the planning commission believes that height limits are the problem, Briere replied, “then I would rather see all of this come back at once with that addressed, rather than doing this piecemeal.” If the planning commission is going to have a coherent discussion about height limits, it would be best to address it at one time, she said. If the intent of the current proposal is to encourage less blocky buildings, “that is a point of discussion – but not a discussion I want to have multiple times.”

Parekh asked members of the ORC whether the proposal for 425 S. Main would also be appropriate for Kerrytown or First Street character districts. He said he was trying to build a case for consistency. Westphal replied that the planning commission was directed by the city council to look at specific sites, coming on the heels of a comprehensive A2D2 rezoning just a few years ago. The planning commission could look at all character districts, Westphal said, but that wasn’t the directive from council.

Giannola pointed out that 425 S. Main was a very large lot, and one that’s fairly unique in the downtown area.

Clein agreed that it’s a unique parcel, which he said might account for why it’s so difficult to deal with. He felt that the ORC was proposing a unique solution. The challenge from a zoning perspective is that it’s not consistent with any of the surrounding Main Street properties, so it creates a situation that seems like a precedent, he said. Someone else could also argue that other properties are unique, he noted, so “it’s a slippery slope.”

Clein said there’s also concern about the zoning on the east side of Main Street, north of William – but the council hasn’t directed the planning commission to look at that, he noted. Architecturally, he didn’t think 100 feet was a terrible thing. With the D2 zoning and proposed stepbacks, it would be very difficult for anyone to build something over four stories – beyond that, it would get very expensive, he said.

In December, when the planning commission made its recommendations to the council, they’d agreed that the site should be D2 at 60 feet, Clein noted. They had not discussed the possibility of it going higher, so he was hesitant to approve a 100-foot height at this point.

Westphal wrapped up the discussion by saying that this proposal allows for flexibility while removing a significant amount of floor-area ratio that’s been assumed for this property for decades. He was pretty happy with the outcome. Everyone had anticipated that the A2D2 process would need some tweaks, he said, but not a complete overhaul. “I think it’s better than what it is now,” he said. “And sometimes better is better.”

Outcome: On a 6-3 vote, the commission recommended approval of the proposed changes to the Main Street character district, with a 100-foot height limit for D2 properties. Dissenting were Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning: Commission Discussion – D2 Rezoning

Commissioners then returned to the item regarding D2 rezoning for 425 S. Main, which they had voted to postpone earlier in the meeting. There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend rezoning 425 S. Main to D2. Both recommendations will be forwarded to council.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties

Five properties that provide public housing were on the agenda to be considered for rezoning. The sites are part of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

All but one of the sites are currently zoned as public land, and are owned by the city of Ann Arbor. The agenda listed these five original rezoning requests:

• Baker Commons: Requested rezoning from public land to D2 (downtown interface). The 0.94-acre lot is located at 106 Packard Street, at the intersection with South Main, in Ward 5. It includes a 64-unit apartment building.
• Green/Baxter Court Apartments: Requested rezoning from public land to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site is located at 1701-1747 Green Road and contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center. This site was damaged by fire in January 2014, so part of it will be rebuilt. It’s in Ward 2.
• Maple Meadows: Requested rezoning from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.
• Mallett’s Creek Court: Requested rezoning of the east portion of this 2.3-acre parcel at 2670-2680 S. Main from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). There are three duplexes on the east side, which is in Ward 4. The west part of the site, which is vacant and in a floodway, would remain public land. The city is currently looking into the possibility of splitting the parcel and making the west section a part of Cranbrook Park.
• 805-807 W. Washington: Requested rezoning from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). It’s a 0.18 acre-parcel in Ward 5 that contains one duplex, with a garage that’s used for AAHC facilities storage.

Commissioners were also asked to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petitions, because no new construction is proposed and surveys of the improvements have been provided.

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

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Staff Report

The commission was briefed by Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. She began by noting that Ronald Woods, AAHC’s board chair, was also attending the meeting. [Woods is married to planning commissioner Wendy Woods, though this was not mentioned during the meeting.]

Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Hall provided background on this project. She noted that the housing commission is the largest provider of affordable housing in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, with 355 units of public housing within the city at 18 different locations. AAHC also has over 1,500 units of vouchers for low-income housing throughout the county.

Hall said that when she came to the housing commission about two years ago, one of the first things she did was examine the finances and take a tour of the AAHC properties. “As part of that process, I was a little bit disturbed by the condition of some of our units,” she said. Hall realized that there wasn’t enough money in AAHC’s budget to fix up the units, because the vast majority of funding comes from the U.S Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

There have been no new public housing units built in the U.S. since 1986, when there was a major change in HUD’s approach to public housing. The change involved more use of vouchers, as well as a focus on more privately funded affordable housing, she said. Now, the biggest form of funding is from low-income housing tax credits – an IRS program.

Public housing tenants pay 30% of their income toward rent, Hall said, but the cost of managing each unit far exceeds that amount. It costs about $600 per month to maintain a one-bedroom apartment and about $1,200 for a five-bedroom unit. HUD provides funding for capital improvements, like roof repair, but it doesn’t provide sufficient funding to cover ongoing maintenance. HUD itself recognizes that it lacks sufficient funding for public housing, Hall said.

The AAHC did a capital needs assessment, and found that they needed about $40,000 per unit of investment over 15 years. Right now, the AAHC gets about $475,000 annually from HUD for capital improvements. Just to replace an elevator at Miller Manor will cost $600,000, Hall noted.

About six months after she became executive director, HUD launched a new program called the rental assistance demonstration (RAD) project. The program allows residents in selected housing units to receive rental assistance through long-term Section 8 subsidy vouchers that are tied to the buildings, rather than held by individuals. The RAD program also enables entities like the AAHC to partner with private-sector developers on housing projects – something the AAHC couldn’t previously do. The Ann Arbor city council gave necessary approvals in connection with the RAD program at its June 3, 2013 meeting.

Ronald Woods, president of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s board. He’s married to planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Hall explained that project-based vouchers, like the those in the RAD program, differ from typical Section 8 vouchers. Traditionally, when someone is awarded a voucher, they can then find a private landlord who’ll accept the voucher. You pay 30% of your income in rent, and the voucher covers the balance – as long as your rent falls within a cap set by HUD. In contrast, project-based vouchers are awarded to AAHC and are attached to specific public housing units. So no matter who lives in that unit, that same subsidy is available from HUD. After someone lives there for a year, they can get a “portable” voucher and move out of the public housing unit.

This RAD conversion is only possible by getting investors from the private sector to fix up the properties, Hall noted. And it’s not possible to get that kind of investment unless the properties are appropriately zoned, she said.

The AAHC is a separate legal entity from the city of Ann Arbor, Hall said. But Hall and her staff are city employees, and there’s a city ordinance that requires the city to buy any property on the housing commission’s behalf. The city could transfer ownership to AAHC at any time, she noted.

HUD has provided all the funding to acquire, maintain or build new units. It gets very confusing, she said, but HUD considers the properties that the city owns on AAHC’s behalf to be HUD properties. So HUD determines what happens with these properties. The city wouldn’t be able to turn any of the public housing units into market rate apartments, for example.

AAHC was selected to be part of the RAD program, Hall said, which has allowed the housing commission to seek funding for the properties included in this first cycle. They’ve secured about $25 million so far for the first set of properties that will be part of the RAD conversion: Baker Commons, Green/Baxter Court, and Maple Meadows. Most of that is private financing, she said.

The properties need to be rezoned so that if they were to burn down or were otherwise damaged, AAHC could rebuild them based on the zoning. The properties are primarily zoned public land, and are among the AAHC’s larger properties – because that’s what investors are interested in.

Hall noted that she’d received a lot of communications from neighbors of the West Washington property in particular. She said she was willing to remove it from rezoning consideration at this time, because it wasn’t one of the critical properties to rezone in the near future.

The West Washington site will either be rehabbed or sold, she said, adding that there’s a 99% chance that AAHC will keep the property. It was one of the first properties that AAHC acquired, and was designed as a duplex with a maintenance garage for AAHC beneath it. Now, the maintenance facility is located elsewhere, so the West Washington garage is used for storage.

The design of the building isn’t an efficient use of the site, she said, so she’d like to keep the option open of selling it. However, Hall added, if there’s any way to make public housing work on that site, that’s her goal. “But I do not have investors right now for that property.”

AAHC also is exploring the possibility of replacing the current asphalt at the back of the site with a pervious surface.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Public Hearing – West Washington

Van Harrison spoke on behalf the Pumping Station Condo Association, a four-unit development on Mulholland that’s located south of the West Washington public housing property. He was pleased that the information they’d sent to AAHC had been understood. The association members supported postponement of the rezoning proposal.

After a recent storm, there was standing water at the Pumping Station Condos on Mulholland, across the street from the West Washington public housing property.

Their concern is “creeping incrementalism,” Harrison said. Several decisions have been made over the years, with each one seeming to make sense in its narrow scope but not coordinated with long-term planning, he noted.

The public housing property had originally been city property that was part of the water pumping station. When it became a public housing site, the area at the back of the lot – next to the garage – was gravel, Harrison said. But at some point, it was paved. Now, most of the property is impervious surface, so stormwater flows directly south onto the condo development. The concern is that the property will be sold without addressing these stormwater issues.

The condo association has appreciated AAHC and tried to accommodate it, but Harrison said they would pursue “legal remedies” to ensure that the stormwater management is taken care of and that their property is protected.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Public Hearing – Mallett’s Creek Court

Eleven people spoke about concerns related to the Mallett’s Creek Court rezoning. Margaret Penirian, who lives in that neighborhood, brought a petition with 60 signatures opposing the rezoning. She said she felt better now that she’d heard about plans for the property. If the vacant part of the parcel were rezoned, it would split “the woodsy part” of Cranbrook Park in half, she said. She didn’t think it could be developed, because the area is in a floodway and is often muddy and “puddley.”

Margaret Penirian.

Penirian urged commissioners to visit the park, especially the wooded park, with a steep ravine, a rushing creek, wildflowers, and mushrooms. It’s “so deep and quiet, you could be in a forest anywhere,” she said. She supported rezoning the part of the land where public housing is already located, and splitting off the other section to remain as parkland.

Bill Sharp said he lives on Kingsbrook, on a lot that backs up to the wooded part of the public housing property. He was happy to hear that the recommendation would be to only rezone the part of the property where housing is already located. He noted that Mallett’s Creek is one of the main places where water drains when it storms. The water rises almost to the edge of the floodplain. He encouraged commissioners to keep the woodsy part of the property as public land. It would be appropriate to rezone the part where the houses are, he said.

Another Kingsbrook resident, Mark Meyerhoff, said his property backs up to the east side of the parcel in question. They bought it as a place to retire because of the view overlooking an open space, with their deck facing an open field – between the public housing and the woods. If AAHC sells the property, there’s no guarantee that his view wouldn’t be blocked by additional buildings, he said.

Marsha Meyerhoff also spoke, saying that everyone who attended the meeting from the Mallett’s Creek Court neighborhood is most concerned about preserving the trees and wildlife. Is there the possibility of a developer buying the vacant property and going through the park? “I don’t know if this is paving the way for that, but that’s pretty much our concern,” she said.

Kim Schreiner, who lives on Colin Circle, said not many people in Oakbrook Villas or the surrounding neighborhood had any idea that this was happening. Ann Arbor needs trees, and needs the oxygenation from the trees, she said, because there’s a lot of building that’s happening. She said she’s a certified registered nurse who works at the University of Michigan, and development is a huge concern. Her children love to play in the park. The reason she’s still living in Ann Arbor is because of the park. “Please don’t let people buy up all the land and destroy it,” she said. “Ann Arbor needs to stay green.”

Michelle Braun lives on Galen Circle, which also backs up to the park area. She supported what her neighbors had said, noting that most people moved there because of the park and green space. “We don’t need more building in that area. It’s a great little pocket of town that has this great forest area that not a lot of people have.” She’d hate to see it developed with housing.

Nela Humm, another Colin Circle resident, said she had no idea this was happening until she ran into one of her neighbors. She asked that the city do a better job of informing residents, beyond the 500-foot radius of the project. She would be directly affected, but she hadn’t received a mailing about it. The neighborhood could be affected in many ways, including house values, “riff raff,” and other impacts, she said.

Aerial view showing location of Mallett’s Creek Court at 2670-2680 S. Main, next to Cranbrook Park.

Ron Gardner lives on Kingsbrook property that backs up to the three existing public housing structures. He encouraged the city to split the property and maintain the part that’s vacant. He hoped the existing footprint of the public housing would be preserved and not expanded.

Jeff Dvorak told commissioners that splitting the property was a good compromise. He urged them to keep it as tight as possible, to minimize future development.

Eppie Potts noted that the neighbors have been using the vacant part of the parcel as a park, and she wondered if anyone at the city was working to get that site included in the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan. That would really protect it, she said, and it needs some official protection.

Cindy Heusel, another Oakbrook Villas resident, asked that the city “not mess around with that park at all.” She noted that it’s used by elderly people, who enjoy taking walks through it.

Jeff Gearhart introduced himself as a resident of Pine Valley Boulevard. [He's also married to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall.] He supported the overall rezoning package. It’s important to address the neighbors’ concerns, he said, but he wanted to emphasize that “the people who live in public housing are part of our community, too.” This overall project is about improving their lives, and addressing a long-term set of defrayed issues that will “raise all boats.”

Changming Fan spoke about his company, TiniLite. Midway through his comments, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal noted that this public hearing was specifically for the rezoning resolution. Fan asked if he could talk about the master plan or transportation. Westphal noted that there would be another opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Baker Commons

Wendy Woods moved to discuss these five properties separately. Her motion for separate consideration passed unanimously. Discussion began with Baker Commons, a rezoning request from public land to D2 (downtown interface).

Bonnie Bona.

Sabra Briere noted that the surrounding parcels around Baker Commons are also zoned D2. An item later on the commission’s agenda talks about “playing with D2 definition,” she said. [She was referring to proposed downtown zoning revisions, reported previously in this article.] Briere said some people who are avidly watching the downtown zoning revisions wonder what the D2 designation means for AAHC’s plans.

AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall replied that the AAHC needs for the zoning to be such that if a building burned down, it could be rebuilt. Beyond that, she didn’t have a preference about what that zoning should be. But public land doesn’t currently allow housing to be built on it.

Hall again noted that the three critical properties to be rezoned are Baker Commons, Green/Baxter and Maple Meadows. Those properties have investors and a deal that she hoped would close in the next couple of months.

Bonnie Bona asked planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain what character district applies to the Baker Commons site. Rampson clarified that it’s located in the First Street character district. Its boundaries roughly follow the railroad tracks and Allen Creek. It’s a different character district than the one that was being proposed as part of the downtown zoning revisions.

Bona noted that the First Street character district has a height limit of 60 feet, but Baker Commons is taller than 60 feet. She pointed out that based on allowable floor-area ratios for D2 in that character district, it would allow for a building double or triple the size of Baker Commons to be built there, even with the height limit. That’s true, Rampson said, but any new project would have to go through the city’s site plan review and approval process.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning the Baker Commons site to D2 and waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petition. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Green/Baxter

Commissioners next considered the rezoning request for 1701-1747 Green Road, from public land to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site – on the northwest corner of Green and Baxter roads – contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center.

Aerial view of Green/Baxter Court, at the northwest corner of Green and Baxter roads.

Bonnie Bona wondered why R4B was being proposed. All of the adjacent zoning is different, she noted. Bona also pointed out that a greater amount of density would be allowed if the site were to be redeveloped in the future.

Residential property on the opposite side of Green Road is zoned R4A. Bona wondered what the difference is between R4B and R4A. Wendy Rampson replied, saying R4B allows for slightly higher density. Rampson indicated that R4A would also work on that site.

