Graph from weatherspark.com showing the -12 F temperature at the start of the Jan. 6, 2014 city council meeting. (Image links to weatherspark.com)

The direction came after the city council met in a closed session for about half an hour. Councilmembers emerged to craft and then pass the resolution. It gives direction to explore options to make the purchase financially feasible. That means finding a way to finance a $12.8 million deal. The sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street is currently pending to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, in an agreement that 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 topic of the possible land acquisition ties in to an upcoming Jan. 13 city council work session about economic development.

At the start of the Jan. 6 meeting, the council got an update from three key staff members about the city’s response to the snowstorm that had hit the entire Midwest over the weekend.

From public services area administrator Craig Hupy they heard an update on snowplowing, which was continuing during the meeting. From police chief John Seto, they heard an update on the police department’s support for relocating residents of a housing complex after a water pipe burst. And from Mary Jo Callan, Washtenaw County’s director of the office of community and economic development, they heard an update on efforts to address the needs of the homeless population during the freezing weather.

Concern for how the homeless were faring was the topic of eight out of nine speakers who signed up for public commentary reserved time.

In its regular business agenda, the council dispatched two items leftover from its last meeting of 2013. One of those items was the official termination of a four-year-old memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan for construction of the Fuller Road Station project. That item was voted through with little controversy, although mayor John Hieftje compared it to digging someone up who died a couple of years ago and re-burying them.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/University of Michigan parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on Fuller Road Station at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012.

The other item delayed from last year was a resolution assigning a specific cost to the removal of on-street metered parking spaces, in connection with future developments: $45,000 per space. That amount was based on the cost of constructing a new parking space in a structure. After the policy was amended during the Jan. 6 meeting, it included a requirement that lost revenue also be compensated, based on projections of revenue for the space for the next 10 years. An average parking meter in the system generates $2,000 in annual income.

Apart from those previously delayed items, the rest of the council’s agenda was mainly filled with future development.

Accounting for two of the council’s Jan. 6 voting items was Traverwood Apartments – a First Martin development on the city’s north side. The site is located on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The council gave final approval of some rezoning necessary for the complex of 16 two-story buildings. And on a separate vote, the council gave site plan approval and a wetland use permit associated with the apartment complex.

The council also approved the upward expansion of the Montgomery Ward building on South Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The estimated $3.8 million project will expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors.

And finally, the council approved the site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – will be constructed on the east side of the Macy’s building. The restaurants would be operated by two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

As part of the consent agenda, the council approved agreements with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant on Sunset Road. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location, with 4% annual escalators.

The council also approved appointments to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival board of directors.

Members of a pedestrian safety task force, established late last year, were also nominated at the meeting. A confirmation vote will come at the council’s meeting on Jan. 21. Related at least indirectly to that, city administrator Steve Powers has provided the council with the first part of his response to the council’s direction in connection with the city’s updated non-motorized transportation plan.

Edwards Brothers Property

By way of background, the sale of the Edwards Brothers Malloy on South State Street is currently pending to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, in a deal that 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.

But a right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as 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.

Edwards Brothers Property: Council Deliberations

At the end of the meeting, the council voted to go into a closed session for discussion of land acquisition and written attorney-client communication. Those are both allowable exceptions to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald reviewed the wording of the resolution on the Edwards Brothers property with city clerk Jackie Beaudry.

When councilmembers emerged from the closed session after about a half hour, they voted to go back into open session, and then immediately recessed the meeting so that the verbiage of the resolution could be crafted. [.pdf of amended Edwards Brothers resolution on Jan. 6, 2014]

The resolution directed Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers and city attorney Stephen Postema to gather information to help the city council determine whether to purchase the 16.7-acre property on South State Street. The resolution provides direction to explore options to make the purchase financially feasible. That means finding a way to finance a $12.8 million deal.

Some brief back-and-forth resulted in the addition of a deadline for assembling the information: Jan. 30, 2014. Last year there had been some disagreement about when the clock had started ticking on the 60-business-day window for the city to exercise its right of first refusal. In response to an emailed query after the meeting, city administrator Steve Powers stated:

The City is operating on a timeline to provide notice to Edwards Brothers prior to February 25, 2014. This calculation is made from Nov. 27th, 2013.

On returning from recess about 15 minutes later, the council reopened the agenda to add the resolution on the Edwards Brothers property.

Mayor John Hieftje recited a standard explanation of the city’s interest in preserving the city’s tax base. He called the acquisition of the old Pfizer property and the property along South Division where the Blimpy Burger’s previously stood part of a pattern that the University of Michigan has displayed.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was glad additional information was being gathered so the council could decide whether to exercise its right of first refusal. She said it would be invaluable to have that information so that the council can make its decision. Staff would be looking at the zoning questions, she said, which will help to inform the council’s decision. The site, at 16.7 acres, is the largest remaining such parcel in the city, she said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) echoed Hieftje and Lumm. The University of Michigan’s acquisition of property is a long-term challenge the city faces, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution directing the city administrator and city attorney to gather information on exercising the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property.

Snowstorm

At the start of the meeting, much of the city administrator’s communications and the public commentary dealt with the snowstorm that began Jan. 4, which ultimately dropped 10.4 inches of snow on the city and subsequently pushed temperatures to -14 F.

Snowstorm: City’s Response

City administrator Steve Powers introduced Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, to give an update on the city’s snow removal response during and after the recent snowstorm.

From left: Public services area administrator Craig Hupy, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The official tally for snowfall was 10.4 inches. Hupy described how the city had been using 12-hour shifts since New Year’s Eve, and was starting its seventh day of continuous plowing. Hupy said the colder weather was starting to affect the equipment and they were experiencing some breakdowns. He also described how the ridge that the plows were leaving behind on their first pass as the temperatures dropped was pretty stiff, which meant that sometimes motorists who tried to drive through it were getting hung up on that ridge. And that delayed the ability of the plows to make a second pass, he said.

Twenty-four snowplows were working on the local streets right then, and four plows were working major streets to keep drifts back, he said. Hupy also gave a summary of the mileage driven by the city’s snowplows.

Based on data provided to The Chronicle before the meeting, from midnight Sunday through around 1 p.m. Monday, Ann Arbor city snowplows logged 7,641 vehicle miles. Eleven of the city’s fleet logged at least 300 miles during that period. Top mileage for any plow, logged by vehicle number 4551, was 483.9 miles. [.jpg of snowplow mileage chart]

Next to be introduced was Mary Jo Callan, Washtenaw County’s director of the office of community and economic development. Her email message to councilmembers from earlier in the day had by that time been attached to the council’s online agenda. [Callan's Jan. 6, 2014 email] She gave the council a status update. That included reading aloud a portion of her written update:

All community shelters are open, including: the Delonis Center, IHN/Alpha House, Salvation Army’s Staples Center, and Ozone House. Housing Access is also open, and able to connect those in need with shelter options.

Callan said the Delonis Center had opened its daytime warming center, and 25 people were using it. The warming center has a capacity of 200, she said. No one had been turned out into the cold up to that point, she said. The restriction on intoxication in order to gain admittance to the warming center had been loosened, she noted. If someone arrives who is intoxicated to the point of being dangerous or severely disruptive to other guests, they are provided transportation to the Home of New Vision’s Engagement Center.

Callan continued by describing how known campsites had been visited by PORT (the county’s project outreach team). The soundness of tent structures was assessed. Various materials were distributed, she said. The work by PORT had begun on Friday before the storm in anticipation of the storm, she said, and that outreach had continued. Callan reported that 15 people had been put into hotels, extended at least until Friday, Jan. 10.

Callan described a number of warm places, not necessarily warming centers, that were accessible in the urban core area from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti and in between. As examples, Callan listed off the Delonis Center, Ann Arbor city hall, all Ann Arbor District Library locations, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, Homeward Bound, University of Michigan Medical Center, and IHN Alpha House.

Callan then read aloud a statement from St. Joe’s, which has space for 30 people. St. Joe’s is looking to coordinate with the county and city on this. The county’s community support and treatment services (CSTS) and Alpha House are coordinating to staff that possible St. Joe’s facility, she said, if a decision is made to use it. That decision would be made later that night, she added.

Mayor John Hieftje got clarification from Callan on the situation with the daytime warming center at Delonis – a capacity of 200, with about 25 people making use of it.

From left: Mayor John Hieftje and city administrator Steve Powers.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) asked a question about how much money this is costing all the organizations. He wanted information about how much it is costing so that the city could understand what it might do to help.

Responding to a question from Margie Teall (Ward 4), Callan thanked the council for its recent support of affordable housing. She mentioned the plan that the Ann Arbor housing commission (AAHC) has for Miller Manor to convert it to a front-desk staffed facility. She said the world had changed a lot since the 2007 needs assessment was done. So she’d be providing fresh information soon about what the current needs actually are.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he was glad that the Delonis Center had loosened its restriction on intoxication. He inquired about those people who have been prohibited from accessing the Delonis Center due to behavioral problems. Callan said that the 15 people that PORT has responded to were in that category.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said that the collection of organizations that have stepped forward seemed ad hoc. She wanted to know if it could be better publicized and systematized. Yes, said Callan. There is a plan in place, but it could be better. In some cases, she said, staff for some facilities couldn’t get into work due to the snow.

Police chief John Seto was then invited to the podium to report out. He said there had been no staff shortages, and the AAPD is “response capable.” He said that the department had not seen increased calls for service. On Saturday, Jan. 4, there had been a water pipe rupture at a large student apartment complex, he said, and the city’s emergency manager Rick Norman had worked with the University of Michigan’s office of the dean of students to place students from that building in temporary housing.

City’s Response to Snowstorm: Public Commentary

During public commentary on a different topic at the start of the meeting, saying that she wanted to start on a positive note, Kathy Griswold reported that her street had been plowed early Monday morning and that when she drove around town, she observed the streets were well-plowed, even the mid-block crosswalks.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). In the foreground are Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

Tracy Williams introduced himself as a homeless resident. People are in trouble, he said, and although we can keep talking, we need to be doing. He suggested 721 N. Main as a possible warming shelter. The city’s plan to demolish the building and turn it into a park would prevent that, he noted. Williams said that instead of turning it into a park, the city should turn it into a cemetery – because that way, the city’s homeless might finally find a place to rest there.

Ryan Sample commended the Delonis Center for operating beyond its capacity. He urged the city to open the doors to the 721 N. Main building for use as a warming center.

Tate Williams said that the existing social services network is overtasked and underfunded. It leaves many people unable to receive the help they need to survive, he said. He asked for the city to provide a way for citizens to help in an organized way – including opening their homes to the homeless.

Sheri Wander told the council she lives on White Street. She apologized if her remarks came off as emotional. She’d spent the last several days delivering propane tanks to those who are living in tents. She said she was “in awe” of PORT as they raced around to put some people in hotel rooms. She was proud of what the city had done, but it shouldn’t be done at the last minute, she said. She hears over and over that the city has the infrastructure and the capacity to take care of people. But she didn’t think there’s enough sanctioned capacity to take care of people. “I know the city can do better,” she said. Wander wanted the city to look at 721 N. Main, even though that facility isn’t perfect, she said. She quoted G.K. Chesterton: “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.”

Greg Pratt thanked all the previous speakers by name. He also thanked Mary Jo Callan. He appreciated all the support. But he offered an alternative pledge of allegiance: “I pledge allegiance to the people of the city of Ann Arbor and to the principle for which we all stand: warming centers open at 45 F degrees, with room for people who blow above .10.” The phrase “for which we all stand” was a cue for the rest of the audience in attendance advocating for the homeless community to stand up, which they did. Pratt concluded his remarks by raising his fist: “Power to the people!”

Odile Hugonot-Haber read aloud Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right to housing. She said that city officials seemed to want to say that everything is just fine. She allowed that what the city had done was good, but called for more to be done. The timer ending her speaking time then went off prematurely, and her remarks concluded after about a minute and a half, instead of three minutes.

Alan Haber thanked Odile for reading aloud from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ann Arbor should adopt warmth as a fundamental human right, he said. Warmth is not just temperature, he noted. Statistics might show that everyone is taken care of, he said, but from what he’s heard and seen, that’s not so. The city needs a space that is managed by those who use it, he said. All of us should be more contributory. The homeless “them,” he said, are seen as a problem. But they have creativity and skills. He called on the council to consider 721 N. Main as an option.

City Response to Snowstorm: Council Coda

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) noted that when Camp Take Notice was dispersed, the city had interfered with an attempt to create a self-governed community to deal with homelessness in the way that Haber described. Eaton ventured that the city might lease a city building to a group. His remarks drew applause.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

The council considered a resolution that defines a policy setting the amount that a developer would need to pay, if a project causes an on-street metered parking space to be removed from the system.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The proposed amount in the original resolution was $45,000 per space. The money to be paid would be passed through to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The payment goes to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The resolution had been postponed for the second time at the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting, and that’s why it appeared on the Jan. 6 agenda. The rationale for originally postponing the item on Dec. 2 – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the resolution – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council voted.

After the public hearing held at the council’s Dec. 16 meeting, the council’s deliberations focused on the question of the accounting procedures to be used by the DDA in tracking any money that might be paid under the policy.

Given that the rationale for the policy is that the money would be put toward the cost of constructing new parking spaces, councilmembers wanted to know how the money would be reserved for that purpose.

In this matter, the council was acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, the DDA has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

Taylor, the resolution’s sponsor, participated in meetings during the fall of 2013 of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation. The city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) parking program allows a developer (as one option) to satisfy an on-site parking space requirement by paying $55,000. (The other option is to enter into a 15-year agreement to purchase monthly parking permits at a 20% premium.)

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could be calculated by taking the actual costs and dividing by 738 – the number of spaces in the structure. Based on a recent memo from executive director Susan Pollay to city administrator Steve Powers, about 30% or $15 million of the cost of the project was spent on items “unneeded by the parking structure.” That included elements like oversized foundations to support future development, an extra-large transformer, a new alley between Library Lane and S. Fifth Avenue, new water mains, easements for a fire hydrant and pedestrian improvements.

The actual amount spent on the Library Lane structure, according to DDA records produced under a Freedom of Information Act request from The Chronicle, was $54,855,780.07, or about $1.5 million under the project’s $56.4 million budget. Adjusting for those elements not needed for the parking structure yields a per-space cost of about $52,000. [(54,855,780.07*.70)/738] [.pdf of Nov. 22, 2013 memo from Pollay to Powers][.pdf of budget versus actual expenses for the 738-space Library Lane structure]

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

Based on information provided to the council by the DDA, the majority of on-street spaces that have been removed from the system since 2006 can be attributed to University of Michigan projects.

How Much Is a Parking Structure Worth: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) described the resolution, noting that it creates a policy that the contract between the city and the DDA describes.

From right: Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wanted to amend the resolution. She said that the true cost of a metered parking space should include the net present value estimate for the revenue associated with a parking space. She’d chosen a 10-year projection provided by the staff. She and Taylor had had some back-and-forth on the amendment, she reported. Her amendment ensured that the city would get 17% of the revenue from that portion of the payment that compensates for lost revenue.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to amend the resolution so that the money that goes to the DDA is recorded as restricted funds for capital projects in the parking system.

Taylor responded, saying that they were both excellent ideas, which he was happy to support. The changes were considered “friendly.” [At its Dec. 18, 2013 meeting, the DDA operations committee discussed the matter and concluded that the money paid under the meter-removal policy would be shown as a restricted amount in the DDA’s parking maintenance fund.]

Taylor also offered an amendment of his own: swapping out the phrase “on the parcels” for “in the right of way.” That amendment was accepted as “friendly” as well.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said the changes were an improvement. She thanked staff. She supported the resolution. Lumm reviewed how many meters had been removed in the past. She thought it was important to adopt a requirement for reimbursement for lost revenue, because the amounts that accumulate can be substantial.

