From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Wendy Woods, Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh. (Photos by the writer.)

One day after the Ann Arbor city council took action related to the Library Lane site, planning commissioners made recommendations to the council about how to develop that South Fifth Avenue property. The council’s action on March 17 included asking the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to sell development rights to the Library Lane surface, on top of an underground parking structure. The council also voted, after a long debate, to designate part of the surface for an urban public park.

On March 18, the commission’s advice focused on conditions for developing the site that would garner economic benefits to the city, such as a mixed-use development that generates foot traffic, with an entry plaza or open space and a design that “creates an iconic addition to the skyline.” The recommendations drew on material in several existing documents, including the Connecting William Street report that was completed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about a year ago.

After the vote, Sabra Briere – who serves on both the planning commission and the city council – noted that many members of council don’t believe that the Connecting William Street project was successful in its public outreach. She also said that many councilmembers “do not believe that maximizing density, scale and mass of a building on that site is in the public interest.” Briere said she hadn’t raised these issues during the commission’s deliberations because she didn’t want anyone to feel that she was trying to tell the planning commission what to do.

In separate action on March 18, commissioners passed a resolution with recommendations on uses for the Edwards Brothers site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. The intent is to encourage representatives from the city and UM to discuss their mutual interests in that area – weighing the university’s need to expand its facilities against the city’s interest in strengthening its tax base. Issues include the possible private development of the section that fronts South State, impact on the park-and-ride lot in that area, and the extension of Oakbrook Drive from South State to South Main, through UM property. The city council is expected to consider the same resolution at its April 7 meeting.

Further south on the State Street corridor, at the intersection with Eisenhower Parkway, a proposal to renovate the Shell station, tear down the car wash, and add a drive-thru restaurant was recommended for approval by the commission on March 18. The existing convenience store and gas station would remain open during construction. The specific drive-thru restaurant to be located there is still being negotiated, according to the owner.

Some of the discussion on this project related to upcoming ordinance revisions that the commission will consider on April 1 regulating drive-thru restaurants.

Also recommended for approval on March 18 were an expansion to an office on Collingwood near West Stadium Boulevard, and an easement related to a new Belle Tire on West Ellsworth.

Library Lane Site

On March 17, the Ann Arbor city council had passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to sell development rights to the Library Lane surface, where an underground parking structure is located. The council also engaged is a lengthy debate – two and a half hours of sometimes heated commentary – over a proposal reserving part of the surface for a publicly owned urban park. That resolution also passed, over dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The resolved clauses from the city council resolution passed on March 17 are:

RESOLVED, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

RESOLVED, That the City will encourage the creative use of this space to commence on an occasional basis during the transition from parking to public park even before the urban park design and installation work is complete, and hereby requests that Community Services and the Park Department work together with DDA and the AADL to encourage groups to reserve the space for public activities including, but not limited to, craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, fine arts performances, and other activities and consider modification of permit requirements in order to eliminate fees for those seeking to put on public programs on the Library Lane site;

RESOLVED, That the City will work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the designs for both spaces, an urban public park and the adjacent development, complement and support each other’s successful uses;

RESOLVED, That all development on the Library Lane site, whether public or private, will proceed in close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses including, but not limited to the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corporation, the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses fronting on Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street. Possible goals of this collaboration include:

• Reorientation of the physical design and uses of these adjacent properties so that they help to create pedestrian interaction with the public park on the Library Lane Structure,
• Creation of pedestrian walkways that connect the Library Lane Structure and public park to Liberty Plaza, Liberty Street and William Street;
• Discussion about incentives, such as premiums or subsidies, that the City or DDA might offer to encourage both physical reorientation and pedestrian access/easements through adjacent properties, and
• Consideration of possible joint development on the Library Lane Structure’s remaining build-able portion.

The following night at the March 18 planning commission meeting, commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona brought forward a resolution that gave guidance to the council about the Library Lane site. It’s similar in intent to the recommendations that the commission gave to the council last year regarding the use of the former Y lot. Those recommendations were approved at the commission’s Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The planning commission resolution on the Library Lane structure makes recommendations about elements to include if the city sells the Library Lane development rights. [.pdf of advice resolution at start of March 18 meeting] [.pdf of advice resolution, as amended during March 18 meeting] The two resolved clauses, as amended during the March 18 meeting, are:

RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFQ/RFP process be utilized that conditions the sale of the property in order to obtain a long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit for the residents of the city;

RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFP contain all of the following conditions:

• A building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal and contains active uses on all first floor street frontage and open space;
• A requirement for 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;
• A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.
• A requirement for the entry plaza or open space to incorporate generous landscaping;
• A requirement that discourages surface parking, limits vehicular access for service areas to be located in alleys where available and prohibits service areas from being located on Fifth Avenue
• To seek a design for this site that is meant to be visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;
• A requirement for high quality construction; and
• A request for a third party environmental certification (e.g., LEED Gold or Platinum)

The March 18 planning commission meeting included a public hearing on this item, but no one appeared at the public hearing to speak.

Library Lane: Report from Council

At the start of the March 18 meeting, Sabra Briere – who serves on the planning commission as the representative from city council – gave an update to commissioners about council action. She reported that the council approved designating a section of the Library Lane site as an urban park, bordered by Fifth Avenue on the west, Library Lane on the south, and the elevator stacks on the east. The northern border isn’t defined at this point, she noted. The council resolution states that the park will be between 6,500 and 12,000 square feet.

Paras Parekh and Sabra Briere.

The council also directed the city administrator to hire a broker to put up for sale the right to partner in a condominium arrangement on the remainder of the site, Briere said, rather than an outright sale of the land. It would allow a condominium partner to build there. It’s also possible that the successful respondent will design or construct or provide security or program the park, she noted.

What’s really important in all of this, Briere said, is that the city has opened the door to having a downtown park on the Library Lane site. The park advisory commission, the city administrator and the broker will help determine the details, she added.

Diane Giannola asked whether the council resolution stated “park” or “plaza.” The resolution states that it would be an “urban public park,” Briere replied. She noted that “those people who want to define it as trees and grass would be disappointed in this location.”

Giannola then asked what language had been deleted from the original resolution. Briere explained that the council deleted language that would have added the site to the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan and that would have required it to remain a city-owned public park. That was done because the council cannot, by fiat, add something to the PROS plan, she noted – because the PROS plan is part of the city’s master plan, which the planning commission must also approve.

The other amendment during the council’s meeting changed the definition of the site’s northern boundary, Briere said.

Kirk Westphal asked whether the council resolution designated that the park would be under city ownership. Briere replied that the city “has no choice. The city is not selling the top of the underground parking structure – that’s public land.” Rather, the city is forming a condominium arrangement and allowing someone to build, she said, in the same way that the city handled the Liberty Square (Tally Hall) parking structure and the City Apartments project at First and Washington, which includes public parking.

Bonnie Bona.

Bonnie Bona asked Briere to provide insight into any sense of urgency that exists regarding the Library Lane site. Bona noted that this council resolution had come up so quickly after the city had sold the former Y lot, which is located nearby. What’s the basis for moving so quickly?

Briere noted that people who have been advocating for a park on top of the Library Lane structure have been doing that for several years. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) worked with those advocates before he became a member of council, Briere said, and he worked with them to draft the resolution. But the city isn’t willing to commit to a public park today, she added, without also discussing how to pay for the design, maintenance, capital improvements and other things. There’s an expectation among many councilmembers, Briere said, as well as among people who advise those councilmembers, that the developer will design, construct and maintain the public park, thus providing the funding for it.

So to set aside the parkland without a funding stream means that the parkland would never get built upon, Briere said. That was the rationale behind going forward with the two resolutions. She noted that potential developers will have guidelines for what can be done on the site, and where, and the council will be able to determine which of the concepts work best, in consultation with the park advisory commission.

The question is “which comes first?” Briere said. Some people felt strongly that it made no sense for a park to be designated before there’s an opportunity to develop it. Others felt that deciding to sell to a developer made no sense. “It was an interesting discussion,” she said.

Ken Clein asked whether the portion of the site designated for a park would be rezoned. Briere responded that “it doesn’t need to be rezoned. It’s public land already. All parkland is public land.” Clein said he thought some portions weren’t zoned as public land. Briere then indicated that he was right – in fact, she said, the city had zoned that site as D1, the designation that allows the maximum density of development. So it would need to be rezoned, she said. Clein pointed out that a rezoning request would first need to be reviewed by the planning commission, before going to council.

Library Lane Site: Commission Discussion

When she introduced the planning commission resolution, Bonnie Bona noted that it’s meant to offer planning advice to the city council – and that’s the planning commission’s charge.

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

She said the second “whereas” clause was important, because it refers to the council’s direction to the planning commission to review downtown zoning. Citizens have raised concerns that are not yet incorporated into the downtown zoning, she noted.

Bona pointed out that since the city put its new downtown zoning in place in 2009, the Connecting William Street plan was completed, which included lots of public input, she said. [That project, conducted by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, looked at how the city might develop five city-owned downtown properties, including the Library Lane site.]

Other factors guiding this advice are the Midtown Character Area intent statement in the zoning ordinance, the downtown design guidelines, and the recommendations for downtown parks by the city’s park advisory commission. A lot of this isn’t yet reflected in the zoning, Bona said.

The city has only a few sites that it owns where it has the opportunity to provide some ongoing economic and aesthetic impact – beyond just the minimum requirements of the zoning code, Bona noted. So she and Diane Giannola took some of the information from these sources that aligned with what the planning commission has discussed in the past, and identified those elements as priorities.

The resolution is similar to the one that the planning commission passed regarding the former Y lot, Bona said. One major difference is the recommendation to seek an “iconic design” for the Library Lane site, because there are potentially four visible sides to a development and it is more centrally located.

Sabra Briere weighed in with what she called a “nitpick.” She commented on the use of the word “iconic” twice in the same bullet point: “To seek an iconic design for this site that is visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;…”

Ken Clein and Diane Giannola.

It’s overkill, Briere said, and she recommended that one of the instances be removed. “I felt that in drafting it, you became overly enthusiastic,” she told Bona and Giannola.

Giannola said it didn’t matter to her, but noted that the same wording was used in the Connecting William Street plan.

Bona said she’d struggled with the wording. The intent is to seek a design that is meant to be viewed from all four sides. One of the issues with buildings like Zaragon West is that two sides of the building were meant to never be exposed, she noted, because the expectation is that tall buildings will be constructed next to them in the future. So Bona preferred to remove the first mention of iconic, and revise the text to reflect the viewed-from-all-sides intent.