Bona said she’d be more comfortable rezoning it R4A, because it more closely aligns with surrounding zoning. Otherwise, it would be the only site zoned R4B in that neighborhood.

Rampson said that as long as AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall was agreeable with the change, the planning staff would have no problem changing it.

Bona formally proposed amending the rezoning to R4A.

Outcome on amendment: It was unanimously approved.

There was no further discussion.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning 1701-1747 Green Road to R4A and waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petition. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Maple Meadows

Maple Meadows – at 800-890 South Maple Road, south of Liberty – is currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district). The recommendation is to rezone it as R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center.

Wendy Woods wondered how the site got so “out of whack,” with so many multi-family units built on property that’s zoned for single-family homes. Wendy Rampson replied, saying that historically, the public housing was built where there was available land. Because it was bought by the city and funded through HUD, the development had been exempt from city zoning. The land was likely zoned in the 1960s as R1C, Rampson explained, and the public housing was built later – in the late ’60s or early ’70s.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning 800-890 South Maple as R4B and to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petition. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Mallett’s Creek Court

Jeremy Peters asked whether there are any plans to sell the property – that concern had been raised during the public hearing. AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall apologized to the neighbors, saying she had no idea that there had been concerns – she hadn’t received any emails or other communications about it until the public hearing.

Jeremy Peters wore an “I Voted” sticker during the May 6 meeting, which began an hour before the polls closed at 8 p.m. The only item on the ballot was a transit tax proposal, which voters overwhelmingly supported.

The West Washington site is the only one of these five sites that HUD has approved for sale. For the other properties, including Mallett’s Creek Court, HUD will require that AAHC sign a 20-year commitment for public housing. AAHC will be required to sign subsequent 20-year contracts in perpetuity – as long as HUD exists – to keep the sites as affordable housing.

Hall added that AAHC staff had no idea that the Mallett’s Creek Court parcel stretched into the park, until they started looking at the possibility of rezoning. That portion of the site has never been maintained or used by AAHC, she said. The city has maintained that portion as if it were part of the city’s park system, “and we just assumed it was part of the city’s park system,” she said. They had no intent to ever build on the parcel.

Hall reported that she’s already talked to the parks staff about splitting off that portion of the site, and the city attorney’s office is helping with that. AAHC doesn’t want the housing portion of the parcel to be in the floodway.

If it’s necessary to postpone this rezoning so that details can be worked out, Hall said that was fine with her.

Wendy Rampson reported that HUD might have some issues with splitting the parcel, so more work needs to be done to explore that option. She suggested postponing action indefinitely on this site, as well as the West Washington site.

Ken Clein wanted to emphasize that AAHC doesn’t have any intention of selling the property, and that even if they wanted to sell it, there would be restrictions placed on a sale by HUD.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone this item to a future meeting.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – West Washington

The proposal called for rezoning 805-807 W. Washington – at the southwest corner of Washington and Mulholland – from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). It contains one duplex, with a garage that’s used for AAHC facilities storage.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Wendy Rampson that based on the lot size and rezoning, only a single unit could be built there in the future.

Wendy Woods wanted to get some information about issues that were raised during the public hearing. She asked what happens in that area when there’s a major rainfall.

Rampson replied that this area is a very stressed section of the Allen Creek system – as the creek runs through an underground drain in that area. The pavement on the public housing site contributes to the problem, but it’s a much broader issue, she said. It’s a drainage problem that the city often deals with.

Woods said she didn’t know what it costs to return pavement to gravel, but she wondered whether AAHC has considered any ways of mitigating the runoff problem from that site. Jennifer Hall replied that the AAHC facilities manager estimates it would cost about $5,000. There are other problems with the property, she noted – for example, the roof needs to be replaced or it won’t last through next winter. They’re planning to put on a metal roof, which is a more permanent roof, she said. AAHC is also exploring whether it can break up the pavement. “I fully intend to deal with that this summer,” Hall said.

Bona thought there might be an opportunity to get grant funding for a rain garden or other way of dealing with the drainage issue.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone this item to a future meeting.

Glenwood Annexation

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend the annexation of an 0.22-acre lot at 375 Glenwood Street – currently in Scio Township – and to zone the site as R1C (single-family dwelling district), which matches the zoning of surrounding sites.

375 Glenwood is outlined in black with hashmarks.

The parcel is on the west side of Glenwood, south of Dexter Road. The owners, Kelly Anderson and Victoria Pebbles, also own the adjacent lot. They want to build a single-family home on the 375 Glenwood site, which is currently vacant. The annexation would allow the site to connect with city water and utility services.

According to a staff memo, the 2014 water improvement charges are $5,345.10 and the 2014 sanitary improvement charges are $8,667.10.

The construction would require installing a public sidewalk.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Glenwood Annexation: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked about language in the staff memo:

There are city utilities available to service this parcel, including a 6” water main and a 12” sanitary sewer. Storm sewer is not available. Connection to the sanitary sewer may require detailed design by an engineer. No representation is made as to ability to connect.

Woods wondered about the statement “No representation is made as to the ability to connect.” She didn’t think she’d seen that kind of statement before.

Katy Ryan, an intern with the planning unit who gave the staff report, noted that Glenwood is an unpaved road. Planning manager Wendy Rampson elaborated. Because the road is gravel, the drainage is provided via ditches in that neighborhood, rather than connections to the city’s storm sewer system. Sewer and water systems are available, but the elevation of the pipes in that area might make it difficult to connect. The “no representation” statement is just the staff’s way of saying that they haven’t reviewed it, and that it’s up to the property owner to address, she said.

Woods asked about potential flooding. Rampson replied that there’s a long history to that area, where property has been annexed from Scio Township. In the past, residents have explored whether to pave the roads. Some of the lower-lying properties have experienced drainage issues, she noted. But every time the issue of paving emerges, the cost has been prohibitive to residents, she said.

Bonnie Bona followed up, noting the city’s interest in rain gardens and infiltration approaches to handling stormwater. She wondered if that “more progressive approach” had been looked at in this neighborhood. Rampson didn’t think it had been studied there, saying it had been about 10 years since the issue had been brought up. She wasn’t sure the soils are amenable to infiltration, but said it’s something that can be explored in the future.

Sabra Briere asked if there are other sidewalks in the neighborhood. Ryan indicated that this would be the first sidewalk. Briere noted that it’s a situation where the sidewalk is considered an improvement, even though it doesn’t connect to anything. Ryan replied: “We’re currently looking into that right now.”

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended annexation and zoning. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Master Plan Review

The planning commission’s bylaws call for an annual review of the city’s master plan, including a public hearing.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Seven documents constitute the city’s master plan: (1) the sustainability framework, adopted in 2013; (2) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, as adopted in 2011; (3) land use element, as adopted in 2013 to add the South State corridor plan; (4) downtown plan, as adopted in 2009; (5) transportation plan update, as adopted in 2009; (6) non-motorized transportation plan, adopted in 2007 and updated in 2013; and (7) natural features master plan, adopted in 2004.

Collectively, the documents are intended to describe a vision for the city’s future and guide decisions about land use, transportation, infrastructure, environment, housing, and public facilities.

The annual review is a time for commissioners, staff or the public to suggest changes or topics that should be studied for possible inclusion in the master plan.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that within the past fiscal year, commissioners adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an element of the land use plan, and also adopted the non-motorized plan update. Now, commissioners seem to be interested in looking at the North Main corridor, Rampson said, so that’s something to consider working on this coming year. Other possibilities include a corridor plan for Washtenaw Avenue, and working with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on a streetscape framework plan.

A resolution on the May 6 agenda laid out these topics, among others. From the resolved clauses:

Resolved, The City Planning Commission will continue the process of developing a corridor plan for Washtenaw Avenue and begin the process of developing a corridor plan for North Main Street to address land use, transportation and economic development in these areas;

Resolved, The City Planning Commission will assist the Downtown Development Authority in creating a Streetscape Framework Plan;

Resolved, The City Planning Commission will assist in the implementation of the Sustainability Action Plan, in coordination with the Energy Commission, the Environmental Commission, Park Advisory Commission, Housing Commission and Housing and Human Services Board;

A separate resolution listed 16 documents that are used as resources to support the master plan.

Rampson recommended postponing these resolutions until May 20, to give commissioners time to incorporate additional input. [.pdf of staff memo and resolutions]

Master Plan Review: Public Hearing

Last year, the master plan hearing drew six speakers on a range of topics, including development in Lowertown, a park in downtown Ann Arbor, and a push for adequate sidewalks, cleared of vegetation, so that kids can walk to school safely.

This year, only one person spoke the May 7 public hearing – Changming Fan of TiniLite World. He noted that the company was registered in 1996 in Ann Arbor and has never moved away. He said he lost his house because of the economic downturn. He wanted to use his technology to help people, especially the poor. But small businesses and innovators are ignored, he said. He urged commissioners to include this technology in the city’s master plan.

Master Plan Review: Commission Discussion

Discussion was brief. Regarding the resource documents, Bonnie Bona wanted to replace the North Main Street/Huron River Corridor Summary Land Use Policy of 1988 with the new North Main/Huron River task force report that was completed in 2013.

Bona also wondered whether the city’s climate action plan should be included as a resource document.

Rampson said she’d incorporate those changes into the resolutions that would be considered on May 20.

Outcome: Planning commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the item until the May 20 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. Here are some highlights from May 6.

Communications & Commentary: City Council Update

Sabra Briere, who serves as the city council’s representative on the planning commission, reported that the only council action on May 5 that directly affected the planning commission was the reappointment of Kirk Westphal to the environmental commission, as the planning commission’s representative to that group. She noted that the council will be voting on the fiscal 2015 budget at its May 19 meeting, and she encouraged everyone to review it and let her know what they thought.

Briere did not mention that his reappointment came on a 7-4 vote after 20 minutes of debate. Dissenting were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). The controversy on the appointment stemmed from a decision by mayor John Hieftje last year not to nominate Jeff Hayner to the public art commission – because Hayner was running for Ward 1 city council against Sabra Briere. Those who dissented on Westphal’s appointment argued in part that the same principle should be applied to Westphal, a Democrat who is running for the Ward 2 city council seat this year.

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

Ken Clein, who represents the planning commission on the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, reported that the DDA held its first advisory committee meeting for the streetscape framework project on May 1, which included a walking tour. He’s representing the planning commission as part of that effort. [The DDA board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.] Clein said it was exciting to walk around town and see things in a new light.

Communications & Commentary: Written Communications

Bonnie Bona addressed a written communication that had been received from Rod Sorge, president of the Earhart Village Homes Association. [.pdf of Sorge's email] His email referred to an Ann Arbor Chronicle report about comments made by planning commissioners at a March 4, 2014 meeting. From Sorge’s email:

In [Mary Morgan's] article about the commission’s consideration of a proposal from Concordia University,” Concordia Takes Step in Campus Upgrade” in the Ann Arbor Chronicle, March 8, 2014, she reports some comments she attributes to commission members. Among these comments about the Concordia University’s expansion plans and the neighborhood she reported that a commissioner [Clein] wondered whether the city should talk to the university about rezoning the entire site, rather than having to grant a special exception use for each project. Her article continued quoting a commissioner [Bona] as stating, “There’s not a lot of development in that area.”

Some confusion arose from the vagueness of the phrase “a commissioner” in Sorge’s email.

Bona noted that she was the commissioner who had been quoted as saying “There’s not a lot of development in that area.” She said that the only thing stated in the minutes is that the city is interested in the university’s overall master plan, and that it’s important to incorporate the neighborhood into that conversation. She wanted to clarify that rezoning was never mentioned. She said she was bringing it up because there hadn’t been a lot of public input at the March 4 meeting, and her desire was “to have [Concordia] have a more comprehensive plan that we could look at, instead of just a knee-jerk reaction every time they wanted to do something.”

She wanted to assure Sorge that the city had no intention of rezoning the Concordia property.

By way of background, it’s true that Bona did not mention rezoning during her comments at the March 4 meeting. However, Sorge’s email is likely referring to a comment by commissioner Ken Clein, who did bring up the rezoning issue, which was reported in The Chronicle:

Ken Clein wondered whether the city should talk to the university about rezoning the site, rather than having to grant a special exception use for each project. City planner Jeff Kahan replied that this is how the city handles private colleges. Such uses are allowed by special exception in office districts and single-family residential districts. Kahan said the city staff believes the existing zoning is reasonable, and it’s reasonable to require that the university request a special exception use for each project.

The March 4, 2014 meeting minutes – which the planning commission approved on May 6 – also reflect that exchange about rezoning. From the minutes:

Clein asked staff if the City would rather have the University rezone their site for future development rather than have them return before the Commission requesting Special Exception Use.

Kahan explained that the City handles all private colleges in this manner, through Special Exception Uses, when they are located in single-family and office zoning districts. He stated that staff believes the parcel is zoned appropriately for this type of use and is reasonable, given the size of their site.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, a resident of Green Brier Boulevard spoke to commissioners, noting that he lived across the street from the public housing complex on Green Road. He’d called the city because his apartment was at 80 degrees, and someone from the city told him it would be inspected in June, he said.

Changming Fan, who has frequently addressed the planning commission and other public bodies over the past few months, spoke about his company, TiniLite World Inc. He said he appreciated the democratic system. Ann Arbor is the first city that used LED lighting. He said he’d like to contribute his firm’s technology, called TiniLite. It’s a lighting display using LED lights, cell phones, and wireless Internet. He hoped it could be used to interconnect people socially, spiritually and emotionally to help Ann Arbor. He thought that the technology should be included in the city’s master plan.

Fan also spoke during public commentary at the end of the meeting, stressing the same themes.

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

Next meeting: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The parcel is on the west side of Glenwood, south of Dexter Road. The owners, Kelly Anderson and Victoria Pebbles, also own the adjacent lot. They want to build on the 375 Glenwood site, which is currently vacant. The annexation would allow the site to connect with city water and utility services.

According to a staff memo, the 2014 water improvement charges are $5,345.10 and the 2014 sanitary improvement charges are $8,667.10.

The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St., where the planning commission held its May 6 meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona drafted a resolution with recommendations to the city council regarding development of the former Y lot, which is owned by the city. (Photos by the writer.)

The commission voted unanimously to recommend that the council, if it decides to proceed with a sale, should use a request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for proposals (RFP) process.

The planning commission is also recommending that the council impose a set of conditions for future development. The list includes mixed-use development that encourages foot traffic and active first-floor uses, an entry plaza or open space, and mandatory compliance with the city’s design guidelines.

The site was one of five parcels that was the focus of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project. Much of the Aug. 20 discussion centered on the use of CWS as a framework for the resolution.

Sabra Briere, who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, suggested removing entirely references to the CWS project. The council never adopted the CWS report or took any action to implement the CWS recommendations, she noted. Briere felt that leaving those references to CWS in the commission’s resolution might make some councilmembers more resistant to it.

Wendy Woods, a former councilmember, countered that “our role is not to give pablum to council.” The commission’s role is to give advice as a body, regardless of how it might be received by the council, Woods said. She also pointed out that it’s not necessarily Briere’s role to advocate for positions taken by the commission. “The planning commission is its own advocate and we stand on our own,” Woods said.

Bonnie Bona and Diane Giannola, who drafted the resolution, pointed to the amount of public input that had been solicited during the CWS process, and felt that it was more powerful for the commission’s recommendations to be supported by that input. Giannola didn’t want to get into the politics of guessing what the council might support, but offered to extract references to CWS from the two resolved clauses. That compromise was acceptable to Briere and the other commissioners. [.pdf of amended Y lot resolution]

During the discussion, Briere also reported that the broker hired by the city to handle a possible sale has been meeting with councilmembers to talk about the Y lot. The broker is likely to suggest putting as few stipulations on the property as possible, she said, because he believes that such stipulations will lower the purchase price. That’s not necessarily what all councilmembers believe, she noted, but it’s what they’re being told.