By way of more detailed background, the policy applies in part only if the DDA were to determine that the removal of a parking space is not a community benefit, but rather is localized to a particular development. Subsequent council deliberations focused on a part of the policy that provides for a review of the decision by the city administrator: “The City Administrator shall review the DDA’s determination of whether space removal would constitute a community benefit, and is authorized to reverse such determination if, in the City Administrator’s reasonable discretion, the DDA has incorrectly evaluated the existence of ‘community benefit.’”

Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

At the Jan. 6 meeting, Jack Eaton (Ward 4) raised the question about the authorization of the city administrator to review the DDA decision. Given that the city administrator now sits on the DDA board, Eaton wanted to substitute “city council” as the party responsible for the review.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she understood the conflict that was being pointed out. But she didn’t think the council should review the decision. She felt it could be handled within the administration. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he didn’t have a problem with the city administrator having the authority to override the DDA as a whole.

City administrator Steve Powers stated that he felt he could balance the responsibility, noting that his ultimate accountability is to the city council.

Eaton noted that he was not questioning the ability of Powers to balance the decision, but thought it was bad public policy to have someone sitting on a board who then reviews the decisions of that same board.

Mayor John Hieftje responded by saying that the DDA statute requires conflict in some ways. Petersen noted that the DDA has not drafted a policy for evaluating public benefit.

Kailasapathy characterized the issue as one of checks and balances, and not the integrity of Powers. We’re human beings and we’re fallible, she said. Having the same person implementing the policy and reviewing it isn’t good policy, she said.

Kunselman indicated agreement that it might not be good policy, but noted that government is messy. If the city council should review the decision, as Eaton was suggesting, he wondered if the council shouldn’t just take back the whole parking system. He didn’t think it’s possible to avoid the kind of conflict that Eaton had identified. The language is fine the way it is, Kunselman said.

Lumm said she appreciated Kunselman’s remarks. Having someone else besides Powers in the administration review the decision would still mean that person would be reporting to Powers, she noted. And to drag the city council into it, she said, wouldn’t be a good idea. She ventured that the council might want to weigh in on the drafting of the public benefit policy.

Eaton said it’s purely a process question, and it’s not a desire for the city council to take over that role – but he doesn’t know who else would take that role.

Petersen said that it’d been a good discussion and it showed that the council needs training on what is and isn’t a conflict of interest. [Petersen was alluding to a resolution that she'd put forward, which the council passed at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, calling for the development of an ethics education program.] She compared it to having a separate person collect the money and count the money. She was willing to let the issue go forward with the city administrator being the reviewer.

Outcome on Eaton’s amendment: Only Kailasapathy and Eaton vote for the amendment, so it failed.

Outcome on main resolution: The council voted unanimously to approve the policy, as amended, for charging a fee of $45,000 for removal of an on-street parking space, plus payment of 10-years worth of projected revenues generated by the space.

Killing Fuller Road Station MOU

The council considered a resolution that terminates a four-year-old memorandum of understanding between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

The item had been postponed from the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored that Dec. 16 resolution. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of a project called the Ann Arbor Station. That review should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

At the Dec. 16 meeting, Kunselman led off deliberations by saying he wanted to postpone the resolution. He indicated that he thought he’d managed to add the item to the agenda on the Friday before the Monday meeting, but it turned out he had not done so. In light of the council’s discussion at their Dec. 9 budget planning session – when councilmembers had said they’d strive to avoid adding resolutions at the last minute – Kunselman said he wanted it postponed.

On Dec. 16, mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) both indicated they’d vote for the resolution – but also said they didn’t think the resolution was necessary. They indicated they were willing to vote for the resolution without postponing. Kunselman nevertheless wanted to postpone it, because it was added late to the agenda. That’s why it appeared on the Jan. 6 agenda.

Killing Fuller Road MOU: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Kathy Griswold said she supported the termination of the Fuller Road Station memorandum of understanding. She called on the council to pay attention to process.

Road Station MOU: Council Deliberations

At the Jan. 6 meeting, Kunselman introduced the resolution. He called it wrapping up loose ends on a document that doesn’t have an expiration date. Hieftje said it’s like digging someone up who died a couple of years ago and re-burying them, but he was not opposed to that.

Outcome: The council voted to terminate the Fuller Road Station MOU.

Traverwood Apartments

The council considered two questions related to a First Martin Corp. project, which would construct a residential complex on the city’s north side. The project – located on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road – is called Traverwood Apartments.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

Two separate items were on the council’s agenda – one for the rezoning required for the project, and the other for the site plan and wetland use permit.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, the initial approval of the required rezoning was given. Also approved at that meeting was a donation of 2.2 acres, just north of the project site – by Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp., to the city. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Aerial view of the site for the proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needed to be rezoned R4D.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

Traverwood Apartments: Public Hearing

During the public hearing on the rezoning aspect of the proposal, Mike Martin of First Martin told the council that the project team was in attendance and available to answer questions.

Thomas Partridge gave general commentary critical of the rezoning proposal. He wanted the proposal postponed until there is a requirement in every such proposal that ensures the turnaround of egregious past discrimination.

During a recess, Peggy Rabhi showed Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting what her concerns were about the Traverwood Apartments project.

During the public hearing on the Traverwood Apartments site plan, Partridge followed up on his earlier remarks, by saying that it amounts to egregious discrimination to not take up the question of whether a site was used for the Underground Railroad, before approving the site plan.

Peggy Rabhi posed questions about the wetland use permit. She said it looked like the project will preserve the “lake” and the largest pond on the south end of the property. The south pond is home to frogs, newts and salamanders, she said. Those species pass the winter not in the pond, but rather adjacent to the pond, she said. She hoped that First Martin would be willing to work with the city’s natural area preservation staff on this issue.

Stacie Printon told the council she’s a park steward for the park adjacent to the property. She expressed some concerns and made some suggestions. The southwest portion of the plan abuts Leslie Park golf course and Leslie Woods, so she had concerns about the impact on those woods. There will be some cutting into the slopes, she said. There are three trees worthy of preservation, numbered 2582, 2583, and 2584. Buildings #5 and #6 come very close to the corner, she said. She suggested combining the buildings into a single L-shaped building that might eliminate the need for a retaining wall.

Traverwood Apartments: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led things off, saying that she’d seen the development team having a conversation with those who spoke during the public hearing.

She asked for some response to the concerns described during the public commentary. Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting responded by offering a description of the retaining walls – which are tiered so that the impact on the critical root zones of nearby trees is minimized.

During a recess, the Traverwood Apartments development team discussed aspects of the project with member of the public who spoke during the public hearing.

The location of the building that had been mentioned was predicated on the 22-foot deep sanitary sewer, he said, which had public easement associated with it. So it couldn’t be moved or twisted as had been suggested. The entire hedgerow along the south and the west had been preserved, he noted.

Ophoff described how the timing of the construction was key to various considerations. One was the interest in protecting the Indiana bat habitat at the north end of the site where there are shagbark hickories. To the extent that trees needed to be removed, he said, they wanted to do that when any bats that might live there during the warmer months were not there. So that tree removal needed to begin as soon as possible, now during the winter months, he explained.

Ophoff then described how the newts and salamanders will be finishing their mating in the spring around March and May before the project starts work. Right now they’re hibernating in the sedimentation basin in the mud.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) asked about a pipe to be installed in connection with the wetland. Wetland #2 has three parts, Ophoff explained – a natural pond, a ditch, and a detention basin. The ditch will be enclosed in a pipe, so that driveway connections can be established. That 1,800 square feet is mitigated with about 2,700 square feet. Eaton was concerned that the pipe was undersized – because it could only handle a 10-year storm. Ophoff said that such pipes are not generally designed to accommodate a 100-year rain. If there were a 100-year rain, there would be standing water in a lot of places, he said.

Responding to Eaton’s concern, Ophoff noted that the ditch is not a creek, and normally there’s no water flow there.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the site plan and wetland use permit for the Traverwood Apartments project. In a separate vote, taken before the site plan and wetland use permit vote, the council approved without discussion the required rezoning.

Montgomery Ward Building

The council considered the site plan for a four-story addition to the existing two-story building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor. The plan calls for creating 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units. Planning commissioners recommended approval of the project’s site plan at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of the Montgomery building (indicated with crosshatches) at 210 S. Fourth Ave. in downtown Ann Arbor.

The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. The ground floor would remain commercial space. Current tenants include Salon Vertigo and Bandito’s Mexican Restaurant. The top floor will include a stair/elevator lobby, restroom, wet bar, and access to several roof decks. Part of the fifth-floor roof will be covered in vegetation as a green roof.

Because the building is located in a historic district, it required a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s historic district commission. The HDC granted that certificate at its Sept. 12, 2013 meeting.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density. According to a staff memo, eight footing drain disconnects will be required.

According to a report from the July 10, 2013 citizen participation meeting, the units will be marketed to “anyone who wants to live downtown.” If approvals are received, construction is expected to begin next summer. The project’s architect is Brad Moore.

Moore is also the architect for an expansion project on the adjacent property – a three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth, which will create six residential units. That project received a recommendation of approval from planning commissioners at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting and was subsequently approved by the city council on Dec. 2, 2013.

During the public hearing, architect Brad Moore described the project as next to the Running Fit building, which the council had recently approved. He described the basic highlights of the project. Also during the public hearing Thomas Partridge said the attempt to rehabilitate the property is admirable. But he’d not heard the two words he thought were essential: “Affordable housing.”

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the site plan for the old Montgomery Ward building.

Briarwood Mall Restaurant Expansions

The council considered the site plan for construction of two freestanding restaurants at Briarwood Mall.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The proposal calls for building two new restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement in action at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting. The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning was needed.

During the council’s Jan. 6 public hearing on the Briarwood Mall site plan, Thomas Partridge told the council he was a recent candidate for the city council as well as for the Michigan state house and senate. He’d attended meetings of several different public bodies over the last decade. He reiterated his standard call for a requirement that all site plans include provisions for access to public transportation and affordable housing.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the Briarwood Mall restaurant expansion site plan.

Cellular Antenna Licensing

As a part of its consent agenda, the council considered two items involving cellular phone antennas mounted on city facilities. By council rule, contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda.

Antennas from left: Plymouth Road water tower, Ann-Ashley parking structure, Manchester Road water tower.

One of the consent agenda items related to the specific contracts with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant on Sunset Road. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location with 4% annual escalators. The previous agreements ranged from $25,920 to $39,283, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

Total revenue to the city for cell antennas budgeted for FY 2014 is $520,000, all of which goes towards debt service on the Justice Center.

The staff memo also indicated that Sprint has been given initial administrative approval to undertake replacement of some of its equipment related to its 4G deployment.

The other consent agenda item related to cellular phone antennas made it unnecessary in the future for items like the agreements with Sprint to come before the city council for approval. Instead, the city administrator was given the power to approve licensing agreements with cellular service providers – even though they exceed the $25,000 threshold for council approval set forth in a city-charter required ordinance.

Outcome: The council approved the consent agenda, including the cellular antenna items.

Ann Arbor Summer Festival Board

The council considered a resolution appointing directors to the board of the nonprofit Ann Arbor Summer Festival. It reflected a certain amount of bureaucratic housecleaning, as all of the appointments were retroactive, some of them dramatically so:

• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Paul Cousins (trustee, Dexter Village)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Erica Fitzgerald (attorney with Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Linda Girard (CEO, Pure Visibility)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Kimberly Scott (attorney with Miller Canfield)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Ellie Serras (community relations director, Main Street BIZ)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Christie Wong Barrett (manufacturing council at U.S. Department of Commerce)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Tim Freeth (head of industry, Google)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Jerold Lax (attorney with Pear Sperling Eggan and Daniels)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Kenneth Magee (former head of University of Michigan public safety)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Kevin McDonald (city of Ann Arbor, assistant city attorney)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Tom Crawford (city of Ann Arbor, chief financial officer)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Mary Kerr (president, Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Dug Song (CEO of Duo Security, tech entrepreneur)

Most of these members, however, do not appear to meet the membership criteria listed out in the description available on the city’s online Legistar system, which reads:

Membership/Committee Composition: Representatives from each of the following: Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, South University Merchants Association, State Street Area Art Fair, State Street Area Association, Michigan Guild of Artists and Artisans, Main Street Area Association, Washtenaw Non-Profits, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, Ann Arbor City Council (2-1 each caucus), City and County Government Departments (4 votes total): Ann Arbor Building Dept., Ann Arbor Police Dept., Ann Arbor Fire Dept., Ann Arbor Solid Waste Dept., Ann Arbor Transportation Division, Ann Arbor Attorney’s Office, Washtenaw County Health Dept., U of M (2 votes total): Community Relations, Public Safety, Michigan Union, Plant Operations, Parking Services.

Mayor John Hieftje, who sponsored the resolution, did not respond before the council meeting to an emailed Chronicle query about the issue, but spoke to The Chronicle after the meeting. He said it wasn’t clear from what document the Legistar description originated, but that it would be removed from the online description.

Some confusion surrounding these appointments is reflected in one of the resolved clauses of the resolution, which reads:

RESOLVED, That the Mayor and City Council request that the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, Inc., clarify the designation process in their Bylaws and implement an annual designation process by August 1, 2014.

The Ann Arbor Summer Festival runs for about three weeks each year and includes indoor ticketed performances and free outdoor events at the Top of the Park. Revenues come from ticket sales, sponsorships and donations.

Ann Arbor Summer Festival financial data from 2000-2011 from the National Center for Charitable Statistics. http://nccsweb.urban.org/

Hieftje told the council that the resolution had been prompted by a bylaws review of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival board. He then praised the Summer Festival for its work.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the board appointments to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival.

Nominations to Pedestrian Safety Task Force

Nominations were made at the Jan. 6 meeting for the nine members of the pedestrian safety task force, which was established by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. The nominations are: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson. The council will vote on their confirmations at its Jan. 21 meeting.

Related to that, the first part of the non-motorized transportation plan implementation strategy that the city administrator was directed by the city council to develop had also been released by the time of the Jan. 6 meeting. This was the part of the council’s direction that dealt with improvement of traffic enforcement at and around crosswalks. [.pdf of crosswalk traffic enforcement plan implementation strategy]

Highlights of that strategy include targeted enforcement that was to take place on Jan. 9 and Jan. 10 using council-authorized police overtime pay for that purpose. The police department has also developed an on­line tool for reporting traffic complaints and concerns.

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: New Year’s Events

At the end of the meeting, during council communications time, Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked police chief John Seto and the staff for their work on the New Year’s Eve celebration activities on Main Street, called The Puck Drops Here. She hoped it would be repeated.

Comm/Comm: Dream Nite Club

City attorney Stephen Postema reported to the council that the Michigan Court of Appeals had upheld the city’s position in the revoking the Dream Nite Club’s liquor license. Postema thanked the police department for its role in that.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge called on the council to protect the most vulnerable. He criticized various “right wing proposals.” He wanted provisions in all site plan approvals requiring accessibility for public transportation and affordable housing.

Partridge also addressed the council at the conclusion of the meeting during public commentary general time. He allowed that people might question why he attends council meetings calling on the council to abide by the law and the constitution. He called for reform and a turnaround of the council. He called again, as he has before, for the resignation of mayor John Hieftje and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. He alleged that he’s had property stolen and has been subject to threats of intimidation. Huge amounts of snow have been piled up around buildings that house handicapped people, he claimed.

Present: Jane Lumm, Margie Teall, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins Jack Eaton, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Absent: Sabra Briere, Mike Anglin.

Next council meeting: Jan. 21, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor 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!

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The proposal calls for building two new restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and development in action at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting. The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning was needed.

There was no discussion of this item during the council’s Jan. 6 meeting. Approval was unanimous.

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 first regular meeting of the year, on Jan. 6, 2014, features a relatively light agenda with only a half dozen substantive voting items.

