The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The C1 zoning does not have restrictions limiting the products sold to those that are made on-site. The owners of Biercamp wanted the ability to sell products not made on-site, so the zoning accommodates their goal.

The council’s action came at its Feb. 18, 2014 meeting. The council gave initial approval to the zoning on Jan. 21, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The council’s Feb. 18, 2014 agenda is highlighted by public art policy issues leftover from its previous meeting, as well as several items related to acquiring various pieces of basic equipment – from a garbage truck to a wood chipper.

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

The possible acquisition of land is also on the agenda, in the form of a resolution postponed from an earlier meeting. The resolution would exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street. This process began when the University of Michigan offered to buy the property. An item authorizing the $12.8 million purchase is on the Feb. 20 UM board of regents agenda, based on the assumption that the city won’t exercise its right of first refusal earlier in the week.

In other action, the council will consider an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance for a second and final vote on Feb. 18, having given initial approval to the item on Feb. 3. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment are two competing resolutions that would return money from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. And that point of possible disagreement is reflected in the amounts specified in the two resolutions. A resolution sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) would transfer $819,005 back to the funds of origin.

A resolution added later to the agenda is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Briere’s proposal would eliminate funding for the stalled Argo Cascades art project and would return $957,140 to the funds of origin. Briere’s resolution also directs the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

Either of the two proposed resolutions related to public art funds would require eight votes to pass.

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. It would need eight votes to pass. The result of the Feb. 3 council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid. The contract is supposed to be back on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled.

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda also features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is the repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost. The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. So the council will be asked to approve the purchase of one for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800. The purchase of two vans for a total of $50,320 is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation staff to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 wood chipper.

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations.

In addition to the Edwards Brothers deal, several other real estate matters are on the Feb. 18 agenda. The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the greenbelt millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335.

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

On the consent agenda is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items for the Feb. 18 meeting, which was shifted to Tuesday because of the Presidents Day holiday on Monday. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Tuesday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

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

Public Art

Four items related to public art are expected to be handled at the Feb. 18 council meeting: (1) a final vote on an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance; (2) two resolutions enabled by that change, which would transfer money out of the city’s public art fund back to the funds from which the money was drawn; and (3) a resolution extending by six months the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator and appropriating funds to cover the $18,500 contract extension.

Public Art: Ordinance Amendment

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, the council is considering the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years.

The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

The former Percent for Art program required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. As a part of the June 3 ordinance change, the council replaced the Percent for Art funding program with a new approach that would allow city staff, working with the public art commission, to identify capital projects suitable for “baking in” art. In addition to city funding of art designed to be an integral part of a specific capital improvement project, the approach envisioned general donations to a public art fund, and public art projects paid for with a combination of public and private funds.

The balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Any actual transfer of money would require separate council action.

Public Art: Resolution on Return to Funds of Origin

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment are two items now on the Feb. 18 agenda. Both are resolutions that would return money from the public art fund to the funds from which the money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. Under the city charter, resolutions like this require eight votes on the 11-member council.

Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. That’s already reflected in the two competing resolutions. The first is sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), joined by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Lumm’s resolution would transfer $819,005, which would leave $20,500 – which is the total amount needed to fund an extension of the public art administrator’s contract and some additional administrative costs. It would also leave funds for three projects in the works at the following locations : East Stadium bridges, Argo Cascades, and the Kingsley & First rain garden.

A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds to which that money would be returned – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

A second resolution transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin has now been added to the agenda as well. The second resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and escalates the one initiated by Lumm. Briere’s resolution eliminates funding for the Argo Cascades art project – because the committee making the final selection between two artists has not been able to come to a consensus to move forward with either one of them. So Briere’s resolution would return $957,140, compared to the $819,005 called for in the proposal originally put on the agenda by Lumm.

The $138,135 difference in total amounts for the resolutions falls $5,000 short of the $143,134 cost of the Argo Cascades art project. That’s because Briere’s resolution allows $5,000 of funds to remain for a memorial to Coleman Jewett. The public art commission authorized $5,000 in Percent for Art funds for the project roughly five months ago, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private foundation has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs. The current proposal, at a total cost of $15,000 is to create an artwork that includes  two such chairs. The $5,000 from the city plus the match from a private donor leaves a  $5,000 gap to be covered in private fundraising.

Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission, and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the former Percent for Art program.

A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

The need for continued funding for arts administration is based on the new approach to the public art program established by the city council in June 2013. That new approach can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

If the issue of the amount to be returned isn’t settled on Feb. 18 and the resolution does not pass in any form, another option would be to take up the question in the context of the annual budget resolution, which is considered at the council’s second meeting in May every year. Under the city charter, the budget resolution as a whole requires seven votes to be approved. But amendments to the budget resolution are subject only to the six-vote majority requirement.

On Feb. 10, the city released a list of budget requests made by department heads for the next fiscal year. And $80,000 from the general fund has been requested to fund a transition from the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new public art program. The $80,000 would include compensation for a full-time art administrator for a year. In the meantime, the council will likely again consider a six-month extension of the part-time administrator’s contract at its Feb. 18 meeting.

Public Art: Resolution to Extend Public Art Administrator’s Contract

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of the Feb. 3 council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid.

The contract will likely be taken up on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled. The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The conversation between mayor John Hieftje and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table toward the end of the Feb. 3 meeting indicated that Eaton would be bringing the item back for reconsideration on Feb. 18, provided that public art money was returned to its funds of origin. Only someone who voted on the prevailing side on Feb. 3 could bring back the item for reconsideration. Those councilmembers include Eaton, Lumm, Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Equipment

The Feb. 18 agenda is relatively heavy on items related to acquiring basic equipment: a combination sewer truck, a hydraulic excavator, a garbage truck, two vans, a wood chipper, and a firefighter training unit.

Equipment: Water Main Breaks

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost.

Here’s a sampling of recent water main breaks – from alerts the city of Ann Arbor has sent out:

• Jan. 15: West Madison between Fourth and Fifth
• Jan. 22: Devonshire between Washtenaw and Melrose
• Jan. 28: S. Industrial between Jewett and Eisenhower
• Jan. 28: Yost between Washtenaw and Parkwood
• Jan. 31: Pontiac Trail at Brookside
• Feb. 5: Washtenaw east of Brockman
• Feb. 11: Pauline between Seventh and Stadium

The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break.

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks by year. It’s not unusual to have several water main breaks in a given year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor financial records, chart by The Chronicle)

Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. The council will be asked to approve the purchase of this type of equipment for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

In more detail, according to the memo accompanying the resolution, the combination sewer truck is to be procured from Jack Doheny Supplies Inc. It will replace a 2005 truck with 6,685 hours of use. Over the last two years, the truck had broken down and needed repairs 63 times – taking it out of service anywhere from fours hours to more than two weeks each time.