The commission’s resolution will be forwarded to the city council as an item of communication, and will possibly appear on the agenda as soon as Sept. 3.

In other action, commissioners recommended approval of a two-story addition that more than doubles the size of the Honda vehicle testing facility on Ann Arbor’s south side. The existing 19,357-square-foot building, built in 1975, is located at 3947 Research Park Drive on a 2.72-acre site. During a public hearing on the project, a representative of American Honda Motor Co. reported that the expansion will include a state-of-the-art environmental testing chamber, to help Honda develop vehicles with cleaner fuel emissions. The $4.3 million project is expected to increase the number of employees who work at the site from 6 to 10.

Commissioners also recommended approval of (1) the site plan for a proposed Belle Tire at 590 W. Ellsworth – just east of the intersection with South State Street, and (2) an annexation and zoning request for 2640 Miller Road, on the city’s northwest side.

Recommendation for Y Lot

The idea for developing recommendations for the former YMCA lot’s future was first proposed by commissioner Bonnie Bona, and initially discussed at a July 9, 2013 working session. [See Chronicle coverage: "Planning Group Strategizes on Downtown."] Several commissioners subsequently discussed a draft version of the resolution – developed by Bona and commissioner Diane Giannola – at another working session on Aug. 13. [.pdf of original planning commission resolution, before amendments]

The city acquired the former Y site in 2003. It’s located at 350 S. Fifth, across from the downtown Ann Arbor District Library and south of Blake Transit Center. The city council is now exploring whether to sell that property. Earlier this year, the city selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property.

Now a surface parking lot, the site was zoned D1 as part of the original A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) zoning process. The site was also one of five parcels that was the focus of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project.

The original resolution recommended that the sale of the lot should use a request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for proposals (RFP) process. It recommended that the city council require some or all of these conditions:

• A building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal per the Connecting William Street Framework Plan;
• A “mixed use” development per the Connecting William Street Framework Plan;
• Any vehicular access and parking be accessed via the City’s Fifth Avenue underground parking structure;
• An entry plaza or open space appropriately scaled and located to be properly activated by adjacent building uses and to be maintained by the developer;
• The entry plaza or open space to incorporate generous landscaping;
• Mandatory adherence to the Design Guidelines as interpreted by the Design Review Board;
• A third party certification for the building’s energy and environmental performance (e.g. LEED Gold or LEED Platinum).

The goal, according to the resolution, is “to obtain a long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit for the residents of the city.”

Highlighted in yellow is the location of the former YMCA lot, which the city of Ann Arbor is considering selling. A $3.5 million balloon payment on the property is due at the end of 2013.

Recommendation for Y Lot: Public Commentary

Don Salberg was the only person who spoke on this topic. Prior to the commission’s discussion, he asked if commissioners could provide a clear definition of the recommendations. For example, how would they define “increased foot traffic” and what is specifically meant by “mixed use.” This would help people understand what’s intended for development on the site, he said.

Also, he told commissioners that many people feel the survey taken as part of the Connecting William Street report was not done properly and did not reflect the viewpoints of the majority of residents in Ann Arbor. He felt the city shouldn’t try to sell its property until it’s clear what would be built on it. These properties are revenue-producing, he said. [Four of the five lots in the CWS study are surface parking lots. The fifth site is the parking structure at Fourth & William.] The Y lot brings in $248,000 annually, he said, which he believes would be enough to service a $3.5 million, 25-year loan if the city can get it for around 3%. “I don’t see why there’s such an urgency in trying to sell this property,” he said.

Recommendation for Y Lot: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began the discussion by describing the history of the site, and listing several factors that prompted this resolution. It’s in a D1 zoning district, and the city has asked the planning commission to review D1 zoning. [See Chronicle coverage: "Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review."] It was one of five city-owned lots that were part of the Connecting William Street project, which had included a lot of public input, Bona noted. That CWS project, conducted by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, was done after the site had been zoned D1. The city’s climate action plan was also developed after the Y lot was zoned D1, she said.

There are a few things from these initiatives that she and some other planning commissioners felt should be incorporated into the sale of a city-owned property, Bona said, as additional requirements for such a sale.

Bona then read the “whereas” clause that she felt was the most important one in the resolution:

WHEREAS, the redevelopment of city-owned parcels are the City’s only opportunity to require a development with greater emphasis on long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit to the community;

That clause captures the biggest point that Bona wanted to make – the sale of a city-owned property could make a larger contribution to the community.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Sabra Briere addressed the questions asked by Don Salberg during public commentary, related to the meanings of foot traffic and mixed use. As city staff and planning officials use the term, “mixed use” refers to development that is more than a single use, she said – not just housing or offices, for example, but a combination of uses. It might be retail, office and residential. Mixed use is not a building that simply includes parking for residential, she added – because if that parking for residents of that building, it’s not public parking and not considered a separate use.

Generating foot traffic is a goal that many people in the community have talked about for the Y lot and other sites, Briere continued. They want a reason to go to the building, which tends to mean retail or restaurants, she added, but not a bank or other business that doesn’t generate a lot of foot traffic.

The rationale for encouraging mixed use and foot traffic is that people want a reason to be downtown – things to go to and places to see, Briere said, and that’s a positive for the rest of the community.

As far as why the property is being considered for sale, Briere said that the council has been hearing from at least one councilmember for the past five years that the city should be selling this property rather than paying interest on the loan. [She was referring to councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).] Earlier this year, the council agreed to put any net proceeds from the sale into the city’s affordable housing trust fund, she noted. Because of that, there’s a desire to achieve as much revenue as possible from the property.

Paras Parekh asked about one of the “whereas” clauses:

WHEREAS, the Connecting William Street Framework Plan contains recommendations that focus on bringing people and activities to this and other core downtown sites to achieve the common goals expressed by the community: creating the interesting and engaging sidewalk atmosphere currently lacking along William Street and recommends a large plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use and active uses on the first floor; (To achieve this the recommendations seek to encourage uses that generate foot traffic, provide a human scale at the ground floor, create visual appeal, and provide an interesting and pleasant overall experience.);

To Parekh, it read that the commission prefers large plate office or lodging, and that secondarily, residential is acceptable. Is that the intent? Bona replied that that the clause states verbatim what’s in the Connecting William Street plan. In creating the plan, the DDA had worked with a land use economist, Todd Poole, who helped identify what kind of use would be marketable, she said.

Typically, Bona said, the city doesn’t have a lot of say about the kinds of uses that are included on a property. In the downtown, the mix of uses is what’s most important, she said. So the resolution is recommending to council that the city require mixed use on the Y lot, and citing the CWS recommendations as examples of the type of mixed use that might be encouraged.

Later in the discussion, Bona clarified that this “whereas” clause included elements from the CWS report that are important. The Y site is one of the few lots downtown that could handle a large plate office, she said. As an example, a large tenant like Google would prefer not to be on three floors, as they currently are, Bona said. Large tenants that want to locate their operations on a single floor can’t find those conditions downtown, and that’s why the reference to large plate office as a primary use is in the CWS report. Public input indicated that this was an acceptable use, she said. Bona noted that the “resolved” clauses are not as specific as the “whereas” clauses, and simply recommend mixed use.

Parekh suggested combining the two “resolved” clauses, and there was some discussion about that. He said that because he was new member to the commission, he’d defer to other commissioners. Diane Giannola responded by saying that a resolution of this kind is “a rare event” for the planning commission, so there’s no typical way of doing it. She had separated the two “resolved” clauses because she thought they were two separate recommendations: (1) to use a request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for proposals (RFP) process; and (2) to include a set of conditions in the RFQ/RFP. That way, the council could act on either of the recommendations, or both.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Wendy Woods wondered what an RFQ entailed, and whether the recommendations needed to include both the RFQ and RFP processes. Bona explained that an RFQ is a request to get information from potential developers before they do any work on a proposal. From that, you select a short list of developers and ask them to do a proposal. It’s extremely time-consuming to do a proposal for a project like this, Bona said, and it’s more fair to pre-select developers rather than to make a wide open RFP. She thought that an RFQ was a critical element in soliciting good proposals. She noted that the RFQ/RFP phrasing was consistent with the CWS recommendations.

Woods said she found it confusing, but it wasn’t a deal-breaker for her. She felt the resolution ran the risk of guiding everything toward the CWS plan, and she didn’t think the commission wanted to do that. She noted that the commission had accepted the CWS plan and sent it to the council, but she wasn’t sure what council had done with it. [At its March 5, 2013 meeting, the commission unanimously voted to add the CWS plan to the list of resource documents that support the city’s master plan. The council has taken no action regarding the plan.]

Woods then pointed to the phrase “the Y Lot should be sold …” in both of the “resolved” clauses. Some people in the community might not be sure that the lot should be sold at this point, she said. She suggested replacing it with “the Y Lot, if sold …” Otherwise, it would seem like the planning commission thinks the lot should be sold, Woods contended. “I don’t think that we’ve had that discussion. I think we’re just really trying to respond to what city council is doing.”

Giannola and Bona indicated that the “if sold” change was considered as a friendly amendment.

Briere thanked Bona and Giannola for their work, but said she was still concerned about the reliance on the Connecting William Street framework. The council didn’t accept it or direct the planning commission to implement it, she noted. The original expectation had been that the council would task the planning commission with adding the CWS recommendations into the master plan, but that hadn’t happened. To her, it means that the council “wasn’t as enthusiastic as maybe people would have wanted it to be, about the results of the Connecting William Street framework plan and process.”

She didn’t think it was necessary, from an organizational standpoint, to rely on the CWS framework to support the commission’s resolution. “I think it’s likely to turn some members of council away from reading it and understanding the purpose.” That’s a problem, since that could prevent some councilmembers from paying attention to the underlying message of the resolution.

Sabra Briere, who serves on both the city council and planning commission, talks with Ann Arbor resident Don Salberg before the start of the commission’s Aug. 20 meeting.

Briere reported that the broker hired by the city is suggesting that the council put as few stipulations on the land sale as possible. The broker isn’t suggesting that there’s a lot of revenue to be gained from this land sale, and the more restrictions that are placed on the property’s use and appearance, the more difficult it will be to generate sufficient revenue to cover the debt and add to the affordable housing trust fund, Briere said.

This isn’t necessarily what the council believes, Briere added, but that’s the message that councilmembers are receiving from the broker.

In conversations with some of the other councilmembers about the Y lot, Briere said, they seem to feel strongly that there should be a mixed use development there. Having parking built on the site for residential use should entail connecting to the existing underground parking structure via a connection under Fifth Avenue – that’s both frugal and sensible, she said. Some councilmembers really want open space on the Y lot, while others might have heard the message that requiring open space would mean lower revenue from the sale, she reported

The proposed resolution might not generate support on the city council as it’s currently written, Briere said. She’s the planning commissioner who sits on council and really ought to be advocating for this resolution, Briere added. “Otherwise, if I can’t advocate for it, I think it’s harder for it to pass.” So she was concerned about voting on it as written, saying she’d like to “whittle away” references to Connecting William Street that aren’t as helpful as she’d like them to be. She’d also prefer to keep the resolution shorter – preferably one page. Such revisions “won’t make anyone immediately resistant to it when they read it, but they’ll actually pay attention to the recommendations,” she said.

The recommendations as a whole follow the master plan documents regarding the downtown, Briere said, and don’t need the Connecting William Street plan to back them up. “I would hate to have resistance just because [councilmembers] see words that make them unhappy,” she concluded.

Woods responded, saying she was trying to give her remarks in the most respectful way that she could. The planning commission’s role is to give advice, she said. “Forgive me how I say this, but our role is not to give pablum to council. And sometimes they’re going to hear things that they perhaps don’t agree with, and then it’s up to them to do with it what they will.”

When Woods served on council, she recalled, there was a period when she also served on the planning commission. There were certainly times when she didn’t agree with the outcome of planning commission decisions, but she hadn’t seen her role as an advocate for the planning commission. “The planning commission is its own advocate, and we stand on our own.” She didn’t want Briere to feel that it’s her responsibility to take something from the planning commission and get it passed by council.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Kirk Westphal.

Bona called attention to the fact that both “resolved” clauses include the words “recommend.” The resolution also states that the role of the planning commission is to advise the council on development issues, she noted. The commission would be ducking its responsibility to avoid something that council might find controversial, she said. “I think we would be actually doing a disservice if we do that.”

As far as Connecting William Street, Bona thought that the controversy surrounding the Library Lane site “shouldn’t take down the whole document.” Relative to the Library Lane site, the Y lot was not controversial, she noted, adding that “someone has to have the backbone to make a decision, at some point.” [Some residents – including members of the Library Green Conservancy – have advocated for turning the Library Lane site into a public plaza or park, rather than developing it.]

Many of the recommendations in the resolution are reinforced by the Connecting William Street report and the public input it entailed, Bona said. The public indicated support for mixed use and open space on the Y site, she noted, which are both recommendations in the resolution. So she thought it was important to reference the CWS report. “I don’t want to shy away from that public input, just because a few of people don’t like a couple aspects of the document.”

Bona also felt that most of the recommendations will ultimately enhance the value of the site. “I don’t care what that broker told you,” she said, referencing Briere’s comments. “I think that [adding conditions] will actually increase the value of that property – they just may not know it.”

Kirk Westphal reviewed some of the history of the Y site, going back to the council’s directive to the DDA that launched the Connecting William Street study. The DDA was tasked with creating a plan for development of the five city-owned sites, he said, and not to create a new open space plan – saying the open space plan had been taken care of by the park advisory commission and parks staff. The city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan had been updated recently, he noted, giving a very low priority for new downtown open spaces. Nor is downtown open space a priority in the master plan documents, he said.

During the Connecting William Street process, Westphal said, a renewed interest in downtown open space emerged. That’s actively being addressed by the park advisory commission, he added, and he hoped that’s why the council put the CWS plan on hold, to wait for that process to finish. Westphal noted that he had served on the advisory committee for Connecting William Street, and it had included the a great number of unique contact points in the community, to get input. It was a robust discussion, he said, and the Y lot had been one of the least controversial sites.

The plan had provided clear overarching recommendations, as well as specific recommendations for each site, Westphal noted. It also provided flexibility for development. It wasn’t intended for the city to issue an RFQ or RFP for someone to develop all five sites at the same time, Westphal stressed. Rather, a phasing approach is recommended, he said.

The community, via input during the Connecting William Street study, had clearly indicated support for better materials and architecture, a plaza or other amenities in exchange for a lower selling price, Westphal said. And there’s a lot of research showing that even if the city gets a lower sale price because of these conditions, a higher quality building will result in higher taxable income over the long term, he said.

Giannola felt that the Connecting William Street plan was the only available public input on the Y lot. It looks like the council wants to sell that site, she added, so if planning commissioners want to make recommendations, that’s the only public input they can point to. The master plan isn’t as specific, and she thinks it’s more powerful to have the public input backing up the commission’s recommendations.

As a compromise, Giannola suggested leaving references to Connecting William Street in the “whereas” clauses, but taking out those references in the “resolved” clauses.

As for how council might react to the resolution, Giannola said she completely agreed with Woods. “I don’t think we should assume or pre-judge what council’s going to do. This is supposed to represent our thinking. So I don’t really want to get into the politics of it all.” Commissioners should just look at this resolution and decide whether they believe what’s stated in it, she said.

Briere said she appreciated the comments of Woods, Bona and Giannola. They were right about the planning commission’s role as making recommendations to council.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Wendy Woods, Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh.

Briere has heard concerns about the fact that the council felt like “less than the final authority” on the external design of 413 E. Huron, a recent controversial development at the corner of Division and Huron. But that was private property, she noted. The Y lot is public property. She said it could be very valuable to the community to have a serious impact on the external design on a very prominent building on the Y site, located on one of the few vacant corners that’s fronting three streets.

Briere supported the suggestion of removing references to Connecting William Street from the “resolved” clauses.