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

Two of those items were postponed from the final meeting of 2013, on Dec. 16.

One of those postponed items was the official termination of a four-year-old memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan for construction of the Fuller Road Station project.

That was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under the terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter. The vote to terminate the MOU has its origins in the politics of Stephen Kunselman’s Ward 3 re-election campaign in 2013, when he promised to bring forward such a resolution.

The council’s postponement of the MOU termination at its Dec. 16 meeting was not due to any particular controversy about the vote itself. Instead, the postponement resulted from the fact that the item had been added to the agenda on the same day as the meeting, and that’s a practice the council has agreed should be avoided.

The other item delayed from the Dec. 16 meeting was a resolution assigning a specific cost to the removal of an on-street parking space, in connection with future developments: $45,000. That item first appeared on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda, but the council postponed it, based on a desire to hold a public hearing on the matter before taking action. The Dec. 16 postponement came after questions were raised during council deliberations, about the accounting procedures that would be used by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to track any money that might be collected under the policy.

Apart from those previously delayed items, the rest of the council’s agenda is filled out primarily with items concerning future development.

Accounting for two of the council’s Jan. 6 voting items is Traverwood Apartments – a First Martin development on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The council will consider final approval of some rezoning necessary for the complex of 16 two-story buildings. And on a separate vote, the council will consider the site plan approval and a wetland use permit associated with the apartment complex.

A third development item on the Jan. 6 agenda is the site plan for the upward expansion of the Montgomery Ward building on South Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors.

And a final development item on the Jan. 6 agenda is a site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – would be constructed on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants would be operated by two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The consent agenda features two items involving cellular phone antennas mounted on city facilities. One of the items relates to the specific contracts with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant on Sunset Road. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location, with 4% annual escalators.

The other consent agenda item that’s related to cellular phone antennas, if it’s approved, would make it unnecessary in the future for items like the agreements with Sprint to come before the city council for approval. Instead, it would give the city administrator the power to approve licensing agreements with cellular service providers – even though they exceed the $25,000 threshold for council approval set forth in a city-charter required ordinance.

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 Monday 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.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

A resolution that was postponed for the second time at the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting is now on the Jan. 6 agenda. It would define how much developers would need to pay the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority if a developer’s project requires removal of a metered on-street parking space. The proposed amount is $45,000 per space. The payment would go to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The rationale for postponing the item on Dec. 2 – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the resolution – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council voted.

After the public hearing held at the council’s Dec. 16 meeting, the council’s deliberations focused on the question of the accounting procedures to be used by the DDA in tracking any money that might be paid under the policy. Given that the rationale for the policy is that the money would be put toward the cost of construction for new parking spaces, councilmembers wanted to know how the money would be reserved for that purpose.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, the DDA has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

Taylor, the resolution’s sponsor, participated in meetings during the fall of 2013 of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation. The city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) parking program allows a developer (as one option) to satisfy an on-site parking space requirement by paying $55,000. (The other option is to enter into a 15-year agreement to purchase monthly parking permits at a 20% premium.)

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could be calculated by taking the actual costs and dividing by 738 – the number of spaces in the structure. Based on a recent memo from executive director Susan Pollay to city administrator Steve Powers, about 30% or $15 million of the cost of the project was spent on items “unneeded by the parking structure.” That included elements like oversized foundations to support future development, an extra-large transformer, a new alley between Library Lane and S. Fifth Avenue, new water mains, easements for a fire hydrant and pedestrian improvements.

The actual amount spent on the Library Lane structure, according to DDA records produced under a Freedom of Information Act request from The Chronicle, was $54,855,780.07, or about $1.5 million under the project’s $56.4 million budget. Adjusting for those elements not needed for the parking structure yields a per-space cost of about $52,000. [(54,855,780.07*.70)/738] [.pdf of Nov. 22, 2013 memo from Pollay to Powers][.pdf of budget versus actual expenses for the 738-space Library Lane structure]

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

Killing Fuller Road Station MOU

An item postponed from the Dec. 16, 2013 meeting would officially terminate a four-year-old memorandum of understanding between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored the Dec. 16 resolution. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of a project called the Ann Arbor Station. That review should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

Kunselman led off deliberations at the Dec. 16 meeting saying he would like to postpone the resolution. He indicated that he thought he’d managed to add the item to the agenda on the Friday before the Monday meeting, but it turned out he had not done so. In light of the council’s discussion at their Dec. 9 budget planning session – when councilmembers had said they’d strive to avoid adding resolutions at the last minute – Kunselman said he wanted it postponed.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) both indicated they’d vote for the resolution – but also said they didn’t think the resolution was necessary. They indicated they were willing to vote for the resolution without postponing. Kunselman nevertheless wanted to postpone it, because it was added late to the agenda. It now appears on the Jan. 6 agenda.

Traverwood Apartments

Also on the council’s Jan. 6 agenda is a First Martin Corp. project, which would construct a residential complex on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

Two separate items are on the council’s agenda – one for the rezoning required for the project, and the other for the site plan and wetland use permit.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, the initial approval of the required rezoning was given. Also approved at that meeting was a donation of 2.2 acres, just north of the project site – by Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp., to the city. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

Montgomery Ward Building

Another item on the city council’s Jan. 6 agenda is the site plan for a four-story addition to the existing two-story building (the old Montgomery Ward building) at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor. The plan calls for creating 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units. Planning commissioners took action to recommend approval of the project’s site plan at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of the Montgomery building (indicated with crosshatches) at 210 S. Fourth Ave. in downtown Ann Arbor.

The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. The ground floor would remain commercial space. Current tenants include Salon Vertigo and Bandito’s Mexican Restaurant. The top floor will include a stair/elevator lobby, restroom, wet bar, and access to several roof decks. Part of the fifth-floor roof will be covered in vegetation as a green roof.

Because the building is located in a historic district, it required a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s historic district commission. The HDC granted that certificate at its Sept. 12, 2013 meeting.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density. According to a staff memo, eight footing drain disconnects will be required.

According to a report from the July 10, 2013 citizen participation meeting, the units will be marketed to “anyone who wants to live downtown.” If approvals are received, construction is expected to begin next summer. The project’s architect is Brad Moore.

Moore is also the architect for an expansion project on the adjacent property – a three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth, which will create six residential units. That project received a recommendation of approval from planning commissioners at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting and was subsequently approved by the city council on Dec. 2, 2013.

Briarwood Mall Restaurant Expansions

A site plan for construction of two freestanding restaurants at Briarwood Mall is also on the council’s Jan. 6 agenda.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The proposal calls for building two new restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and development in action at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting. The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning was needed.

Cellular Antenna Licensing

The consent agenda for Jan. 6 features two items involving cellular phone antennas mounted on city facilities. By council rule, contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda.

Antennas from left: Plymouth Road water tower, Ann-Ashley parking structure, Manchester Road water tower.

One of the consent agenda items relates to the specific contracts with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant on Sunset Road. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location with 4% annual escalators. The previous agreements ranged from $25,920 to $39,283, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The staff memo also indicates that Sprint has been given initial administrative approval to undertake replacement of some of its equipment related to its 4G deployment.

The other consent agenda item related to cellular phone antennas, if it’s approved, would make it unnecessary in the future for items like the agreements with Sprint to come before the city council for approval. Instead, it would give the city administrator the power to approve licensing agreements with cellular service providers – even though they exceed the $25,000 threshold for council approval set forth in a city-charter required ordinance.

3:54 p.m. Now added to the agenda are nominations for the nine members of the pedestrian safety task force, which was established by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

4:00 p.m. An email from Mary Jo Callan, Washtenaw County’s director of the office of community and economic development – sent today to city administrator Steve Powers, among others – outlines the county’s response with respect to the homeless during the snowstorm. The email indicates she’ll be at tonight’s city council meeting to provide additional information. [Callan's Jan. 6, 2014 email] Most of the nine people signed up for public commentary have indicated they’ll be addressing the topic of shelter for the homeless during the inclement weather.

4:22 p.m. Part of the tally associated with the 10.4 inches of snow that fell on Ann Arbor is the vehicle miles traveled from midnight Sunday through around 1 p.m. Monday by Ann Arbor city snow plows: They logged 7,641 vehicle miles. Eleven of the city’s fleet logged at least 300 miles during that period. Top mileage for any plow, logged by vehicle number 4551, was 483.9 miles. [.jpg of snowplow mileage chart]

4:25 p.m. Staff responses to city council “caucus questions,” which are submitted in advance of the meeting, are now available. [.pdf of Jan. 6, 2014 staff answers to caucus questions]

6:28 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. Three audience members have arrived so far. Yellow agenda sheets are stacked neatly on the public speaking podium.

6:42 p.m. Chief of police John Seto and public services area administrator Craig Hupy have circulated through council chambers. Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting has arrived with posterboards for the Traverwood Apartments project.

6:53 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have now arrived. Eaton is explaining to Odile Hugonot Haber that he’s not, as was rumored, bringing a resolution tonight to fund a warming center. He characterizes the issue as not an emergency, in the sense that it gets cold every winter. But it’s become an emergency because adequate action hasn’t been taken in the past. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is also now here.

6:58 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje and city administrator Steve Powers are here. City attorney Stephen Postema is here. Postema has started a beard. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is also here, with fresh beard.

7:01 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) has now arrived, clean-shaven.

7:04 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) has now arrived. Kathy Griswold, signed up to speak during public commentary, has now arrived.

7:06 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) has arrived, as has Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

7:08 p.m. Brad Moore, architect for the Montgomery Ward building expansion, is here.

7:11 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:11 p.m. Roll call of council. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) are absent.

7:11 p.m. Hieftje reports that Briere is out with the flu.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:15 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers has introduced Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, to give an update on the city’s response to the recent snowstorm. Official tally for snowfall was 10.4 inches. He’s describing how the city has been using 12-hour shifts. Twenty-four snowplows are working on the local streets right now. Four plows are working major streets to keep drifts back. Hupy also gives the mileage summary, which was reported above.

7:17 p.m. Mary Jo Callan has been introduced. She is Washtenaw County’s director of the office of community and economic development. Her message from earlier in the day is now attached to the agenda. [Callan's Jan. 6, 2014 email] She gives a status update. She says the Delonis Center has opened the daytime warming center. Twenty-five people were using the daytime warming center, she says. It has a capacity of 200. No one has been turned out into the cold up to this point, she says. The restriction on intoxication has been loosened, she notes.

7:18 p.m. Known campsites were visited by PORT (the county’s project outreach team), she says, and soundness of tent structures were assessed. Various materials were distributed, she says. First Pres will be open tomorrow, among other facilities, she says.

7:20 p.m. Callan is reading aloud a statement from St. Joe’s, which has space for 30 people. St. Joe’s is looking to coordinate with the county and city on this. The county’s community support and treatment services (CSTS) and Alpha House are coordinating to staff that facility, if a decision is made to use it. That decision will be made later tonight, she said.

7:22 p.m. Hieftje is getting clarification from Callan on the situation with the daytime warming center at Delonis – a capacity of 200, with about 25 people making use of it.

7:22 p.m. Eaton asks a question about how much money this is costing for all the organizations. He wants information about how much it is costing so that the city can understand what it might do to help.

7:25 p.m. Responding to a question from Teall, Callan thanks the council for its recent support of affordable housing. She mentions the plan that the Ann Arbor housing commission has for Miller Manor to convert it to a front-desk staffed facility. She says the world has changed a lot since the 2007 needs assessment was done. So she’ll be providing fresh information soon about what the current needs actually are.

7:26 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s glad that the Delonis Center has loosened the restriction on intoxication. He inquires about those people who have been prohibited from accessing the Delonis Center due to behavioral problems. Callan says that the 15 people that PORT has responded to were in that category.

7:28 p.m. Kailasapathy says that the collection of organizations that have stepped forward seems ad hoc. She wants to know if it can be better publicized and systematized. Yes, says Callan. There is a plan in place, but it could be better. In some cases, she said, staff for some facilities can’t get into work due to the snow.

7:30 p.m. Police chief John Seto now reports out. He says there have been no staff shortages, and the AAPD is “response capable.” Last Saturday, there was a water pipe rupture at a University of Michigan student dorm, he says, and AAPD had helped with that.

7:30 p.m. Powers notes that parks and recreation programs had been cancelled today and tomorrow due to the severe cold. Hieftje thanks Powers for keeping councilmembers up to date.

7:31 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.]

A total of nine people are signed up to speak during public commentary reserved time. Eight of them are signed up to speak on the topic of providing shelter to the homeless during the current inclement weather [current temperature -12 F with forecast high temperature of around 0 F for Tuesday, Jan. 7]: Thomas Partridge, Tracy Williams, Ryan Sample, Tate Williams, Sheri Wander, Greg Pratt, Odile Hugonot-Haber, and Alan Haber.

Kathy Griswold is signed up to speak on the topic of the termination of the Fuller Road Station memorandum of understanding.

7:36 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls on the council to protect the most vulnerable. He criticizes various “right wing proposals.” He wants provisions in all site plan approvals requiring accessibility for public transportation and affordable housing.

7:39 p.m. Saying that she wanted to start on a positive note, Kathy Griswold reports that her street was plowed early this morning and that when she drove around town, she observed the streets were well-plowed, even the mid-block crosswalks. She supports the termination of the Fuller Road Station memorandum of understanding. She calls on the council to pay attention to process. She cautions that enforcement for traffic might be understood as much more than just handing out tickets, and that there could be far more positive interactions between officers and residents besides just ticketing.

7:41 p.m. Tracy Williams introduces himself as a homeless resident. People are in trouble, he says. We can keep talking, but we need to be doing, he says. He suggests 721 N. Main as a possible warming shelter. The city’s plan to demolish the building and turn it into a park would prevent that, he notes. He says that instead of turning it into a park, they should turn it into a cemetery – because that way, the city’s homeless might finally find a place to rest there.

7:41 p.m. Ryan Sample commends the Delonis Center for operating beyond its capacity. He urges the city to open the doors to the 721 N. Main building for use as a warming center.

7:43 p.m. Tate Williams says that the existing social services network is overtasked and underfunded. It leaves many people unable to receive the help they need to survive. He asks for the city to provide a way for citizens to help in an organized way – including opening their homes to the homeless.

7:46 p.m. Sheri Wander lives on White Street, she says. She apologizes if her remarks come off as emotional. She’s spent the last several days delivering propane tanks to those who are living in tents. She says she was “in awe” of PORT today as they raced around to put some people in hotel rooms. She’s proud of what the city has done, but it shouldn’t be done at the last minute, she says. She hears over and over that we have the infrastructure and the capacity to take care of people. But she doesn’t think there’s enough sanctioned capacity to take care of people. “I know the city can do better,” she says. Wander wants the city to look at 721 N. Main, even though that facility isn’t perfect, she says. She quotes G.K. Chesterton: “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.”

7:48 p.m. Greg Pratt thanks all the previous speakers by name. He also thanks Mary Jo Callan. He appreciates all the support. But he offers an alternative pledge of allegiance, and on the phrase “to the principle for which we stand,” the rest of the audience stands. The pledge calls for 45 F degrees as the threshold for opening the warming center.

7:51 p.m. Odile Hugonot-Haber is reading aloud Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right to housing. She says that city officials seem to want to say that everything is just fine. The timer goes off. [That seems a bit abbreviated. Possibly the timer was set incorrectly.]

7:52 p.m. Alan Haber thanks Odile for reading aloud from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ann Arbor should adopt warmth as a fundamental human right, he says. Warmth is not just temperature, he says. Statistics might show that everyone is taken care of, he says, but from what he’s heard and seen, that’s not so. The city needs a space that is managed by those who use it, he says. All of us should be more contributory. The homeless “them,” he says, are seen as a problem. But they have creativity and skills. He calls on the council to consider 721 N. Main as an option.