When that truck is unavailable to do water main break repairs, a similar truck used for stormwater system maintenance is re-tasked for water main breaks. But that poses a challenge to keep up with the scheduled preventive maintenance of the stormwater system. And failure to meet the cleaning schedule puts the system at risk for clogging and backing up into structures.

On the hydraulic excavator, the staff memo explains that the John Deere model 135G hydraulic excavator to be purchased will replace a 2002 mini excavator. The primary use for that excavator is for water main repair.

The new hydraulic excavator will be able to dig down to 19 feet, which is 7 feet deeper than the 2002 mini excavator. So the larger water mains, which are typically deeper and older, will be reachable.

The mini excavator has been in service over 5,350 hours of use and half its total repair costs have accumulated in the last 3.5 years. The old excavator will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Garbage Truck

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800 from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It’s a smaller truck – with a 6-yard capacity. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The new truck will replace a 2002 model with over 14,500 hours of operation. According to the staff memo, in the last three years, 57% of all time spent maintaining the vehicle has been spent on breakdowns while only 14% has been for preventive maintenance. In that three-year period, the cost of breakdown repairs has been more than $78,000, which is more than half of the 13-year lifetime total of $141,480.

Equipment: Vans

The purchase of two vans – from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County, for a total of $50,320 – is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation staff to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. The van purchase was recommended by the park advisory commission at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

Equipment: Wood Chipper

Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. The unit is a whole-tree chipper – it will process up to 21-inch diameter logs.

The chipper to be replaced has been in service for 11 years. It has 4,100 hours of use and 35% of its total repair cost ($74,600) has accrued in the last 2.5 years. The old chipper will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Firefighting Simulator

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit]

Land

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several land and land use items: two greenbelt properties; a green streets policy; a zoning issue; and the possible exercise of the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Mallow property on South State Street.

Land: Greenbelt

The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt program, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Land: Green Streets

On the council’s agenda is a policy item related to land: infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

Land: Hofmann Rezoning

Related to land use, council will be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During council deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. Warpehoski told other councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property

A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land, and a resolution to authorize that purchase is on the Feb. 20 agenda of the UM board of regents. A UM staff memo notes that the site is “strategically located next to the Donald R. Shepherd Women’s Gymnastic Center, Varsity Tennis Center, and Bahna Wrestling Center and contiguous to other University of Michigan property…”

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which at that time was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

The Feb. 18 resolution would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. The agenda item contained no other background information.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its meeting on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

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

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. The council will still be within the 60-day window when it votes at its Feb. 18 meeting.

The resolution the council will be taking up on Feb. 18 requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution changes the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

On the Feb. 18 consent agenda is  a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” Responding to an emailed request from The Chronicle, city engineer Patrick Cawley provided the following accident history for the locations:

• Fuller Road (2) on May 13, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2010.
• S. University (3) on Feb. 7, 2006, Nov. 24, 2007, and Sept. 8, 2008.
• Geddes (1 involving a bicyclist) on Feb. 9, 2008.

Road Salt

Also on the agenda is a resolution to approve purchase of additional ice-control salt. Based on the $47,200 amount to be appropriated, and the $36.23 price per ton, the council will be authorizing the purchase of roughly 1,300 tons of additional salt.

A city staff estimate provided to The Chronicle puts the amount of salt used so far this season – through early February – at about 6,600 tons. That’s roughly at least as much or more than has been used in each of the previous five winter seasons. If the city uses all of the additional salt to be purchased – bringing this season’s total to about 7,900 tons – that would approach the maximum amount of salt used by the city over the last seven seasons. In the 2007-2008 season, the city of Ann Arbor used 8,500 tons of salt on its roads.

Ice-control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s snowplow equipment uses “electronically calibrated spreader controls” to keep the amount of salt used to the minimum amount that is still consistent with traffic safety. The price the city is paying for the salt to be authorized on Feb. 18 is established through a state of Michigan’s MIDEAL program. According to the staff memo, the cost for purchasing additional material on the open market would be about $140, or nearly four times as much as under the MIDEAL program.

3:37 p.m. City staff responses to city councilmember questions are now available: [Feb. 18, 2014 responses to agenda questions]

4:09 p.m. Additional information on the Edwards Brothers land sale is now available: [Edwards Brothers Chart][Additional Offer for Edwards Brothers 2-18-14][Memo to Council]

4:53 p.m. From the due diligence memo: “The analysis shows that there is a possible negative impact in every scenario, except where the benefit of the taxes to all taxing jurisdictions is taken into account. Also, we note that if the City is unable to recoup the $4.5 million of General Fund balance that is assumed will be used to finance the acquisition of the site, the General Fund balance would fall to the 9% to 10% of expenditure range from the existing 14% to 15% range.” Indications are that the council will have two resolutions to choose from – one waiving the right of first refusal and another exercising it.

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. Chambers are relatively quiet. Four members of the audience have arrived. No councilmembers or staff are in chambers.

7:04 p.m. Nearly everyone is here. We’re settling in.

7:09 Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers except for Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Jack Eaton wants DC-2 (the return of Percent for Art funds and timeline, sponsored by Sabra Briere) to be heard before DC-1 (return uncommitted public art funds, sponsored by Eaton, Jane Lumm, Sumi Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin). Briere wants DC-3 (a resolution to recommend the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s request for an allocation from the Ann Arbor Affordable Housing Trust Fund) until just after the consent agenda.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda as amended.

7:12 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers is highlighting the street closures on the consent agenda that are signs of spring – street closures for art fair and the Ann Arbor marathon.

7:13 p.m. Powers encourages people to help clear out storm drains as the snow melts. The frost is down to about four feet, he says. A hard rain would be problematic. The city released a map of all catch basin locations today.

7:13 p.m. Public commentary reserved time This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking includes four people speaking on public art topics: Margaret Parker (former Ann Arbor public art commission chair), Bob Miller (current AAPAC chair), Dave Olson and Mary Underwood.

Rita Loch-Caruso is signed up to talk about the green streets policy. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about a more racially and politically just Michigan.

7:17 p.m. Margaret Parker is now at the podium. She introduces herself as co-owner of Downtown Home & Garden. She recalls her longtime service on the public art commission. The set-aside from sanitary sewer and stormwater funds was originally meant to convey the city’s pride in those systems. She refers to “negative city councilmembers” who say no to everything. To some councilmembers that say they’re for public art, she asks, “Who can believe you?” She tells the councilmembers that as an “act of good faith” the funds should be left in place. She ventures that transferring the money out would allow Ann Arbor to grab the headlines as a “reactionary art-phobic city” that destroyed its public art program.

7:19 p.m. Bob Miller introduces himself as the current chair of the public art commission. “We represent your goals and direction,” he says. Two projects are jeopardized by the process, he says: Canoe Imagine Art and the Coleman Jewett memorial chair. Both projects now have matching funds that are at risk, Miller says. Those projects are important to AAPAC, he says. He says that he’s proud of the work done at the wastewater treatment plant. Those who work at those various facilities are proud of their work and public art can celebrate their work, he says.