Jeremy Peters agreed that the resolved clauses need to state strongly that the commission wants to see some or all of the listed conditions in a project for that site. “I think we’d all agree that the plain by-right zoning is just not what we – nor the rest of the community – would want to see on that lot, if council decides to move ahead and sell it.”

The remainder of the discussion resulted in some additional friendly amendments to the original resolution. Highlights from amendments to the resolved clauses included eliminating references to Connecting William Street; adding the phrase “if sold”; and connecting parking on the Y lot with the existing stub in the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure. [.pdf of final Y lot resolution]

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously voted to approve the Y lot resolution, as amended. It will be forwarded to the city council as an item of communication. That communication item might appear on the council’s agenda as early as Sept. 3.

After the vote, Bonnie Bona asked city planner Matt Kowalski to explain what happens next in this process. Kowalski said that a copy of the resolution will likely be placed on the council’s Sept. 3 agenda.

Sabra Briere clarified that it won’t be an action item for council, and wouldn’t entail a public hearing. It would be placed on the agenda as an item of communication. When the council is ready to take its next step regarding the Y lot, then it would be appropriate for the resolution to become part of that action. She recommended that a copy of the resolution be sent to the city administrator, Steve Powers, with a request that he forward the resolution to the broker.

Kirk Westphal expressed some concern that the resolution, as an item of communication, won’t spur discussion or attention. Wendy Woods noted that there are other ways for citizens, including planning commissioners, to bring items to the council’s attention. People can individually contact councilmembers, for example, or speak during public commentary.

Recommendation for Y Lot: Final Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting, Don Salberg spoke again about the Y lot resolution. He calculated that the parking lot at Fifth and William is about 70% occupied, on average. He understood that the intent of Connecting William Street was to eliminate the surface parking lots. He knows many people who disagree with that, however, and he himself uses those lots and finds them convenient. Being forced into parking structures would be inconvenient, he said.

Salberg noted that there was sufficient parking in the Fifth Avenue underground parking structure, and concluded that people parking on the surface lot at Fifth and William could use the underground structure. Why don’t they? he asked. Someone should stand at the gate and ask people why they’re choosing to park on the surface lot rather than the Library Lane structure. The Y site isn’t being wasted, he said. It generates parking revenue that could cover the cost of the loan, Salberg contended, so the city could wait until there’s actually a need for building.

No one can name a company that would occupy an office built on the Y lot, he said. Salberg cited the example of Costco, which built its store at Ellsworth near South State specifically for its own use. That’s different than a development that’s speculative. Buildings like Ashley Terrace have failed, he contended, because they were speculative and can’t find tenants.

Honda Test Facility Expansion

An addition that more than doubles the size of the Honda testing facility on Ann Arbor’s south side was on the planning commission’s Aug. 20 agenda.

Aerial view of Honda test site, north of Ellsworth on Research Park Drive.

The existing 19,357-square-foot building, built in 1975 and used for vehicle testing, is located at 3947 Research Park Drive on a 2.72-acre site, adjacent to railroad tracks to the east. The proposal calls for building a two-story, 24,116-square-foot addition. Part of that square footage includes a partial basement level.

The project would also entail removing a fence from a parking area in the back that has 26 parking spaces. The fence would be replaced with 10-foot-high privacy panels. Four bike hoops would be installed in front of the building, with additional bike spaces inside. There is no stormwater treatment on site, so the project includes building a below-grade infiltration system with a connection to the city storm sewer. One footing drain disconnect will be required, as part of the city’s footing drain disconnect program. That part of the project will be handled by CDM Smith, according to a staff memo.

Two of the site’s seven landmark trees would be removed, and mitigated by planting six new trees. In addition, 32 shrubs will be planted in front of the new addition. A 5-foot public sidewalk will also be built along Research Park Drive.

The site is zoned RE (research district) and no rezoning is requested. The expansion will increase the number of American Honda Motor Co. employees who work at the site from 6 to 10, according to the planning staff.

The project is being managed by Poggemeyer Design Group in Bowling Green, Ohio. The estimated construction cost is $4.3 million. A variance related to the size of the existing curb cut will be needed from the city’s zoning board of appeals, which will consider the item at its Aug. 28 meeting. The driveway width now is about 19 feet, smaller than the city’s required 24 feet for a two-way drive. After consulting with the city’s engineering and traffic staff, the planning staff supports this variance because the traffic at the site is relatively low.

The site is located in Ward 4.

Honda Test Facility Expansion: Public Hearing

Only one person spoke during a public hearing on the project. Tommy Chang, representative of American Honda Motor Co., told commissioners that he was there with three members of the expansion project team who were on hand to answer questions. They are very excited that the company has decided to invest in the Ann Arbor lab. The facility opened in 1975 to conduct tail-pipe emission testing and fuel economy testing, in compliance with regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He reported that the expansion will include a state-of-the-art environmental testing chamber, to help Honda develop vehicles with cleaner fuel emissions.

Chang thanked city planner Matt Kowalski for his help, and said the intent of the project is also to bring more jobs to Ann Arbor from Japan. Personally, he said, Ann Arbor is the right place for this investment. [Chang also attended the city council meeting the day before and was introduced before the meeting to city administrator Steve Powers by Sally Petersen (Ward 2).]

Honda Test Facility Expansion: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked about the sidewalk, wondering if it would be connected to existing sidewalks – or would it be the first in that area? City planner Matt Kowalski replied that it would connect to a sidewalk on the south, but there’s no existing sidewalk on property to the north. When site plans are submitted, the planning staff is asking that sidewalks be included.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona talks with city planner Matt Kowalski prior to the Aug. 20, 2013 planning commission meeting.

Woods wondered if most of the businesses in that area are related to the auto industry. There are several auto research operations in the Research Park area, Kowalski replied, including a Mercedes facility adjacent to Honda. Woods joked that the firms are in competition for consumer dollars, so maybe they could impress the city by putting in sidewalks.

Jeremy Peters asked if Honda had included natural screening as an option, instead of fencing or panels around the back parking lot.

A member of the Honda design team said the purpose of the panels isn’t simply to protect vehicles from “prying eyes,” but is also intended for security purposes. That’s why a natural area wouldn’t work, he said, adding that there have been problems in the past with people breaking into cars.

Paras Parekh asked for more details about the curb cut variance. Kowalski indicated that Honda is willing to widen the driveway, but it would add to the site’s impervious surface and eliminate two mature trees. Given the volume of traffic at the site, the city staff didn’t believe it was necessary to widen the driveway. The current curb cut was installed when the original building was constructed in the 1970s, and the need for a variance is triggered because it’s part of the current site plan.

Bonnie Bona noted that the expansion doubles the floor space, and increases the floor-area ratio (FAR) from 16% to 37%. She pointed out that prior to the city’s revisions in area, height and placement regulations a few years ago, this would not have been possible. She noted that especially in research parks, “we were getting a lot of lawn area.” The need for buffering is not as important between research facilities, Bona said, and that’s why the ordinance was changed. She wanted to highlight that because it’s one of the few projects that has taken advantage of the ordinance change since it was passed. “It’s a step in the right direction,” she said.

Bona also observed that a chart included in the staff report for this project indicates there is no height requirement. She noted that if the building were adjacent to a residential neighborhood, there would be a height requirement. Bona said she wanted to clarify that, in light of recent controversy over downtown development, related to height. She added that the limit on floor-area ratio would prevent any structure from being very tall.

Outcome: The site plan for the Honda expansion was unanimously approved, contingent on securing a curb cut variance from the zoning board of appeals. The project will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Belle Tire on Ellsworth

The site plan for a proposed Belle Tire at 590 W. Ellsworth – just east of the intersection with South State Street – was on the Aug. 20 agenda.

Aerial view of the proposed Belle Tire site.

The 1-acre site – currently vacant – is on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a new Tim Hortons. A restaurant building formerly located on the property was demolished.

The proposal calls for putting up a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with a minimum of 49 parking spaces, included 10 spaces located in service bays. An existing curb cut into the site from Ellsworth would be closed, and the business would share an entrance with the Tim Hortons site. The project includes a new sidewalk along Ellsworth, completing a gap between the adjacent parcels. There will be a landscape buffer between the parking and sidewalk.

Approval would be contingent on securing a shared parking easement with the adjoining property to the west, and for a sanitary sewer easement to the east, that would be dedicated to the city for the sewer main.

The site, located in Ward 4, is zoned C3 (fringe commercial) and no rezoning is requested. According to a staff memo, the estimated cost of construction is $1.1 million. The project is being handled by Christopher Enright Architects of Birmingham, Mich.

No one spoke at a public hearing on the project.

Belle Tire on Ellsworth: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere recalled that a previous project in that area, which the planning commission reviewed earlier this year, was not able to secure access to Ellsworth. [Called the State Street Center, that project is located on a thin strip of land off of South State, just north of Ellsworth and adjacent to the new Tim Hortons. At their April 2, 2013 meeting, commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and for rezoning the parcel to C3 (fringe commercial). A Jimmy John’s will face South State. A separate one-story retail building will be located behind the restaurant. At the time, the owners of the two properties could not agree on terms for creating a driveway connection between the sites.]

Christopher Enright, the architect for the Belle Tire project on West Ellsworth.

Briere noted that planning commissioners had been concerned about that lack of connection from South State to Ellsworth, and she wondered if there had been any change.

Katy Ryan, an intern with the planning staff who gave the staff report on this project, replied that the two parties have now agreed to create a connection for vehicles.

Bonnie Bona asked whether the owners have shared any details about that connection, including whether there will be a pedestrian component to it. “I’m just having a hard time seeing where they’ll put it,” she said. Ryan replied that the only thing city staff has been told is that there are ongoing discussions.

Christopher Enright, a Birmingham, Mich. architect who’s overseeing the project, was the only representative on hand at the meeting. He reported that there have been discussions with the owner of the property to the north of the Belle Tire site regarding several issues. The main one has been about the utility connection, he said. However, the owners also understand there are benefits to having a vehicle connection, but “it hasn’t been clearly formulated yet.” It would potentially eliminate a couple of parking spaces on the Belle Tire site, and that’s the issue they’re sorting through now, he said, because it would affect the minimum number of spaces required by the city.

Bona said she favored the connection over parking, but noted that “I don’t have that power” to waive the requirements. She hoped the sites could offer a pedestrian connection, at a minimum.

Saying that she’s normally in favor of fewer curb cuts, Wendy Woods asked for more explanation about how the new single curb cut on Ellsworth will affect traffic flow. Ryan replied that the city’s traffic engineer, Pat Cawley, has signed off on the plan.

City planner Matt Kowalski added that when a land division had previously been approved for that parcel, it had included an understanding that only one curb cut would be used when the parcels were developed. So the single new curb cut was “sized appropriately,” he said, and placed in the center of the parcels to allow for two-way traffic from both sites. There will eventually be a drive so that traffic can also exit onto South State, he noted.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend approval of the Belle Tire site plan. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Land Annex on Miller Road

Ann Arbor planning commissioners were asked to recommend approval of an annexation and zoning request for 2640 Miller Road, on the city’s northwest side.

Aerial view of Rayer property.

Owned by Robert Rayer, the 0.39-acre is located in Scio Township, on the north side of Miller west of North Maple. The requested zoning is R1B (single-family dwelling district). Properties on the east and west sides of this lot – including a site with a daycare center – are already zoned R1B.

A single-family home is on the property. According to a staff memo, the annexation was prompted because the site’s existing septic system has failed and the owners need to connect to city services. The 2013 improvement charges are $19,062, but the charges would be set whenever the city water and sewer mains are connected and the services become active.

If the annexation is approved, the site would be located in Ward 5.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Land Annex on Miller Road: Commission Discussion

Discussion was brief. Sabra Briere asked about a development that the commission had previously approved in this area – she didn’t remember the exact location of that.

City planner Matt Kowalski described the most recent project in that area as a residential development near the northwest corner of Miller and Maple, with two apartment buildings and a cluster of single-family homes that backed up to Calvin Street. [That development, Maple Cove, was recommended for approval by the planning commission on June 5, 2012. It was subsequently approved by the city council on July 16, 2012.]

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of annexation and zoning for 2640 Miller Road. The request will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan

Kathy Griswold spoke to commissioners about the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. She noted that the commission’s master plan revisions committee had recently been briefed on the plan’s update. She asked that planning commissioners not accept the update, which is in the form of an appendix to the original plan. She’d like to see the plan posted online, with all of the updates rolled into it – not listed separately.

Griswold also recommended that the city review the process of how non-motorized transportation information is collected, and how it rises to the level of the planning commission and the city council for funding purposes. “People say that information is power, but so is a lack of information,” she said. There’s a huge backlog of infrastructure that’s needed, Griswold added. One example is improvements to sidewalks and crosswalks in the public school “walk zones.” This information isn’t recorded anywhere, she said, so when proposals come before the council – such as the recent bike share program – councilmembers can’t make intelligent decisions because they don’t have all the information they need.

The process for collecting this kind of information is a closed process, Griswold contended. There’s an alternative transportation committee, but she characterized it as an invitation-only group, with meetings held in the offices of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. She’d like to see some kind of open committee, with representation from the Ann Arbor Public Schools, “so that these needs can percolate up.”

Griswold reported that Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, is collecting information about sidewalk gaps, but that seems to be in isolation of the work being done by Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, she said. She’d like to have all this information in one place online.

A public hearing on the non-motorized transportation plan update is set for the planning commission’s next meeting on Sept. 10.

Communications & Commentary: North Main Huron River Corridor Task Force

Bonnie Bona, who has served as the planning commission’s representative on the North Main Huron River corridor task force, reported that the group held its last meeting earlier this month. Final touches are being put on the report, which will be delivered to the city council in September. She said the task force looks forward to having the council approve the report, and give direction about how to move forward with the recommendations.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods, Paras Parekh. Also: City planner Matt Kowalski.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Aerial view of Rayer property.

Owned by Robert Rayer, the 0.39-acre is located in Scio Township, on the north side of Miller west of North Maple. The requested zoning is R1B (single-family dwelling district). Properties on the east and west sides of this lot are already zoned R1B.

A single-family home is on the property. According to a staff memo, the annexation was prompted because the site’s existing septic system has failed and the owners need to connect to city services. The 2013 improvement charges are $19,062, but the charges would be set whenever the city water and sewer mains are connected and the services become active.

The request will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. If the annexation is approved, the site would be located in Ward 5.

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

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

Besides the consent agenda, the council will need to vote on just eight items. And half of those eight are standard easements, which are rarely subjected to any council discussion.

But those easements also mean that not too many councilmembers would have the chance to take the night off. As conveyances of land interest, the easements will require an 8-vote majority on the 11-member council. Two of the easements are related to the construction of a new Tim Hortons on South State Street, one is related to the Arbor Hills Crossing development at Washtenaw and Platt, and the fourth is linked to construction of the new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor.

The other land-related item on the agenda is initial consideration of a rezoning request for a site that has been annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township. The final vote on the item would come at a subsequent meeting after a public hearing at that meeting. The Aug. 19 agenda doesn’t include any items that require a public hearing.

The council will be asked to approve a $107,000 purchase order for continued participation in CLEMIS (Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System). The service is used by several public safety agencies in southeast Michigan. Among the support services provided by CLEMIS are computer-aided dispatch (CAD), mobile CAD, report management system, fingerprinting and mug shots.

The council will also be asked to approve the issuance of $3.15 million in revenue bonds to fund some electrical improvements for the water supply system.

The final voting item on the agenda is confirmation of several nominations to city boards and commissions made at the council’s previous meeting.

The agenda still offers some opportunity for stretching long. For example, the council could separate out some of the nominations for individual consideration. Among those nominations, the council will be asked to confirm appointments to the boards of two high-profile organizations – the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. Rishi Narayan, founder of Underground Printing, is the nominee to the DDA board. Jack Bernard, who works in the University of Michigan’s office of the general counsel, is the nominee to the AAATA board.