7:55 p.m. Communications from council. Eaton says that Anglin is stuck in Florida and could not be at the council meeting. Anglin is with his 94-year-old mother. Eaton notes that when Camp Take Notice was dispersed, the city had interfered with an attempt to create a self-governed community to deal with homelessness in the way that Haber described. Eaton ventures that the city might lease a city building to a group. His remarks draw applause.

7:55 p.m. MC-1 Appointments: Confirmations. The council is being asked tonight to confirm nominations to city boards and commissions that were made at the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting: Kristin Tomey to the Ann Arbor public art commission, filling the vacancy of Wiltrud Simbeurger for a term ending Dec. 31, 2016; and Benjamin Bushkuhl, a reappointment, to the historic district commission for a term ending Dec. 6, 2016.

7:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the two appointments on the agenda.

7:56 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Nominations are being made for the pedestrian safety task force, which was established by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, Owen Jansson. A confirmation vote will be taken at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

7:56 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. Four public hearings are on the agenda. The first two relate to the Traverwood Apartments project – a proposed complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. One of the Traverwood Apartments public hearings relates to some rezoning that’s required as a part of the project. The second public hearing is on the Traverwood Apartments site plan and a wetland use permit associated with the apartment complex.

A third public hearing on tonight’s agenda is the site plan for the upward expansion of the Montgomery Ward building on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors.

And the fourth public hearing is on the site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – would be constructed on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be operated by two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

7:57 p.m. PH-1 Traverwood Apartments rezoning. Mike Martin of First Martin tells the council that the project team is in attendance and available to answer questions.

8:01 p.m. Thomas Partridge is giving general commentary critical of the rezoning proposal. He wants the proposal postponed until there is a requirement in every such proposal that ensures the turnaround of egregious past discrimination.

8:01 p.m. That’s it for PH-1.

8:08 p.m. PH-2 Traverwood Apartments site plan and wetland use permit. Partridge follows up on his remarks on PH-1 saying that it amounts to egregious discrimination to not take up the question of whether a site was used for the Underground Railroad, before approving the site plan.

8:08 p.m. Peggy Rabhi has questions about the wetland use permit. She says it looks like the project will preserve the “lake” and the largest pond on the south end of the property. The south pond is home to frogs, newts and salamanders, she says. Those species pass the winter not in the pond but rather adjacent to the pond, she says. She hopes that First Martin would be willing to work with the city’s natural area preservation staff on this issue.

8:11 p.m. Stacie Printon says she’s a park steward for the park adjacent to the property. She expresses some concerns and makes some suggestions. The southwest portion of the plan abuts Leslie Park golf course and Leslie Woods, so she has concerns about the impact on those woods. There will be some cutting into the slopes, she says. There are three trees worthy of preservation, numbered 2582, 2583, and 2584. Buildings #5 and #6 come very close to the corner, she says. She suggests combining the buildings into a single L-shaped building that might eliminate the need for a retaining wall.

8:11 p.m. That’s it for PH-2.

8:13 p.m. PH-3 – Montgomery Building site plan. Architect Brad Moore describes the project as next to the Running Fit building, which the council had recently approved. He’s describing the basic highlights of the project.

8:16 p.m. Thomas Partridge says the attempt to rehabilitate the property is admirable. But he’d not heard the two words he thinks are essential: “Affordable housing.”

8:16 p.m. That’s it for PH-3.

8:19 p.m. PH-4 Briarwood restaurants site plan. Thomas Partridge says he was a recent candidate for the city council as well as for the Michigan state house and senate. He’s attended meetings of several different public bodies over the last decade. He reiterates his standard call for a requirement that all site plans include provisions for access to public transportation and affordable housing.

8:20 p.m. That’s it for PH-4.

8:20 p.m. Approval of previous meeting’s minutes.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the previous meeting’s minutes.

8:20 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes three items: (1) authorization for the city administrator to approve cell phone antenna licensing agreements, even if they exceed the $25,000 threshold requiring city council approval; (2) authorization to pay Scio Township $46,807 in sewer hookup charges for the Varsity Ford property at 3480 Jackson Ave.; and (3) approval of cell phone antenna licensing agreements with Spring at four city locations – the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure and the water treatment plant facility on Sunset Road. [For additional background on cell phone antenna licensing, see Cellular Antenna Licensing above.]

Worth noting is that total revenue to the city for cell antennas budgeted for FY 2014 is $520,000, all of which goes toward debt service on the Justice Center.

8:21 p.m. Councilmembers can pull out items on the consent agenda for separate consideration. Hieftje says that an administrative change has been made to correct the name of the company in CA-3.

Warpehoski pulls out CA-2.

8:21 p.m. CA-2 Scio Twp. Sewer connection fees. Councilmembers are discussing this item that Warpehoski pulled out for separate consideration. Warpehoski says he doesn’t understand why the city is paying instead of the landowner. Hupy explains that the landowner is paying the city, and the city is meeting the request of its customer in the most cost-effective way possible. The landowner is paying the city’s fee to the city. The city is paying the township to service the city’s customer. Warpehoski says he doesn’t fully understand it, but he’s comfortable going ahead.

Kunselman asks Hupy to describe the property: It’s Varsity Ford on Jackson Road. Hupy describes it as cleaning up a situation that came to light as the city prepared to renegotiate the agreement between the city and Scio Township for sewer service.

8:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved the Scio Township sewer hookup payment.

8:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved all the items on the consent agenda.

8:28 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

8:36 p.m. And we’re back.

8:36 p.m. B-1 Traverwood Apartments rezoning. This project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story apartment buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned as R4D. The city council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting.

8:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give final approval of the Traverwood Apartments rezoning.

8:37 p.m. DC-1 Approve a city policy regarding removal of on-street metered public parking spaces. This item would establish $45,000 as the fee to be charged to developers and passed through to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for removal of an on-street metered public parking space. The conceptual basis for the amount is the cost per space of constructing new parking structures. [For additional background see How Much Is a Parking Space Worth? above.]

8:38 p.m. Taylor describes the resolution. The resolution creates a policy that the contract between the city and the DDA describes.

8:41 p.m. Petersen wants to amend the resolution. She says that the true cost of a metered parking space should include the net present value estimate for the revenue associated with a parking space. She’d chosen a 10-year projection provided by the staff. She and Taylor had had some back-and-forth, she reports. Her amendment ensures that the city would get 17% of the revenue from the $45,000 payment.

8:43 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to amend the resolution so that the money that goes to the DDA is recorded as restricted funds for capital projects in the parking system. Taylor says that they are both excellent ideas, which he’s happy to support. The changes are considered “friendly.”

8:45 p.m. Taylor also has an amendment: swapping out “on the parcels” for “in the right of way.” That’s accepted as friendly as well.

8:48 p.m. Lumm says the changes are an improvement. She thanks staff. She supports the resolution. Lumm is reviewing how many meter have been removed over time. She thinks it’s important to adopt a requirement for reimbursement, because these do accumulate to amounts that can be substantial.

8:51 p.m. Eaton has a question about the authorization of the city administrator to review the DDA decision. Given that the city administrator now sits on the DDA board, he wants to substitute in “city council” for that. Teall says she understands the conflict that’s being pointed out. But she doesn’t think the council should review the decision. She feels it could be handled within the administration. Kunselman says he doesn’t have a problem with the city administrator having the authority to override the DDA as a whole. Powers says that he can balance the responsibility, noting that his ultimate accountability is to the council.

8:54 p.m. Eaton says he’s not questioning the ability of Powers to balance the decision, but thinks it’s bad public policy to have someone sitting on a board who then reviews the decisions of that same board. Hieftje responds by saying that the DDA statute requires conflict in some ways. Petersen says there’s no drafted policy the DDA has for evaluating public benefit. [The issue here is the ability to waive the $45,000 fee if there's a public benefit to removing the on-street parking space.]

8:57 p.m. Kailasapathy characterizes the issue as one of checks and balances, and not the integrity of Steve Powers. We’re human beings and we’re fallible, she says. Having the same person implementing the policy and reviewing isn’t good policy, she says. Kunselman indicates he agrees that it might not be good policy, but notes that government is messy. If the city council should review it, he wonders if the council shouldn’t just take back the whole parking system. He doesn’t think it’s possible to avoid the kind of conflict that Eaton has identified. It’s fine the way it is, he says.

9:00 p.m. Lumm says she appreciates Kunselman walking the council through the nuance. Having someone in administration review the decision would mean that person would still be reporting to Powers, she notes. And to drag the city council into it, she says, wouldn’t be a good idea. She ventures that the council might want to weigh in on the drafting of the public benefit policy. Eaton says it’s purely a process question, and it’s not a desire for the city council to take over that role, but he doesn’t know who else would.

9:01 p.m. Petersen says that it’s been a good discussion and that it shows that the council needs training on what is and isn’t a conflict of interest. She compares it to having a separate person collect the money and count the money. She’s willing to let it go forward with the city administrator being the reviewer.

9:01 p.m. Outcome on Eaton’s amendment: Only Kailasapathy and Eaton vote for the amendment. It fails.

9:02 p.m. Outcome on main resolution: The council has voted unanimously to approve the policy, as amended, for charging a fee of $45,000 for removal of an on-street parking space.

9:02 p.m. DC-2 Termination of MOU on Fuller Road Station. This resolution would formally terminate the four-year old MOU between the city and the University of Michigan for construction of joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The university withdrew from the project two years ago under the terms of the agreement. The resolution is a formality. [For additional background, see Killing Fuller Road Station MOU above.]

9:03 p.m. Kunselman introduces the resolution. He calls it wrapping up loose ends for a document that doesn’t have an expiration date. Hieftje says it’s like digging someone up who died a couple of years ago and re-burying them, but he’ s not opposed to it.

9:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to terminate the Fuller Road Station MOU.

9:03 p.m. Ann Arbor Summer Festival board appointments. This resolution appoints directors to the board of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival. It reflects a certain amount of bureaucratic housecleaning, as all of the appointments are retroactive, some of them dramatically so:

• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Paul Cousins (trustee, Dexter Village)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Erica Fitzgerald (attorney with Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Linda Girard (CEO, Pure Visibility)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Kimberly Scott (attorney with Miller Canfield)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Ellie Serras (community relations director, Main Street BIZ)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Christie Wong Barrett (manufacturing council at U.S. Department of Commerce)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Tim Freeth (head of industry, Google)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Jerold Lax (attorney with Pear Sperling Eggan and Daniels)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Kenneth Magee (former head of University of Michigan public safety)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Kevin McDonald (city of Ann Arbor, assistant city attorney)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Tom Crawford (city of Ann Arbor, chief financial officer)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Mary Kerr (president, Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Dug Song (CEO of Duo Security, tech entrepreneur)

Most of these members, however, do not appear to meet the membership criteria listed out in the description available on the city’s online Legistar system, which reads:

Membership/Committee Composition: Representatives from each of the following: Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, South University Merchants Association, State Street Area Art Fair, State Street Area Association, Michigan Guild of Artists and Artisans, Main Street Area Association, Washtenaw Non-Profits, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, Ann Arbor City Council (2-1 each caucus), City and County Government Departments (4 votes total): Ann Arbor Building Dept., Ann Arbor Police Dept., Ann Arbor Fire Dept., Ann Arbor Solid Waste Dept., Ann Arbor Transportation Division, Ann Arbor Attorney’s Office, Washtenaw County Health Dept., U of M (2 votes total): Community Relations, Public Safety, Michigan Union, Plant Operations, Parking Services.

Some confusion surrounding these appointments is reflected in one of the resolved clauses of the resolution, which reads:

RESOLVED, That the Mayor and City Council request that the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, Inc., clarify the designation process in their Bylaws and implement an annual designation process by August 1, 2014.

9:04 p.m. Hieftje says that this item was prompted by a bylaws review of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival board. He then praises the Summer Festival.

9:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the board appointments to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival.

9:04 p.m. DB-1 Traverwood Apartments site plan and wetland use permit. This is a proposed complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. This is the second of two items on the agenda related to this project. Earlier in the meeting the council approved the rezoning necessary for the project. [For additional background see Traverwood Apartments above.]

9:06 p.m. Lumm leads things off, saying that she’d seen the development team having a conversation with those who spoke during the public hearing. She asks for some response of the concerns described. Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting responds to the description of the retaining walls that are tiered so that it minimizes the impact on the critical root zones of nearby trees.

9:09 p.m. Ophoff is describing how the newt and salamanders will be finishing their mating in the spring around March and May before the project starts work. He describes how the project accommodates bats.

9:12 p.m. Eaton asks about a pipe to be installed in connection with a wetland. Wetland #2 has three parts, Ophoff explains. Eaton is concerned that the pipe is undersized.

9:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan and wetland use permit for the Traverwood Apartments project.

9:13 p.m. DB-2 Montgomery Ward building site plan. The council is being asked to approve the site plan for the upward expansion of the old Montgomery Ward building on South Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. [For additional background see Montgomery Ward Building above.]

9:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the site plan for the old Montgomery Ward building.

9:14 p.m. Briarwood restaurants site plan. The council is being asked to approve the site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – would be constructed on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be operated by two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana. [For additional background see Briarwood Mall Restaurant Expansions above.]

9:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Briarwood Mall restaurant expansion site plan.

9:14 p.m. DS-1 Approve a purchase order with Hastings Air Energy Control Inc. The council is being asked to approve a contract with Hastings Air Energy Control Inc. for 15 systems to capture exhaust from fire department vehicles. The amount of the contract is $109,845. Most of the cost is being funded by a federal grant, which the council formally accepted at its May 13, 2013 meeting. A local match of $21,969 was required on the grant, which was for $87,876.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the systems will be deployed “within the city’s five operating fire stations as part of the city’s commitment to providing its fire fighting personnel and visitors of city fire stations a safer and cleaner living atmosphere, while supporting the city’s leading role in protecting the overall quality of the environment.”

9:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the contract with Hastings Air Energy Control Inc. for exhaust capturing systems.

9:15 p.m. DS-2 Accepting sanitary sewer easement. The council is being asked to accept a standard grant of easement for sanitary sewer from the owners of the properties at 2200, 2220, 2240, and 2260 Wolverhampton Court.

9:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the grant of easement for the properties at Wolverhampton Court.

9:16 p.m. Communications from the council. Teall thanks police chief John Seto and the staff for their work on the New Year’s Eve celebration activities on Main Street, called The Puck Drops Here. She hoped it would be repeated.

9:16 p.m. Communications from the city attorney. City attorney Stephen Postema reports that the Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the city’s position in the revocation of the Dream Nite Club’s liquor license. Postema thanks the police for their role in that.

9:18 p.m. Clerk’s Report. The clerk’s report is now received.

9:18 p.m. Public commentary There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

9:21 p.m. Thomas Partridge is the only speaker. He says that people might question why he attends council meetings calling on the council to abide by the law and the constitution. He calls for reform and a turnaround of the council. He calls again as he has before for the resignation of mayor John Hieftje and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. He alleges that he’s had property stolen and been subject to threats of intimidation. Huge amounts of snow have been piled up around buildings that house handicapped people, he claims.

9:22 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into a closed session for discussion of land acquisition and written attorney-client communication.

9:39 p.m. While we’re waiting for the closed session to conclude, here’s the first part of the non-motorized transportation plan implementation strategy that the city administrator was directed by the city council to develop: [.pdf of non-motorized plan implementation strategy]

9:51 p.m. Councilmembers have emerged from the closed session.

9:53 p.m. They’re back, but have decided to take a short break.

10:02 p.m. It sounds like the council will be considering a resolution that will direct the city administrator to make inquiries about the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street, with an eye toward possibly exercising the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the property.

10:03 p.m. The resolution is being crafted during the recess.

10:07 p.m. Council is back in open session.