7:23 p.m. Dave Olson tells the council he lives in Water Hill near Fountain Street. He’s reading aloud from a statement that has been circulated in the arts community. It describes people as “alarmed” at council’s recent actions. Failing to fund a transition is one significant criticism in the statement. He and others are advocating for a real sustainable art program. The statement is signed by roughly 25 people, all of whom support the statement, he says. He tells the council their actions have alienated the arts community. He doesn’t want to miss the opportunity to work together.

7:26 p.m. Rita Loch-Caruso is addressing the council as a member of the water committee of the environmental commission. She’s supporting the green streets policy that’s on the agenda. The policy will improve water quality as well as help control runoff, she says. Why focus on streets? She tells the council that streets make up 26% of total impervious surface area in the city, but contribute 54% of stormwater runoff. The requirements in the policy are consistent with the city’s stormwater permit as well as with new county rules that are pending. She calls it a forward-thinking policy. She thanks the other members of the committee and various city staff.

7:29 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He calls on the council to create a more racially and politically just society in Michigan. He calls for expanding affordable housing in the city. Partridge says the public art issue should be postponed to give time for cooler heads to come forward to solve this problem.

7:33 p.m. Mary Underwood says that she’s a member of the arts community, but asks that some of the money be returned to the funds of origin. She points to the reduction in city staff levels and the resulting reduction in services. She recalls in a earlier era getting excellent service regarding a dying maple tree. She laments the loss of other employees over the years in the context of the part-time public art administrator’s position.

7:35 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:36 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is talking about an article published in The Ann Arbor Observer. He’s reading aloud a paragraph from the original article about the filing of TIF (tax increment financing) reports by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Kunselman then reads the correction to the December 2013 article. But Kunselman is contending that the correction is also mistaken. So Kunselman wrote an email to city administrator Steve Powers about the issue. [Kunselman is pointing out the history that the DDA did not submit some TIF annual reports before 2011. He is referring at least in part to the DDA annual reports for 2003, 2008, 2009 recorded in Legistar as filed in 2011. Kunselman asks that Powers correct the public record. Powers says that he'd be happy to share his statement with anyone who'd like it.

7:39 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is announcing a neighborhood meeting for the Barton Drive sidewalk and Northside traffic calming project. It's on Feb. 25 at 6:30 p.m. at Northside Elementary School, 912 Barton Drive. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says she has good news to share: a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor to fund a universal access playground at Gallup Park.

7:41 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is raising the issue of special assessments for construction of sidewalks, to help low-income residents. It's something we should think about as a community, he says.

7:43 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is talking about the number of broken water mains. She relates how Kunselman was out walking his dog and had seen a water main break; Kunselman had called 911, she says. She asks what people are supposed to do.

7:46 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers calls public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium: 994-2840 is the number to call for a water main issues, he says. It's hard to tell sometimes the difference between puddling and an actual leak, he says. But if there's water spurting up, then that's probably a break.

7:46 p.m. Eaton says that on Feb. 14, the city attorney had circulated a confidential memo on property assessments, which Eaton would be asking the council to waive privilege on at its next meeting. Following up on Hupy's information, Eaton mentions that ArborWiki has a handy page with all the emergency numbers.

7:46 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje calls for the city to come together to clear the walks as the weather thaws.

7:47 p.m. Nominations. Being nominated by mayor John Hieftje tonight to serve on the local officers compensation commission (LOCC) is Jason Morgan. For background on this group, see: "What Do We Pay Ann Arbor's Mayor?" The council will vote on the confirmation at its next meeting. Morgan is director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College.

7:49 p.m. Kunselman raised his hand on this, but wasn't called on. Now he's called on. He's asking about the start of the term on the LOCC appointment, which is October 2014. Hieftje allows that it's odd. But it's a matter of getting all the appointments back to their proper timing, he says.

7:49 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. Two public hearings are on the agenda: (1) the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street; and (2) the amendment of the public art ordinance.

The zoning item would give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. [For additional background, see Land: Hofmann Rezoning above.] The public art ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

7:49 p.m. PH-1 Hofmann zoning. Thomas Partridge is calling for rezoning to be approved only if access is provided to all members of the community to the property.

7:52 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

7:55 p.m. PH-2 Amend public art ordinance. Thomas Partridge notes that the public art issue has been coming before the council repeatedly and has been a divisive topic. Why? he asks. Public art is a treasure. Why can’t the mayor and council initiate a “cease fire,” a “detente” by postponing the question tonight. That would allow cooler heads to prevail, he says. Why does there have to be an art commission just for Ann Arbor? Why isn’t there a Washtenaw County or region-wide public art commission?

7:56 p.m. And that’s it for this public hearing.

7:56 p.m. Minutes. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes from its previous meeting.

7:56 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Transfer responsibility for billing of water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater service from the public services area to the city treasurer. The city code explicitly allows for this: “Billing for water service, sanitary sewer service, and stormwater service shall be the responsibility of the Public Services Area of the City, but the Council may, by resolution, transfer such responsibility to the City Treasurer.”
• CA-2 Approve a purchase order for AutoDesk engineering design and drafting software licensing status upgrade ($24,431). This is an update. From the staff memo: “Environmental and infrastructure management planning issues and the upkeep of critical City infrastructure is improved through use of engineering design and drafting software.”
• CA-3 Revise and approve board of review guidelines for poverty exemptions. From the staff memo, maximum income levels range from $19,500 for one person to $54,500 for eight people.
• CA-4 Approve street closings for Ann Arbor Marathon. The marathon takes place March 30, 2014. The map of street closings is here: [.pdf of map of street closings]
• CA-5 Approve street closings for 2014 Ann Arbor art fairs. The fairs take place from July 15 through July 20. The map of street closures is here: [.pdf of map of art fairs street closings]
• CA-6 Approve purchase of one 6-yard rear loading garbage truck ($93,800). The 6-yard capacity truck would be purchased from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution. [For additional background, see Equipment: Garbage Truck above.]
• CA-7 Approve purchase of a wood chipper ($83,208). The chipper is a Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. [For additional background, see Equipment: Wood Chipper above.]
• CA-8 Approve purchase of two 15-passenger vans ($50,320). The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. [For additional background, see Equipment: Vans above.]
• CA-9 Approve agreement with the MDOT for installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons ($47,971). This is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179. Part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” [For additional background, see Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons above.]

7:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda, without pulling out any of them for separate consideration.

7:57 p.m. DC-3 Recommend Ann Arbor Housing Commission request. Background to this resolution includes a city council decision made on Dec. 16, 2003 to allocate the full net proceeds of the pending sale of the former Y lot to the affordable housing trust fund. That amount is almost $1.4 million. Background also includes an Ann Arbor housing conversion initiative to convert its properties to ownership through a private-public partnership – with a goal of putting those properties on a financially stable foundation for the longer term.