The council could also pull individual items off the consent agenda for separate consideration. Two of those items are street closures for downtown bars to host Oktoberfest activities on Sept. 20-21. It’s possible those items could be pulled out for separate consideration – but not because of a desire to deny the requests. Instead, a possible reason to consider them separately would be to highlight what’s different about the Oktoberfest street closures, compared to a similar request made at the council’s last meeting for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats.” That request, which was denied, was for an event sponsored by The Landmark apartment building. It was scheduled for Friday, Sept. 6, 2013, the evening before the football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame.

The Oktoberfest event also takes place on a weekend when the Michigan football team plays a game. But that game against the UConn Huskies will be contested on the gridiron of Rentschler Field in East Hartford, Conn. – over 700 miles away from the intersection of Washington and Main Streets in Ann Arbor, Mich.

Councilmembers also have the opportunity at three different points in the agenda to share communications with the public and their fellow councilmembers.

More detail on the meeting agenda items is available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

6:43 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived. She’s the only councilmember here so far. City administrator Steve Powers has also just arrived.

6:53 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) have now arrived. Nancy Shore, Warpehoski’s wife, is here with their two children. Jack Eaton, winner of the Ward 4 Democratic primary on Aug. 6, is chatting with Kailasapathy. Lumm says the meeting should last about a half hour. She thinks it’s probably the thinnest agenda she’s seen, including both her terms of service dating back to the mid-1990s. Petersen is introducing Powers to a representative of Honda.

7:04 p.m. And we’re off.

7:05 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are absent.

7:05 p.m. Proclamations. An item has been added to the agenda honoring Eastern Michigan University’s English as a Second Language Students for volunteering in the city parks through the GIVE 365 Volunteer Program – for multiple “pool splash days” and the annual Huron River Day celebration.

7:09 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Only three people are signed up to speak tonight. According to the agenda, up first will be Thomas Partridge to speak on commemorating Martin Luther King Jr., building affordable housing and public transportation, and promoting himself as a declared write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council in November. On the ballot, incumbent Democrat Mike Anglin is unopposed. Partridge is followed by James Rhodenhiser, who is signed up to speak on the protestors outside of Beth Israel Congregation. Rounding out the trio of public speaking reserved time is Kathy Griswold, who is signed up to talk about the city’s crosswalk ordinance.

7:13 p.m. Partridge is now holding forth. He introduces himself as an Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County resident advocating for those who need more government services. He calls for “integrated progress.” It’s the eve of the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s march on Washington, he says. So he calls on all residents of the city and county to make King’s dream a reality. He calls for an investigation of what he calls misappropriation of funds that the city now needs to expand public, affordable housing. He doesn’t think the mayor has answered any of the questions surrounding the economic downturn.

7:17 p.m. Rhodenhiser is now addressing the council. He is rector at St. Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church in Ann Arbor. He picks up on Partridge’s mention of the 50th anniversary. He refers to an anniversary in Ann Arbor – the 10th anniversary of a demonstration outside the Beth Israel Congregation. He characterizes the protests as “picking on” one congregation. He tells the council that he’s given the city clerk a letter from 31 religious leaders. He encourages the council to make a statement about what kind of city Ann Arbor wants to be. He calls for civility. His heart goes out to those in Egypt, he says. He asks the council to consider going on record supporting the congregants of Beth Israel, who might feel their burden will go unremarked.

7:19 p.m. Griswold is criticizing CityWorks as a piece of software. It is a platform for the citizens service request system. It does not have a mobile interface, she contends. She calls for an improvement. She also addresses the local crosswalk ordinance. Is it enforceable? Is education possible? She says she’s angry because she found a pamphlet that says, “Pedestrians Rule.” She calls that shameful. She calls for hiring a professional transportation engineer.

7:20 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:21 p.m. Kailasapathy reports that the human rights commission is working on a revision to the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance. Another topic from the HRC is to pursue policy guidelines for installation of video surveillance cameras.

7:23 p.m. Anglin raises the issue of stormwater control. He ventures that sites could be identified for stormwater detention farther upstream, using city land. He calls for “natural projects” upstream as much as possible.

7:23 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is commenting on a recent pedestrian fatality on Plymouth Road, highlighting the fact that state law, not just Ann Arbor local law, requires motorists to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. Ann Arbor’s law differs from Michigan’s Uniform Traffic Code in requiring motorists to stop, not merely slow as to yield, and in requiring action for pedestrians standing at the crosswalk, not already within the crosswalk.

7:23 p.m. From the Michigan Uniform Traffic Code:

R 28.1702 Rule 702. Pedestrians; right-of-way in crosswalk; violation as civil infraction.
(1) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but a pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

7:24 p.m. From the Ann Arbor city code, last revised on Dec. 19, 2011 after a revision a year earlier on July 19, 2010:

10:148. – Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

7:26 p.m. Briere has now summarized the laws. She’s ticking through some basic stats.

7:26 p.m. Additional background, based on data pulled from the Michigan Traffic Crashes website for 2004-2012: the majority of traffic crashes involving pedestrians are in the downtown area. [ped crash year-by-year animated map .gif)] The number of traffic crashes involving pedestrians has been somewhat higher the last two years than any of the previous seven years. [ped crash chart by year .jpg] Crashes related to pedestrians also show consistent seasonal variation. [ped crash chart by month total .jpg] [ped crash chart by month broken out by year]

7:28 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje now commends Rhodenhiser and his group, saying that he had watched a conversation between Rhodenhiser and the leader of the protests. He says that rationality had fallen on deaf ears. Hieftje notes that the council had passed a resolution a few years ago. He calls it a tough problem that attorneys have worked on.

7:30 p.m. Powers invites the public to a swearing in of four new police officers at 1 p.m. on Friday. He alerts the public to the UM student move-in from Aug. 28-30. He says that the AAPD party patrol will be in effect from then until Sept. 3, the start of classes. East University and Oakland will have a free solid waste drop off.

7:31 p.m. Minutes. The minutes from the last meeting have been approved without amendment.

7:31 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes three mid-September requests for street closings in downtown Ann Arbor. All three resolutions include approval of special permits for serving alcohol outdoors.

The consent agenda also includes two software purchases – one for case management at the 15th District Court and the other for tracking of maintenance needs for city assets. Rounding out the consent agenda is a contract for inspection of two of the city’s dams – Barton and Superior. In more detail, here’s a summary of the consent agenda.

• Street Closing: W. Washington for Oktoberfest Sept. 20-21 (Grizzly Peak Brewing Company and the Blue Tractor). This would be for the block between Main and Ashley, leaving intersections open for north-south traffic.
• Street Closing: E. Washington for Oktoberfest Sept. 20-21 (Arbor Brewing Company). This would be for the block between Main and Fourth Avenue, leaving intersections open for north-south traffic.
• Street Closing: E. Washington for Lite Bike Sept. 15. (Arbor Brewing Company and A2 Bike). This would be from half block between Main eastward to the alley.
• Approve purchase order to Azteca Systems for CityWorks software license and annual maintenance and support agreement ($60,000). This software is based on a geographical information system (GIS) platform and allows the city to track the maintenance of its equipment and assets. It’s also the software on which the city’s citizen request system is based. However, according to city CFO Tom Crawford, responding to a query from The Chronicle, the city is currently evaluating whether to continue using the existing citizen request application or convert to something else.
• Approve professional services agreement with Mead and Hunt Inc. to complete a dam safety inspection and report for Barton and Superior dams ($53,600). This is an inspection required every five years by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by an independent consultant. The last one was done in 2008. Mead and Hunt’s bid was the lowest of four bids. It was about half the highest bid for the work, which was submitted by Black & Veatch at $107,000.
• Approve purchase order to Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office for judicial information software (JIS) (not to Exceed $54,000). JIS is case management software provided to the 15th District Court, which the local court uses for day-to-day operations.

7:31 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Lumm wants to pull out two of them and Teall pulls out one.

7:33 p.m. The council is now discussing the Blue Tractor Oktoberfest street closing. Lumm asks if closing part of Washington has been done in the past all day. Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, indicates that the timing is requested by the applicant.

7:37 p.m. The council is now discussing the Azteca software item. Lumm totals up several different software items. CFO Tom Crawford indicates that the city tries to negotiate a multi-year, but flat rate contract. The maintenance costs are generally about 20% of the software costs. Kailasapathy brings up Griswold’s point about the lack of a mobile interface for CityWorks. Crawford calls CityWorks a key piece of software. Crawford notes that CityWorks does have a mobile API. A third party had created the citizens request system for the city. But that was five years ago, he says. So the city is now looking at going and and asking a third party to upgrade the mobile application. Warpehoski has looked up last year’s contract and notes that it’s the same as this year.

7:42 p.m. The council is now discussing the dam safety inspection contract. Teall asks for public services area administrator Craig Hupy. She gets confirmation that the funding is coming from the general fund. She asks for the status of discussion about hydro-electric use with interested parties. Hupy says that two years ago or so, a study was done about the feasibility of hydro-electric at Argo or Geddes. Hupy indicates there had been only one party, the VA hospital, interested in pursuing hydro-electric. He essentially concludes that hydro power wasn’t feasibility.

Briere ventures that in 2010 the council had made a decision that dam maintenance would not be funded out of the parks budget. Lumm recalls that previously the dam maintenance fund was an enterprise fund. Hupy confirms that the hydro-electric fund would in general just about break even, paying its own way. Hupy and Lumm are discussing dam operations back in the 1980s and 1990s.

7:43 p.m. Hieftje ventures that the reason that the dam is profitable is due to the fact that the price of electricity has gone up.

7:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has now voted unanimously to approve all items on the consent agenda.

7:43 p.m. Rezoning for 2925 Devonshire: Initial approval. The 0.66-acre parcel is requested to be rezoned from TWP (township district) to R1A (single-family dwelling district). The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning on a 9-0 vote at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. The rezoning comes in the context of the annexation of the land into the city.

7:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to give initial approval to the rezoning of 2925 Devonshire. The council’s final vote will come at a future meeting after a public hearing.

7:44 p.m. Issuance and sale of water supply system revenue bonds ($3.15 million) The bonds are being sold to finance some of the additions and improvements to the city’s water distribution system, including electrical improvements at the Barton and South Industrial pump stations. Michigan Finance Authority (the “Bond Bank”) will purchase the bonds as part of its Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWRF) program. Bond payments are to be made from the water supply system revenues.

At its June 17, 2013 meeting, the council approved a $2.6 million contract with Shaw Electric Company to upgrade electrical systems for the city’s drinking water system. That contract covered replacement of the primary and secondary switchgear at Barton Pump Station and replacement of electrical controls and a check valve at South Industrial Pump Station.

7:44 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to authorize issuance of the water supply system bonds.

7:44 p.m. Approval of a purchase order with Oakland County for CLEMIS (not to exceed $107,000). CLEMIS (Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System), which is hosted by Oakland County, is used by several public safety agencies in southeast Michigan. Among the support services provided by CLEMIS are computer-aided dispatch (CAD), mobile CAD, report management system, fingerprinting and mug shots. CLEMIS allows for sharing of information among public safety organizations across Southeast Michigan.

7:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to approve continued participation in CLEMIS.

7:45 p.m. Resolution accepting water and sanitary easement for Arbor Hills Crossing. The easement is being granted by RSW Washtenaw LLC (3100 Washtenaw Ave.) to the city at no cost as apart of the development agreement for Arbor Hills Crossing. As a land transaction, the acceptance of the easement will require an 8-vote majority on the 11-member council. Arbor Hills Crossing is located at on the southeast corner of Washtenaw and Platt, consisting of four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. A new traffic signal has recently been installed and is operational at the Platt and Washtenaw intersection.

7:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the easement for water and sanitary lines for Arbor Hills Crossing.

7:45 p.m. Resolutions accepting public utilities easements and public right-of-way easements for South State Street Tim Hortons. Both easements are being granted to the city, at no cost, from 3965 South State Associates LLC. The granting of right-of-way is 50 feet wide and about 345 feet long along Ellsworth Road. As land transactions, the acceptance of the easements will require an 8-vote majority on the 11-member council. The site plan for the Tim Hortons was approved by the city council last year at its April 16, 2012 meeting.

7:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to accept both easements for the Tim Hortons on State Street.

7:46 p.m. Resolution to approve a grant of easement to DTE Electric Company. This easement is to allow electrical service for the new Blake Transit Center currently under construction by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The easement begins on the Fourth Avenue side of the old Y lot ( 350 S. Fifth Avenue) and extends eastward about halfway across the block. As a land transaction, the acceptance of the easement will require an 8-vote majority on the 11-member council.

7:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to grant an easement to DTE to provide electrical service.

7:47 p.m. Confirmation of nominations. Nominated at the previous council meeting were the following:

• Alison Stroud to the Ann Arbor Commission on Disability Issues. On the city commission for disability issues, Stroud would be finishing the term of Ian Scott. Stroud is a public policy intern for the summer at the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. She addressed the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority during a public hearing at its June 20, 2013 meeting.
• Paul Darling (reappointment) to the Building Board of Appeals
• Reka Farrakand to Housing Board of Appeals. Farrakand is city of Ann Arbor fire marshal.
• Alex Milshteyn (reappointment) to the Zoning Board of Appeals
• Rishi Narayan to the board of the Downtown Development Authority. Narayan would replace Leah Gunn. Narayan is founder and managing member of Underground Printing, which offers screenprinting of apparel in more than a dozen cities nationwide. Narayan made the Crain’s Detroit Business “Twenty in their 20s” list in 2010 as a 28-year-old.
• Jack Bernard to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. Bernard is lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead. If Bernard is confirmed by the city council at tonight’s meeting, that would bring the total of UM employees on the board to three, or one-third of the nine members. The other two UM employees on the AAATA board are Sue Gott (the university’s head planner) and Anya Dale (a representative in the office of sustainability).

7:50 p.m. Petersen highlights three of the nominations. She notes that Stroud has a Pittsfield Township address, but she’s hearing-impaired, so she asks that the residency requirement be “waived.” She calls Narayan a young urban professional and says that the future of Ann Arbor relies on such individuals. She points out that Bernard sits on the UM committee on disability issues, to which she serves as a city liaison. She’s reading aloud praise about Bernard from a third party. Bernard is legally blind, she says.

7:50 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to confirm all the appointments.

7:51 p.m. Mayoral nominations to boards and commissions. Nominations made tonight will be voted on at the council’s next meeting. Leigh Greden has been nominated for re-appointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission. Devon Akmon’s name was put forward to fill a vacancy on the public art commission. Logan Casey has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the human rights commission. And Al McWilliams is being nominated to replace Newcombe Clark on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

McWilliams’ name had appeared on an early version of the list of nominees for the council’s Aug. 8, 2013 meeting. The final version, however, did not include his name. McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Also originally slated for nomination at the Aug. 8 meeting to serve on the public art commission was Jeff Hayner. But the final version of the nomination list did not include his name. He has filed petitions to run for the Ward 1 city council seat. The Ward 1 city council ballot for November will include incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, and independents Hayner and Jaclyn Vresics. According to Hayner, mayor John Hieftje had explained to him that he had a policy against appointing people to boards and commissions if they were candidates for the city council.

7:53 p.m. Council communications. Lumm gives an update from the council’s liquor committee. A recommendation would be coming to the council about the fee schedule. Adjustments would be made to make sure that fees charged reflect the costs. A recommendation on liquor license transfer procedures will also be forthcoming, Lumm says, in light of a change in state law. She thanks the various staff who are involved in the annual renewals of licenses, and indicates that their time investment will be tracked.

7:54 p.m. Briere gives an update from the North Main Huron River task force, indicating that the report is almost finished. Demolition of the two buildings on 721 N. Main was taking place today, she notes.

7:55 p.m. Anglin follows up by saying that 133 establishments in Ann Arbor hold liquor licenses. Each one pays $50 a year, Anglin says.