The bullet point was revised to state: “To seek a design for this site that is meant to be visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;…”

Jeremy Peters objected to the phrase “and public” in the following “whereas” clause:

WHEREAS the City Planning Commission requests that the City Council and public recognize the sale of “Library” Lot without an RFP may result in a development that 1) does not fulfill the overarching or site-level recommendations of the Connecting William Street Framework Plan, 2) does not meet the Intent statement for the Midtown Character Overlay Zoning District in the zoning ordinance, 3) ignores the recommendations of the Design Guidelines, and 4) ignores the recommendations of the Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) Downtown Parks Subcommittee Report;

Giannola replied that the same wording was used in the planning commission’s resolution regarding the Y lot. To her, the resolution was speaking both to the council and the public – because the public will weigh in on this, she said.

Briere’s problem with this whereas clause was that it’s an action statement, using the verb “requests.” So it shouldn’t be a “whereas” clause, she said.

Kirk Westphal recommended rephrasing the clause to make it more of a background statement: “WHEREAS the City Planning Commission recognizes the sale of ‘Library’ Lot …” Bona and Giannola accepted his suggestion as a friendly amendment.

Ken Clein said the phrase “cultural venue” gave him pause in one of the bulleted points of the final resolved clause:

A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.

Bona noted that the bullet point reflected the Connecting William Street study. The idea was that it seemed like this location would provide a good opportunity to incorporate a cultural venue, she said. It wasn’t a directive to include a cultural venue, she added. Clein suggested adding the word “possibly” to the phrase – “and possibly incorporating a cultural venue” – which Bona and Giannola accepted as a friendly amendment.

Eleanore Adenekan asked what the term “generous landscaping” meant in one of the bullet points of the final resolved clause. Bona replied that “you pick a word that helps get the point across.” Bona didn’t think anyone wanted to put a percentage on the amount of landscaping a site should have. Bona was comfortable with the term “generous” because it conveyed the intent that landscaping should be noticeable, not just a couple of trees. If the resolution became too specific, Bona cautioned, “we could create unintended consequences.” Council can decide whether they want to be vague and use the power of suggestion, or if they want to be more specific, she said.

Jeremy Peters.

Wendy Woods wondered about the recommendation to use an RFP/RFQ process, pointing out that the council has already given direction to use a brokerage service – as the city did with the former Y lot. She noted that Briere had indicated the city was going to use a condominium arrangement on the site.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the issue of a condominium arrangement was brought up at the council meeting because there seemed to be some misunderstanding about how the financial arrangement would work. She indicated that the planning commission resolution might not need that level of detail.

Westphal asked Rampson to comment on the difference between an RFP/RFQ process and what occurred at the former Y lot, when the city hired a broker to find a buyer. Rampson replied that with a broker, there would still be proposals that describe what the developer would do with the site. That would be available to the public at some point, she said. An RFP/RFQ process would “bake in” additional public process, she noted. Typically a committee is formed to review the proposals, and give recommendations about the proposal that would best meet the criteria of the RFP.

Briere said that the council felt the process of hiring a broker for the former Y lot had been very successful. It was easier and more straightforward, and resulted in a variety of different proposals, she noted. They’d seen that previous RFP attempts by the city had not been successful, she added, and that experience has influenced whether the council decides to do an RFP.

Giannola thought that the resolution passed by the planning commission about the Y lot had an indirect effect, because a lot of what the commissioners had wanted was incorporated into the proposals that the city received. So even though the council isn’t likely to issue an RFP, she thought it was important for potential developers and the community to know what the planning commission would want.

Bona added that it’s not yet clear what will happen on the former Y lot. “We don’t have a building,” she said. [The agreement between the city and local hotelier Dennis Dahlmann, who has offered $5.25 million for the lot, hasn't yet closed. The current closing date is April 2.] Her caution comes from the fact that the city has a downtown zoning ordinance that “doesn’t always get us what we want, because it’s words instead of a building,” Bona said.

She thought the power of suggestion might result in something that the community wants, in spite of not being a “protracted process.” Bona noted that an additional step in the RFP process is actually writing the RFP, which can take a lot of time. “So I’m not opposed to the process that the council is taking now,” she said.

Clein agreed with Briere that hiring a broker is more expedient, and he agreed with Bona that the ultimate test is whether the outcome is what the community wants. At the former Y lot, “the jury’s out on that until we see what happens,” he said.

Woods supported the resolution. She pointed to the wording of the final resolved clause: “RESOLVED that … an RFP contain some or all of the following conditions:…” Woods said the resolution makes a wonderful case for all of the conditions, so why say “some or all”? She proposed a revision to delete “some or” – adding that obviously the decision about the Library Lane site is up to the city council.

Giannola didn’t want the resolution to come across as “all or nothing.” Woods replied: “You know they’re bright enough to know that.” Giannola thought some people might think the commission was asking for too much, saying she’d be happy if most or even some of the suggestions were taken.

When Giannola said she thought it was overreaching to say “all,” Woods pointed out that it’s overreaching to even pass the resolution. She advocated against sounding “wishy-washy.” Westphal supported Woods, and at that point Giannola and Bona agreed to delete “some or” as a friendly amendment.

Westphal then called for a vote. All other commissioners voted, but Briere hesitated. Westphal called for another vote.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the resolution, as amended, regarding the Library Lane lot.

After the vote, Briere said she hesitated because the council did not embrace the Connecting William Street report. Many councilmembers do not believe that the project was successful in public outreach, she said. Personally, Briere added, she believed that some of the advice in the planning commission’s resolution is excellent. However, she said, she’ll “take it worth a grain of salt as a member of council, because of the insistence on density as a result of having made the commitment to put footings in that could hold a dense building. Many members of council that I have spoken with do not believe that maximizing density, scale and mass of a building on that site is in the public interest.”

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

Briere said she was making these comments after the discussion and vote because she didn’t want other commissioners to feel that she was trying to tell the planning commission what to say or think. And despite Giannola’s belief that the planning commission’s recommendations were heeded on the Y lot, Briere wasn’t sure the recommendations were “knowingly heeded.”

Giannola noted that the council had approved the Library Lane parking structure with the additional footings, and at that time the majority of councilmembers did believe that a dense building should go on that site. There might be a change in viewpoint on council now, she added, but “we’re still going on what was in the plans back then.”

As for Connecting William Street, Giannola said it involved much public input. The majority of councilmembers at that time felt the same way, she added, and it’s the newer councilmembers who haven’t supported it. “To me, just because you have a different viewpoint and you’re a new councilmember, you can’t override everything that’s happened in the past,” she said. “History to me is important.”

Briere agreed that history is important, but noted that it’s not the past councilmembers who’ll be receiving the commission’s current resolution. People change on council, she noted, and that’s “sometimes in reaction to the very things that you’re citing.”

Briere noted that some of the documents mentioned in the commission’s resolution – the downtown plan, the design guidelines, the midtown character district – give strength to the resolution. They are documents that councilmembers can and should cite when they need to, she said.

The biggest thing that people should be talking about is what it means to have a strong frontage along South Fifth Avenue, Briere said. All of the documents cited in the commission’s resolution that refer specifically to the Library Lane site have recommended putting a public plaza along the South Fifth Avenue side. But a public plaza is not a strong frontage, she said. The structure was designed to hold at least very low or moderate intensity fronting South Fifth, she noted. “I don’t know how to reconcile those things,” Briere concluded.

Edwards Brothers Site

Planning commissioners also considered a resolution regarding the former Edwards Brothers Malloy property at 2500-2550 South State Street. The resolution recommended that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor regarding the future development of the site, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site.

The city council voted down a resolution that would have authorized Ann Arbor’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property, at a special session of the council on Feb. 24, 2014. That will allow the University of Michigan to purchase the property unimpeded.

In introducing the resolution, planning manager Wendy Rampson said she drafted the resolution based on previous discussions at planning commission and city council. The intent is for this resolution to be jointly passed by both entities, to be directed to the UM regents and president. [.pdf of draft resolution at start of March 18 meeting] [.pdf of resolution as amended at March 18 meeting]

Rampson said the city has struggled with this issue for many years, in terms of understanding the university’s need to expand its facilities weighed against the city’s interest in retaining its tax base. In the case of the Edwards Brothers site, there’s the added city desire to have redevelopment there provide a catalyst for other redevelopment in the South Street corridor, she said.

The hope is that representatives from both the city and UM will get together to talk about some of these issues, Rampson said. One question is whether there’s an opportunity for economic development along that section of the corridor. If UM would agree to “carve off” part of the site into smaller parcels fronting South State, she said, that might help to activate the corridor. Another issue is the existing park-and-ride lot, which will likely be displaced by UM’s expansion. Also of concern is the Oakbrook Drive extension that’s been planned for decades, she noted. What’s missing is a way to link from South State to South Main, through UM property.

The draft resolution at the start of the meeting had one resolved clause, which stated:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council and Ann Arbor City Planning Commission request that The University of Michigan Regents and the President Coleman authorize University staff to meet with City representatives to collaborate on issues related to future development of the South Athletic Campus area, including, but not limited to:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be sold for the purpose of developing complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park and ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between South Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the South Athletic Campus site.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Edwards Brothers Site: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere began the discussion by asking whether it makes sense for the resolution to address UM president Mary Sue Coleman, given that Coleman is retiring this summer. Briere suggested addressing it instead to the new president, Mark Schlissel. Jeremy Peters recommended taking out reference to any specific name, and simply address it to the regents and president.

Kirk Westphal.

Ken Clein said he could imagine that the regents and president wouldn’t want the city to suggest how they should dispose of their property. Instead of stating that the parcels fronting South State should be sold, Clein suggested recommending how those parcel should be developed. Whether those parcels are sold or leased would be a matter for the university to decide, he said.

Peters thought the reference to selling the land was intentional, because it would add to the city’s tax base if the land were in private ownership. Clein thought the resolution might get a better reception from UM if the city didn’t try to stipulate how the university should deal with the property.

Bonnie Bona thought there’d be a taxable value to having development, even if the property remained in UM ownership. That’s because it would help motivate other development on private property elsewhere in the corridor, she noted.

Paras Parekh asked about the phrase “complementary uses.” Does that refer to uses that complement the South State corridor, or that complement activities on the UM campus? Westphal interpreted it as complementing land uses that the city would like to see in that corridor.