10:10 p.m. They’re opening the agenda to add a resolution directing the city administrator and city attorney to gather appropriate information to explore the possibility to exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the 2500 S. State property owned by Edwards Brothers. The resolution also directs the development of financing proposals that would be feasible for the city. The information is to be gathered by Jan. 30.

10:12 p.m. Hieftje is reciting the standard explanation of the city’s interest in preserving the city’s tax base. He calls the acquisition of the old Pfizer property and the property along Division where the Blimpy Burger’s previously stood part of a pattern that the University of Michigan has displayed.

10:14 p.m. Lumm is glad they’re gathering the additional information so the council can decide whether to exercise its right of first refusal. She says it will be invaluable to have that information so that the council can make the decision. Staff will be looking at the zoning questions, she says, which will help to inform the council’s decision. The site, at 16.7 acres, is the largest remaining such parcel in the city, she says.

10:15 p.m. Taylor echoes Hieftje and Lumm. The University of Michigan’s acquisition of property is a long-term challenge the city faces, he says.

10:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the resolution directing the city administrator and city attorney to gather information on exercising the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property.

10:16 p.m. Here’s the text of the unamended resolution. The amended version contains the due date of Jan. 30. [Edwards Brothers Resolution of Inquiry and Information Gathering Jan. 6, 2014]

10:16 p.m. Here’s the amended resolution. [Amended Edwards Brothers Resolution of Inquiry and Information Gathering Jan. 6, 2014]

10:16 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 Jan. 6, 2014 meeting agenda.

Two of those items were postponed from the final meeting of 2013, on Dec. 16.

One of those postponed items was the official termination of a four-year-old memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan for construction of the Fuller Road Station project.

That was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under the terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter. The vote to terminate the MOU has its origins in the politics of Stephen Kunselman’s Ward 3 re-election campaign, when he promised to bring forward such a resolution.

The council’s postponement of the MOU termination at its Dec. 16 meeting was not due to any particular controversy about the vote itself. Instead, the postponement resulted from the fact that the item had been added to the agenda on the same day as the meeting, and that’s a practice the council has agreed should be avoided.

The other item delayed from the Dec. 16 meeting was a resolution assigning a specific cost to the removal of an on-street parking space, in connection with future developments: $45,000. That item first appeared on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda, but the council postponed it, based on a desire to hold a public hearing on the matter before taking action. The Dec. 16 postponement came after questions were raised during council deliberations, about the accounting procedures that would be used by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to track any money that might be collected under the policy.

Apart from those previously delayed items, the rest of the council’s agenda is filled out primarily with items concerning future development.

Accounting for two of the council’s Jan. 6 voting items is Traverwood Apartments – a First Martin development on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The council will consider final approval of some rezoning necessary for the complex of 16 two-story buildings. And on a separate vote, the council will consider the site plan approval and a wetland use permit associated with the apartment complex.

A third development item on the Jan. 6 agenda is the site plan for the upward expansion of the Montgomery Ward building on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors.

And a final development on the Jan. 6 agenda is a site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – would be constructed on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be operated by two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The consent agenda features two items involving cellular phone antennas mounted on city facilities. One of the items relates to the specific contracts with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location, with 4% annual escalators.

The other consent agenda item that’s related to cellular phone antennas, if it’s approved, would make it unnecessary in the future for items like the agreements with Sprint to come before the city council for approval. Instead, it would give the city administrator the power to approve licensing agreements with cellular service providers – even though they exceed the $25,000 threshold for council approval set forth in a city-charter required ordinance.

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 Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

A resolution that was postponed for the second time at the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting is now on the Jan. 6 agenda. It would define how much developers would need to pay the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority if a developer’s project requires removal of a metered on-street parking space. The proposed amount is $45,000 per space. The payment would go to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The rationale for postponing the item on Dec. 2 – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the resolution – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council voted.

After the public hearing held at the council’s Dec. 16 meeting, the council’s deliberations focused on the question of the accounting procedures to be used by the DDA in tracking any money that might be paid under the policy. Given that the rationale for the policy is that the money would be put toward the cost of construction for new parking spaces, councilmembers wanted to know how the money would be reserved for that purpose.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, the DDA has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

Taylor, the resolution’s sponsor, participated in meetings during the fall of 2013 of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation. The city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) parking program allows a developer (as one option) to satisfy an on-site parking space requirement by paying $55,000. (The other option is to enter into a 15-year agreement to purchase monthly parking permits at a 20% premium.)

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could be calculated by taking the actual costs and dividing by 738 – the number of spaces in the structure. Based on a recent memo from executive director Susan Pollay to city administrator Steve Powers, about 30% or $15 million of the cost of the project was spent on items “unneeded by the parking structure.” That included elements like oversized foundations to support future development, an extra-large transformer, a new alley between Library Lane and S. Fifth Avenue, new water mains, easements for a fire hydrant and pedestrian improvements.

The actual amount spent on the Library Lane structure, according to DDA records produced under a Freedom of Information Act request from The Chronicle, was $54,855,780.07, or about $1.5 million under the project’s $56.4 million budget. Adjusting for those elements not needed for the parking structure yields a per-space cost of about $52,000. [(54,855,780.07*.70)/738] [.pdf of Nov. 22, 2013 memo from Pollay to Powers][.pdf of budget versus actual expenses for the 738-space Library Lane structure]

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

Killing Fuller Road Station MOU

An item postponed from the Dec. 16, 2013 meeting would officially terminate a four-year-old memorandum of understanding between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored the Dec. 16 resolution. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of a project called the Ann Arbor Station. That review should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

Kunselman led off deliberations at the Dec. 16 meeting saying he would like to postpone the resolution. He indicated that he thought he’d managed to add the item to the agenda on the Friday before the Monday meeting, but it turned out he had not done so. In light of the council’s discussion at their Dec. 9 budget planning session – when councilmembers had said they’d strive to avoid adding resolutions at the last minute – Kunselman said he wanted it postponed.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) both indicated they’d vote for the resolution – but also said they didn’t think the resolution was necessary. They indicated they were willing to vote for the resolution without postponing. Kunselman nevertheless wanted to postpone it, because it was added late to the agenda.

Traverwood Apartments

Also on the council’s Jan. 6 agenda is a First Martin Corp. project, which would construct a residential complex on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

Two separate items are on the council’s agenda – one for the rezoning required for the project, and the other for the site plan and wetland use permit.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, the initial approval of the required rezoning was given. Also approved at that meeting was a donation of 2.2 acres, just north of the project site – by Bill Martin to the city. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline.

Montgomery Ward Building

Another item on the city council’s Jan. 6 agenda is the site plan for a four-story addition to the existing two-story building (the old Montgomery Ward building) at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor. The plan calls for creating 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units. Planning commissioners took action to recommend approval of the project’s site plan at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of the Montgomery building (indicated with crosshatches) at 210 S. Fourth Ave. in downtown Ann Arbor.

The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. The ground floor would remain commercial space. Current tenants include Salon Vertigo and Bandito’s Mexican Restaurant. The top floor will include a stair/elevator lobby, restroom, wet bar, and access to several roof decks. Part of the fifth-floor roof will be covered in vegetation as a green roof.

Because the building is located in a historic district, it required a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s historic district commission. The HDC granted that certificate at its Sept. 12, 2013 meeting.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density. According to a staff memo, eight footing drain disconnects will be required.

According to a report from the July 10, 2013 citizen participation meeting, the units will be marketed to “anyone who wants to live downtown.” If approvals are received, construction is expected to begin next summer. The project’s architect is Brad Moore.

Moore is also the architect for an expansion project on the adjacent property – a three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth, which will create six residential units. That project received a recommendation of approval from planning commissioners at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting and was subsequently approved by the city council on Dec. 2, 2013.

Briarwood Mall Restaurant Expansions

A site plan for construction of two free-standing restaurants at Briarwood Mall is also on the council’s Jan. 6 agenda.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The proposal calls for building two new freestanding restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and development in action at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting. The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning was needed.

Cellular Antenna Licensing

The consent agenda for Jan. 6 features two items involving cellular phone antennas mounted on city facilities. By council rule, contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda.

Antennas from left: Plymouth Road water tower, Ann-Ashley parking structure, Manchester Road water tower.

One of the consent agenda items relates to the specific contracts with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location with 4% annual escalators. The previous agreements ranged from $25,920 to $39,283, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The staff memo also indicates that Sprint has been given initial administrative approval to undertake replacement of some of its equipment related to its 4G deployment.

The other consent agenda item related to cellular phone antennas, if it’s approved, would make it unnecessary in the future for items like the agreements with Sprint to come before the city council for approval. Instead, it would give the city administrator the power to approve licensing agreements with cellular service providers – even though they exceed the $25,000 threshold for council approval set forth in a city-charter required ordinance.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. 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!

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan and Ken Clein sign papers attesting that these high school students had attended the Nov. 19 meeting. The class assignment did not require that the students stay for the entire meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. (Photos by the writer.)

Planning commissioners made decisions on the majority of recommendations for revising the city’s downtown zoning ordinance, but adjourned after midnight before completing their final resolution for city council. Though they did not formally vote to postpone action on the resolution, the item will be taken up again at the commission’s Dec. 3 meeting. [.pdf of revised draft recommendations to be considered on Dec. 3]

Generally, the changes reflect a downzoning in some locations in an attempt to lessen the impact of development on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

A public hearing on the downtown zoning review drew seven speakers, all of whom had previously addressed the commission on this topic. Andy Klein – one of the owners of a site at the southeast corner Main and William, which is being considered for downzoning – spoke against rezoning that property, calling himself the “lone dissenter.” Other speakers at the hearing were in favor of downzoning in general, including at that site. The recommendation for that property – possibly one of the most controversial – was not debated or acted on by commissioners at their Nov. 19 meeting.

Attached to the commission’s Dec. 3 agenda was a communication from Scott R. Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, written on behalf of KRG Investments, the owners of the Main and William property. It suggests a third option to consider as a compromise, and indicates that Bonney will attend the Dec. 3 meeting to make a presentation about this proposal in person. [.pdf of Bonney's letter]

After the planning commission finalizes and approves its resolution regarding these downtown zoning recommendations, the resolution will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The intent is for the council to review the recommendations and give direction to the commission about which recommendations to implement.

At that point, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee would work with city planning staff to craft actual ordinance language. Any specific ordinance changes would be reviewed by the full commission and ultimately would require city council approval before taking effect. That process would include additional opportunities for public input.

In addition to downtown zoning, three other projects were on the Nov. 19 agenda. Commissioners recommended approval of a proposal to build two restaurants adjacent to Macy’s at Briarwood Mall. They also recommended approval of a four-story addition to the existing two-story building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor, known as the Montgomery Building. The expansion will create 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units.

One project that didn’t move forward was a proposed expansion of Germain Motors – the former Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street. Owner Steve Germain and his daughter Jessica Germain attended the meeting and described the growth of their business, with a 55% increase in combined sales compared to last year. They indicated that expanded showrooms and additional parking and vehicle display areas are needed to accommodate future growth. However, planning staff recommended postponement to address several outstanding issues, and commissioners acted on that advice.

Downtown Zoning Review

A downtown zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13 that 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.

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, which served as the basis for the Nov. 19 discussion. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

Commissioners made several amendments during their deliberations on Nov. 19, and adopted the following recommendations, which will likely be part of the final resolution to the city council. In general, the changes reflect a downzoning in an attempt to lessen the impact of development on adjacent residential neighborhoods:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• 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.
• Revise the premium conditions to require compliance with Design Review Board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.
• 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.
• Review options in D1 and D2 districts with the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects or through other funding mechanisms.
• Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium.”
• Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

The only draft recommendation that was not discussed on Nov. 19 was for a parcel located at the southeast corner of Main and William (425 S. Main). A surface parking lot and a building that currently houses DTE offices are located there.

Commissioners are expected to weigh two options for that site at their Dec. 3 meeting: (1) Rezone the parcel 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; or (2) Change the maximum height in the Main Street Character District to 100 feet when within 20 feet of a residential zoning district and add a tower diagonal maximum and/or “shadow setback” requirement to limit shading on adjacent residential properties.

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”; and ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward.”

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing

The public hearing on the downtown zoning review drew seven speakers – all but one in favor of downzoning. All of them had previously addressed the commission on this topic.

Ray Detter said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council. The group based its support of the 2009 zoning revisions on the goal of minimizing the negative impact of downtown development on neighbors in terms of height, scale, shading and harm to natural and historic resources, he said. In general, Erin Perdu has done a good job of summarizing the community’s view, Detter told commissioners.

Detter noted that at the Nov. 12 working session, which he and several others attended, they were pleased that the planning commission was supportive of changes to the three locations where the city “made past zoning mistakes,” he said. The advisory council believes the Ann Street lot should be downzoned from D1 to D2, as it’s clearly an interface area across the street from historic properties in the Old Fourth Ward, he said. But it’s also true that D2 zoning should be used for the property south of Ann Street all the way to North Fourth Avenue, he added.

From left: Ray Detter, Jeff Crockett and Chris Crockett.

Detter said the advisory council was also pleased that the commission supported decreasing the allowable height of property between Campus Inn and Sloan Plaza from 150 feet to 120 feet, and to use diagonals, setbacks, stepbacks, and a shadow setback requirement to eliminate shading. There should also be at least a 25-foot separation between Sloan Plaza and any development next to it, he said. The advisory council supported rezoning the other parcels on the north side of East Huron between North Division and North Fifth – from 180 feet to 120 feet with possible diagonals, setbacks and stepbacks. That includes the Ahmo’s site, he noted, and the property management office next to Ahmo’s. The 120-feet zoning change should also be extended to include the northeast corner of North Fourth, where a former gas station is located.

Detter said there were cheers during the Nov. 12 working session when it seemed that commissioners agreed that the property at the southeast corner of Main and William should be rezoned from D1 to D2. Apparently that’s still open to discussion, he noted, but the downtown citizens advisory council definitely supports D2 on that entire site. He encouraged commissioners not to give premiums to things that the community doesn’t want – like student housing – but instead to give premiums to features that the community supports, like more open space and affordable housing. Also, the advisory commission supports giving no approvals or premiums unless the development follows recommendations of the design review board, which he said should include a member of the historic district commission.

Jeff Crockett supported what Detter had said, and added that he’s been pleased with the process in that it reflects community input. He encouraged the city in the future to look carefully at the landmark tree ordinance and toughen it up. He liked the idea of D2 on the William and Main site, and also supported creating shadow setbacks as well as a review of premiums every two to five years.

Chris Crockett also thanked the commission for reviewing A2D2, especially in proximity to residential areas. She noted that although the property at Main and William is viewed as a gateway to the city, it’s also adjacent to a residential area and D2 zoning there is as valid as any. She was happy that the commission is reconsidering the use of premiums. People hadn’t understood the ramifications of the original zoning, she said, and didn’t realize that the city would end up with “essentially dormitories.” The premiums haven’t led to good architecture or good development, she said. The city also needs affordable housing, to make sure there’s a good urban mix.

Eleanor Linn told commissioners she hadn’t seem the most recent draft of recommendations before she wrote her comments, so some of the things she was asking them to consider are things that are now in the recommendations. She read her statement, which noted that she lives near the 13-story Landmark “private student dormitory” at South University and Forest. She’s learned something about the problems of high-rise buildings invading residential neighborhoods, she said. Large setbacks are crucial, and she supported 40-60 foot setbacks where D1 or D2 zoning abuts residential zoning. D1 buildings are far too tall to ever abut residential areas. She wants lower height limits where D2 abuts residential, and she hoped the city would review other vulnerable parcels that aren’t included in this current review. She also thinks it’s necessary to reinstate the cash-in-lieu option for affordable housing, if it’s legally possible.