7:55 p.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

7:59 p.m. Jim Mogensen comments on the hardship exemption in the city’s living wage ordinance. He recalls the history for its rationale – a recognition that some nonprofits were not able to comply with the requirements of the ordinance. He recounts how the exemption for the Ann Arbor Summer Festival was handled and how an exemption was also put in for work-study students. Last fall, the issue had arisen again. He was bringing it up to provide the history, he said, because a waiver had been granted last fall to Community Action Network over work-study students, he said, who were already exempt under the ordinance.

8:02 p.m. Thomas Partridge repeats the points from his initial public commentary – Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech and his candidacy for Ward 5 city council as a write-in candidate. He laments the lack of affordable housing and effective public transportation in Ann Arbor.

8:04 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into a closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act to discuss land acquisition and pending litigation.

8:20 p.m. The council has emerged from its closed session.

8:26 p.m. Lumm moves a resolution on the pending litigation which authorizes the city attorney to resolve the case Dobrowolski v. City of Ann Arbor in the manner recommended during the closed session. The council has approved that resolution.

8:26 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Doug Smith, standing, talks with other members of the Washtenaw Watchdogs before the start of the July 10, 2013 county board meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Several of those who spoke are affiliated with the Washtenaw Watchdogs. The group has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve.

The bond initiative, publicly proposed in May, was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The original maximum amount for the bonds had been estimated at up to $345 million. But updated actuarial data resulted in a lower estimate of about $295 million.

However, on July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put bond-related action items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address unanswered questions, including uncertainty about the state approval process. No date has been set to reschedule action, if any, on the proposal.

In addition to the bond proposal hearing, the board held three other public hearings during its July 10 meeting: on two brownfield plans in Ann Arbor – for 544 Detroit St. and Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall) – and for annexing land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter to accommodate the expansion of Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. All items were subsequently approved by commissioners.

The board also gave final approval to a range of infrastructure projects totaling about $5 million for county government facilities – including redeveloping the Platt Road site in Ann Arbor where the old juvenile center was located. An amendment brought forward by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) called for creating a 9-member advisory committee to guide the dispensation of the Platt Road site, which is located in his district. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the authority of such a committee. He was assured that the board retains control over whether to act on the committee’s recommendations. Details of how the advisory committee will be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, will require approval from the board at a later date.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to a modest increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office – bumping up a staff position from part-time to full-time – primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications. Commissioners also made several appointments to various boards and commissions, nominated by Rabhi as board chair. He announced he wasn’t yet ready to make nominations to the county’s historic district commission.

Also pushed back was a final vote on a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. Initial approval for this action came on a 5-4 vote at the board’s June 5, 2013 meeting. But on July 10, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – who had originally brought forward the proposal – asked for postponement until the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, citing communications she’d had with trial court chief judge Donald Shelton. The vote to postpone was 6-2, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

In addition to feedback about the bonding proposal, commissioners heard from leaders of two nonprofits – Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative and Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House – about the need to support human services funding. Uncertainty about the upcoming budget has caused concern among nonprofits that have been historically funded by the county.

Also during public commentary, two members of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Ann Arbor thanked commissioners and staff for quickly restoring domestic partner benefits to nine county employees, following recent court rulings that enabled the county to reinstate such benefits.

Facial hair got a minor mention at the July 10 meeting, when Rabhi told Dan Smith: “Your beard is epic – congratulations on it.” Smith used the opening to mention that he’s growing the beard for his role as Lazar Wolf in the upcoming production of “Fiddler on the Roof.” The show runs from July 19-21 at the Whitmore Lake High School Theater. He received a round of applause from the board. Peterson joked that he was glad for the explanation – Peterson had been prepared to reach out to Smith with the name of his barber.

Bond Proposal & Budget

Though a controversial bond proposal had been pulled from the agenda the previous week, on July 10 commissioners held the scheduled public hearing for that proposal . The original bonding proposal of potentially up to $345 million was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The board had set the public hearing at its meeting on June 5, 2013, and had also intended to take initial votes on July 10 on several items related to the bonding.

However, on Wednesday, July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put the bond-related items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address questions and concerns that had been raised by commissioners and the public, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that’s required for this type of bonding. [See Chronicle coverage: "County to Push Back Vote on Bond Proposal."]

Some commissioners have also asked whether alternatives to a bonding approach might also be viable, but the administration has not provided other options, other than a list of major cuts to programs and services. The original plan put forward by the administration was to bond for up to $345 million, although officials believed the amount would be lower than that, pending an updated actuarial report.

The printed agenda for the July 10 meeting still included the bond-related items, though the items had been removed from the agenda before the meeting. The printed agenda listed the proposed bonding amount at $295.115 million. That’s the figure that Rabhi reported in a phone interview with The Chronicle on July 3.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle on July 16, McDaniel said the $295 million figure was based on updated preliminary estimates for unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL) totaling $272.999 million for both WCERS and VEBA. Interest and fees on that amount for bonding is being recalculated, she reported, but it will likely be a week or two before the new calculations are completed.

After the July 10 board meeting, the county administration released an updated “experience study” from Buck Consultants, the actuarial firm used by the county. An experience study is the basis for the final actuarial report, which has not yet been completed. [.pdf of 2013 experience study report] A preliminary report on this study was presented at a special joint session of the WCERS and VEBA boards on June 25. The 7-member WCERS board includes county commissioners Dan Smith and Conan Smith, county administrator Verna McDaniel and county finance director Kelly Belknap. Conan Smith also sits on the 5-member VEBA board, which is chaired by county accounting manager Pete Collinson.

Buck Consultants had recommended adopting a 10-year amortization schedule for the county’s unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL), in order to cover those liabilities as quickly as possible. The county administration had originally expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward the WCERS and VEBA obligations in 2014, if bonding did not occur. That amount was based on the 10-year amortization schedule.

At the June 25 special meeting, however, the WCERS and VEBA boards voted to adopt a longer, graduated amortization schedule for the UAAL of 27 years (WCERS) and 26 years (VEBA), with the amortization schedule decreasing annually by a two-year period. This change will lower the UAAL contributions county will need to make to cover its obligations each year.

In an email to The Chronicle on July 16, McDaniel indicated that revised estimates for the 2014-17 budget will be reported at the county board’s July 24 ways & means committee meeting. She estimated the amount for 2014 is now expected to be about $26 million, instead of $30 million.

The final actuarial report by Buck Consultants is expected to be delivered to the WCERS and VEBA boards later this week. Those boards have set a joint meeting for Tuesday, July 30 to review the material. The meeting starts at 10:30 a.m. in the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

Bond Proposal & Budget: Public Commentary & Public Hearing

The first public hearing on the bond proposal had been held on June 5. That public hearing drew four people who all expressed caution about the possible action, as some attendees suggested a millage or additional budget cuts to cover the retiree obligations – instead of bonding.

On July 10, more than a half dozen people spoke at the public hearing as well as during two opportunities for public commentary. Many of the speakers were affiliated with a group called the Washtenaw Watchdogs, which has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve. In addition to the speakers, several other members of the Washtenaw Watchdogs – many of them wearing the group’s T-shirt – attended the meeting.

The back of a T-shirt for the Washtenaw Watchdogs.

Doug Smith, one of the group’s organizers, spoke at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as at the bond proposal’s public hearing. He told commissioners that he’d watched presentations at the board’s last working session on June 6, and noted that the projections all assume that the bonds could be sold at a 4% interest rate, while the market returns would be about 6 or 6.5%. The proposal ignores the millions of dollars it would cost to initiate an intermediate trust and to sell the bonds, he said, as well as the cost of managing the trust. The bonds would be taxable, and could be recalled early, Smith said – which is good for the county, but makes the bonds less attractive to investors. Current rates for taxable municipal bonds are rising, and will likely to continue to increase, he noted.

Smith suggested looking at the county’s current pension trusts to gauge possible investment returns, and the cost of managing those investments. The WCERS trust has earned an average 8.2% since it was formed in 1981, he noted, but most of the higher returns were in the 1980s and 1990s, when inflation and interest rates were much higher than now. The country was also going through a tech revolution at the time, he said, and it’s unlikely the markets will see another period like that. Since 2000, the net gains for the WCERS trust have been 2%. The VEBA trust has an average 3.5% net gain since it was formed in 1997, and since 2000 the net gain is 2.4%. The trusts are paying more than $1 million in expenses to financial managers that are underperforming, he said.

Smith also pointed to the actuarial risk – what if retirees live longer than expected? If the county ends up needing to pay more to retirees while it also repays the bonds, that’s a money crunch. “But all of you will be long-gone from the board by then,” he said. It’s also possible that the bonds will be sold at up to 5.5% interest, and that the return on investments from those funds will be lower, he noted – that’s not an unrealistic scenario.

He then described two scenarios for possible outcomes of the bond’s investment trust. If the county borrows $300 million and invests it in the stock market, in one scenario the investment return might be 10% ($30 million) in the first year. But if the required contribution that year to the retirement trust is $29 million, and the investment expenses are $1 million, you end the year with the same $300 million. Smith described a second scenario in which the county loses 10% ($30 million) in the first year, but still has to make the $29 million contribution to the retirement trust and the $1 million in expenses. So the county ends the year with only $240 million. All future years would reflect that initial loss, he said.

In 2008, the WCERS fund lost 33% on its equity investments, Smith noted. Though there might not be a worse year in the future, he said, it’s likely there will be another financial meltdown of some sort in the next 25 years. Bond counsel John Axe and the Eastern Michigan University professor who made a presentation at a board working session earlier this year made rosy projections, he said. But those projections don’t consider that funds must be paid out every year to the WCERS and VEBA trusts, Smith said. The payouts make the timing of losses important, and the county might never recover from early losses.

Smith also pointed out that most experts feel the market is currently overvalued. And because there’s an inverse relationship between the bond market and stock market, the county might be putting taxpayer money into the stock market at just the wrong time, he said. What will happen if the intermediate trust runs out of money before the bonds are paid off? The county would have to pay off the bonds as well as contribute to the retirement trusts. “That’s going to be a much worse cash flow problem than you’re now facing.” He asked commissioners not to approve the bonding proposal, or at the very least to let the voters decide.

If the board votes to move ahead with the bonding, Smith said, he and others are prepared to gather the required signatures to put the proposal on the ballot as a voter referendum. They need only 15,000 signatures, he noted, and they already have about 25 volunteers to circulate petitions. The Washtenaw Watchdogs will have a booth at the Ann Arbor art fairs on Liberty Street near Division, and they’ll be going to other events and canvassing neighborhoods as well. He also encouraged potential volunteers to visit the group’s website.

Ray Williams asked how many commissioners would mortgage their house to play the stock market. That’s what the county is planning with this bond proposal, he said. “If you are not prepared to do the same with your own money, why is it a good idea for the taxpayers of Washtenaw County to do the same thing?” He didn’t want Washtenaw County to be like other counties that had made risky investments and that were now bankrupt. It’s hard to believe the county can’t find ways to eliminate its deficit without bonding, he said. The decision will affect citizens for the next 25 years, Williams said, and it should be put on the ballot so that taxpayers can decide. If the board votes to bond, Williams said he’d do everything he could to help collect the 15,000 signatures needed to force a ballot referendum.

Thomas Partridge also spoke at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as during the public hearing. He expressed concern over the proposed bonding, and urged the board not to do it. The county’s ability to bond should instead be used to build affordable housing and to provide other services for this area’s most vulnerable residents. He criticized the fact that most of the county’s revenues come from property taxes, which he characterized as a 19th century concept that gives property owners more influence in the political process. He accused Democratic commissioners of supporting a totalitarian state administration that aims to limit the role of government, even though there are homeless people outside the door of the county administration building, he said.

Judy Bloss began by saying she didn’t pretend to understand the complexities for the bonding proposal. She could understand the desire to have her children take care of her, but she had questions about the county’s bond counsel, John Axe, having his daughter profiting from that deal. [Axe & Ecklund provides a 15% discount on its fees if the county also hires Municipal Financial Consultants Inc. (MFCI) as the financial consultant on the bonding deal. Although it wasn't disclosed at public meetings about the proposal, MFCI president Meredith Shanle is Axe’s daughter.]

During her second turn at public commentary, Bloss told commissioners that she’s experiencing some unfunded liabilities in her own life, related to medical expenses. However, she’s not planning to borrow money from her home equity line of credit to pay those bills and to invest in the stock market, hoping to realize a profit. It’s not the job of county government to borrow money and invest it to make a profit, she said. Bloss noted that about 70% of the county budget funds mandated expenses, but the rest is discretionary. She suggested as a starting point to cut taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, which she accused of killing babies. She didn’t want blood on her hands.

A man from Webster Township told commissioners that they were elected to spend the money that the county collects from him and other taxpayers. But now, the board is looking to borrow money on behalf of the taxpayers. In the past, the county has borrowed for things like the jail and civic improvements, he said. It’s a noble reason to pay for retiree pension and health care, but the county would be borrowing against the fiscal well-being of its residents. It’s disrespectful if commissioners don’t put it on the ballot for voters to decide, he said. The July 4th celebration was initially based on the issue of rebelling against taxation without representation, he noted. And even though the bond proposal isn’t direct taxation, he concluded, it’s still a burden on the community.

Les Heddle referred to the information about the bonding proposal that’s posted on the county’s website. Many pertinent questions are still unanswered, he said, including the fact that the county is using data that’s 18 months old. It’s hard to believe that there isn’t a way to get more current data, he said. He believed current data would show a much lower level of unfunded liabilities. He also didn’t understand how the board had been ready to vote on this proposal when the staff hadn’t provided all of the necessary information regarding the state requirements. Who’s doing the due diligence? he wondered. It’s an egregious error and lack of judgment by the staff. He said he was trying not to get angry, because he had a lot of friends on the board. He indicated that if this had happened in the private sector, it would not be acceptable. “There should be some accounting for that, all the way up and down the line,” he said.

Heddle said that in his business, if he doesn’t live up to his clients’ expectations, they can take their money elsewhere. [Heddle is a financial advisor with Edward Jones in Ypsilanti.] He again questioned why the county administration wasn’t able to provide a proposal based on more up-to-date information. The board needs to get an answer from the administration about why they’re using data that’s so old. It might give some insight into why the county is in its current situation, Heddle said. He also criticized the county’s bond proposal website for not being updated regularly.

From left: County financial analyst Tina Gavalier and finance director Kelly Belknap.

During the public hearing, Heddle addressed several issues related to the list of answers to Frequently Asked Questions on the county’s bonding website. For example, one of the FAQs asked what will happen to the proceeds if the intermediate trust outperforms the bond payments, he noted, but it doesn’t ask what happens if the trust underperforms. Heddle said it’s difficult to find useful, up-to-date information, or anything that indicates what will happen if the bonding doesn’t work as planned.

Stephen Ranzini suggested an alternative to the current bonding proposal, which he called misguided. He indicated that although interest rates are low, the stock market is overvalued and that will result in future substandard performance. The short-term benefit from the “financial engineering” that the bond deal promises will turn into future losses. He told commissioners that in 1988 when he was 23 years old, Bank One lent him $3.2 million to buy a tiny bank that’s today is known as University Bank. The loan for this leveraged buyout was made because “I’d figured out something the sellers didn’t know – that the bank’s pension fund was overfunded.” After buying the bank, he terminated and defeased the bank’s pension plan by buying an annuity from a triple-A-rated life insurance firm. The extra funds from that deal – about $800,000 – were used to fund an employee stock ownership plan, he said, which purchased common stock in the bank holding company and paid down the loan to Bank One.

In a similar way, Ranzini said, the county could defease its retirement plan by buying an annuity from a top-rated insurance firm. It would require taking on debt, he noted, but this approach would lock in today’s low interest rates and eliminate future investment risk. Because insurance companies are “hungry” for these types of long-term annuities, he added, it would likely cost less than the bond proposal. The downside is that the county would lose control over its pension fund dollars, but it’s no great loss if the county doesn’t intend to use those funds for local economic development, Ranzini argued: “In fact, it prevents possible future mischief.” He recommended this same approach to all local units of government.