Rampson said both interpretations are appropriate. She’d intended it to refer to uses that would complement UM’s athletic campus, but it could also relate to the corridor too, she said.

Peters advocated for leaving in a reference to the front parcels possibly being sold. It’s been brought up frequently in community discussions, he noted. Briere pointed out that a reference to selling the land is in the fifth “whereas” clause:

WHEREAS, City Council, the Planning Commission, and concerned city residents have indicated a desire for community benefit to be incorporated into The University of Michigan’s plans for development of the Edwards Brothers site, including the possibility for frontage parcels to be created and sold for private development; …

Wendy Woods said her sense is that this resolution is intended to get some kind of a conversation started, based on the city’s goals for that area. In that regard, the resolution shouldn’t be a non-starter, she said.

Further wordsmithing resulted in this revised bullet point:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;

Westphal said he expected the city council would want to make changes to the resolution. If they do, would it come back to the planning commission, given that it’s a joint resolution? Rampson indicated that bringing it back to the commission would take more time. She suggested communicating that the commission wouldn’t object to changes that the council might make.

Briere noted that the next meeting of the planning commission, on April 1, falls before the next meeting of the council, which is on April 7. So it would be possible to take another look at this resolution, she said.

There was no particular interest among commissioners in postponing the resolution. Rampson said she’s already shared a draft of resolution with UM planner Sue Gott and Jim Kosteva, the university’s director of community relations.

The resolved clause, as amended, stated:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council and Ann Arbor City Planning Commission request that The Regents of The University of Michigan and President authorize University staff to meet with City representatives to collaborate on issues related to future development of the South Athletic Campus area, including, but not limited to:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park-and-ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between Ross Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the Ross Athletic Campus site.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the resolution as amended. The resolution will be forwarded to the city council, with the understanding that changes made to the resolution by the council will be supported by the planning commission without further review.

Shell Station Site Plan

The site plan for an overhaul to the Shell station and a new drive-thru restaurant at 2991 S. State was on the March 18 agenda. The site is located at the northeast corner of the East Eisenhower Parkway and South State Street.

Aerial view of the site for a Shell station and drive-thru restaurant at the northeast corner of South State and East Eisenhower.

The plan calls for demolishing the current one-story convenience store and car wash on this site, which total 2,435 square feet. In its place, the owner – Joseph Kafi of JAK Cubed LLC – would put up a single building with a 1,250-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,000-square-foot convenience store. The existing gas pump island canopy will remain in place, and two pumps will be relocated to spots under the canopy.

According to a staff memo, a single lane drive-thru would be primarily accessed from the existing East Eisenhower Parkway curb cut. Vehicles would move in an east-to-north direction before exiting onto either South State or looping back south to East Eisenhower. The drive-thru lane provides stacking for up to nine vehicles and would be screened to the west by the proposed new building. A total of 22 parking spaces are proposed for the site, including eight that are located at the four gas pump islands.

A new sidewalk connection with a striped crosswalk would connect the southern building entrance to the public sidewalk along Eisenhower.

Approval was needed to modify landscaping requirements in Chapter 62 of the city code – the landscape and screening ordinance. A minimum 10-foot right-of-way buffer is required. The owner is asking that the width of the buffer be reduced to the existing 4-foot wide right-of-way landscape buffer fronting South State Street, which contains a 30-inch-high screening wall and landscaping. That would allow for continued use of the two gas pump islands on the western portion of this site. Other landscaping would be added along South State Street and East Eisenhower Parkway to screen the vehicular use area. The site is zoned C3 (fringe commercial).

The project, located in Ward 4, is estimated to cost $800,000. The business is expected to remain open during construction. The existing convenience store will then be demolished after the new building is finished. The specific restaurant to be located there is still being negotiated, according to the owner.

Planning staff recommended approval of the plan. [.pdf of staff report]

Shell Station Site Plan: Public Hearing

Brad Cousino of Terratek Design Inc., the project’s engineer, began by noting that his older brother, Ken Cousino, had spoken to commissioners earlier in the meeting about a different project – the Collingwood office building site plan (see below). Cousino said he and the owners were on hand to answer any questions.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Traffic, Parking

Eleanore Adenekan wondered if traffic would be congested coming in from the Eisenhower side. City planner Chris Cheng replied that the owner had submitted a traffic study. The city’s traffic engineer had commented that the site will capture drive-by traffic – that is, traffic that is already in the area. So the project isn’t expected to increase traffic significantly, he said. Within the site, there will be space for nine vehicles to queue up in the drive-thru lane.

From left: Joseph Kafi and Brad Cousino.

Sabra Briere wondered how the drive-thru would be accessible from State Street. Cheng noted that vehicles coming in from State Street would need to loop around the site. Briere observed that it seems vehicles from State would be routed across incoming traffic from Eisenhower.

Wendy Woods noted that 8 of the site’s 22 spaces are located at the gas pumps. She wondered if those gas pump spaces would be tied up when someone wanted to buy gas and eat in the restaurant and there were no other parking spaces available. Brad Cousino said that technically, the spots at the gas pumps do qualify as parking spaces. But he wouldn’t expect people to park there while getting food from the drive-thru.

Jeremy Peters asked about the pedestrian crosswalk that goes across South State Street, near the southern entrance into the Shell site. He noted that South State is a road with higher speeds. In discussions about traffic and pedestrian access, Peters said, was there any talk about that crosswalk and traffic flow? Cousino said he didn’t see that as a high-speed area, because vehicles would be slowing down at the intersection of State and Eisenhower.

Diane Giannola said she uses this gas station frequently, because it’s in her neighborhood. She suggested that the walkway should be well-marked to indicate that it’s a pedestrian crossing, so that cars entering from Eisenhower can see it. Cousino said they could put some kind of pedestrian crossing sign there.

Ken Clein noted that the parking along the proposed building gives him pause. Vehicles would be backing out into an area where other cars would be pulling into the pumps.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that there’s a six-foot space between the building and the parking spots, but that includes a two-foot overhang from vehicles – so there would only be four feet between a vehicle’s bumper and the building. She asked planning staff to verify that there’s enough space for the walkway. She assumed that the business wouldn’t be putting items like propane tanks on the walkway. The area looks really tight, she said.

Following up on Bona’s comments, Clein suggested that the project team look at the location of the entry doors to the convenience store, to make sure they are accessible from the parking area. He didn’t think it would meet ADA requirements, but noted that it’s not in the planning commission’s purview. Cousino described the plans as not yet finalized, so the issue that Clein raised would be addressed.

Bona asked how the 22-space parking minimum had been calculated. Cheng replied that it’s calculated by taking a combination of the requirements for the restaurant and for the convenience store. Bona said she supports less parking in general, so she’s not concerned about counting the eight spaces at the pumps. In the past, the planning commission has even discussed counting the stacked spaces in the drive-thru queue, she said.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Canopy, Dumpsters

Sabra Briere noted that the canopy over the gas pumps, a chevron shape, is clearly designed for three sets of pumps, but there will only be two sets. Briere said she was curious about that. Chris Cheng noted that the entire canopy covers the pumps and the walkway to the convenience store.

Ken Clein clarified with Cheng that the dumpster enclosure on the site plan is proposed, but doesn’t currently exist. Jeremy Peters wondered if the enclosure would have room for a grease dumpster, in addition to trash and recycling. Brad Cousino said that the 20-foot-wide enclosure is generous, so there might be room for a grease container.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Landscaping

Regarding the landscape buffer, Bonnie Bona said she’s very supportive of maintaining the existing plants, adding that she knows how difficult it is for plants to survive in those kinds of locations. She wondered if the trees there are growing. The owner, Joseph Kafi, replied that in the six years he’s had the site, the trees appear to be growing. He’s also planted a crabapple tree and shrubs, which are doing well, he said.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Drive-Thru

Wendy Woods asked what kind of drive-thru restaurant would be located there. Brad Cousino said they’re negotiating with several different chains, but it hasn’t been decided.

Wendy Woods.

Jeremy Peters wondered where signs for the restaurant would be located. Cousino replied that he wasn’t sure what the sign ordinance would require, but the signs would be visible. Peters hoped that the signs for the Shell station and the restaurant would be put on the same signpost.

Sabra Briere asked if the proposal complies with the proposed changes to the city’s zoning ordinance regarding drive-thrus. Wendy Rampson noted that the proposed changes would limit the drive-thru lane in a site’s front open space, to make sure it’s well-screened. She said this project wouldn’t be affected by the proposed amendments to the ordinance. [.pdf of proposed ordinance amendments, to be considered by the commission on April 1.]

Kirk Westphal wondered whether this kind of project would require special exception use approval, if proposed amendments to the ordinance are passed. Yes, Cheng replied, but currently drive-thru uses are permitted in C3 zoning.

Westphal asked Cheng to comment on why drive-thrus are currently allowed in this zoning district. Cheng replied that the city’s master plan does recommend commercial uses for this particular corner, with pedestrian amenities. The site plan includes a pedestrian connection from Eisenhower and six bike hoops. Rampson noted that C3 is the only zoning district that now allows drive-thrus without requiring a special exception use permit. She reported that the commission’s ordinance revisions committee is interested in putting more restrictions on this type of use because it’s not in alignment with the city’s master plan objectives.

The planning commission’s April 1 agenda includes proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to the ordinance. Drive-thrus would need special exception use permits, which would be allowed in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

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

Wendy Woods said that given the site’s location near an expressway – the I-94 exchange is located just south of this intersection – she thought the drive-thru would make sense.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and landscape modifications for the Shell station project.

Collingwood Site Plan

A proposal to expand an office building at 278-280 Collingwood was reviewed by planning commissioners on March 18.

Aerial view indicating location of 278-280 Collingwood Drive.

The site plan calls for removing the existing second floor on the east side of the office building and constructing a 2,451-square-foot second floor over the entire building for office use. A new staircase will be added at the southwest corner of the building. The second floor will overhang the first floor along the front of the building and along part of the north side.

An existing curbcut on the north side of the property will be removed. The current 22 parking spaces on the site will be reduced to 17.

Planning commissioners were also asked to approve modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements for this site. Some of the required interior landscaping – the right-of-way screening and interior landscaping island – would be in the critical root zone of two landmark trees, so the owner requested permission to move the landscaping to other parts of the site. That change is supported by the city’s urban forester.