For the shorter term, that AAHC initiative requires investment in capital repairs. The AAHC has asked the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to contribute $600,000 each to the shorter-term effort. At a meeting of the DDA partnerships committee on Feb. 12, the request was reportedly met with a somewhat lukewarm reception, as DDA board members were interested in possibly making a contribution in installments. The DDA is also keen to see its contribution matched by the city. The resolution on the council agenda directs the city administrator to prepare a budget amendment for the allocation of $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund for the first phase of the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan and to place that resolution on the agenda when the city receives the proceeds of the old Y lot sale.

7:59 p.m. Briere is reviewing the content of the resolution, which comes as a result of an Ann Arbor housing & human services advisory board resolution approved last week. It does not change the budget, but directs the city administrator to prepare a budget amendment when the old Y lot is sold. Briere says that AAHAC does not need the money in their hands but needs to know that the money can be in their hands by the end of March.

8:01 p.m. Briere notes that it’s a notional approval.

8:01 p.m. Eaton moves for postponement. Lumm offers her take on the result of the HHSAB meeting. She’s concerned about the process. She and Briere both attended the HHSAB meeting. She felt the HHSAB board’s consensus was that it wasn’t essential that the item be on the council’s agenda tonight.

8:03 p.m. Lumm also objects to the fact that the item was placed on the agenda after close of business on Friday. Margie Teall (Ward 4) says she sees no reason why the item has to be postponed. If the council moves ahead on this, that will ensure that the DDA also moves ahead, she says.

8:06 p.m. Hieftje asks Teall as liaison to the AAHAC about the RAD conversion. It’s an urgent project, he says. Hieftje says that the agenda item was actually in on time. Lumm disputes that. Hieftje notes that it’s actually possible to add an item at any time. He says it doesn’t actually do anything but is still important. Lumm says that everything that Hieftje wants to happen can happen at the next meeting, on March 3. Lumm appeals to the notion of good behavior by councilmembers towards each other.

8:07 p.m. Briere says that she and Lumm had a different understanding of the outcome of the HHSAB meeting. She says that Lumm had missed the fact that Briere had indicated she was going to bring the resolution forward. Briere reviews the exact timing of her submission of the item. She allows that Lumm is correct that it isn’t an emergency. She notes that the council had a long three-day weekend to review it.

8:08 p.m. Eaton calls it a simple request for courtesy. It would establish the respect that councilmembers talked about earlier in the year.

8:11 p.m. Teall calls the mission of the AAHAC is much more important than the fact that someone got their toes stepped on. Kunselman recalls that he had thought he submitted an item by 5 p.m. on the Fuller Road MOU (memorandum of understanding) but hadn’t and so he had agreed to postpone out of courtesy. Kunselman raises the question of whether the council is posturing for the DDA. He’s concerned that the DDA will only be able to contribute to Miller Manor and Baker Commons. So that might be a reason for the DDA to vote first on the issue. Is the DDA going to wait for the council? asks Kunselman.

8:13 p.m. Powers tells Kunselman that the DDA as a whole board does not yet have a position. Kunselman ventures that Powers could get clarification about what the DDA’s position is – because Powers sits on the DDA board. He asks Powers to convey to the other DDA board members that he doesn’t think it’s suitable for the DDA to hold the AAHC hostage.

8:14 p.m. Briere reviews how the whole DDA board doesn’t meet until March 5. The council meets on March 3. Briere reviews how she’d asked Lumm to co-sponsor this resolution.

8:16 p.m. Warpehoski asks Jennifer Hall, executive director of the AAHC, to the podium. She tells Warpehoski that he’s put her in the middle of a ping pong match. She stresses that she’s focused on getting the rehabilitation project done. She reviews Phase 1. About $1 million from the federal Home Loan Bank that AAHC had hoped to get did not materialize, she says. They were placed on an alternate list. About the DDA and the city, she says, “I don’t really care who goes first.”

8:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted postpone the item. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Lumm, Kunselman, Eaton, and Anglin.

8:18 p.m. B-1 Hofmann zoning. This change would zone two parcels totaling 0.6 acres from an unzoned status to C1 (local business district). The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. The C1 zoning does not include any restriction that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site. And that’s something the owners of Biercamp had tried to achieve with a previous zoning request that had ultimately been denied by the council.

8:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the zoning of the Hofmann property as C1.

8:18 p.m. B-2 Amend public art ordinance. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:19 p.m. Lumm reviews the content of the ordinance. She stresses that the ordinance change does not actually return any funds. A separate action will be required, she notes.

8:22 p.m. Kunselman says, “Boy this is a tough one.” Back on June 3, 2013, he had voted against changing the ordinance. At this point he’s willing to amend the ordinance. But he cautions that he’ll probably be voting against both of the other resolutions about returning funds. He feels that the discussion should probably happen in the context of the annual budget resolution in May. He won’t vote for either resolution, he says.

8:24 p.m. Eaton says that at an earlier meeting he’d proposed a compromise involving the art administrator: If public art money is returned, and the mayor assures he won’t veto the ordinance, then he’d bring back the art administrator’s contract for reconsideration. Otherwise not. He doesn’t want to surprise anyone, he says.

8:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give final approval to the public art ordinance amendment, allowing the return of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin.

8:25 p.m. DC-2 Return $957,140 from public art fund to funds of origin and establish timeline. This resolution would cancel the art project at Argo Cascades, resulting in a return of a total of $957,140 from the public art fund to the funds of origin. This resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

As a part of the council’s elimination of the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year, it established a new approach to funding public art, based on integrating public art into some selected city capital projects and pursuing a mix of private-public funding for other projects. Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to the new program – to be implemented by staff and the public art commission and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015.

Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the Percent for Art program. A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

8:26 p.m. Note that the council flipped the two resolutions on the agenda. Briere is now describing the rationale for her resolution.

8:28 p.m. Returning funds without committing to funding administration of the new public art program amounted to a “pocket veto,” Briere says, which she did not want to pursue. She felt that the Argo Cascades would not be able to be finished in the timeframe of the transition – given that it has stalled. That’s why her resolution does not leave funds for that project. If the council is going to move forward with a new art program, then the council needs a plan to move forward.

8:29 p.m. Petersen says that not returning the funds is a barrier to creating the kind of public art program that the community wants. She now proposes two amendments.

8:31 p.m. Petersen suggests that the report on the plan be due on Oct. 6, 2014 instead of March 2, 2015. Six months is a reasonable amount of time, she says. Briere and Kailasapathy are OK with that. Petersen’s amendment is accepted as friendly.

8:32 p.m. Petersen also wants to fund the Canoe Imagine Art project, which means that the total amount to be returned is $936,140. That’s also accepted as friendly.