Wes Prater, a former county commissioner from York Township, noted that the county’s No. 1 guiding principle – as posted on the county administrator’s website – is to ensure long-term fiscal stability. He believes in that principle, and there’s a lot of work to be done. Since 2007, the county’s long-term liabilities have increased over $15 million each year, he said. Some of those liabilities don’t show up on the balance sheet, he noted. At the end of 2012, the county had net assets of $230 million, Prater said, compared to $446 million in long-term liabilities, including between $250 million to $300 million for pension and retiree health care. The board needs to look at what has happened in the past, Prater said, and at how the county has arrived at its current situation. He said he was willing to step forward and work on a committee to research how to address these issues.

Prater also wondered when the updated actuarial report and the independent financial analysis of the bond proposal would be completed. How do citizens get the information they need to make informed decisions? he asked. Prater also wanted to know how the intermediate trust fund would work. There are several issues that need to be cleared up, he concluded.

Bond Proposal & Budget: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson said he appreciated the delay in voting on the bond proposal. He noted that advocates for human services programs are interested in the impact on their funding if the county doesn’t bond. [Two leaders of nonprofits that the county funds – Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative and Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House – spoke during public commentary, urging continued support of human services.] He assured these groups that he will advocate for them. Peterson asked for the board chair or administrator to explain what will happen next regarding the bond proposal. He vowed that the county would honor its obligations to retirees, regardless of whether the board decides to bond.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi responded, first by describing the public outreach that had been done related to the bond proposal, including public hearings, coffee hours, a press conference and public forum. None of that had been required, he said, but the board believes in engaging citizens in these decisions. The delay is due in part because of a recognition that more questions need to be answered, he said. Several commissioners had raised concerns that need to be addressed, he added, and the state still is figuring out the process for this kind of bonding.

Two months ago, Rabhi said, when the bonding proposal was first publicly floated, it wasn’t known how long the state approval process would take. So it’s not necessarily the case that the staff was remiss in getting information, he said, it’s just a new process. “I don’t want anybody to blame anybody.”

The fact that residents showed up that night to address the board is a testament to the fact that this has been an open process, Rabhi said. The public has been engaged and has asked questions.

Moving forward, he said, the county must have a balanced budget for 2014 by the end of this year, independent of any decision to bond. The board has held discussions at its meetings and retreats about the budget, he noted, but now it’s time to really focus on priorities and engage the community on that. The board will be moving into an intensive process now, delving into the budget and providing guidance to the administration, he said. Rabhi said he feels optimistic about the process, and that the county is emerging from the recession and looking at better times ahead.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith asked for clarification about the process by which the board will explore other alternatives to the bonding proposal. He said he wasn’t asking about specific alternatives at this point, but wanted to know how various alternatives would be discussed and vetted by the board.

From left: County commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Andy Brush, the county’s IT manager.

Rabhi replied that any alternatives would be brought forward as part of the budgeting process. Felicia Brabec will be leading the budget process for the board, he said, including a discussion at the board’s July 11 working session. Dan Smith noted that until now, the board has generally discussed the budget and the bonding proposal separately, although he observed that obviously the topics are intertwined. Now, he said, it seems those discussions will be brought more closely together than previously.

Peterson asked whether the discussion would revolve around a four-year budget. When Brabec noted that the board had authorized the administration to move forward in developing a four-year budget plan, Peterson pointed out that he had voted against that action. [The board had taken that vote at its May 1, 2013 meeting, over dissent from Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr.] Peterson said he would vote against a four-year budget if it’s presented. Multi-year budgets sometimes result in problems getting pushed back, he said, or in borrowing a lot of money to deal with the county’s obligations.

Andy LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, noted that the following night there would be a discussion of budget priorities, and he implored everyone to attend. Peterson reported that he had a previous commitment and would not be present.

LaBarre also responded to a remark made by Doug Smith during public commentary. LaBarre noted that the EMU economics professor mentioned by Smith was Jens Stephan, who LaBarre said gave up about 4.5 hours of time to talk with commissioners at the June 6 working session. Stephan wasn’t advocating for any particular approach, LaBarre stressed, and was simply showing commissioners a tool they could use in making their decisions. “I want to make sure that’s on record, that he did us a public service,” LaBarre said.

Rabhi also provided a phone number that residents can call to give input on the bonding proposal via voicemail: (734) 222-6666. He also requested that the staff update the website with answers to the questions that had been raised during public commentary and the public hearing.

Peterson wanted to know that if the county changes its plan for the bonding proposal, would the board hold another public hearing? Rabhi replied that none of the public hearings were required by law. But if commissioners feel the need for more public participation, they can certainly schedule more public hearings, he said. Peterson felt it would be respectful to citizens to hold another public hearing, if the proposal changes in any way.

It’s unclear what actions might be taken next regarding the bonding proposal. The administration has previously stated that the bonding proposal was crucial to developing a four-year budget from 2014-2017. The administration has set a goal of identifying $6.99 million in structural reductions for the overall 2014 general fund budget, based on the assumption that the bonding would take place. Without the bonding, the county had expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward these obligations in 2014, with additional amounts varying in subsequent years. That amount will likely be lower – estimated by McDaniel at around $26 million – based on updated actuarial information and recent decisions by the WCERS and VEBA boards.

Commissioners had previously voted to hold an extra meeting this month, on July 24. That meeting will be held as planned, but instead of bonding, the main topic will be a discussion of budget priorities.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Brownfield Plans

Two brownfield plans – for projects located in Ann Arbor – were on the agenda for both initial and final votes of approval, following public hearings on each plan. The projects are at Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall) and 544 Detroit St. The Ann Arbor city council had signed off on the plans at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

Both plans had been recommended for approval by the county’s brownfield development authority at its June 6, 2013 meeting.

Brownfield Plans: 544 Detroit St.

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors.

According to a staff memo, up to $698,773 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund over an estimated 25-year period. The county’s annual millage revenues on that site are estimated to increase from about $277 now to $6,150 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of 544 Detroit St. brownfield plan]

At a July 9 working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission, city planning manager Wendy Rampson had reported that the site was more contaminated than the developers originally thought. Although it was clear that the site was contaminated, she said, “I don’t know that they knew how much it would cost to remediate it.”

At the county board’s July 10 public hearing on this project, two people spoke. Thomas Partridge criticized the board for not providing sufficient information about items on the agenda. He called on the owners of these sites to explain how the sites became contaminated, and asked that the current developers explain why the site can’t be developed without governmental assistance. That assistance could better be spent on other programs for the public benefit, like Head Start and affordable housing, he said.

Bret Stuntz spoke briefly on behalf of the developer – 544 Detroit Street LLC – saying he was there to answer any questions. Stuntz is a project manager at AKT Peerless Environmental & Energy Services.

Brownfield Plans: Packard Square

For Packard Square – the former Georgetown Mall site at 2502-2568 Packard St. – approval related to an amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board also approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development. That grant was later awarded to the project. The project entails building more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

Equipment at the Packard Square site. Buildings at the former Georgetown Mall have been demolished.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add two eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing: underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012. According to a staff memo, TIF-eligible activities total $3,582,222. Over the 14-year period of the plan, up to $5,840,557 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund. This amount is unchanged from when the plan was initially adopted.

County millage revenues from the property are estimated to increase from about $8,701 annually to $64,138 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of Packard Square brownfield plan amendment]

The developer of this project is The Harbor Companies of Bloomfield Hills, via Harbor Georgetown LLC.

Ann Arbor city planning manager Wendy Rampson had updated planning commissioners about the status of Packard Square at the commission’s July 9 working session. The good news was that the buildings have been demolished and the contaminated soil has been removed, she reported. But heavy rains had compromised a retaining wall on the northwest side of the site, adjacent to the neighboring property, and the wall had to be shored up. Rampson also reported that EQ – the company that was doing the remediation work under contract with the developer – had “demobilized” from the site because they hadn’t been paid. She indicated that the financing situation was tenuous. “We’ll see – it’s still early,” she told planning commissioners. “But it’s possible that this may be where the project ends.” [Representatives of the development told The Chronicle at the county board's July 10 meeting that the project was moving ahead.]

Two people spoke at the county board’s July 10 public hearing for Packard Square. Thomas Partridge said he was concerned about the practice of local governments applying for federal or state funds simply because those funds are available. In this case, public funds are being used to remove toxic substances and contaminated soil from these sites, so the need for those funds should be substantiated at a public meeting, he said. Partridge was concerned about the possibility of contaminated soil being spread around the neighborhood. Developers should be able to finance these projects without public assistance, he concluded.

John Byl introduced himself – he works for the law firm Warner Norcross & Judd, which is working on the Packard Square project. He thanked Nathan Voght and other county staff for their work, and thanked the board for considering the brownfield plan amendment. The maximum amount is unchanged, he noted, but a couple of categories are being added to the list of things that can qualify for TIF. Byl thanked the Ann Arbor city council and county brownfield authority board for approving the plan. He noted that Bruce Measom, representing the developer, was on hand to also answer any questions that commissioners might have.

During a break at the July 10 meeting, Byl and Measom told The Chronicle that the project was moving ahead.

Brownfield Plans: Board Discussion

The public hearings reported above were held at the board meeting, which takes place after the meeting of the ways & means committee, on which all board members serve. But the brownfield items were first considered at the ways & means committee for an initial vote, prior to the public hearings.

As the board reached the brownfield agenda items at its ways & means committee meeting, Thomas Partridge spoke up from the audience, saying he wanted to comment. Felicia Brabec, who chairs the ways & means meetings, told him that it wasn’t an appropriate time to address the board, but that there would be a public hearing on these items at the regular board meeting that night.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Their exchange prompted commissioner Ronnie Peterson to raise some procedural concerns about the approval process. He felt the public hearing should be held prior to the initial vote at the board’s ways & means committee meeting. So he thought that Partridge’s interruption had been appropriate.

When Brabec told Peterson that the public hearing would happen at the board meeting, he protested, saying “I’ve been around this track a few years” and he found it out of the norm. “This is backwards,” he said, and disrespectful to the public. He apologized to Partridge. The board was being asked to take action without knowing how the public feels, he said. [For agenda items that require public hearings, those hearings are generally held at the regular board meeting, just prior to a final vote on the item. There is typically not a public hearing before the board takes its initial vote at the ways & means meeting.]

Peterson objected to taking the final vote on the same night as the initial vote, even though it was the summer schedule. [Typically, an initial vote is taken at the ways & means committee, followed by a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. For most of the year, the ways & means committee and regular board meetings are held every two weeks, in back-to-back sessions on the same night. During the summer, those meetings are usually held only once a month.]

Andy LaBarre clarified with the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, that there would be an additional public commentary time at the start of the board meeting, as well as the public hearing – two additional opportunities for input. Hedger said that under law, since the public hearing comes before the final vote, there is adequate opportunity for public input. In a perfect world, he added, it would be better to hold the public hearing on a different day, and then take an initial vote at ways & means on one date, and a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. But an accelerated approach has been taken in the past, he noted, especially during the summer months when agenda items often receive an initial and final vote on the same night.

Peterson responded, saying “Expediency sometimes gets you in a lot of trouble.” He wanted to take the time to be cautious. He said he’d be voting no on this item because he didn’t feel there had been adequate public input, adding that it’s no reflection on the projects. He called his record “99 and a half percent voting pro-business.”

Conan Smith said he wanted to clarify the history of this process. A brownfield plan goes through the county’s brownfield authority, and any plan for property in Ann Arbor also goes to the city of Ann Arbor. There are public commentary opportunities at both the county brownfield authority board and at the city council. Then there’s public commentary at the county board’s ways &  means committee meeting before the initial vote, followed by another general public commentary time at the start of the board meeting, and a public hearing on the brownfield plan itself. [Partridge had spoken at the ways & means general public commentary prior to this discussion, but did not talk about the brownfield plan at that point.]

Smith argued that the public hearing can’t be scheduled before the regular board meeting, because the item hasn’t been properly brought before the board until then. [After consulting with Hedger later in the meeting, Smith retracted this statement. When an item is on the ways & means committee agenda, it is considered to be before the board. The ways & means committee is a "committee of the whole," meaning that all board members serve on it.]

There’s been abundant opportunity for public participation, Smith said. He also pointed out that action on the Packard Square plan is an amendment to change the scope of the project, but it doesn’t change the brownfield investment. He characterized it as a “ministerial” change. There has already been a robust public process for that Packard Square plan, Smith said.

Yousef Rabhi noted that he serves on the county’s brownfield development authority board. He praised the 544 Detroit St. project, saying it would be a great addition to the neighborhood and will clean up a contaminated site.

The Packard Square project is in his district, Rabhi said, and he asked Nathan Voght – an economic development specialist with the county – to give an update. Voght described how the board had authorized applying for a $1 million state grant two years ago, which had been received last year. The part of the project covered by the grant started in late May of 2013, and included demolishing the buildings and cleaning up contaminated soil. That’s been done, he said, and there will be a slight period of “demobilization” as the developer puts in place all of the financing and development plans.

Peterson clarified that he had no problems with the plans or the staff, calling the projects “outstanding.” He felt the board needed to follow proper procedures, and suggested that the summer schedule should be reconsidered.

Regarding 544 Detroit St., Dan Smith said he has nothing against the project. But he noted that the board continues to approve various TIF programs – for brownfields, downtown development authorities (DDAs) or local development finance authorities (LDFAs) – without a plan for the outcomes of those investments. “We pretty much rubber stamp these programs. We don’t really have any criteria to evaluate them against,” Dan Smith said, adding that anyone who votes against any particular project would be perceived as being against that specific project or community. He said he wanted to raise that concern again.

Outcome: To protest the process, Ronnie Peterson cast the sole vote against both brownfield plans on the initial vote at the ways & means committee meeting, but joined all other commissioners in supporting the plans in the final vote at the board meeting.

Strategic Plan for County Facilities

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a range of infrastructure projects totaling about $5 million for county government facilities – including redeveloping the Platt Road site where the old juvenile center was located. Commissioners had given initial approval to the overall proposal – called the “strategic space plan” – at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

In addition to the Platt Road site, other projects in the plan include:

• At 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor, consolidate the land records from the building’s lower level to the 1st floor, and remodel the lower level to accommodate administrative offices.
• At 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor, repurpose space in the garden level, including redesigning conference room space.
• At 110 N. Fourth in Ann Arbor (known as the Annex), relocate the Office of Community and Economic Development, Office of Infrastructure Management, and the Public Defender’s office to other leased and county-owned space.
• At the county’s service center near Washtenaw and Hogback, redesign the Learning Resource Center (LRC) as a full conference center, providing county-owned space for large and small meetings. Also, make parking improvements, including adding 110 new spaces, rebuilding the lot between the LRC and the courthouse, and resurfacing the entry drive off of Hogback.
• At a location to be determined, develop a specialty vehicle storage facility for the sheriff’s office and other departments.

According to Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, no general fund dollars will be used for the projects, which are estimated to cost about $5 million. Funding will come from several sources: (1) $1 million from the 1/8th mill fund balance; (2) $650,000 from the facilities operations & maintenance fund balance; (3) $650,000 from the Office of Community & Economic Development reserves; (4) $500,000 from the tech plan fund balance; and (5) $2.2 million from the county’s capital reserves. Dill had briefed commissioners on the plan at a March 20, 2013 working session.

In addition to the projects listed above, other changes will be made to accommodate the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) unit, which provides contract services to the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). The WCHO will pay for that facilities work, including moving the entire Adult MI program staff to the Annex at 110 N. Fourth; repurposing vacated space at 2140 Ellsworth for Youth and Family Services; and relocating all “service delivery” units to the 1st floor of the Towner II building at 555 Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Strategic Plan for County Facilities: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre proposed a two-part amendment. One part directed staff to use the county’s existing vendor pool for work on these projects, whenever feasible.