Total construction cost for this project is estimated at $300,000. The office building is located in Ward 4. Collingwood Drive is a street off of West Stadium Boulevard, just south of West Stadium’s convergence with South Maple Road. [.pdf of staff memo]

Planning staff had recommended approval of the site plan.

Collingwood Site Plan: Public Hearing

Ken Cousino spoke during the public hearing, and noted that the project’s two owners were attending the meeting as well to answer questions.

Ken Cousino.

Collingwood Site Plan: Commission Discussion

Jeremy Peters asked for clarification about the curbcut off of Collingwood. City planner Chris Cheng explained that after the staff report was written, it was determined that there was no need to actually increase the width of the curbcut to meet the current code. The curbcut had been installed in 1978, so it would be considered an existing, non-conforming curbcut and wouldn’t be changed.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the entire area had originally been zoned for parking. It had been intended as a buffer between the commercial corridor of West Stadium Boulevard and the office district to the east. The area was rezoned from parking to office in 1965.

Peters supported removing one of the curbcuts, saying it made things easier for pedestrians. He also supported landscaping modifications so that the landmark trees would be preserved.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Cheng that the pavement currently in place for the north curbcut would be replaced with turf and landscaping.

Bona also asked if the building would require an elevator. Ken Cousino responded that it did not. Bona noted that the project is only taking about half of the allowable floor-area ratio (FAR). She said she always likes to know why a project doesn’t take full advantage of the density that’s allowed. Cousino replied that an additional floor would require that an elevator be installed.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Belle Tire Easement

The March 18 agenda included an easement related to a new Belle Tire at 590 W. Ellsworth.

The commission had recommended site plan approval at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, and the project subsequently received city council approval on Oct. 7, 2013. The site is located in Ward 4.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

A 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front of this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site, which is zoned C3 (fringe commercial), is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet.

Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

The planning staff recommended approval of this proposal. No one spoke during the public hearing.

Belle Tire Easement: Commission Discussion

Ken Clein asked whether the intent is to have a future pedestrian pathway on the easement. Planner Chris Cheng, who gave the staff presentation, said there are no current plans other than the sidewalk that will be installed as part of the site plan. But if in the future there are road improvements on Ellsworth and the sidewalk must be removed, then a sidewalk or other non-motorized use could be located in the easement.

In response to another query from Clein, Cheng noted that the site plan addresses a grade change along that edge of the property by including a walkway and some steps.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of this proposal. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. No one spoke during public commentary on March 18.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Commission Bylaws

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the city council had approved some revisions to the planning commission’s bylaws – but not all of the revisions that have been recommended by planning commissioners were brought forward. The council approved the revisions that planning commissioners had passed about six months ago – at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

The changes relate to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations. The bylaws, as revised, call for additional lead time so that special accommodations, including a sign language interpreter, can be made for people with disabilities, when requested at least two business days in advance of a meeting. The previous bylaws specified just a one-day advance request.

Revisions that were approved by planning commissioners more recently – at their Feb. 20, 2014 meeting – have not yet been forwarded to the council. Rampson reported that assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald wanted to have some additional discussion about those revisions related to public hearings.

Wendy Woods wondered whether the city attorney’s office would work quickly, “so that we aren’t waiting a long time.” Rampson replied that she asked McDonald to draft language that he would find acceptable, and that could be forwarded to the commissioners for consideration. She said she’d communicate with him that commissioners would like to see that as quickly as possible.

One revision clarifies the limitations on a city councilmember’s interaction with the commission. The revised section states: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.” The intent is to prevent undue influence on the commission, and to avoid the possibility of legal action against the city.

Other revisions affect speaking turns at public hearings. The intent is to clarify how many turns the same person can speak at a public hearing, and how public hearings are continued if an item is postponed.

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

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 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 a proposed Belle Tire site.

The commission had recommended site plan approval at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, and the project subsequently received city council approval on Oct. 7, 2013. The site is located in Ward 4.

A 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

The planning staff recommended approval of this proposal. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

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

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The planning commission had recommended approval of the site plan at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting. The site is located at 590 W. Ellsworth.

The council’s action was taken at its Oct. 7, 2013 meeting.

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 49 parking spaces, included 10 spaces located in service bays.

An existing curb cut into the site from Ellsworth will be closed, and the business will share an entrance with the Tim Hortons site. The project includes a new sidewalk along Ellsworth.

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

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

A resolution added to the agenda on Friday, Oct. 4 would, if approved, result in the waiver of attorney-client privilege with respect to a specific advice memo that has already been written by the city attorney’s office on the McWilliams appointment.

The memo responds to questions that were raised about the procedure used to appoint McWilliams to the DDA board. Mayor John Hieftje had asked the council to vote on McWilliams’ appointment after saying at a previous meeting that he was withdrawing the nomination. Under the council’s rules, an 8-vote majority is required for confirmation of an appointment when the nomination is made at the same meeting when the confirmation vote is taken. McWilliams was confirmed on a 6-5 vote.

It’s also possible that a motion could be put forward to reconsider McWilliams’ confirmation, in order to eliminate the procedural controversy. However, by the end of the weekend before the meeting, no such item had been added to the agenda.

The council will also be asked to adopt an update to its solid waste plan. [Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan] [Appendices to Waste Less] The update proposes a number of initiatives, including goals for increased recycling/diversion rates – both generally and for apartment buildings in particular. A pilot program would add all plate scrapings to the list of materials that can be placed in the brown carts used to collect compostable matter.

And if that pilot program is successful, the plan calls for exploring the possibility of reducing the frequency of curbside pickup – from the current weekly regime to a less frequent schedule. Also included in the draft plan is a proposal to relocate and upgrade the drop-off station at Platt and Ellsworth. The implementation of a fee for single-use bags at retail outlets is also part of the plan. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor's Five-Year Plan."]

The solid waste plan update could face opposition from some councilmembers who don’t think it would be feasible or desirable to reduce the frequency of curbside trash pickup to once every two weeks.

The council will be asked to give initial consideration to a new definition of a sidewalk, covering so-called cross-lot walkways. Such walkways aren’t really on the “side” of anything. They connect a street to a park or school, or two parallel streets. The item had been up for final consideration at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting, but it was postponed until Oct. 7.

In the meantime, the city’s approach to the cross-lot walkways has changed. Currently if an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage. All other things being equal, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for snow removal in the winter. The new approach, to be considered on Oct. 7, would allow the cross-lot walkways to qualify as sidewalks under the city’s ordinance, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. This fresh look would mean that any action taken on Oct. 7 would be considered only an initial approval of the ordinance change.

Land use is on the agenda in the form of two developments and one annexation.

Returning to the council’s agenda is the planned unit development (PUD) zoning for the Shell/Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The proposal for the 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building.

The council had given initial approval for changes to the project’s PUD supplemental regulations at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting. That’s when Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) objected to including the drive-thru as a public benefit in the regulations: “To say that somebody now doesn’t have to spend the 10 extra calories between getting out of their car to get their salt-sugar-fat fix?! I don’t see that as a public benefit and I don’t want us to list that as some big thing that we’re modifying our zoning for in our ordinance.” On that occasion, the council modified the PUD regulations to accommodate his objection. The final approval of the PUD zoning as well as the site plan is on the council’s Oct. 7 agenda.

Councilmembers will also be asked to approve a site plan for Belle Tire on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a different Tim Hortons – one that’s located near the intersection with South State. The currently vacant 1-acre site will become a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with 49 parking spaces, including 10 spaces located in service bays.

The council will also be asked to vote on a standard annexation from Ann Arbor Township to the city of Ann Arbor – a 0.39-acre site at 2640 Miller Ave.

Also on the Oct. 7 agenda is an item to approve a change to fees associated with liquor licenses. Some fees are being eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review.

Other Oct. 7 agenda highlights include an allocation for more traffic calming studies and a resolution that would direct the city administrator to apply for a Rockefeller Foundation grant to make Ann Arbor one of 100 Resilient Cities.

More details on other meeting agenda items are 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.

6:38 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. A handful of members of the public are here who are not usual suspects: “It looks bigger on TV, doesn’t it.”

6:51 p.m. About 20 people here now. Taxicab board member Michael Benson is here, as is Jack Eaton, who is the Democratic Party nominee in Ward 4, unopposed on the Nov. 5 ballot.

6:56 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers has been in and out of council chambers since about 6:30 p.m. Peter Eckstein is here. Councilmembers have started to arrive: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Jeff Hayner, Ward 1 independent city council candidate, is also here. He has his motorcycle helmet in hand.

7:03 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) has arrived. Still missing several councilmembers. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are not expected to attend. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) has now arrived.

7:11 p.m. And we’re off.

7:13 p.m. Only eight councilmembers are present. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) are attending the International Downtown Association conference in New York City, which runs Oct. 6-9. A contingent of Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board members is also attending the conference. The Chronicle has not yet received a response from the DDA about which, if any, conference and travel costs are being covered by the DDA. City administrator Steve Powers responded with requested information about the council’s travel budget: $6,500 was budgeted for FY 2014 with $0 used to date. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) is also absent.

[Added on Oct. 8, 2013: Petersen responded to a Chronicle emailed inquiry by saying that the DDA is paying for her conference registration, but she is paying for her own airfare, hotel, meals, etc.]

7:16 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. Steve Powers announces an Oct. 8 meeting on WALLY station locations at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Community Center. He also reports that tree removal has begun. Trees to be removed have been painted with a green dot. The report on University of Michigan football game street closures is now available, Powers says.

7:17 p.m. The report on football game day street closures has been attached to the agenda. [.pdf of UM football street closures report] Police chief John Seto gave a preliminary oral report at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting.

7:17 p.m. Proclamations. The Concordia University football team is being recognized for volunteering in the Ann Arbor parks – specifically for participating in the city’s adopt-a-facility at Fuller Park pool.

7:17 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.]

All 10 slots have been reserved tonight, including two alternates. Thomas Partridge is signed up to promote his write-in candidacy for the Ward 5 city council seat and to call for the replacement of mayor John Hieftje, Gov. Rick Snyder and U.S. House speaker John Boehner. Signed up to speak on the amendment to the current fiscal year budget for traffic calming studies ($55,000) are: Diane Kreger, James Billingslea, Alissa Ruelle, Sheila Henley, Zoltan Jung, Lisa Richardson, and Ana Morgan (alternate). Signed up to speak on the resolution to waive attorney-client privilege are: Jeff Hayner, Peter Zetlin, Mary Underwood, and Rita Mitchell (alternate).