8:34 p.m. Hupy is explaining the cost of the Canoe Imagine Art project – at the request of Warpehoski. There’s a $21,000 match requirement, Hupy says. The original plan was to raise $11,000 of that through fundraising. But the full amount could be provided by the city, Hupy says, if that’s what the council wants. Briere wants the city contribution to be just $10,000.

8:35 p.m. Hieftje calls it a worthy project. He doesn’t want to risk the match and wants to leave it as $21,000. Petersen also wants to leave it at $21,000.

8:36 p.m. Lumm allows that it’s unusual to have two competing resolutions. She supports the elements that overlap between the two resolutions. But she has a problem with establishing a budget for FY 2015 and 2016. It’s too vague. Where would the money come from? she asks.

8:38 p.m. Lumm says it’s clear that the council has different views on which projects should continue. “Keeping it simple is a good principle,” she says. Briere’s resolution is trying to do too much at once, Lumm says, offering a little something for everyone.

8:39 p.m. Kailasapathy identifies her problem with the resolution: establishing a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and 2016. She has not come to terms with the nature of the priority for public art, she says. There are other competing needs for public services. She calls the resolution “open ended.” She says there’s a “public art fatigue” in the community.

8:41 p.m. Anglin alludes to private collaboration. He won’t support this resolution.

8:42 p.m. Warpehoski reviews the two points of Eaton’s bargain: return of the money and the funding of the part-time public art administrator. A third item on Warpehoski’s agenda is a good transition to the new public art program. He wants all three parts as part of a compromise.

8:44 p.m. During the public hearing on the ordinance, Warpehoski says that Partridge observed that public art has divided the community. Warpehoski notes that the regular annual budget process requires only six votes for amendment.

8:45 p.m. Petersen says that the ordinance revision approved in 2013 calls out a 2-3 year transition. Yes, the transition will take money, she says. Approval of the funds isn’t being requested, only a plan, Petersen adds.

8:47 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t support the concept of a full-time public art administrator. She says she really doesn’t know what it means to establish a budget for FY 2015 and 2016. How much? Where will it come from? she asks. It’s way too vague, she says, with way too many unknowns. Drip by drip by drip, money is being spent, Lumm says. So she doesn’t want to wait until the regular budget process.

8:50 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t vote for either resolution. The issue can be left to the city administrator to put in the budget proposal for FY 2015, he indicates. The resolution directs Powers to do something that he needs to do anyway. As far as the money in the public art fund, FY 2014 is already appropriated, Kunselman notes. If there’s an emergency, then the council now has the ability to transfer money. He says it’s difficult to maintain the commitment to the transition when he’s being badgered by the members of the public art community. They say they don’t trust the council, Kunselman adds, but he doesn’t trust some of them. Still, it’s important to stay committed to the transition, he says. He points out that it will be difficult without a staff person between now and July when the new fiscal year begins.

8:52 p.m. Briere says she felt it was a logical step to discuss how to create a plan and a funding strategy for that plan at the same time that funds are being returned. She wants the city administrator to tell the council how much the transition is going to cost. Responding to Kunselman’s characterization of her resolution as micromanaging, Briere says she saw it as “reaffirming.”

8:53 p.m. Briere appreciates Kunselman’s view that it’s really a budget process discussion. But her concern is that the council is once again leaving AAPAC with uncertainly about what the city council is doing. Giving clear guidance is what the council is supposed to, she says.

8:54 p.m. Hieftje floats the idea of postponement. That motion is on the floor now.

8:55 p.m. Lumm doesn’t want to postpone. Hieftje reiterates that he wants to review the work of the council’s committee on public art from last year. It doesn’t do any harm to postpone, he says.

8:57 p.m. Eaton says the harm is that it puts the compromise in jeopardy, regarding the contract extension for the public art administrator. Eaton says he doesn’t think this resolution has the votes to pass. Hieftje says that the other one doesn’t have the votes to pass, either. Hieftje says that he can’t imagine public art in Ann Arbor without a public art administrator.

9:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone this resolution. Teall hesitated for several seconds before casting the final and deciding vote in the roll call. Voting for it besides Teall were Briere, Petersen, Kunselman, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

9:01 p.m. DC-1 Return $819,005 from public art fund to funds of origin. This resolution would return $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. This resolution is sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). It requires eight votes on the 11-member council t pass. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

9:02 p.m. Lumm is now reviewing the details of her resolution. The rationale for returning the funds is compelling, she says. She wants a “clean break.” It’s especially true when significant dollars are at stake, she says.

9:04 p.m. Eaton says that in addition to Lumm’s points, this approach sends an important message to the public art commission. It recognizes that the three projects have been approved. He doesn’t want AAPAC to get the message (as they would with Briere’s resolution) that if they don’t spend the money, then they lose it. He wants AAPAC to be “selective.”

9:07 p.m. Briere says that over a year ago, she and Lumm had come with different proposals about what to do if the public art millage failed. Lumm’s had been defeated, and Briere had withdrawn hers, she says. Instead, a council committee had been established. So she wants to postpone this. She ventures that it doesn’t have eight votes to pass. In an ideal world, she and Eaton and Kailasapathy and Lumm would iron out some differences. She hopes that some agreement could be reached before the next meeting.

9:08 p.m. Lumm says, “My breath is taken away.” She refers to Briere’s comments as a “lecture about an ideal world.” Lumm tells Briere a lot can be accomplished if people work together and that she wishes Briere had taken the opportunity to do that.

9:11 p.m. Kunselman is reviewing the specific ordinance language. He wants to make sure the city administrator could set up the FY 2105 budget with the money moved back to the funds of origin. City attorney Stephen Postema isn’t sure of the answer to Kunselman’s question. Kunselman says he supports postponement.

9:13 p.m. Hieftje is asking Hupy about the matching grant that the Canoe Imagine Art needs. The state seems to need a commitment from the city on that sooner rather than later.

9:16 p.m. Hieftje seems to be floating the idea of funding the Canoe Imagine Art from the money earmarked for the Argo Cascades project. He asks for a friendly amendment that would fund the Canoe Imagine Art project. Briere also wants $5,000 for the Coleman Jewett memorial chair.

9:16 p.m. Eaton says there’s no time pressure on the Jewett project.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman says: “I’m getting really confused.” If the council does nothing, then the money is there available to AAPAC. They might not have a public administrator to assist them, yet they’d have some assistance. Some back and forth between Hieftje and Kunselman ensues. Hieftje says he’s trying to save the part-time administrator’s contract as a part of the compromise.

9:19 p.m. Lumm says that she’ll support the $5,000 for the Jewett memorial.

9:20 p.m. Briere says she’s not sure there’s enough affirmative votes to pass it. Her own bias it to “postpone the thing” and work out the details. She won’t withdraw the motion to postpone.

9:21 p.m. Kunselman says if it’s postponed and a single resolution comes back, then he’d reconsider his position and possibly vote to support it.