Marc Gerstein also read a statement that had been prepared before he’d seen the updated recommendations. He also lives near South University and Forest, and urged that no D1 zoning should abut residential areas. He supported rezoning the Main and William parcel to D2, and lowering the height limit on the parcel next to Sloan Plaza with bigger side setbacks. He supported shadow setbacks and other requirements that would reduce the impact of D1 and D2 zoning on residential areas. There should always be an interface between D1 parcels and residential areas, and the city should re-examine areas where this occurs – like on the north side of Willard, between East University and South Forest. He also wanted protections for Hill Auditorium and Burton Tower, which are across from D1 zoning on Thayer Street.

Andy Klein, one of the owners of the property at the southeast corner of Main and William.

Andy Klein introduced himself by saying he was the “lone dissenter.” He’s one of the owners of the property at Main and William, where the DTE building is located. It’s interesting to hear other people’s comments about property that you’ve spent millions of dollars on, he said. He respects the concerns that have been voiced, but there’s no pressure to make any changes on the site. It’s been owned by his family and other investors for over 30 years, Klein said, “and that’s the way it’s going to stay.” Whatever they do with the site in the future will respect the residents and protect the property value, he said, and would be something that the city would be proud of.

Reducing the zoning from D1 to D2 is a “Draconian measure,” Klein said, and is a response to other buildings that have been developed in an “untasteful way.” Every other corner of that intersection is zoned D1, he noted. Lowering the height by 40% could be an option, and adding a diagonal requirement is a flexible solution, he said. “I just don’t think that solutions that are so harsh that they really destroy the potential development of a key site in the city makes a lot of sense.”

Klein noted that his voice is the only one on his side. He can’t come to every meeting and he doesn’t have a group of people to argue vehemently on his behalf. “But my voice is important,” Klein said. His family and other investors have contributed millions of dollars to the city’s tax base, and continue to do so. He urged commissioners not to impose D2 zoning at the site.

[Attached to the commission's Dec. 3 agenda was a communication from Scott R. Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, written on behalf of KRG Investments, the owners of the Main and William property. It suggests a third option to consider: Keep the D1 zoning on that site, but reduce the maximum height to 122 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 50% of the maximum diagonal dimension of the site. The letter, which includes diagrams showing the impact this proposal, indicates that Bonney will attend the Dec. 3 meeting to make this presentation in person.] [.pdf of Bonney's letter]

The last speaker Doug Kelbaugh, who said he was speaking as a private citizen. [Kelbaugh is a professor at the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning.] It’s been a “very productive if tedious process for you,” he told commissioners, but he was in favor of continuing it in some way. He knew there were no additional funds for consultants, but he hoped the commission would ask the city council for more funding to continue the zoning review beyond the current scope.

In particular, he hoped they could look at extending some of their “wise decisions.” For example, he hoped to extend the zoning changes next to Sloan Plaza, with lower height limits, all the way along the north side of Huron to Main Street, or perhaps even further west to Ashley or First. The changes at Division and Ann should also be extended all the way to Main Street or further, he said. Other edges of the downtown – like the church site at Huron and State Street, and the block of Thayer – need to be re-examined, where D1 zoning hits the UM campus. Kelbaugh hoped the city could find the wherewithal to continue its zoning review.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Affordable Housing

The commission considered this draft recommendation regarding affordable housing:

• Revise the affordable housing premium so that the provision of affordable housing or a contribution-in-lieu of affordable housing is mandatory for receiving any premiums in the D1 or D2 districts.

In reviewing the proposed recommendations at the start of the Nov. 19 discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the draft recommendation to add a contribution-in-lieu as an option for the affordable housing requirement was seen as problematic by the city attorney’s office. Any type of in-lieu-of payment is very difficult in Michigan because the state statute does not clearly indicate that it can be done, she reported. It’s more straightforward with elements like parking, she added. But with affordable housing, it’s harder to draw a connection between the need for affordable housing in one location, and addressing that need through a payment to the affordable housing trust fund, which can be used to support affordable housing anywhere in the city, not just downtown. The commission could still include it in their recommendations, she said, but as it moves to city council, it might be tempered by advice from the city attorney.

Kirk Westphal highlighted a communication regarding a more detailed recommendation that had been approved by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). It was included as part of the planning commission’s meeting packet. [.pdf of HHSAB recommendation] The HHSAB recommended modifying the premiums to require building affordable housing or making a cash-in-lieu contribution to affordable housing, and included a detailed formula for calculating contributions:

(i) For purposes of obtaining any premium listed in (_______) above, developments less than 400 FAR shall provide 10% of the total square footage as dwelling units affordable to very low income households. Projects exceeding 400 but less than 700 FAR shall provide 15% of the total square footage as dwelling units affordable to very low income households.

(ii) Payment in Lieu Formula, Discretion of City Council to Allow. Dwelling units affordable to very low income households shall be provided by the development of units on-site, or through an affordable housing contribution “in lieu of” units. The amount shall be set consistent with a “payment in lieu” formula set by recommendation of the HHSAB annually by the end of March each year and submitted to City Council for approval or rejection.

(iii) Calculation for Pro Rata Amounts. When the affordable housing requirement results in a fractional unit, the fractional unit shall be converted to an affordable housing contribution in lieu of units, using the following formula: the fraction shall be multiplied by the per-unit affordable housing contribution as determined by the formula adopted annually by City Council.

(iv) Recommendation of Planning Commission, Approval of City Council required. For each proposed development utilizing a premium to exceed base FAR, the Planning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and City Council, in its sole discretion, may approve or deny payment of an affordable housing contribution in lieu of all or part of units on site.

Westphal wondered whether commissioners would be able to “button down” the legal issue that night related to the contribution-in-lieu approach to affordable housing. Rampson indicated that it would not be possible to determine that at the meeting. She also didn’t think the issue could be handled in isolation from other recommendations.

From left: Ken Clein, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Rampson and Bonnie Bona.

Sabra Briere asked Rampson is there’s any scenario that she’s heard the city attorney support when it comes to cash-in-lieu for affordable housing. Rampson noted that the planned unit development (PUD) approach includes a contribution-in-lieu option. That’s possible because a PUD is “a very special animal under state law,” she said.

But in a standard zoning district, the only requirement for affordable housing is if a developer wants to secure premiums. The question becomes whether there’s a nexus between that requirement and making a payment into a fund that won’t necessarily result in what you’re looking for – affordable housing in the downtown. So one possibility might be to create a separate fund to be used only for affordable housing downtown, Rampson said. But according to the city attorney’s office, even that might not be sufficient, she added.

“Any time you’re asking people for money in exchange for approval of zoning, there is some discomfort about that,” Rampson said. It’s different when you ask for requirements like parking or landscaping, she said. Requiring affordable housing is a bit of a stretch in Michigan, she noted, but it’s the contribution-in-lieu option that becomes really problematic.

Ken Clein said he’s in favor of affordable housing downtown, but he pointed out that you can build a lot more affordable housing outside of the downtown, where land prices are lower. Rampson replied that if you require contributions to affordable housing that can be spent outside of the downtown, you’d be creating an island in the downtown where affordable housing isn’t deemed appropriate – that’s one way of looking at it, she said.

Briere noted that at the Nov. 18 city council meeting, the council had revised the ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Starting in FY 2016, the DDA will put aside $300,000 annually to use on affordable housing within the DDA’s boundaries or within a quarter mile of those boundaries. It will be challenging, Briere said, but the goal is to encourage affordable housing downtown. She wondered if the zoning could require affordable housing as a gateway for getting a housing premium.

Rampson replied that because seeking a premium is optional, that might be possible. Briere pointed out that it might then discourage the development of housing altogether.

Bonnie Bona felt that the most effective approach to affordable housing is when it’s part of a mixed-income development. If the city collects affordable housing funds and steers those funds toward property that’s less valuable, “we’re actually segregating,” she said. The gap in housing options is big enough that it requires multiple approaches, Bona said. She wondered if the recommendations to the council can include a recommendation to look more deeply into this issue, working with the city’s housing and human services advisory board.

Later in the meeting, Bona proposed a revised recommendation: “Review options for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects and through a fund, with the assistance of the housing and human services advisory board.”

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Sabra Briere, who also serves on the city council representing Ward 1.

Paras Parekh asked whether they needed to specify D1 and D2 districts, or whether the recommendation was for the whole city. Bona felt it’s an issue for the entire city, but the downtown zoning review is why it’s being addressed. She didn’t want to be restrictive.

In response to another query from Parekh, Bona said the phrase “mixed-income projects” is to prevent segregating affordable housing into one location. “We don’t want housing projects, if we can help it,” she said.

Wendy Woods was concerned about including a reference to the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). She didn’t feel the recommendations should be so specific at this point. She made a motion to strike that reference from the recommendation.

Ken Clein said he didn’t feel strongly about it, noting that the commission can always consult with other entities if it wants to. But if the recommendation specifies the HHSAB, he wondered whether they should also specify consulting with the city attorney’s office. The suggestion elicited a laugh from commissioners. Clein said his point is that the recommendation might be getting “too in the weeds” by specifying who they’ll consult.

Rampson noted that HHSAB did provide very specific feedback to the commission regarding the affordable housing issue.

Bona thought that including a reference to HHSAB acknowledges that the commission has received that feedback, and that it’s important. Affordable housing also is a complicated topic – much more so than something like LEED certification, she said. Affordable housing has been a problem for centuries, Bona added, and the city doesn’t seem to be any closer to a solution.

Outcome on amendment to strike the reference to HHSAB: It failed on a 1-8 vote, with support only from Wendy Woods.

Commissioners also discussed the phrasing “and through a fund.” Bona said she’d stayed away from saying “payment-in-lieu” because of concerns that the city attorney’s office had raised.

Clein suggested using the phrase “or through other funding mechanisms” instead. It was accepted by Bona as a friendly amendment.

Another amendment was suggested by Woods, to add “D1 and D2 districts.” Bona said she wanted to leave it vague. She pointed out that the title of the overall resolution is “Recommended Downtown Zoning Amendments.” She thought that adding D1 and D2 would be redundant, and noted that it’s not included in the other recommendations.

Woods pointed out that earlier in the evening, commissioners had discussed concerns about possibly locating affordable housing outside of the downtown. That’s why she wanted to be more specific.

Outcome on amendment to add D1 and D2: It passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Bonnie Bona and Jeremy Peters. Sabra Briere was out of the room during the vote.

The final revised recommendation states:

Review options in D1 and D2 districts with the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects or through other funding mechanisms.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to make this recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Residential Premiums

Commissioners discussed how to combine these two separate items from the draft resolution:

• Reduce the residential use premium from 0.75 sf to 0.25 sf per square foot of residential use to encourage the use of other premiums.
• Include other types of premiums in addition to the ones currently available.

The consensus was to make the first recommendation less specific, and to include several examples of the types of premiums that commissioners would like to see. Affordable housing was left out in favor of a broader goal of workforce housing.

Jeremy Peters suggested a premium of the shadow setback, but when planning manager Wendy Rampson asked whether commissioners wanted that as a premium or a requirement, the consensus initially was to recommend shadow setbacks as a requirement.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Ken Clein suggested making LEED silver certification as a premium. Rampson reminded commissioners that LEED certification is already included as an A2D2 premium – silver, gold and platinum certification can result in additional floor-area ratio (FAR). Only two projects so far – at 618 S. Main and 624 Church St. – have proposed using LEED certification as a premium, she reported. And because the developer of 618 S. Main subsequently scaled back that project, that premium isn’t needed. There are also energy efficiency “points” that are required as a gatekeeper to securing premiums.

Bonnie Bona counseled against being too specific at this point regarding LEED certification, and suggested a more general recommendation of increasing the energy efficiency requirements as a premium.

Sabra Briere noted that the LEED premium is the only one that comes with a penalty. That is, if you get a premium to build additional FAR on the premise that the building will be LEED-certified, but it doesn’t achieve that status, then there’s a financial penalty. “I’m not going to even try to replicate the incredibly complex equation that nobody understood sitting around the table except maybe the person who was proposing it – and maybe not,” she said. But it reminded her that when the city grants premiums, there’s an expectation that the city will reap a benefit. One option would be to look at applying a cash penalty for other premiums that aren’t met. She described her suggestion as “a very unformed thought.”

Later in the discussion, Briere pointed out that the directive from council was not to rewrite the zoning ordinance at this point. It was to make broader recommendations. What’s needed is for the council to clearly define the problems that it wants the planning commission to address, and at that point the commission can work on revising the ordinance. Getting into details at this point could really bog down the work, she said.

Rampson cautioned that if the commission sent recommendation to the council that are too general, the subsequent direction from council might not be clear. Briere countered that if the planning commission is too specific, it could result in some councilmembers pushing back because they don’t like the specifics. Briere indicated that if the commission looks like it’s done all the work, that’s not a good approach.

Rampson also pointed out that if more options are provided as premiums, it might dilute the ability to encourage any one particular goal, like residential development.

The final revised recommendation states:

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.

Outcome: This recommendation was passed unanimously.

Briere suggested eliminating another recommendation related to residential premiums, which she felt could be addressed elsewhere:

• Revise the residential use premium to be more specific about the types of units that will be eligible for premiums.

Bona agreed, saying she was very opposed to having premiums for specific unit types that could be reconfigured soon after a building is constructed. The buildings need to be designed to be flexible, if they’re going to last a long time, she added. One possibility is to require that developers show the interior design during the site plan phase, to show that the interior could be flexible, she said.

Clein agreed with Bona, saying it would be very difficult to enforce any kind of interior requirement.

Outcome: This recommendation was eliminated on a 7-2 vote, over dissent by Eleanore Adenekan and Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – East Huron

Commissioners discussed two related draft recommendations for the East Huron area:

• Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District to 120 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum and/or “shadow setback” requirement to limit shading on adjacent residential properties.
• Rezone the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue from E. Huron 2 Character Overlay District to East Huron 1 Character Overlay District.

Wendy Rampson explained that if these recommendations are approved, the height limits for properties adjacent to city hall and the University of Michigan Credit Union site – currently a parking lot off of Ann Street, next to city hall – would be reduced from 180 feet to 120 feet.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Kirk Westphal clarified with Rampson that owners of those properties weren’t interviewed for this zoning review. He said he wouldn’t be comfortable making the changes proposed for the East Huron 1 Character District, adding that it’s beyond the scope of the council directive.

Diane Giannola said she’s not in favor of shadow setbacks. She wondered how it would affect property rights. Shadows come from everything, including trees, she said, “and when you own property, you don’t necessarily own the sun.” The concept is way too vague, she added, and she’d rather see diagonals used to address the issue of shadowing.

Jeremy Peters didn’t think it was fair to talk about trees in this context. It’s clear that the shadow setbacks refer to buildings, he said. He didn’t support removing it.

Sabra Briere voiced concern over investments that people make in solar panels and alternative energies that rely on solar gain. What happens when something happens next door that shades the investment? It’s a different set of property rights at stake, she said, compared to the rights that Giannola mentioned. Briere supported the idea of shadow setbacks, because the city is encouraging alternative energy investments and they need to be protected. “We have to come up with a way to balance the individual’s rights with the community’s rights,” Briere said.

Westphal was cautious about introducing a completely new tool at this point, and would prefer to stick to responding to the council’s charge.

Paras Parekh wondered why the shadow setbacks were only proposed for the East Huron 1 Character District, and not elsewhere. On philosophical grounds, he had concerns about requiring something in one part of the city that wasn’t required anywhere else.

Rampson noted that Briere’s concerns are more related to solar access law, and the shadow setback requirement wasn’t intended to regulate solar access. The reason Rampson included a mention of shadow setbacks in the draft was because commissioners had discussed the issue at the Nov. 12 working session. It was specified for that particular part of town because of D1 zoning that abuts residential neighborhoods located to the north, “which is probably the worst shadow configuration that you could get,” Rampson said. Perhaps there’s a better term to use instead of shadow setbacks, she added.

Ken Clein agreed that solar access rights are best left for longer-term study.