The amendment also called for the creation of a 9-member community advisory committee to guide the dispensation of the Platt Road site, which is located in LaBarre’s district. The space plan proposes demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee will be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, will need to be worked out and will require approval from the board at a later date.

LaBarre said that his amendment was intended to address some of the issues that had been raised when commissioners discussed this item on June 5.

Regarding the advisory committee, Ronnie Peterson said the proposal was a “total surprise” to him, and it seemed to be giving control over a $1 million property to an entity other than the county board. There are procedures for dealing with the dispensation of county property, he said, and he wondered what authority the committee would have.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger clarified that the committee is advisory only. It has to report back to the board, he added, and the board can either accept the committee’s recommendations or not. “Ultimately, it’s still up to the board as to what they want to do, collectively, with the Platt Road site,” Hedger said. The intent of the committee is to have citizen input.

Peterson indicated that the board has dealt with other controversial proposals, like the jail expansion, without this kind of committee. He said he wasn’t against the advisory committee or citizen input, but he was concerned about setting a precedent. Peterson wondered if they could postpone action until there were more details about how the process would work. Hedger replied that a more detailed resolution would be required at a future meeting to appoint the members and approve the committee’s charge.

At the request of LaBarre, Hedger drafted a revised version of that portion of the amendment to address Peterson’s concerns:

Be it further resolved that the board of commissioners create a nine-member Platt Road community advisory committee to review and develop a recommendation for the disposition of the county’s Platt Road site. The composition and charge of the advisory committee will be determined by the board of commissioners at a later date, provided however that the board of commissioners shall have the authority to ultimately determine the disposition of the Platt Road site.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi clarified that he would be nominating people to the committee, who would then be confirmed by the full board. Alicia Ping felt the process should follow the board’s normal process for other boards and commissions, with people submitting applications for the positions. Rabhi indicated that as an ad hoc committee – not a standing committee – the process would be different, but that applications can be solicited if commissioners wanted to handle it that way. Ping encouraged that approach.

Regarding the vendor pool portion of the amendment, Ping asked for more background about why this direction was necessary. Dill replied that any of the county’s capital projects use the vendor pool to help augment outside professional services that are hired. The pool allows the county to be more efficient and cost effective, he said, in terms of keeping up with a project’s timeline. Every company that’s part of the vendor pool has already gone through the county’s procurement process, he noted, and has been vetted by the purchasing department.

Ping wondered if the county had a sufficient number of companies in the vendor pool to match all of the needs for upcoming capital projects. No, Dill replied. But using the vendor pool would allow projects to use some companies that have already gone through the RFP (request for proposals) process, rather than issuing RFPs for every aspect of a project.

Ping clarified that for larger projects, the work goes out for a competitive bid. Dill said that when a project goes over a certain dollar amount, the county moves away from using the vendor pool and uses a competitive bidding process. The strategic space plan encompasses several smaller projects, he added.

Conan Smith noted that the amendment is worded in such a way that could lead to a very large piece of work being handled by a firm in the vendor pool, rather than going out for a competitive bid. He proposed amending LaBarre’s amendment to designate using the vendor pool for projects under $100,000. His suggestion was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the strategic space plan, as amended.

County Courts Budget

A proposal to postpone the final vote on a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system was on the July 10 agenda.

The board had voted last month 5-4 to give initial approval to the notice – at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The proposal had been brought forward by commissioner Alicia Ping. The move caught some commissioners by surprise, though for several weeks during budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Ping had noted that her goal wasn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. Giving  notice to terminate the agreement would have provided the board the option to end the agreement.

No court officials had attended the June 5 meeting, because the proposal had not been on the published agenda. However, Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, subsequently spoke with several commissioners, including Ping, about their intent. The courts have historically been in favor of a lump-sum approach – rather than the line-item budget provided by most other units of county government.

The courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047. [.pdf of 2013 budget pages with trial court-related amounts highlighted]

County Courts Budget: Board Discussion

Ping reported that she and Dan Smith had met with Shelton, who had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget from 2008. [.pdf of trial court budget document] She said Shelton had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. Shelton had wanted to make clear to the public that the courts submit a line item budget to the county board, she said. However, Ping noted, “they can submit to us whatever they want, and then they can do with it whatever they want, according to current law.”

She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund, which is expected in October. If the board decides to move forward with terminating the memorandum of understanding, it would still give the courts enough time to prepare for the next budget year (2015).

Outcome: On a 6-2 vote, commissioners postponed the item until the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting. Dissenting were Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Dextech Property Annexation

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to the annexation of land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter. They had taken an initial vote at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

According to the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, the annexation of township property into a village is one of the few instances that requires county board approval. Generally, annexation is handled by the individual municipalities where the annexation occurs.

A letter to the county from Dexter village manager Donna Dettling stated that the annexation request – for a 16.66-acre property – was made by the property owner, Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. The land is adjacent to the Dexter Business & Research Park, where Dextech hopes to expand. The company is Dexter’s largest employer.

On May 13, 2013, the Dexter village council unanimously passed a resolution in support of the annexation. The resolution indicates that although the Scio Township board did not take formal action about the request, there was generally support for the action. [.pdf of communications from Dexter regarding the annexation]

Dextech Property Annexation: Public Hearing

Four people spoke at a public hearing on the annexation. Thomas Partridge said the proposal reflected 19th century politics, and he urged all the townships, villages and cities in Washtenaw County to combine resources into one metropolitan authority under one government, with shared tax revenue and shared purpose. He indicated that such an approach would provide resources for health care, transportation, education, food and other needs.

Dexter village president Shawn Keough thanked commissioners for putting it on their agenda in a timely fashion. He called Dexter Fastener Technologies a wonderful business in the community. As the largest business in the Dexter area, the firm provides a lot of taxpayer dollars to the village, Scio Township and the county, he said. He asked for the board’s support.

Wes Prater said he’s a member of the state boundary commission. The village of Dexter has been working steadily for about two years trying to become a city, he said. There was some difficulty in getting everything done, he added, but the communities worked together, and the outcome will be good overall. He joked that he and Keough “have had our differences, but it’s all worked out.”

A representative of Dextech told commissioners that the firm needs to expand to meet the needs of its customers, which are primarily in the automotive industry. He said the firm doesn’t take this move lightly, and company officials appreciate the cooperation of Scio Township and Dexter to come up with a plan that’s beneficial to all concerned.

Dextech Property Annexation: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson expressed support for economic development, and joked that the firm should visit the county’s east side. “You will find it’s a little quicker and easier to develop on the eastern side of the county,” he said, adding that he’d love to show the firm some sites. [Peterson represents District 6, which includes the city of Ypsilanti and portions of Ypsilanti Township.]

Dan Smith wondered how the boundary change would affect Dexter’s attempt to become a city. Dexter president Shawn Keough responded, saying that it has a very small impact procedurally at this time. After the village receives cityhood status for its current boundaries, an additional boundary modification would be required to bring in that parcel.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the annexation.

Staff for County Clerk’s Office

On the agenda for initial approval was a modest increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office, primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications.

The change involves creating a full-time administrative coordinator position from a job that’s currently part-time (an 0.64 full-time equivalent position). The total cost for that full-time position is estimated at $56,902 – or an additional $15,631 in general fund support. It’s expected that a decrease in the need for temporary workers will help offset the payroll increase, as will a projected surplus in license and permit revenue. According to a staff memo, that revenue is expected to exceed projections by at least $33,824.

From left: Ed Golembiewski, the county’s director of elections, and county clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum.

Until mid-2008, the office had 5 full-time employees (FTEs) in the elections and administration division, which handles passport applications and concealed pistol licenses (CPL). The economic downturn and subsequent restructuring dropped staffing levels to 3.64 FTE positions.

CPL applications increased 140% between 2009 to 2012, to an average 2,091 applications per year compared to 870 in 2009. This year is expected to set a record for CPL applications. For the first quarter of 2013 there were 1,168 applications, compared to 540 in the first quarter of 2012. [.pdf of application data from 2004-2013] [.pdf of approved licenses from 2008-2013]

If the total number of applications in 2013 reaches projections of at least 3,225, then that will generate revenue of $83,824 to the general fund – above the original 2013 budget amount of $50,000.

In addition, on July 10 commissioners were asked to give initial approval to shift support for one full-time position in the clerk/register of deeds office back into the general fund, at a cost of $56,117. That position – a records management specialist – is currently funded by revenues from the office’s “automation fund.” Until 2008, that position was paid for out of the general fund.

The automation fund gets revenue from a $5 surcharge on every deed that’s processed, and is a statewide authorized fee that pays for technology related to the work of the clerk/register of deeds office. It pays for digitizing the county’s land records from 1824 through 1958, which are currently available only on paper. The goal is to relocate the paper records and clear out space in the lower level of 200 N. Main Street, as part of the county’s “space plan.” Digitization will also allow the public to quickly search and retrieve county records electronically, which will generate usage revenues for the general fund. Revenues for online usage increased from about $220,000 in 2010 to about $323,000 in 2012.

According to a staff memo, the number of documents recorded by the county clerk/register of deeds office has increased from fewer than 53,000 documents in 2008 to more than 85,000 documents expected in 2013. Revenues from the office to the general fund have grown from $2.248 million in 2011 to $3.198 million in 2012. Those revenues are expected to continue growing as the local real estate market recovers.

Staff for County Clerk’s Office: Board Discussion

Dan Smith pointed out that this is the third time in 2013 that the board has been asked to approve an increase in staffing. In isolation, each increase makes sense, he said. But as the headcount changes over time, it’s troubling.

County clerk Larry Kestenbaum responded, saying: “This doesn’t change headcount at all.”

Felicia Brabec asked Kestenbaum to elaborate and explain why it doesn’t change the headcount. Kestenbaum said the change entails moving a position from part-time to full-time. That’s based on the need to cover the tremendous increase in applications for concealed weapon licenses. The other change is to shift the funding source for an existing position into the general fund. As the land economy has improved, the number of associated transactions handled by his office has increased, Kestenbaum said. It’s important to keep up with those transactions to avoid delay, he added.

Kestenbaum also noted that his office is giving up its space in the lower level of the administration building at 200 N. Main, as part of the strategic space plan for county facilities. The documents stored there are being digitized, and he wasn’t expecting the move to happen on such an accelerated schedule. Money for this digitization process comes from the automation fund, he noted. By shifting the funding for one employee out of the automation fund and into the general fund, it frees up more funds from the automation fund to pay for digitizing documents. He noted that the paper documents will still be stored, but not at that location. He also reminded commissioners that the increased general fund revenue that’s generated by his office will more than cover the cost of the employee.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the requested changes for the clerk/register of deeds office. A final vote is expected at the board’s meeting in August.

Appointments

Appointments to five Washtenaw County boards and commissions were on the July 10 agenda.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi made the following nominations:

• Police services steering committee: Scott Cooper, representing non-contract areas for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.
• Washtenaw County/City of Ann Arbor community corrections advisory board: Tori Noe for a term ending Dec. 31, 2013.
• Food policy council: Seema Jolly, filling a slot representing a nutritionist, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2013.
• Workforce development board: Renee Adorjan for the community-based organization slot for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014; and Fred Pittman for the veterans slot for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015.
• River Raisin watershed council (alternate): Evan Pratt.

Rabhi said he planned to hold off on making nominations to the county historic district commission.

Outcome: All nominations were confirmed unanimously without discussion.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Human Services Funding

During public commentary, two people spoke about the importance of funding human services organizations. Margy Long, director of Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative, thanked commissioners for their support of human services in this community. She described the importance of investing in early childhood programs. Success by 6 has one goal, she said – to ensure that every child in Washtenaw County reaches kindergarten in good health and ready to succeed in school.

Margy Long, director of the Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative, talks with county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

As many as two out of four kids don’t meet that goal at this point, she said, and there are over 40 organizations collaborating to find ways to improve that number. Research has shown that the first five years of a child’s life are critical to their success in learning throughout their life, she said. Long pointed to the return on investment that comes from support during those early years of childhood, including an increased likelihood in graduating from high school and earning a higher income later in life, and less likelihood of criminal activity.

Nicole Adelman, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House, described the nonprofit as an emergency shelter for children and families experiencing homelessness. Her organization works with families to find employment, increase income, and find affordable housing. She also serves on the board of the HIV-AIDS Resource Center (HARC) and the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Adelman said she knew she was preaching to the choir for many commissioners, and she thanked them for their support.

IHN-Alpha House receives about $90,000 each year from the county’s office of community & economic development through the coordinated funding approach. Losing that funding would devastate the agency, she said. It doesn’t get much worse than not having a place to live or knowing where your next meal is coming from, she said. The demand already exceeds the available resources, Adelman added. Budget cuts are incredibly hard, she said, but she’s asking the board to dig deeper and find somewhere else to cut. She noted that she’s a 30-year resident of Washtenaw County, and she votes. The county funds services for people who have nowhere else to go. She said she’d bet that the board’s constituents are willing to vote for those who support human services funding. “I know I will,” she concluded.

The county handles its support for human services through a coordinated funding approach managed by the county’s office of community & economic development. The approach involves a partnership of the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw Urban County, the United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Felicia Brabec, during her report as ways & means committee chair, noted that the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) has selected the coordinated funding program to profile as a best practices case study on social sustainability. [.pdf of ICMA letter]

Communications & Commentary: Benefits for Same-Sex Partners

Cynthia Emerick, a Manchester resident and member of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Ann Arbor, thanked commissioners “for moving so quickly to correct a wrong.” Nine employee families of Washtenaw County government lost health care coverage when the state banned domestic partner benefits for public employees, she noted. [As background, new 10-year labor contracts that the county negotiated earlier this year – to avoid the impact of Michigan's "right to work" law – resulted in the elimination of the county’s healthcare benefits for domestic partners. When the county’s previous labor contracts were opened for renegotiation, that triggered the need to comply with a state law passed in late 2011: PA 297, which restricted public entities from offering domestic partner benefits. For the county, those benefits had been offered to “other eligible adults” who met certain criteria, like sharing the same residence. Nine county employees had been using those benefits, which had been eliminated as of April 1.]

But in late June – soon after a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a ruling came down from U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Michigan that blocked the state from enforcing its ban on domestic partner benefits. Emerick noted that board chair Yousef Rabhi and the county administration acted quickly, and in less than one business day, those nine county employees had their health care coverage reinstated. She thanked the county staff and commissioners for their action, saying it affected a lot of people.

Deborah Dean-Ware, pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd, also thanked the board. She said her church has a long history of supporting the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community, and they are working hard to see marriage equality become reality in Michigan. The county’s work on the domestic partner benefits “is a very powerful statement for justice,” she said.

Communications & Commentary: Head Start

Felicia Brabec reported that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District has received a notice of award from the federal government, designating the WISD as the organization that will take over management of the Washtenaw Head Start program. The county has been administering the program for more than four decades, but last year decided to relinquish that duty. Brabec said that plans are being made for handling the transition.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

According to the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, the annexation of township property into a village is one of the few instances that requires county board approval. Generally, annexation is handled by the individual municipalities where the annexation occurs.

A letter to the county from Dexter village manager Donna Dettling stated that the annexation request – for a 16.66-acre property – was made by the property owner, Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. The land is adjacent to the Dexter Business & Research Park, where Dextech hopes to expand. The company is one of Dexter’s largest employers.

On May 13, 2013, the Dexter village council unanimously passed a resolution in support of the annexation. The resolution indicates that although the Scio Township board did not take formal action about the request, there was generally support for the action. [.pdf of communications from Dexter regarding the annexation]

Four people spoke at a public hearing on the annexation, including Dexter village president Shawn Keough and a representative of Dextech, who spoke in support of the proposal.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]