7:21 p.m. Diane Kreger is addressing the council. She loves living in Ann Arbor. She loves her neighborhood. She’s lived on Northside for many years, but she’s concerned about the lack of traffic calming. She calls it a “recipe for disaster.” She describes a situation where a car had come whipping down the street and almost hit a little girl. She reads a statement from a 10-year old girl, Ana Morgan, who writes that she’s not allowed to play in the front yard because the cars go faster than the 25 mph speed limit and there are no sidewalks. “Please help make my street safer for everyone,” the statement concludes.

7:25 p.m. James Billingslea notes that the traffic calming item has six of the 10 speaking slots. He says that there would have been more people who would have come to address the council, except for the limit on reserved slots. He stresses that these measures are not luxuries. He describes several of the specific locations where there are problems. He lives on Northside. It’s a short street, with 20 houses, eight of which have young children. He describes how cars often have taken out mailboxes or the stop sign. A short 25 mph street shouldn’t have to endure that, he says. There’s a blind rise and a blind corner, he says. Without the budget amendment, it would be 2017 before traffic calming measures would be implemented, he notes.

7:28 p.m. Jeff Hayner reads from the New York City charter, Chapter 68, on conflicts of interest. He asked why the council has no conflict of interest policy, citing the deliberations on Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. He says we can’t trust the national or the state government, or now the local government to make good appointments. It’s important to choose carefully. He said he’d asked to be appointed to the North Main Street Huron River task force, and the reply he’d received from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that the members of that task force had been pre-selected before the task force had been established.

7:31 p.m. Tom Partridge is now at the podium. He’s asking for write-in votes for the Ward 5 council seat. He’s a declared write-in candidate. He calls for a new attitude in Ann Arbor, one that’s family-friendly. The number of speakers in favor of traffic calming is a testament to the problem with the socio-economic environment, Partridge says. He calls for the end of crime and corruption. He calls for the replacement of mayor John Hieftje, Gov. Rick Snyder, and U.S. House speaker John Boehner. Ann Arbor and its families and college students suffer without a respectful set of attitudes, he says. Partridge calls for building affordable housing and ending homelessness in Ann Arbor.

7:34 p.m. Peter Zetlin is talking about community values related to Al McWilliams’ appointment to the DDA board. He’d looked at McWilliams’ blog and seen images of women that objectified them. He invites councilmembers to think about if the images had related to race or religion. If the images were appropriate, he asks, why did McWilliams take them down? He says McWilliams is immature. He alludes to the recommendation by Maura Thomson of McWilliams. Thomson, who’s executive director of the Main Street Area Association, declined to answer his question to her, he says: Did she still support McWilliams? Zetlin’s remarks get a smattering of applause.

7:37 p.m. Alissa Ruelle is representing residents who live on Pomona, a street that runs north-south from the water treatment facility down to Miller. Newport is a main road, but Pomona is a secondary road. Pomona winds downhill and has only one stop sign. Cars drive very fast down Pomona, she says. The neighborhood had petitioned back in 2009 for traffic calming measures. Her understanding is that the traffic calming measures are supposed to be implemented next year. Regarding the children who live on the street, she said she didn’t want their young mistakes to be their last mistakes. Residents are looking forward to traffic calming measures. Her remarks generate applause.

7:38 p.m. Sheila Henley is also representing Pomona. There are definitely kids in the neighborhood, she says. Her mother is 78 and there are Alzheimer patients. She signed the petition back in 2005, she said. She definitely supports the resolution. More applause.

7:41 p.m. Mary Underwood says that after all the “brouhaha” about the McWilliams appointment, she decided to look at his blog. She calls it third-grade level potty humor. She’s embarrassed for the mayor, the council, and downtown merchants. She questions the ability of McWilliams to exercise good judgment. She asks if he was the best candidate that could be found to represent the city. She refers to a phrase that she attributes to McWilliams about an ice cream promotion: “Hey everybody, don’t forget to shove an ice cream cone up your ass.”

7:43 p.m. Zoltan Jung is speaking on behalf of the Northside neighborhood in support of traffic calming measures. He characterizes the demographics as a bimodal distribution of very old and very young. Our kids run and play on this street, he says. Cars bounce off the neighbor’s tree and wind up in his yard, he reports.

7:46 p.m. Lisa Richardson lives on Wells, seven houses from Packard and Burns Park Elementary. Drivers routinely speed down the street, using it as a cut-through. Someone is going to be injured or killed, she says. Fourteen small children live on the street, she says. No one stops at the three-way stop, she says. When drivers turn onto Wells, they “gun it” to get to Packard, in order to make the light, Richardson reports. A traffic study was completed in 2010, she said, but it’s not scheduled for implementation until 2016. The city knows that a dangerous situation exists and results in liability for the city. The reaction time of drivers doesn’t allow them to react if they’re speeding. She thinks the city needs to look at speeding on all the city’s roads. Lots of applause follows her commentary.

7:46 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.

7:49 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) responds to Jeff Hayner’s remarks during public commentary about the task force appointments. Often a task force is appointed the same night they are established, she says. When the North Main Huron River task force was established, many people stepped forward and asked that additional seats be added. They’d tried to make the process open and transparent. Many of the non-members of the task force had attended meetings and helped the process.

Briere also reports that a public meeting will take place on Wednesday, Oct. 9 at 6:30 p.m. at Clague Middle School about the intersection of Dhu Varren, Green and Nixon roads. She also notes that she attended the Michigan Association of Planning conference in Kalamazoo the previous weekend.

7:52 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is talking about the crosswalk ordinance and the possibility of repealing the city’s ordinance and replacing it with the uniform vehicle code. It sounds like that proposal will be coming forward at a future meeting. On the topic of education about crosswalk safety, Lumm says there’s the possibility about posting signs for bicyclists to educate them about how to approach crosswalks. This is appropriate in the context of launching a bike sharing program next spring, she says. She wants the signs placed first at the busiest crosswalks. She also thanks city administrator Steve Powers for the announcement about tree removal.

7:54 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that as the city has less money, residents will come forward about public safety, health and welfare issues. He says that signs could work as traffic calming devices. He also suggests that concrete barriers be placed on streets. “Drivers will not go through impediments,” he says.

7:55 p.m. Appointments. The council will be asked to vote tonight on nominations that were made at the Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. Those include Brock Hastie to the employees’ retirement system board of trustees. That’s a re-appointment. Being appointed to the city’s energy commission tonight are Erik Eibert (replacing Cliff Williams), and Elizabeth Gibbons (replacing Josh Long). Being appointed to fill a vacancy on the housing and human services advisory board is Kyle Hunter, and to fill a vacancy on the recreation advisory commission is Katie Lewit.

7:57 p.m. There’s back and forth between Anglin and Hieftje on the nomination of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Appleyard’s nomination was not moved tonight, Hieftje says. Anglin responds that he doesn’t think it’s necessary to recruit people who don’t live in the city. Appleyard is not a city resident. Hieftje is now saying that he will probably bring the nomination forward at a later time.

7:59 p.m. Appleyard’s confirmation, as a non-city resident, would have needed seven votes, which he would likely not have received, given the short-handed council tonight. From the city charter: [emphasis added]:

Section 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

Appleyard lives in Grass Lake, Mich., according to the nomination information. The city energy commission was established in 1985 by a council resolution to “oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.” Under special qualifications, the online Legistar description states: “wide spread representation; interest in energy.”

Appleyard has served on the energy commission since 2002. Terms of appointment for energy commissioners are three years. When Appleyard was up for reappointment in 2010, no objections were raised. Hieftje separated out Appleyard’s confirmation for a separate vote at that time to ensure it was clear that he’d specifically received adequate support from the council, despite not being a city resident. Appleyard is principal with Sunstructures Architects, with a focus in renewable energy and sustainable architecture.

7:59 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting.

Five public hearings are scheduled tonight. Separate public hearings are being held for PUD (planned unit development) zoning and site plan for the Shell/Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The changes to the PUD supplemental regulations on the 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building.

The third public hearing is on a site plan for Belle Tire. The 1-acre site – currently vacant – is on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a new Tim Hortons. That’s a different Tim Hortons from the one that’s the subject of the Shell station PUD. The Belle Tire proposal calls for putting up a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with 49 parking spaces, including 10 spaces located in service bays. The planning commission voted to recommend approval of the Belle Tire site plan at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The fourth public hearing is on a standard annexation – from Ann Arbor Township to the city of Ann Arbor. It’s 0.39 acres, located at 2640 Miller Ave.

The final public hearing is on a change to fees associated with liquor licenses. Some fees are being eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review. And the remaining license fee schedule is being revised to reflect actual costs:

• on-premise liquor license annual renewal: $90 (increase from $50)
• new liquor license: $600 (reduction from $2,500)
• new liquor license application fee: $150 (increase from $100)
• new DDA district license: $600 (reduction from $1,000)

8:01 p.m. PH: Shell/Tim Hortons PUD zoning. Thomas Partridge is holding forth. He says it’s a very busy location. He contends there’s no evidence of a traffic study being done, especially during rush hour. He asks that the proposal be referred back to the planning commission.

8:03 p.m. A resident who lives near the corner of Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road is speaking. A number of concerns had been voiced by residents, none of which had been addressed so far, he says. Because of the speed on Ann Arbor-Saline, bicyclists use the sidewalk. So he has concerns about pedestrians being impacted by this development. Planning staff contends that traffic would not increase, but he is skeptical. He asks that the project be referred to the planning commission for further review.

8:05 p.m. A resident of Pomona, who’s a practicing Muslim, wants to advocate against negative perceptions of Muslims. Hieftje explains that speakers must address the topic of the public hearing. The resident thanks the mayor for the explanation and leaves the podium.

8:06 p.m. PH: Shell/Tim Hortons site plan. Thomas Partridge is again criticizing the project based on traffic issues.

8:08 p.m. PH: Belle Tire site plan. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:11 p.m. PH: Rayer annexation. Thomas Partridge says he’s very concerned about the proliferation of zoning changes and annexations that are brought before the council without transparent information about them. He calls for this annexation proposal to be returned to the planning commission, so that an equal amount of acreage should be zoned for affordable housing and for businesses on public transportation routes.

8:14 p.m. PH: Liquor license review fees. Jeff Hayner is addressing the council on this issue. He’d just received a text message from a Ward 1 bar owner. The bar owner’s message says that lowering the fee for new licenses helps reduce the barrier to entry, but the owner is not in favor of the increase of fees for existing license holders. He appreciated the fact that the city wants to cover its staff costs.