9:23 p.m. Eaton tells Hieftje that if this is postponed, then he’ll move for reconsideration, as long as no one yells “Shame on you!” at him. This was an allusion to Warpehoski’s outburst at the Feb. 3 meeting, following the council’s rejection of a contract extension for the public art administrator.

9:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone this resolution as well.

9:24 p.m. Recess. We are now in recess.

9:39 p.m. Here’s the email to Kunselman from Powers, backing Kunselman’s position that the DDA didn’t file its TIF annual reports in a timely way: [.pdf of Feb. 17, 2014 Powers email] We’re still in recess. Several conversational pods. WEMU is interviewing everyone in sight.

9:41 p.m. We’re back.

9:41 p.m. DB-1 Adopt Green Streets stormwater guidelines. This resolution sets infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

9:43 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) says he’s glad to see this on the agenda. He’s complimentary of the work the environmental commission and its water committee did. The council had provided general policy guidance, he says, but the commission and its committee had done the work that lets the council takes this step.

9:46 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asks Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asks for construction cost premiums. Hupy indicates the policy is to look at each site and to look at the toolbox of options that are available. It may or may not be expensive, he says.

9:48 p.m. Hupy clarifies that the city is moving away from using porous pavement. Given 400 miles of standard pavement, he ventured that it was unlikely that a few blocks of porous pavement would be treated with its particular maintenance needs. The strategy is now to put a rock bed under the roadway. The expectation is for the water to drain through it. Briere asks how deep. They’re about 10-12 feet comes the answer from Jen Lawson in the audience. Lawson is the city’s water resources manager.

9:50 p.m. Kunselman ventures that this policy reflects what the city has already been doing. Hupy confirms that. Kunselman asks if the policy will allow the city to qualify for grants. Hupy says the city has received grants before having a policy. The grant availability, however, is diminishing, just as the city is adopting a formal policy.

9:51 p.m. Anglin says thank you to the staff. People have worked on this for at least 10 years, he says. He cites the Carusos specifically. It’s about flood control, he says. Anglin says he’s supportive of buying land to detain water.

9:52 p.m. Hupy invites Jen Lawson to stand up to be acknowledged. She gets a quick round of applause.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt Green Streets guidelines.

[Ed. note: In the original live update file, the descriptions of DB-2 and DB-3 below were erroneously flipped.] 

9:52 p.m. DB-2 Development rights on the White property. This resolution would approve expenditure of money from the city’s greenbelt program to help acquire development rights on a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, in Scio Township. For this deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335, with the township contributing the remainder. [For additional background, see Land: Greenbelt above.]

9:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve expenditure of greenbelt funds to acquire development rights on the Moore White property.

9:53 p.m. DB-3 Development rights on Moore property. This resolution would approve expenditure of money from the city’s greenbelt program to help acquire development rights on a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. [For additional background, see Land: Greenbelt above.]

9:54 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support this. Scio Township is paying 70% of the price. She says that this is consistent with the greenbelt guidelines, so she’ll support it.

9:55 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support this. It’s isolated from other greenbelt properties, he says. It’s just providing open space for people who live in Loch Alpine.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: Outcome: The council has voted 8-2 to approve expenditure of greenbelt funds to acquire development rights on the White Moore property. Dissenting were Kunselman and Kailasapathy.

9:56 p.m. DS-1 Approve Blue Cross Blue Shield renewal contracts. This resolution renews the city’s contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for the current calendar year, from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 to provide health care coverage to city employees, their eligible dependents, retirees, and their eligible dependents. The amount indicated in the resolution is $1,437,042.

9:56 p.m. Lumm says the city has a good strategy on stop-loss.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract extension with Blue Cross Blue Shield.

9:56 p.m. DS-2 Apply for firefighter training facility grant. This resolution would approve a $334,140 grant application to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit] [For additional background, see Equipment: Firefighting Simulator above.]

9:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the grant application to purchase a mobile firefighter training facility.

9:57 p.m. DS-3 Purchase road salt. The resolution would authorize the purchase of an additional $47,200 worth of road salt.

9:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the road salt purchase.

9:58 p.m. DS-4 Purchase sewer truck. The council is being asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. [For additional background, see Equipment: Water Main Breaks above.]

10:01 p.m. “This is really exciting because this is a big piece of equipment!” says Kunselman. Hupy says that his wife describes the truck as looking “like an elephant going down the road.” Kunselman says this is the kind of truck that was used to repair a water main break in his neighborhood. The equipment provides for worker safety, Kunselman says. “Vactors make the best pumps out there,” Hupy says.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a sewer truck.

10:01 p.m. DS-5 Approve purchase of hydraulic excavator. The council is being asked to approve the purchase a hydraulic excavator for $176,472. The equipment is used for repairing water main breaks. [For additional background, see Equipment: Water Main Breaks above.]

10:03 p.m. Lumm wants to know if it’s worth $68,000 more. Hupy says it speeds up being able to do the repair when the water main is deep. If you’re one of the folks doing the work, it might have a different value, he says.

10:04 p.m. Briere asks if the city is retaining an excavator that digs shallower. Yes, explains Hupy.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a hydraulic excavator.

10:05 p.m. DS-6 Right of first refusal on Edwards Brothers property. This resolution was postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting. It would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land. [For additional background, see Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property above.]

10:06 p.m. Lumm makes a motion to go into closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council votes to do so, over dissent from Kunselman.

10:06 p.m. Closed session. We’re in closed session under the OMA exception for land acquisition.

10:21 p.m. Only seven in the audience here in chambers. Planning manager Wendy Rampson is chatting with community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl.

10:29 p.m. We’re back.

10:31 p.m. The council is now in open session again.

10:31 p.m. Lumm moves to postpone the Edwards Brothers item until a special session on Feb. 24 at 7 p.m.

10:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the vote on the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property until a special session on Feb. 24

10:34 p.m. Communications from council. Kunselman is talking about Mary Beth Doyle Park. He’s happy that the asphalt paths will have snow cleared. He appreciates city staff’s work with the Washtenaw County water resources office to ensure that the paths can be treated.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman also announces his intent to bring forward a repeal to the contribution in lieu (CIL) ordinance for parking requirements. [That allows developers to satisfy on-site parking requirements by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system.] And he says he’ll bring forward an amendment to the city’s crosswalk ordinance to make it consistent with the wording of mayor John Hieftje’s veto. [That involves insertion of a requirement for motorists to stop, if they "can do so safely."] He calls the Edwards Brothers question “speculative development.” He ventures that it would be prudent for the council to engage in a conversation about that regarding the Library Lane site. He’s trying to do his part by learning more about the Build America Bonds used to construct the Library Lane underground parking garage. He wants to review the “as built” documents for the structure. He says that he wants to handle the property above the Library Lane structure in a way that’s similar to the way the council handled the old Y lot – by hiring a broker and putting the air rights up for sale.