Bonnie Bona noted that this section of East Huron is the only area where D1 zoning is directly adjacent to residential. She described this part of the downtown zoning as a “major flaw” in the final A2D2 zoning. She thinks an interface district is needed around the entire downtown, but “we need it here more than anywhere.” Especially in the winter, there’s a lot of shade. If the shadow setback isn’t included, Bona said she’d then support rezoning that area to D2. She noted that the Sloan Plaza site could also be built to a greater height, which would impact the residential neighborhood to the north.

Briere cautioned against rewriting the East Huron 1 Character District – in terms of height and shadow setback. That’s too ambitious to do on the fly at midnight, she said. Instead, Briere proposed recommending that the East Huron 1 Character District be revised.

After further discussion – which included distinguishing between “setback” and “step-back” – commissioners reached a compromise wording:

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.

Outcome: The revised recommendation was unanimously approved.

Regarding the draft recommendation to rezone the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue from East Huron 2 Character Overlay District to East Huron 1 Character Overlay District, commissioners were reluctant to make that specific recommendation at this time. Clein noted that it wasn’t part of the charge from the city council. Westphal said he’d be willing to strike it.

Clein and Peters both suggested that instead of this recommendation, the commission should create a separate recommendation that would focus on review of additional sections of the downtown.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to strike the draft recommendation to rezone block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Review of Other Areas

Ken Clein proposed adding a new recommendation to request that the planning commission review any area where D1 zoning directly abuts or is within 25 feet of residential or historic districts, and to review whether those areas should be rezoned to D2 or whether to modify the zoning in these sensitive areas.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Ken Clein, who is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects.

Sabra Briere noted that one area where D1 abuts an historic district is on Main Street. About a third of the block between Liberty and William is not in an historic district, and is zoned D1. “The day that someone proposes a 180-foot tall building [there] is a day that this body will … hear from the public about problems with that,” she said. Briere noted that other areas have been mentioned by members of the public as problematic, including Thayer Street, South University, and some parts of Forest, for example. She supported Clein’s recommendation.

Diane Giannola felt that if any area abutting an historic district must be rezoned, then there likely won’t be any D1 zoning downtown – because there are so many parts of downtown that are designated historic districts. Jeremy Peters noted that Clein was suggesting only to review those areas, not to actually make recommendations at this point.

Wendy Rampson clarified that the current review already includes all the areas where D1 directly abuts residential. The review does not include areas that abut historic districts, she added.

Giannola thought Clein’s proposal was outside of the council’s charge, and that it would require an entirely new study, starting the process all over again. Bonnie Bona also said she didn’t support the proposal.

Briere noted that the planning commission and council have heard from people who want the city to review all character districts. It’s true that it wasn’t in the council’s charge to the commission, she said, but people have brought it up. She suggested recommending that the council consider whether all the areas that aren’t zoned D2 need to be re-evaluated.

Rampson pointed out that the planning commission and staff spent six years creating the A2D2 zoning, which was just adopted in 2009. “If you are really opening the door to rethinking all of the character districts, are you really ready to say that’s a priority, given your work program – to revisit everything in the downtown?”

Briere said the only way to get more specific direction from council is to put a resolution on the council agenda, which she was reluctant to do. Instead, she wants to take a “deep dive” into the Redevelopment Ready project, to see if the city’s existing ordinances match its master plans. She’d also like to get the ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project completed, before taking on something else. She said she was struggling to find a way to indicate that the commission has heard the problems that people have raised.

Wendy Woods noted that for sites next to the University of Michigan, it didn’t make sense to be overly concerned about zoning. “The university can change what it has on campus next year, if they want to. We could be worried about shadowing Hill Auditorium, and it could be gone – because that’s the reality.” She thought the commission should focus on what it was asked by council to do.

After some additional discussion, Clein offered to withdraw his proposal.

Outcome: Clein withdrew his proposed recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Other Recommendations

Two draft recommendations were accepted without substantive discussion:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• Revise the premium conditions to require compliance with Design Review Board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Adjournment

At about 12:30 a.m., commission chair Kirk Westphal said he wasn’t prepared to tackle the remaining draft recommendations. He offered to entertain a motion to adjourn.

Outcome on adjournment: The motion passed 8-1, over dissent from Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Final Public Commentary

After adjournment, Westphal realized he had omitted the final public commentary. The only person remaining was Ray Detter, who told commissioners: “I’ve got a lot to say, but you’re not really interested in hearing it.”

Germain Motors Expansion

Earlier in the meeting, commissioners discussed a proposal to expand two buildings and the parking area for Germain Motors – the former Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street. Planning staff had recommended postponement, to allow the owners to address staff feedback on the project.

Aerial view of Germain Motors site, outlined in green. South State Street is on the left (west) side of this property. Expansion is proposed for the two smaller buildings on the north and center of the site that fronts South State.

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

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces.

The owner also wants a variance from Chapter 62 (landscaping) to eliminate the requirement for interior depressed landscape islands in the car inventory and display areas.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. In a staff memo, city planners called the project an upgrade to the appearance of the site, but also cited several concerns.

The work would result in the loss of three out of four landmark trees on the property, to be mitigated by planting 11 additional trees. City staff were concerned by that reduction in landmark trees, as well as by the proposed request for planting fewer interior landscaping trees. Another concern was the additional amount of impervious surface that would be created by this expansion.

That was also an issue cited by the Malletts Creek coordinating committee, a group that includes representatives from the city, the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, the Huron River Watershed Council, and Pittsfield Township. That committee, which is focused on improving the condition of the Malletts Creek watershed, felt that a variance might be justified or mitigated only if the project included offsetting stormwater management on the site – such as green roofs, sand filters, or other low-impact development techniques.

Germain Motors Expansion: Public Hearing

Four people – all affiliated with Germain Motors and its proposed expansion – spoke during a public hearing on the project.

John Oney of Architectural Alliance, the architect for an expansion of Germain Motors – formerly the Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street.

John Oney of Architectural Alliance in Worthington, Ohio, gave an overview of the project. He said it’s their goal to work through any issues and hopefully agree to any conditions that the city deems to be appropriate so that the project can move forward as quickly as possible.

The existing site was “piece-mealed together,” Oney said, so they’d like to develop a comprehensive master plan to upgrade the buildings to the new “image requirements” of the auto manufacturers, to address the working needs of the business as it expands, and to improve the State Street corridor and the dealership’s customer experience. The new design is intended to provide connecting pedestrian walkways throughout the campus, as well as additional landscaping and upgraded building materials, he said.

Oney showed some architectural renderings of the buildings, then introduced Steve Germain. He said Germain had taken “a leap of faith here in these uncertain economic times to acquire the dealership and make some significant improvements.”

Steve Germain, owner of Germain Motors, began by introducing his daughter, Jessica Germain. He told commissioners that they live in Columbus, Ohio, “but don’t hold that against me, please.” He noted that Jessica Germain is a 2004 graduate of the University of Michigan, with strong ties to this community. One of her responsibilities is to help manage this region, and he said he was proud of her work.

Germain described how his business had acquired most of the assets of Howard Cooper Imports about a year ago, noting that Cooper has been a member of this community for over 45 years. They purchased the three dealerships on South State Street, and the rights to four franchises. They took over a business with a great reputation both in the industry and in this community, he said. The business employs 92 people, Germain reported, saying it was an honor to carry on a tradition with such wonderful employees in a vibrant market.

In order for the business to continue to grow and prosper, Germain added, they need to do three things. They need to upgrade the facilities to meet the requirements of the manufacturers. They need to provide ample, safe and convenient parking to enhance the customer experience and allow the business to create more jobs. Third, he said, they need to maximize their storage capacity and grow their inventory to meet the market demand.

Jessica Germain then reviewed the sales for the past 10 months. She said the business has achieved significant growth, beyond industry averages. Ann Arbor’s demographics align with Honda’s target buyers for fuel-efficient and economic products, she said. Honda sales from January through October of 2013 have exceeded last year’s sales by 31%.

Volkswagen sales are up 40% compared to last year, she reported, and sales for Audi have increased 76%. The business services both the Ann Arbor and Toledo markets for the luxury brand of Porsche, Germain said, and sales have increased 89% in 2013 compared to the first 10 months of 2012. In the sale of pre-owned (used) cars, sales are up 108% in 2013.

Jessica Germain and Steve Germain of Germain Motors.

Strengthening the inventory for new and pre-owned sales gives the business an opportunity and range of price points to provide in this market, she explained. Overall, they’ve seen a 55% increase in combined sales, but she said the business still hasn’t met the requirements and expectations of manufacturers. Germain Motors aspires to exceed those requirements, she added.

Steve Germain spoke again, saying that when they acquired the business in September 2012, they soon realized that the potential in this market with these brands would require that they expand the inventory. Their first thoughts were for off-site storage, he said, but it’s not recommended because of the costs involved in security, fencing and shuttling cars back and forth. They also considered a parking deck, but the cost at about $18,000 per space would put the total cost at over $3.6 million. He indicated that the proposal that was before the planning commission is the best approach.

Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering, the project’s civil engineer, noted that there are three issues that the planning staff raised. One is the increased amount of impervious surface. The city also would like to add additional landscaping islands and address some stormwater management issues. The landscaping islands that the city is requiring are located in the storage area, Wanty said, but he argued that the requirement of landscaping islands should apply to parking for the public, not for storage.

Regarding staff concerns over a “heat island effect,” Wanty noted that over 50% of the vehicles sold are lighter in color – silver and white – and these cars would be parked there 24/7. He contended that the site plan exceeds the city’s requirements for interior landscape island area by 2,300 square feet. Wanty noted that the soil is mostly clay, so the landscape islands don’t really result in infiltration. The site has a very good stormwater management system, he said. He described the system, and noted that it meets the county water resources commissioner’s standards.

Germain Motors Expansion: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked about the requested landscape modifications, and wanted to know whether there are any alternatives if the required landscaping can’t be provided on site – such as planting trees at another location. City planner Matt Kowalski replied that there’s an option of planting trees to mitigate the removal of landmark trees, but it has to occur on public land and meet other standards, such as proving that the mitigation can’t occur on site. The city’s natural features coordinator didn’t feel Germain Motors had met that requirement, he said. This applies only to mitigation trees, Kowalski noted. There are no options like that for trees required under the city’s landscaping ordinance, other than a variance.

Bona pointed out that 103 trees are required to be planted, but the proposal calls for planting 95 – eight trees short of the requirement.

Bona asked about the extension of the parking 32 feet toward State Street, on the south side of the site. Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering replied: “That is not parking. That is display.”

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona, and city planner Matt Kowalski. Kowalski was recently elected to the Dexter city charter commission.

Bona referred to the presentation that Kowalski had given earlier in the meeting, which included a slide that showed cars parked on the lawn. “I can’t let that go,” Bona said. She asked whether the business is proposing to pave that area. Yes, Wanty replied. Are those cars allowed to be parked there now? she asked. “They’re not there,” Wanty said. Kowalski noted that the cars were parked there that morning, prompting Steve Germain to call out: “But they won’t be there tomorrow.”

“This is a huge amount of parking,” Bona said, so the total number of required trees and the depressed landscape islands need to be provided. She understands that their business requires a lot of parking, and that the site is sloped so there area certain areas where parking can’t be located. Because the parking doesn’t directly benefit the public, she said, “I think you have even more of a responsibility to help Tree City plant urban trees in areas that are impervious.” She wouldn’t be voting in favor of a variance. “You’ve got to do your fair share.”

Sabra Briere said she wanted to echo Bona’s comments, saying that an area to display vehicles is still parking. Adding impervious surface impacts the Malletts Creek area, especially since that area has clay soil and the Malletts Creek system is already overwhelmed, Briere said. For her, the big issue is that there will be a lot of polluted water running off that surface.

Ken Clein asked whether other dealerships in town have asked for variances to not put in landscape islands and trees. Kowalski wasn’t sure how many dealerships are left in Ann Arbor. There’s Varsity Ford, but that dealership hasn’t done any recent renovations, he said. There was a Fiat dealership project, but no variance had been requested for that. [Planning commissioners had recommended approval of the Fiat project on West Stadium Boulevard at their Aug. 21, 2012 meeting.]

Clein said he agreed that the requirement for landscape islands shouldn’t be waived, and that the full amount of trees should be planted to mitigate the removal of landmark trees. Otherwise, it would seem like the city is giving the business a free pass, he said. The purpose of planting trees isn’t just because Ann Arbor is Tree City, he said, but because it helps mitigate the impact of climate change a little. “Those eight trees may not save the world, but those eight trees done again and again and again may help,” Clein said.

Paras Parekh asked why the business didn’t feel that the eight trees could be added to the site. Wanty replied that the trees could probably be squeezed onto an area on the site’s slope, but vegetation is already located there and it’s “like a jungle.” Putting in more trees would disturb the existing vegetation, he said, and create the potential for erosion. He noted that the city requires the mitigation trees to be interior to the site, not on the perimeter.

Rick Meader, a landscape architect with Washtenaw Engineering, came to the podium. He said the landmark trees are only characterized as landmark in aggregate. They aren’t “big, majestic oaks,” he said. Three of them are box elders that are being replaced with better trees, he said, including oaks and tulip trees.

In response to a query from Kirk Westphal, Kowalski said the business submitted one alternative plan, which included a parking structure on the lower level of the site. It didn’t result in any landmark trees being removed. Westphal wondered if there were a middle option, in order to preserve the trees but still provide the amount of desired parking. Kowalski replied that there might be other options – such as quadruple stacking – but probably anything would require some sort of variance.

Westphal wondered if quadruple stacking was possible. Wanty said they didn’t look at that option, and it would entail re-aligning the aisles and spaces. It was something they could look at, he said.

Wendy Woods noted that the Malletts Creek coordinating committee had suggested some options, like the use of green roofs and other low-impact development techniques. She wondered whether the business would consider any of these.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters.

Wanty replied that the site currently drains into a sediment forebay, then into a wetland, then into a second wetland – before it enters Malletts Creek. It’s a good system to break down any oils, he said, and there’s very little silt or sediment that comes off of the site. The new cars don’t leak the fluids that older cars would leak, he noted. “So we’ve really got a clean site here,” Wanty said. That’s why they felt that additional stormwater management wasn’t necessary.

John Oney indicated that a green roof had been considered, but it wasn’t economically feasible so they didn’t pursue it.

“So it looks like what we have is a difference of opinion,” Woods said. Kowalski clarified that the site plan meets the stormwater management requirements. That shouldn’t be confused with a separate issue, he said – the landscaping requirements, and the functions that the interior landscape islands serve.

Bona took issue with Oney’s contention that a green roof isn’t economically feasible. She recommended that he contact A3C Architects, who’ve been monitoring the temperature of their roof – a black section, a white section and a green section. The amount of heat that’s retained from their green roof in the winter, and the amount of heat that’s not absorbed in the summer, significantly reduces the building’s heating and air-conditioning costs, Bona said. A green roof is not just for the environment, she added. There are strong reasons why that greenery moderates the temperature of the roof.

Jeremy Peters echoed some of the previously stated concerns about runoff and water quality. As someone who previously lived near Malletts Creek, he agreed with the coordinating committee’s suggestions. He also agreed with Bona’s suggestion to look at installing a green roof.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Germain Motors proposal.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a four-story addition to the existing two-story building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor. It’s known as the Montgomery Building, because from the late 1920s until 1960 it housed a Montgomery Ward’s department store.

The plan calls for creating 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units.

Aerial view of the Montgomery building (indicated with crosshatches) at 210 S. Fourth Ave. in downtown Ann Arbor.

City planner Matt Kowalski gave the staff report. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. The footprint of the existing building won’t change, and the ground floor would remain commercial space. Current tenants include Salon Vertigo and Bandito’s Mexican Restaurant. The top floor will include a stair/elevator lobby, restroom, wet bar, and access to several roof decks. Part of the fifth-floor roof will be covered in vegetation as a green roof.