8:17 p.m. Thomas Partridge is concerned about the loss of income to the city through the lowering of the fees. He calls for the proposal to be returned to the council’s liquor license review committee, to see if fees can be raised.

8:18 p.m. A young man is addressing the council based on free market principles. It should be easier to start businesses in all areas. We should make it cheaper to obtain liquor licenses, he says. He gets applause.

8:24 p.m. Minutes. Kunselman alludes to an updated version of the council minutes. He questions whether the minutes accurately reflect the McWilliams confirmation to the DDA board. Kunselman reviews the Sept. 3 meeting minutes. He now reviews the Sept.16 meeting minutes. He asks mayor John Hieftje to correct the characterization that the mayor gave on Sept. 16 when he said the nomination had been “postponed.” Kunselman notes that the nomination was crossed out after the Sept. 3 meeting. There’s a blow-by-blow here: “Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6.”

8:24 p.m. Kailasapathy says she thought the nomination of McWilliams had been withdrawn on Sept. 3.

8:28 p.m. Kunselman asks that the minutes be amended to say that the mayor “pretended” the nomination had been postponed. Briere expresses no enthusiasm for discussing it. She asks for input from city attorney Stephen Postema. Postema says that it’s not a legal issue, and that what the council is being asked to do is approve the minutes. Anglin ventures that the minutes could be approved with an exception. There’s no interest in that from Kunselman.

8:28 p.m. Warpehoski says that Kunselman is proposing to falsify the historical record, and that he’s just engaging in political theater.

8:35 p.m. Lumm says that she thought McWilliams’ name had been withdrawn and was surprised to see it brought forward on Sept. 16. She says she wished she’d had better command of the parliamentary procedures. Teall says she thought the confirmation had been postponed on Sept. 3. She tells Kunselman that what he’s proposing isn’t accurate.

8:39 p.m. Kunselman says that others took the mayor at his word when he said he was withdrawing the nomination. There’s back and forth between Teall and Kunselman on the question of what Hieftje’s intent was. Briere raises a point of order, asking Hieftje to recognize each speaker in turn to regulate the speaking turns.

Hieftje apologizes for contributing to the murkiness. He says his intent was to have the motion for confirmation withdrawn, but not to withdraw the nomination. If he had it to do over again, he would have said that he wanted to have the motion withdrawn. But Hieftje says he doesn’t have a problem having the minutes amended to reflect the exact transcript of the meeting.

8:40 p.m. Outcome: The amendment on the minutes is unanimously approved, as are the minutes themselves.

8:40 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:

• Contract with TSP Services, Inc. for the demolition of farmhouse, barns and outbuildings at the Wheeler Service Center ($57,940)
• Purchase Order to Telvent USA for Fiber Optic Network (FON) asset management software ($41,520)
• Schedule 17 of interagency agreement for collaborative technology and services (Washtenaw County, Provider) ($80,643)
• Transfer Delinquent water utility, board up, clean up, vacant property inspection, housing inspection, fire inspection, fire alarm, police alarm and graffiti removal invoices to the December 2013 City Tax Roll
• Professional services agreement with The Azimuth Group, Inc. for organizational development ($53,010) This consultant is supposed to help the city over the next 18 months to develop “strategies and tactics to improve employee engagement, improve organizational alignment with the City’s mission statement, and foster a cohesive organizational culture.”
• Street closings for the Ann Arbor Thanksgiving Day Turkey Trot – Thursday, Nov. 28, 2013
• Purchase of a turf aerator and a thatcher/seeder from Spartan Distributors ($29,989)
• Purchase of a light rescue vehicle for the fire department from Red Holman GMC ($26,777)

8:41 p.m. Briere pulls out the Azimuth Group Inc. professional services agreement from the consent agenda, to be considered separately.

8:42 p.m. Briere asks city administrator Steve Powers to explain the item. Powers says the intent is to help improve the city government’s ability to organize among the departments and to align the staff with the priorities set by the council. He describes the involvement of the consultant as lasting about 12 months.

8:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda.

8:42 p.m. Shell/Tim Hortons PUD zoning. The Shell/Tim Hortons is at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The changes to the PUD (planned unit development) supplemental regulations on the 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building.

8:44 p.m. Teall invites city planning manager Wendy Rampson to address the traffic issues. Rampson indicates that the study concluded that most of the traffic that would be turning into the drive-thru would already be on the road.

8:44 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the changes to the PUD supplemental regulations for the Shell/Tim Hortons drive-thru on Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

8:45 p.m. Shell/Tim Hortons site plan. A request for approval of the site plan for this project is considered separately.

8:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the site plan for the Shell/Tim Hortons drive-thru on Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

8:45 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

8:54 p.m. Have been told by his elementary school principal from years ago, that the young man who addressed the council during the liquor license public hearing was Josh Nacht, David Nacht’s son.

8:56 p.m. We’re back.

8:56 p.m. Sidewalk ordinance changes. This ordinance change – to the definition of a sidewalk – was up for final approval on July 1, 2013. If an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage – which was approved by voters in November 2011 for a five-year period. All other things being equal, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for snow removal in the winter.

The change to the definition relates to walkways that aren’t really on the “side” of anything – walkways that connect a street to a park or school, or that connect two parallel streets. The city calls them “cross-lot” walkways. The ordinance change would allow such walkways to be “sidewalks” if the council votes to accept them for “public use.” A companion resolution later on the agenda would do that – for 34 cross-lot walkways.

If such walkways were added into the definition of “sidewalk” in this way, then the city would be responsible for repair. That’s a result welcomed by property owners. But all other things being equal, that would put the burden for snow removal on those property owners – a less welcome result. That was the sentiment that led the council to postpone final consideration of the change back in July.

But tonight the council will be asked to consider a different approach to that definitional change – one that would allow the so-called “cross-lot” paved pathways to qualify as sidewalks under the city’s ordinance, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. This fresh look tonight would mean that any action taken would be considered only an initial approval of the ordinance change. Final enactment of the change would require a second vote at a subsequent council meeting.

8:59 p.m. Briere thanks the staff for responding to concerns of the council. The ordinance doesn’t just change the definition, but also makes clear that adjacent property owners are not responsible for winter snow clearance or mowing the grass. Historically, they’ve never been responsible, she says. She notes that this approach will eliminate the possibility that one of four property owners might be regarded as a “slacker.” Lumm also says she’ll support the ordinance tonight.

9:01 p.m. Lumm says the original intent was a good one – to allow the sidewalk repair funds to be used for these cross-lot paths. She compliments the staff for looking at other communities. The $7,000 cost to the city for repair and maintenance, she says, is “peanuts.” It’s just what local government should do, she says.

Kunselman also says he supports this approach. He wants to know what happens if a renewal of the sidewalk repair millage does not pass.

9:01 p.m. Cresson Slotten, manager of the city’s systems planning unit, says that if that millage were not renewed, the property owners would still not have any responsibility.

9:07 p.m. Responding to a question from Anglin, Slotten indicates that the new ordinance makes clear that adjacent property owners do not have responsibility for repair and maintenance. Anglin wants it to be made clearer. Briere says she can understand Anglin’s confusion, because the two parts of the ordinance don’t appear to be related. But she reiterates Slotten’s point that the ordinance simply states that property owners don’t have responsibility for cross-lot walkways.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explains that the exception for the cross-lot walkways is an absolute exception – that is, not contingent on the passage of the sidewalk repair millage. Lumm is now saying that this clarification was sent to the property owners, saying it was “great work on staff’s part.”

9:14 p.m. Warpehoski brings up subsection (B) and wonders if it voids existing agreements with neighborhood associations. Elias says that it’s an exception to the exception. Anglin wants the city to provide a document for residents that they can keep with their deeds. Kailasapathy questions whether the cross-lot walkways belong to the property owners. Elias is reluctant to record any documents with deeds, because the council can change the ordinance in the future.

9:17 p.m. Anglin says a resident has just handed him some communication he’d received from the city in 2009. That communication had stated that the resident now had responsibility for maintenance. Anglin suggests that a similar communication could be sent to state that people don’t have responsibility.

Slotten responds to a question from Warpehoski saying that two of the 34 cross-lot walkways have existing maintenance agreements with a homeowner’s association. Elias says that the agreements with the homeowner’s associations will remain intact.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman asks about the dates in the ordinance that refer to the Ann Arbor DDA. Elias allows that the ordinance would need to be revised if the sidewalk repair millage is renewed. She explains that this is part of the ordinance that relates to ordinary sidewalks on the side of streets.

9:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give initial approval to the inclusion of cross-lot walkways in the definition of sidewalk, but without the associated requirement that adjacent property owners are responsible for snow clearance.

9:20 p.m. Accept 34 sidewalks for public use (8 votes required). This is the companion resolution to the ordinance change that would broaden the definition of a sidewalk to include cross-lot walkways. The ordinance change – which was given initial approval earlier in the meeting – allows such walkways to qualify as sidewalks for purposes of spending from the sidewalk repair millage, without triggering a winter maintenance requirement by adjacent property owners. But to qualify, the walkways must be accepted for public use by the city council. This resolution would accept 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:20 p.m. Lumm moves to postpone. It will be considered at the second reading of the ordinance change. Steve Powers confirms it should be postponed.

9:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone acceptance of 34 different cross-lot walkways for public use until the council’s Oct. 21 meeting

9:21 p.m. Authorization of sewage disposal revenue re-funding bonds.

9:22 p.m. Lumm says she appreciates that all the costs associated with the bond issuance are included in the savings.

9:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the re-funding of the sewage disposal revenue bonds.

9:22 p.m. Liquor license fee changes. This item is coming forward from the liquor license review committee. Some fees are being eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review. And the remaining license fee schedule is being revised to reflect actual costs:

• on-premise liquor license annual renewal – $90 (increase from $50)
• new liquor license – $600 (reduction from $2,500)
• new liquor license application fee – $150 (increase from $100)
• new DDA district license – $600 (reduction from $1,000)

9:24 p.m. Lumm is speaking on behalf of the council’s liquor license review committee. She explains that transfers don’t require review by the state, so those fees are being eliminated. She notes that the adjustments are meant to reflect the actual underlying city costs. The fees hadn’t been reviewed in a quite a while, she says.

9:25 p.m. Lumm thanks the various staff who helped with the recommendation.

9:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the changes to the liquor license fees.