10:40 p.m. Reconsideration of public art administrator’s contract. Eaton moves to re-open the agenda. The council approves the agenda amendment to include the resolution on the public art administrator’s contract that was defeated on Feb. 3. Eaton moves the resolution’s reconsideration. The council then agrees to postpone.

10:41 p.m. Outcome: The council postpones this until March 3, 2014.

10:42 p.m. Communications from the city attorney. City attorney Stephen Postema gets clarification about whether the council wants a closed session to be part of the Feb. 24 special meeting agenda. That is what the council wants.

10:43 p.m. Clerk’s report. Kailasapathy asks about a note from the state tax commission about tribunals. CFO Tom Crawford says there will be follow-up from the city administrator.

10:43 p.m. Public commentary general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:45 p.m. Thomas Partridge says he was up almost all night last night due to a landscaping company’s snow removal activity. Snow removal is important, he says, but it’s not being done responsibly. Giant piles of salt-laden snow and ice are at the shopping centers, he says. Partridge wants the council to establish an ordinance regulating snow removal.

10:46 p.m. Kai Petainen is now at the podium, and he says “I’m not here to complain.” He’s from Sault Ste. Marie he says, and the city has done a great job with snow removal.

10:48 p.m. Ed Vielmetti tells the council he attended the last building board of appeals meeting and says it’s good to see progress, even if it’s slow. He also raises issues about late filing of meeting minutes from various boards and commissions. He says he doesn’t know what reasonable expectations might be for meeting minutes, but thinks it’d be useful for the city administrator to set appropriate expectations.

10:50 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) is responding to Partridge’s complaint about noise during snow removal. She allows it’s a problem. She mentions the noise ordinance and suggests that a call to the police desk would result in action.

10:50 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Feb. 18, 2014 meeting agenda.

The possible acquisition of land is also on the agenda, in the form of a resolution postponed from an earlier meeting. The resolution would exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street.

The meeting is shifted to Tuesday because of the Presidents Day holiday on Monday.

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3 meeting, the council will consider the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment is a resolution that would return $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. That kind of  resolution is typically analyzed as needing an eight-vote majority to pass, but it’s not yet indicated as an “eight-voter” on the online agenda. [Updated 1 p.m. Friday: It's now recorded as needing eight votes.] Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money.

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. It would need eight votes to pass.  The result of that council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid. The contract is supposed be back  on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled.

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda also features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is the repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost. The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. So the council will be asked to approve the purchase of one for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800. The purchase of two vans for a total of $50,320 is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 wood chipper.

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations.

In real estate matters, the council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the greenbelt millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335.

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

A bit south of Biercamp on State Street is the topic of the most significant land acquisition matter on the Feb. 18 agenda. A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land.

On the consent agenda is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

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

Public Art

Three items related to public art are expected to be handled at the Feb. 18, 2014 council meeting: (1) a final vote on an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance; (2) a resolution enabled by that change, which would transfer money out of the city’s public art fund back to the funds from which the money was drawn; and (3) a resolution extending by six months the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator and appropriating funds to cover the $18,500 contract extension.

Public Art: Ordinance Amendment

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, the council will consider the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years.

The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

The demised Percent for Art program required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. As a part of the June 3  ordinance change, the council replaced the Percent for Art funding program with a new approach that would allow city staff, working with the public art commission, to identify capital projects suitable for “baking in” art. In addition to city funding of art designed to be an integral part of a specific capital improvement project, the approach envisioned  general donations to a public art fund, and public art projects paid for with a combination of public and private funds.

The current balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Any actual transfer of money would require separate council action.

Public Art: Resolution on Return to Funds of Origin

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment is an item that’s on the Feb. 18 agenda – a resolution that would return about $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which it was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. That kind of resolution is typically analyzed as meeting a charter requirement for an eight-vote majority to pass. However, as of mid-morning on Feb. 14, the item was not flagged in the online agenda as an “eight-voter.” Responding to an inquiry from The Chronicle, the city clerk’s office was checking into the question of how many votes are required. [Updated 1 p.m. Friday: The online agenda has been updated to reflect the eight-vote requirement.]

Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. Returning $819,005 in funding would leave $20,500 – which is the total amount needed to fund an extension of the public art administrator’s contract and some additional administrative costs.

A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds to which that money would be returned – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

If the issue of the amount to be returned isn’t settled on Feb. 18 and the resolution does not pass in any form, another option would be to take up the question in the context of the annual budget resolution, which is considered at the council’s second meeting in May every year. Under the city charter, the budget resolution as a whole requires seven votes to be approved. But amendments to the budget resolution are subject only to the six-vote majority requirement.

On Feb. 10, the city released a list  of budget requests made by department heads for the next fiscal year. And  $80,000 from the general fund has been requested to fund a transition  from the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new public art program. The $80,000 would include compensation for a full-time art administrator for a year. In the meantime the council will likely again consider a six-month extension of the part-time administrator’s contract at its Feb. 18 meeting.

Updated 9 p.m. Friday: The wrangling over the amount of public art money to be returned has already begun. A second resolution transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin has now been added to the agenda. The second resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and escalates the one sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Briere’s resolution eliminates funding for the Argo Cascades art project – because the committee making the final selection between two artists has not been able to come to a consensus to move forward with one of them. So Briere’s resolution would return $957,140, compared to the $819,005 called for in the proposal originally put on the agenda by Lumm.

Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the Percent for Art program.

A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

The need for continued funding for arts administration is based on the new approach to the public art program established by the city council in June 2013. That new approach can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

Public Art: Resolution to Extend Public Art Administrator’s Contract

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of that council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid.

The contract will likely be taken up on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled. The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The conversation between mayor John Hieftje and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table toward the end of the Feb. 3 meeting indicated that Eaton would be bringing the item back for reconsideration on Feb. 18, provided that public art money was returned to its funds of origin.

Equipment

The Feb. 18 agenda is relatively heavy on items related to acquiring basic equipment: a combination sewer truck, a hydraulic excavator, a garbage truck, two vans, a wood chipper, and a firefighter training unit.

Equipment: Water Main Breaks

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost.

Here’s a sampling of recent water main breaks – from alerts the city of Ann Arbor has sent out:

• Jan. 15: West Madison between Fourth and Fifth
• Jan. 22: Devonshire between Washtenaw and Melrose
• Jan. 28: S. Industrial between Jewett and Eisenhower
• Jan. 28: Yost between Washtenaw and Parkwood
• Jan. 31: Pontiac Trail at Brookside
• Feb. 5: Washtenaw east of Brockman
• Feb. 11: Pauline between Seventh and Stadium

The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break.

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks by year. It’s not unusual to have several water main breaks in a given year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor financial records, chart by The Chronicle)

Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. The council will be asked to approve the purchase of this type of equipment for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

In more detail, according to the memo accompanying the resolution, the combination sewer truck is to be procured from Jack Doheny Supplies Inc. It will replace a 2005 truck with 6,685 hours of use. Over the last two years, the truck had broken down and needed repairs 63 times – taking it out of service anywhere from fours hours to more than two weeks each time.

When that truck is unavailable do to water main break repairs, a similar truck used for stormwater system maintenance is re-tasked for water main breaks. But that poses a challenge to keep up with the scheduled preventive maintenance of the stormwater system. And failure to meet the cleaning schedule puts the system at risk for clogging and backing up into structures.

On the hydraulic excavator, the staff memo explains that the John Deere model 135G hydraulic excavator to be purchased will replace a 2002 mini excavator. The primary use for that excavator is for water main repair.

The new hydraulic excavator will be able to dig down to 19 feet, which is 7 feet deeper than the 2002 mini excavator. So the larger water mains, which are typically deeper and older, will be reachable.

The mini excavator has been in service over 5,350 hours of use and half its total repair costs have accumulated in the last 3.5 years. The old excavator will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Garbage Truck

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800 from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It’s a smaller truck – with a 6-yard capacity. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The new truck will replace a 2002 model with over 14,500 hours of operation. According to the staff memo, in the last three years, 57% of all time spent maintaining the vehicle has been spent on breakdowns while only 14% has been for preventive maintenance. In that three-year period, the cost of breakdown repairs has been more than $78,000, which is more than half of the 13-year lifetime total of $141,480.

Equipment: Vans

The purchase of two vans – from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County, for a total of $50,320 – is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. The van purchase was recommended by the park advisory commission at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

Equipment: Wood Chipper

Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. The unit is a whole-tree chipper – it will process up to 21-inch diameter logs.

The chipper to be replaced has been in service for 11 years. It has 4,100 hours of use and 35% of its total repair cost ($74,600) has accrued in the last 2.5 years. The old chipper will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Firefighting Simulator

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit]

Land

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several land and land use items: two greenbelt properties; a green streets policy; a zoning issue; and the possible exercise of the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Mallow property on South State Street.

Land: Greenbelt

The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt program, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Land: Green Streets

On the council’s agenda is a policy item related to land: infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

Land: Hofmann Rezoning

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. Warpehoski told other councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property

A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land.

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

The resolution would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. The agenda item contained no other background information.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its following meeting, on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

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

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. The council will still be within the 60-day window when it votes at its Feb. 18 meeting.

The resolution the council will be taking up again on Feb. 18 requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution changes the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

On the Feb. 18 consent agenda is  a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” Responding to an emailed request from The Chronicle, city engineer Patrick Cawley provided the following accident history for the locations:

• Fuller Road (2) on May 13, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2010.
• S. University (3) on Feb. 7, 2006, Nov. 24, 2007, and Sept. 8, 2008.
• Geddes (1 involving a bicyclist) on Feb. 9, 2008.

Road Salt

Also on the agenda is a resolution to approve purchase of additional ice-control salt. Based on the $47,200 amount to be appropriated, and the $36.23 price per ton, the council will be authorizing the purchase of roughly 1,300 tons of additional salt.

A city staff estimate provided to The Chronicle puts the amount of salt used so far this season – through early February – at about 6,600 tons. That’s roughly at least as much or more than has been used in each of the previous five winter seasons. If the city uses all of the additional salt to be purchased – bringing this season’s total to about 7,900 tons – that would approach the maximum amount of salt used by the city over the last seven seasons. In the 2007-2008 season, the city of Ann Arbor used 8,500 tons of salt on its roads.

Ice-control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s snowplow equipment uses “electronically calibrated spreader controls” to keep the amount of salt used to the minimum amount that is still consistent with traffic safety. The price the city is paying for the salt to be authorized on Feb. 18 is established through a state of Michigan’s MIDEAL program. According to the staff memo, the cost for purchasing additional material on the open market would be about $140, or nearly four times as much as under the MIDEAL program.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public commentary was highlighted by concerns about fracking.

Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

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

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

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

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

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

Kunselman then read aloud from the ordinance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

624 Church Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

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

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

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

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

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

624 Church Street: Public Hearing

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

Architect for 624 Church Street, Brad Moore.

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

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

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

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

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

624 Church Street: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

624 Church Street: Council Deliberations – Continued

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Zoning Recommendations

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

Downtown Zoning Recommendations: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Zoning Recommendations: Planning Commission to Council

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Zoning Recommendations: Public Hearing

Peter Nagourney led off the public hearing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cy Hufano.

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Zoning Review: Council Deliberations – Briere Amendments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: Briere’s amendments were approved.

Downtown Zoning Review: Council Deliberations – Taylor Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: Taylor’s amendment was approved.

Downtown Zoning Review: Council Deliberations – Amended Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Street Zoning Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Street Zoning Request: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

Edwards Brothers Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Art Administrator Contract

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

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

Mayor John Hieftje.

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

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

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

Public Art Administrator Contract: Public Commentary

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

Public Art Administrator Contract: Council Deliberations

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

Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidewalks

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

Sidewalks: Waldenwood – Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidewalks: Waldenwood – Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidewalks: Waldenwood – Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail

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

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

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail – Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liquor: Lunch Room, Silvio’s

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

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

Liquor: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Fracking

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

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

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

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

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

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

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

From the city code:

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

Comm/Comm: Green Baxter Court Fire

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

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

Comm/Comm: Cold Weather

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

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

Comm/Comm: Homelessness Advocacy

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

Comm/Comm: Streetlights

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

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Feb. 3, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

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

Action to give initial approval of the zoning came at the city council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. A second vote by the council after a public hearing at a future meeting is required for final approval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. So he had visited the business to get some jerky and to get a growler so that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was clear about what a growler is. He then lifted a growler onto the table. [At a previous meeting – on Dec. 17, 2012 – Petersen had asked what a growler was. Typically it's a half-gallon jug for holding draft beer.]

Warpehoski told councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

624 Church St.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Zoning Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Street Zoning Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Art Administrator

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

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

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

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

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

Sidewalks

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

Sidewalks: Waldenwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail

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

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

Sobriety Court

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

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

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

Street Closings

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

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

Liquor: Lunch Room, Silvio’s

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

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

Edwards Brothers Land

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8:16 p.m. That’s it for PH-1.

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

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

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

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

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

8:25 p.m. That’s it for PH-2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9:34 p.m. And we’re back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:10 a.m. We’re back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

624 Church St.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Zoning Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Street Zoning Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Art Administrator

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidewalks

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

Sidewalks: Waldenwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail

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

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

Sobriety Court

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

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

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

Street Closings

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

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

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

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

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission. Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site. C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning. For example, no drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts.

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

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

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

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

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Biercamp intends to brew small batches of beer in growlers for off-site consumption to complement their artisan meats. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked if anyone knew what a growler was. Some of her council colleagues explained that it’s a common container – typically a half-gallon jug – for holding draft beer.

A micro brewer license limits the amount of beer produced to no more than 30,000 barrels per year. A barrel is 31 gallons.

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

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]