9:25 p.m. 100 Resilient Cities Centennial challenge grant application. This resolution directs the city administrator to apply for the grant, which is sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. Each of 100 winning cities will receive three forms of support, according to the Rockefeller Foundation website:

• membership in the newly formed 100 Resilient Cities Network, which will provide support to member cities and share new knowledge and resilience best practices.
• support to hire a chief resilience officer (CRO). The CRO would oversee the development of a resilience strategy for the city.
• support to create a resilience plan, along with tools and resources for implementation.

9:26 p.m. Warpehoski says the resolution was recommended by the city environmental commission. He says it might be somewhat of a long shot, but the strength of the city’s application resides in the work that the city has already done. Staff effort to put together the application is not anticipated to be onerous, he says.

9:29 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Matt Naud, environmental coordinator for the city, to come to the podium. She asks about working toward rankings compared to actually approving the quality of life. Naud says that the amount of the grant would be $1 million, with the only requirement that the city name someone as the chief resilience officer. Kailasapathy asks about staff time. Naud says the city would be buying someone to work on this for the period of the grant. He says it would supplement the work that the city is already doing.

9:30 p.m. Kunselman asks what “resiliency” means in this context and what would the city be planning for. Naud’s first try gets this response from Kunselman: “You didn’t answer my question.” Naud says it’s being resilient to natural and made-made disasters. He refers to emergency management and climate action plans as examples.

9:32 p.m. Briere says that the environmental commission, on which she serves as a councilmember, has been talking about resiliency. It includes helping neighborhoods to make connections to the city to make sure that assistance can be provided – to deal with a tree that’s fallen down or a road that’s collapsed. The goal is to create the capacity to recover quickly when things go wrong, she says.

9:34 p.m. Briere says the issue has been studied in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, as well as in Chicago, studying how neighborhoods responded to economic downturns. Anglin wonders if these grants were intended for cities much larger than Ann Arbor.

9:35 p.m. Anglin says he thinks it’s a good idea to be prepared. Hieftje says he doesn’t see a reason not to apply. The reward could be great. He ventures that these kinds of grants tend to be awarded to cities that already have “a lot on the ball.” Ann Arbor is not immune from natural disasters, he says. He calls the departure of Pfizer as an economic storm that the city had weathered very well. He appreciates the environmental commission bringing it forward.

9:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to direct the city administrator to apply for the Rockefeller Foundation 100 Resilient Cities grant.

9:36 p.m. Street closure for University of Michigan Victors for Michigan Campaign. The Victors campaign is the university’s capital fundraising campaign. The proposed street closure would shut down North University from Thayer to Fletcher from noon to midnight on Friday, Nov. 8, 2013 for the launch of the campaign. The staff memo indicates that the activities will include live music, entertainment, activities, free food and drinks and giveaways. The event itself starts at 5 p.m.

9:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the street closure for the UM Victors campaign.

9:36 p.m. Amend FY 2014 general fund budget for traffic calming (speed bumps) projects ($55,000). (8 votes required). This resolution would add an additional five traffic calming projects to the work plan over this year and the next fiscal year. Starting in 2010, the city had reduced the number of traffic calming studies that it would fund to just one per year. Tonight’s resolution would transfer $55,000 from the city’s general fund to the local street fund, to pay for an additional two studies this year (FY 2014). In addition, the resolution directs city administrator Steve Powers to include three traffic calming projects in FY 2015.

The five projects mentioned in the resolution are: South Boulevard (Ward 3 – qualified for traffic calming in 2009); Pomona Road (Ward 5 – qualified in 2009); Wells (Ward 3 – qualified in 2009); Larchmont Drive (Ward 2 – qualified in 2010); Northside (Ward 1 – qualified in 2012). The resolution is being sponsored by Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

9:40 p.m. Briere says that her neighborhood had sought traffic calming measures back in about 2003. They’d first asked for stop signs and had been told they couldn’t have them. She recalled the confusion about the petitioning process. She’s describing her neighborhood’s experience in a fair amount of detail. Duck and mating season are a point of information. A porch was torn off by a speeding car. A stopped speeder told the police officer to just keep her driver’s license because she was in a hurry. Briere is now talking about the importance of addressing the traffic calming measures in other neighborhoods.

9:42 p.m. Kailasapathy says that cars speeding down quiet streets is not the kind of Ann Arbor we want to see. Traffic calming helps make neighborhoods livable, she says. She’s contrasting the importance of funding projects like this, with the constant push to focus on the downtown area.

9:46 p.m. Lumm says she’s happy to co-sponsor the resolution, and thanks Briere and Kailasapathy. She asks Nick Hutchinson, senior project manager, some questions. He says that the five petitions mentioned in the resolution are the only petitions currently active.

Lumm wants to know if the money allocated for the State Street corridor study could be used for the FY 2014 traffic calming. City administrator Steve Powers indicates that the State Street corridor study is complete. There’s also a State Street traffic study, he says. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl explains that the study in the FY 2014 budget is for traffic and transportation in the State Street area.

9:47 p.m. Lumm says she’s supportive of the resolution and is glad to see it move forward. Kunselman says he’s also supportive.

9:48 p.m. Kunselman says he’s concerned about a future backlog. He says he’d hate to have a backlog in FY 2016. He wants to know who makes the decisions about opening up the petitioning process.

9:51 p.m. Nick Hutchinson says the FY 2014 would need to be done by June 30, 2014. The other two would need to be done after July 1, 2014. Kunselman says there are a number of street projects coming up in FY 2014. Kunselman wants to know if the traffic calming project would impact the staff’s ability to complete those projects. The design, Hutchinson says, is not complicated. It’s more the public engagement process that requires effort. He says the 2010 decision to suspend acceptance of petitions was made by the public services area administrator at the time [Sue McCormick].

9:54 p.m. Kunselman is pressing for details about the program. He wants to know why more money wasn’t already budgeted n FY 2014. Powers says it was a question of priority. Kunselman wants to know why the council would now amend the budget. Briere ventures that the reason that the city council didn’t ask for more traffic calming is that they had forgotten that such projects were done. She says the neighborhoods might not have pestered councilmembers about it.

10:00 p.m. Teall says that the rerouted traffic from the East Stadium bridges project had led a neighborhood to delay a request for traffic calming. Lumm says she now has a list of streets where people have said they want traffic calming for their streets. She suggests that the $237,000 of street funds in the public art fund could be tapped for additional traffic calming projects. She wants information from the city attorney about how to proceed with that. That seems like a logical and appropriate source for funding traffic calming.

Briere says she appreciates the reminder about the public art fund. She notes that the public art ordinance would need to be amended in order to return those public art funds to the street fund.

10:04 p.m. Kunselman says he doesn’t think that the street millage fund can be used for traffic calming. But he wants more information about how to fund it for a much longer duration. He doesn’t want a stop-and-go approach for the funding of the program. As much as he’d like to spend the money, he says he still wants to be careful. It would open up the door for other safety projects – streetlights, crosswalks and the like.

10:04 p.m. Kunselman wants a postponement. [As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes and any one of the councilmembers could effectively "veto" the resolution.] Kunselman moves for postponement.

Anglin is holding forth. Teall raises a point of order, saying that Anglin should be speaking to the postponement. Anglin replies that he’s speaking about a reason for the postponement – he wants a more scientific way of looking at it. Lumm understands the intent of the postponement, but won’t support it. The resolution tonight is modest, she says.

10:09 p.m. Briere says she appreciates Kunselman goal in postponement. She feels it’s an infrastructure improvement, so it’s a resolution consistent with the council’s priorities. It focuses on Kunselman’s regular critique of the council, she notes – that the council doesn’t focus on health, safety and welfare. Briere says she appreciates the need for more data, but thinks a lot of the data already exists.

Teall says she won’t support the postponement, but appreciates what Kunselman’s goal is – to look at the issue more comprehensively.

10:09 p.m. Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone fails.

10:12 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution. It brings forth a new era of projects supporting safety in neighborhoods, he says. Lumm reiterates her support of the resolution.

Hieftje recalls being around when the traffic calming program started. During the recession, many things were cut, he says. He warned there is pushback on these kinds of projects, because some people don’t support traffic calming.

10:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to add five traffic calming projects.

10:12 p.m. Waive attorney-client privilege. If approved, the resolution would result in the waiver of attorney-client privilege with respect to a specific advice memo that has already been written by the city attorney’s office. The memo responds to questions that were raised about the procedure used to appoint Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting.

Mayor John Hieftje had asked the council to vote on McWilliams’ appointment after saying at a previous meeting that he was withdrawing the nomination. Under the council’s rules, an 8-vote majority is required for confirmation of an appointment when the nomination is made at the same meeting when the confirmation vote is taken. McWilliams was confirmed on a 6-5 vote.

The advice memo likely establishes that it’s doubtful a successful court challenge could be brought – partly because it’s not clear who might have standing to bring such a suit. A “whereas” clause in the waiver resolution states that “the public good will be best served by releasing this advice to the public.” The first of two “resolved” clauses makes clear that the waiver of the attorney-client privilege is confined to a narrow circumstance: “The Council waives privilege in this specific circumstance, as the waiver of privilege does not expose the City to material legal risk and disclosure of the legal issues raised in this memo would not unduly constrain future Council actions.”

10:18 p.m. Warpehoski explains that the resolution was developed before the city attorney’s advice memo was written. The city attorney’s advice is generally confidential for a good reason, he says. Warpehoski proposes four tests: (1) legal risk should be small; (2) public interest is wide; (3) release of information doesn’t unduly constrain future council action; and (4) it doesn’t blindside the city attorney. Based on conversations with Christopher Taylor and the city attorney, Warpehoski says, the idea is to ask that an opinion, for a third party, be written as opposed to waiving privilege for an existing document.

10:21 p.m. Warpehoski is explaining the difference between the first draft of the resolution and the revised one: “That City Council requests that the City Attorney draft an opinion by October 16, 2013 for the benefit of the public that answers whether the September 16, 2013 vote to appoint Al McWilliams to the DDA can be challenged on the grounds that the confirmation motion should have required 8 votes…”

10:23 p.m. Postema says that it would make no sense for him to prepare an opinion for an audience outside the council in the ordinary course of business. But this resolution is an action taken by the council, his client, so he’s prepared to draft the opinion.

10:27 p.m. Kailasapathy addresses the issue of the public’s interest. Postema says that the vote was taken and the vote was announced. The legal significance of that is the only thing he’s going to put in his opinion, and the answer is going to be fairly easy.

Kailasapathy is not satisfied: “People are really upset.” She’s really troubled that the legal opinion will be so narrowly focused. She’s concerned about the integrity of the entire confirmation process. Briere says that the city attorney has suggested that the rules be revised to make the appointment process clear. She says she’s not sure how to change the outcome of the vote. She doesn’t know how Kailasapathy’s goal can be realized – which Briere thinks is to rescind McWilliams’ nomination.

10:31 p.m. Kunselman says he finds the resolution bizarre, because the provision in the charter already sets forth the procedure for filing the opinion. Kunselman reviews the arguments regarding the procedural requirement of 8 votes. He reviews his email correspondence with the city clerk. Kunselman says that the clerk has asked the city attorney for advice, which Kunselman says triggers the charter requirement for when an administrative head requests advice. Postema says that he responds only to council requests.

Hieftje says he’s happy to support the resolution.

10:36 p.m. Anglin says that anyone who voted in favor could bring it back now. Warpehoski asks Kailasapathy what she was looking for in the resolution. She says she doesn’t have the exact verbiage. She feels that justice was not served. It was not just the council feeling blindsided, but also the public. Warpehoski says he hears that, and as he reads Roberts Rules, he doesn’t see a motion to reconsider as being in order – based on the DDA Act that states that a member can only be removed after a public hearing. He was ready to move forward with a motion to reconsider, but doesn’t think it’s in order under parliamentary rules.

10:39 p.m. Kunselman says that city clerk Jackie Beaudry was due a response. Postema says she was not due a response. Kunselman asks Postema if Warpehoski could bring back the motion for reconsideration. Postema says that’s up to Warpehoski to answer. Warpehoski says that the outcome of the confirmation vote has been partially executed, and for that reason Roberts Rules would prohibit it.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman asks Hieftje if he would allow Warpehoski to bring a motion to reconsider. Hieftje appeals to the DDA Act and what’s required for removal of a DDA member. Kunselman says that the entire board has engaged in willful neglect. So that would be the “cause” that could be used to remove members of the DDA board.

10:46 p.m. Lumm says it’s important to clear the air on this. Postema says that the question is the legal effect of the vote. Lumm says that that doesn’t clear the air. She discusses various council rules.

10:46 p.m. Anglin says that the councilmembers who are “hiding behind” legal consideration should move for a reconsideration.

10:47 p.m. Outcome: The council voted over dissent from Mike Anglin to direct the city attorney to draft an opinion on McWilliams’ appointment.

10:48 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss land acquisition.

11:08 p.m. We’re back from closed session that was followed by a recess.

11:08 p.m. Adopt solid waste resource plan. The council is being asked to adopt a plan that includes a number of initiatives, including goals for increased recycling/diversion rates – generally and for apartment buildings in particular. A pilot program would add all plate scrapings to the materials that can be placed in the brown carts used to collect compostable matter. And if that pilot program is successful, the plan calls for the possibility of reducing the frequency of curbside pickup – from the current weekly regime to a less frequent schedule.

Also included in the draft plan is a proposal to relocate and upgrade the drop-off station at Platt and Ellsworth. The implementation of a fee for single-use bags at retail outlets is also part of the plan. Previous Chronicle coverage: Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor’s Five Year Plan[Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.] [Appendices to Waste Less]

11:12 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 5) is explaining the background of how the plan was developed. The goal is to reduce the amount of material that is thrown away, she says. Solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie is at the podium explaining that there was a lot of participation from various parts of the community to develop the plan. There’s a big item that the plan includes, he says – reduced organic waste. It’s the next big “frontier,” he says, to expand organics collection for composting.

11:16 p.m. Briere is now asking questions of McMurtrie. When the manual sorting of the waste in a truck had been done, she said, it was hard to estimate how much food waste could be diverted. McMurtrie explained that it was hard because it was mixed in with all the other material, and he asked councilmembers to imagine “ripping open garbage bags pawing through material.”

Responding to a question from Briere, McMurtrie allows there will be increased costs associated with processing food waste.

11:19 p.m. Briere asks McMurtrie to address the issue of some items that could not be composted – like diapers. McMurtrie described the plan as directing the evaluation of reduced frequency, not to implement it. He gives Portland as an example. Briere ventures that the food waste collection could be implemented and then be evaluated for the potential. She says that reduced frequency could voluntarily be implemented by people simply not setting out their carts if they’re not full.

11:23 p.m. Lumm thanks all those involved. She understands that the plan doesn’t commit the city to particular actions, but is concerned about some that are mentioned – like the reduced frequency of trash pickup. People can’t believe that the solid waste millage, which generates $12 million annually, she says, isn’t enough to pay for weekly trash pickup. She calls this the most basic and fundamental service to residents. She moves an amendment to the solid waste plan, to remove all references to every-other-week curbside pickup. Kailasapathy also wants “pay as you throw” to be deleted from the plan.

11:26 p.m. Lumm considers Kailasapathy’s suggestion friendly. Lumm recalls her previous tenure on the council when pay-as-you-throw proposals had been studied. Briere tells McMurtrie that she recalls him saying that not everything the city has done in the last 10 years has been included in the plan. She ventures that even if mention of the frequency reduction is omitted, it’s still possible that it could be implemented. McMurtrie says yes, but not without approval of the council.

11:34 p.m. Kunselman brings up RecycleBank. He also questions whether Portland should be used as an example, since that region doesn’t deal with freezing weather. Kunselman says that he supports the amendments. He says that if you leave a baby diaper in a cart for more than a week, it will be pretty “rank.”

Teall won’t support the amendments. You have to study an issue, she said, to find out if it will work. She’s grateful that we live in an environment where “poop freezes,” Teall says. Warpehoski teases Teall that the council will not appoint her – a reference to the McWilliams appointment to the DDA.

11:41 p.m. Hieftje says that Portland is generally regarded as a model city in the U.S. Briere says that it’s possible to track how often people set out their refuse carts, so the city could measure the impact of its efforts. Briere points out that Portland has privatized its trash collection, so its approach can’t be compared directly.

Kunselman says that Briere’s point is an important piece of information. He asks if Portland has a “dumping problem.” McMurtrie says that hasn’t been researched. Briere says she couldn’t find anything on that topic. Responding to Teall’s point that there’s a lot of citizens who really like to reduce, reuse, and recycle, Kunselman says he’s one of them. But it’s important to give residents confidence that the city is staying on track with weekly trash collection.

11:47 p.m. Hieftje wants to have the amendments on pay-as-you-throw and on every-other-week trash collection separated out again. Lumm and Kailasapathy agree to that. Hieftje says that on his block, many people don’t put out their trash every week. Warpehoski says he understands Teall’s frustration about not being leaders. But he’ll support the amendment on the mention of every-other-week. There’s other lower hanging fruit than food waste – like improving multi-family recycling rates – which offer less angst, he says.

11:50 p.m. Kunselman says there’s nothing he likes more than “talking trash,” apparently completely aware of the pun. He was responding to Hieftje’s effort to move the council along to a vote on the amendment. Lumm says she supports the amendment.

11:51 p.m. Outcome on the every-other-week amendment: The council has approved the amendment over dissent from Hieftje and Teall.

11:52 p.m. Kailasapathy is now arguing for her amendment that would remove mention of pay-as-you-throw from the five-year solid waste plan. Hieftje says he’ll support the amendment and hopes it’ll move along quickly.

11:53 p.m. Outcome on the pay-as-you-throw amendment: The council has unanimously approved the amendment removing mention of pay-as-you-throw as a possibility.

11:57 p.m. Anglin has raised the question of how dangerous materials are disposed of, like fluorescent light bulbs. Lumm says she’ll support the solid waste plan. Kunselman reads a headline out of Portland indicating that when Portland switched to every-other-week pickup, dirty diapers started piling up in recycling bins.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to adopt the solid waste plan as amended.

11:58 p.m. Belle Tire site plan. The planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting. The site is located at 590 W. Ellsworth – just east of the intersection with South State Street.

Aerial view of a 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 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.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Belle Tire site plan.

11:58 p.m. Rayer annexation. This is a standard annexation into the city of Ann Arbor. It’s 0.39 acres, located at 2640 Miller Ave.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the Rayer annexation.

11:58 p.m. Annual purchase order for U.P.M. high performance cold patch material (pothole repair) Barrett Paving Materials Inc. ($116,500). UPM seems to stand for “universal patching material.”

11:59 p.m. Briere says it’s always good to see it on the list of things the city is doing.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the purchase of cold patch material.

11:59 p.m. Easement for water main from the University of Michigan at 2850 South Industrial Highway (8 votes required). The easement is needed in connection with the construction of a bus storage facility at the adjacent Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority headquarters at 2700 South Industrial Hwy.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the easement for a water main from the University of Michigan.

12:08 a.m. Open agenda. Warpehoski wants to open the agenda to reconsider the McWilliams nomination. Agenda is now open.

Warpehoski moves reconsideration of the nomination. He says that whether it took six or eight votes, the ruling of the meeting made at the meeting should stand, saying that it’s too late to raise a point of order. A point of order has to be made at the time of breech breach. So he feels the vote stands.

However, for purposes of the public interest and the smooth working of the council, Warpehoski wanted to put forward this reconsideration. He’s asking for some assurances: (1) that there’ll be support for a postponement, and that the council won’t vote on it tonight; (2) the vote required at a later meeting will be a six-vote tally, not eight; and (3) if six votes in support aren’t in attendance at Oct. 21, then there’d be support for postponement until the Nov. 7 meeting.

12:11 a.m. Kunselman says he really supports Warpehoski’s leadership. He offers the assurance requested by Warpehoski. Now Warpehoski moves for postponement – but the council hasn’t voted on the motion to reconsider. Hieftje indicates the motion to reconsider will be moved to the next meeting. If that vote is successful, then the council will debate the confirmation.

12:13 a.m. Hieftje says he’ll support the effort. He apologizes for using the wrong word – “nomination” versus “motion.” Briere says she appreciated Warpehoski’s work on the effort. They’d worked together on the issue of the attorney’s opinion as well.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The council has postponed until Oct. 21 the motion to reconsider the vote on the Al McWilliams appointment to the DDA board.

12:13 a.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:17 a.m. The Muslim speaker from earlier has waited until the end of the meeting. He invites councilmembers to the Islamic Center of Ann Arbor to learn more about their community. His name is Eldred Bruce Meadows.

12:17 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

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 a 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 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.

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.

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

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