The third-floor addition will be set back 11 feet from the existing building’s facade. The fourth floor will be set back an additional nine feet.

Because the building is located in an historic district, it required a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s historic district commission. The HDC granted that certificate at its Sept. 12, 2013 meeting.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density. According to a staff memo, eight footing drain disconnects will be required.

According to a report from the July 10, 2013 citizen participation meeting, the units will be marketed to “anyone who wants to live downtown.” If approvals are received, construction is expected to begin next summer.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth: Public Hearing

Three people spoke during a public hearing on this project. Luke Norman, who lives on South Fourth Avenue, wondered if there would be any affordable housing in this development.

Brad Moore, the project’s architect, told commissioners that the project would rejuvenate the building. The plan is to completely reconstruct the facade and give it a look that’s “more characteristic of its heyday,” he said, while adding some additional stories to increase the amount of downtown residential space.

Rendering of proposed Montgomery Building addition.

The hope is to also increase the amount of retail space along that section of Fourth Avenue, he said, in conjunction with the development at Fourth and Liberty. [Moore is also the architect for an expansion project on the adjacent property – a three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth, which will create six residential units. That project received a recommendation of approval from planning commissioners at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting but still needs city council approval.]

The proposed setbacks of the upper floors are intended to prevent a feeling of the building encroaching on the street, Moore said. He said he had additional information if the commissioners had any questions.

Ray Detter noted that the downtown citizens advisory council had looked at this project. The proposed changes will be a marvelous addition to that block, he said, and it’s a positive direction to restore something that’s part of the city’s past and will be part of its future. The advisory council strongly supports the addition of mixed-income housing in that part of the downtown, Detter said.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by taking up a question asked during public commentary: Is there any affordable housing in this project? Brad Moore replied that there’s nothing that would be dedicated affordable housing, but there are some studio apartments – at about 500 square feet apiece – that would have a lower rent than the other units, because of the smaller size. The one-bedroom apartments will average about 750-800 square feet, and the two-bedroom units will be about 950 square feet.

Brad Moore, architect for the Montgomery Building expansion.

Bona said it would be nice to get some market-rate affordable units rather than subsidized affordable housing. She hoped that if the project is forwarded to the city council for approval, it would include pricing for the various units, relative to income levels. For example, would someone who makes 80% or 60% of the area median income be able to afford the rent?

Bona then asked about the building in relation to neighboring parcels. Moore explained that a portion of the building on the north and south sides will be built up to the property line. Bona wondered how it was possible to put in windows there, considering the fact that the building adjacent to this proposed expansion could also add additional floors someday.

Moore said that the developer will be applying for a variance from the building board of appeals in order to install windows on walls that aren’t set back from the property line. He indicated that a city building official has told him that it’s been the city’s practice to grant such a variance for a limited quantity of windows, with the caveat that additional fire sprinklers must be installed to prevent fire from shooting out the windows into the adjacent building.

There’s also the understanding that if the adjacent building increases in height, the windows would be blocked in, Moore said. There are other opportunities for light in the units, so the windows on those sides would be “supplemental,” he said.

Ken Clein confirmed with Moore that the windows on the property line would be non-operable. He also asked about exterior materials that will be used. [Clein is an architect, and typically asks about exterior materials.] Moore explained that some of the color choices were made in response to feedback from the historic district commission.

Wendy Woods asked about the west side of the building, facing a back alley. The units on that side have balconies over the alley – what would those balconies be facing? Moore replied that most of the buildings on the other side of the alley are three stories high. So balconies on the Montgomery Building’s second and third floors would be looking across the alley at other residential units. Moore confirmed for Woods that the trash pickup and recycling takes place in that alley.

In response to another query from Woods, Moore reported that the studio apartments will be in the building’s southwest corner.

Clein asked about the first floor “arcade,” and wondered if that configuration would remain. Moore noted that the arcade walkthrough ceased to exist 10 years ago, when the hair salon expanded across the back of the building. The rear entrance from the alley serves only the hair salon and as an emergency exit. He said there’s been no commitment to a specific layout, so it’s possible that they could reestablish the arcade walkthrough.

Diane Giannola asked if there would be any coordination in the construction of this project and the adjacent expansion at the corner of Fourth and Liberty.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

It’s possible, Moore replied, though he noted that the buildings have separate ownership. The merchants on that street are sensitive about the sidewalks being closed all summer, so there’s an effort not to do that, he said. It depends on the timing of the construction for each project, however.

Jeremy Peters said he’s glad to see a project that could revitalize an area that seems to need some help. He liked the fact that the design would evoke the building’s historic facade, and was happy to see more density in the downtown core.

Bona asked about the building’s mechanicals. She said one deficiency in the city’s zoning code is a lack of requirements to screen the mechanical units. When screening does occur, it sometimes looks worse than just leaving the mechanicals exposed, she said.

Moore explained that there would be a screen of the rooftop mechanicals, behind the penthouse. The building will likely use a heat-pump system, he said, so that the only equipment mounted on the roof will be a boiler and a chiller. There will be a parapet around the perimeter of the roof that’s about two feet tall, and the mechanical screen will rise above that, but will be unenclosed at the top.

Bona wondered what it would look like if someone were to look down onto the roof from a taller building. Moore indicated that there might be room for potential solar panels toward the back of the roof, but three sides in front will have a green roof, wrapping around patios.

Sabra Briere asked about the noise that would be generated by the mechanicals. She hears from people about the noise caused by such heating and cooling elements, especially from residents whose units back up to shared alleys. Moore said he hoped the screening would address that to some extent. He didn’t know how many decibels the equipment would generate. Briere hoped he would keep the noise factor in mind as the project moved forward.

Clein noted that from his experience, most modern boilers and chillers are fairly quiet. [Clein is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects.] Condensers and pressers tend to make a lot of noise, he observed – but those won’t be used in this project. He wondered whether the mechanicals include an emergency generator. Moore replied that the generator will likely be located in the basement.

A slide from the city planning staff’s presentation showing a photo of the 1960 fire at the Montgomery Building on South Fourth Avenue.

Wendy Woods noted that fires had occurred in both the Montgomery Building and the adjacent Running Fit structure – was it the same fire? No, Moore replied. The fire at the Running Fit building pre-dated the Montgomery Building fire, which occurred in 1960. He noted that in doing historic research for this project at the Bentley Historical Library, he was amazed by how many buildings had burned in Ann Arbor. “It seemed to be a big problem,” he said.

Kirk Westphal said people were pleased that the building design respected the historical context. Referring to the city’s master plan, Westphal noted that it strongly encouraged active uses on the ground floor. He asked if the owners were willing to abide by those desires. “Absolutely,” Moore replied.

Westphal also asked about the contractor that would be used for this project – did they use local labor? Moore wasn’t certain but thought that they did. He noted that the contractor is a firm based in Ypsilanti.

Clein pointed out that despite the questions from commissioners, this is the kind of development that’s needed downtown and he hasn’t heard many people object to the project.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the site plan, which will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants

Planning commissioners were also asked to recommend approval of a site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. [.pdf of development agreement] The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Angeline Lawrence gave the staff report. The proposal calls for building two new freestanding restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. Bicycle parking will be added to the north and west entrances to Macy’s.

The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff have subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning is needed.

The city’s planning staff previously had recommended postponement in order to allow the developer to deal with some outstanding issues related to zoning, landscaping, easements and utilities. Those issues are now resolved, according to staff.

For example, concerns had been raised about the location of the area for trash and recycling. That area has been reconfigured and approved by the city’s solid waste staff. Also, plans were eliminated for a new detention pond on the northeast corner of the mall site, based on a recommendation by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. Instead, an existing detention pond on that site will be dredged and retrofitted.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Public Hearing

The only speaker during the public hearing for this project was Scott Richardson, representing the Briarwood Mall owners. He noted that he and the project’s engineer were on hand to answer any questions.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked staff to explain how they interpreted “this convoluted site” during their review of the project. She described it as a fairly odd-shaped site, and some of the improvements are being included not just near the restaurants, but elsewhere around the Macy’s building. She clarified with staff that the improvements, such as adding landscape islands in the parking area, are being done in response to the addition of the two restaurants.

Scott Richardson, a representative of the Briarwood Mall owners.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed to a page in the meeting packet that showed the site configuration of the mall and indicated each parcel’s ownership. [.pdf of site configuration] She said that at the Oct. 15 meeting, the planning staff was still struggling to understand how the parcel configuration ended up that way. As far as staff can tell, the parcels inside the mall’s “ring road” never went through a formal land division process, she said. “That was what we tried to untangle.”

Macy’s owns the land where the restaurants are proposed, Rampson explained, so the mall owners – Simon Company – are buying and developing that parcel.

Bona then asked Scott Richardson about the future development of the mall. It’s important to make sure that “we’re not boxing ourselves into something that looks like the past, instead of like the future,” she said. Bona wondered whether the mall site’s subdivisions would prevent the site from more progressive development in the future.

Richardson replied that when the company looks at a master plan for any mall that it’s developing, “we tend to lose sight of the property lines.” When there’s a “win-win” for all of the parties involved, he said, “there’s ultimately a deal that can be done” to allow for what he called “grand development.” Even though parcel lines might change, nothing being done for this restaurant deal will eliminate the possibility for anything in the future, he said. Representatives for Simon Company meet at least quarterly with representatives from the key department store companies, he said, to talk about issues that arise, including opportunities for future development.

As an example, it would be possible to develop the property so that the road in front of the two new restaurants becomes “like an intimate Main Street,” Richardson said, with additional shops, restaurants – or even a parking structure with some residential units above it, built to face the street. He said that everyone recognizes the fact that a lot of parking is underused, and a lot of the site is undervalued and can be improved. It’s not a change that happens quickly, he added, but it’s something “that we certainly have on our plate, to make sure that we think big picture – because the last thing you want to do is sell yourself short in the future for a bird in the hand today.”

Bona said she was glad Richardson “could see more optimism here than I’m seeing, so I’ll take you at your word.” She then asked about the number of trees and bioswales on the site, saying that at first glance it seemed to her to be in excess of what would be required by the two new restaurant buildings. She noted that it seemed to relate to the fact that two parcels were impacting this development – a parcel owned by Macy’s, a the parcel owned by Simon Company.

City planner Angeline Lawrence replied that 169 trees are required by code for the Macy’s parcel, but the city allowed the developer to count some of the existing trees on the site as part of that total. That means that only 133 trees will be added, she said.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh.

Bona also wondered how the regional detention system worked. Lawrence replied that the existing detention pond is just to the north of the proposed new restaurant site. There’s a similar pond on the other side of Briarwood Circle, she said. The plan calls for dredging sediment from the bottom of the existing detention pond that’s near the to-be-developed site, and to install a new pipe that would allow runoff to flow into that pond.

Rampson added that when Briarwood Mall was developed, a regional detention system was created for the whole area. The detention ponds drain east into Malletts Creek.

Jeremy Peters asked about a possible scenario in which one of the core companies at the mall goes out of business, and was sold to a “less cooperative” holding company. Would the property lines pose any problems in that case? Richardson replied that the property lines have nothing to do with what happens in that situation. There are legally binding documents between the mall developer and the property owner, he explained, that restrict what a retailer can or can’t do with their property. There would also be a dialogue between Simon Company and the retailer, he said, because Simon Company has more invested in Briarwood Mall than any individual retailer, and would “vigorously” protect its asset.

Saying that she frequented the mall, Eleanore Adenekan asked about handicapped parking spaces. Richardson assured her that all of the spaces are being designed to meet current Americans with Disabilities (ADA) codes.

In response to a query from Ken Clein, the project’s engineer – Gary Tressel, with the engineering firm of Hubbell, Roth & Clark in Bloomfield Hills – explained that the lights in the parking lot at Macy’s will be retrofitted with LED fixtures. The new parking area will also have LED fixtures.

Noting that it wasn’t directly related to this project, Wendy Woods asked about a new skating area at the mall. Richardson replied that an inside “faux ice” skating rink was installed in the mall near the JC Penney store. He described how skaters use special shoes with pads to simulate ice skating.

Outcome: The site plan and development agreement was unanimously approved. The proposal will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

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

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The proposal calls for building two new freestanding restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff have subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning is needed.

Last month, the city’s planning staff had recommended postponement in order to allow the developer to deal with some outstanding issues related to zoning, landscaping, easements and utilities. Those issues are now resolved, according to staff. The proposal will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Running Fit building at East Liberty and Fourth Avenue. A proposal calls for building three additional floors for apartments or condos. The adjacent building owner is concerned about blocking the three windows – barely visible in this photo – that are in apartments facing over the current one-story building. (Photos by the writer.)

Questions and comments covered a range of issues, including potential conflict of interest over a lot next to city hall that’s owned by the University of Michigan Credit Union. Five commissioners are UMCU members, and the credit union president objects to a proposed rezoning of the site. Other discussion points included affordable housing premiums, the use of diagonals as a tool for influencing the shape of tall buildings, and concerns over rezoning public land.

Ten people spoke during a public hearing on the zoning review. Before the hearing began, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal stated that the hearing would likely continue at a future meeting, but that speakers would be allowed only one turn during the entire hearing – either that night, or at a subsequent meeting. Midway through the hearing, Sabra Briere raised an objection to Westphal’s ruling, and commissioners spent about 20 minutes debating the issue. The commission ultimately voted to allow for people to speak more than once when the public hearing is continued, over the objection of Westphal, Diane Giannola and Wendy Woods.

Consultant Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates attended the Oct. 15 meeting and answered questions from commissioners, but her contract for this project has now expired. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that any additional work from Perdu would require city council approval.

In addition to the downtown zoning review, two development projects were on the Oct. 15 agenda. Commissioners recommended approval of an three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth. The expansion will create six residential units.

During a public hearing on the project, Ali Almiri – who owns the adjacent building to the west at 119 E. Liberty – raised concerns that three bedroom windows in his building’s residential rental units would be blocked by this new structure. He and his attorney urged that the new project be required to accommodate those existing windows. The issue will continue to be investigated by planning staff, building staff and possibly the city attorney’s office prior to the project’s consideration by the city council.

Another proposal – related to plans for two new restaurants at Briarwood Mall, on the east side of Macy’s – was postponed, because of several outstanding issues that still need to be resolved.

During public commentary, Alex Perlman, a co-owner of the food carts The Beet Box and Cheese Dream, highlighted a project at 1215 S. University – the former location of Pinball Pete’s, which burned down in 2009. The project, called Eat the Hub, would repurpose the space as a temporary food cart yard that would accommodate between three to six carts. Perlman noted that current city ordinances “don’t reflect the ever-changing landscape that mobile food businesses require.” He said he’d appreciate any help to move this project forward.

Downtown Zoning Review

The Oct. 15 agenda included a public hearing and discussion of the revised report on downtown zoning changes. The report had been originally presented at the planning commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. Based on feedback from the working session, Erin Perdu, a consultant hired to oversee the project, made some changes to her original recommendations. [.pdf of revised 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]

The zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission that was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development. Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2, which was adopted in 2009.

On Oct. 15, Perdu reviewed the process and public engagement that had taken place since July. She also highlighted changes that had been made based on feedback from planning commissioners at an Oct. 8 working session.

Illustration showing potential development on Main Street between William and Packard, if recommendations for new zoning standards are adopted. The changes would include reduced height and a new diagonal requirement, compared to existing zoning.

The revised recommendations reviewed on Oct. 15 include: (1) rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) rezone the Municipal Center parcel from PL (public land) to D2; (3) reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 130 feet; (4) rezone the D-zoned parcels on the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue (where city hall is located) from East Huron 2 Character District to East Huron 1 Character District; (5) change the maximum height in the Main Street Character District to 150 feet when within 20 feet of a residentially zoned area and add a tower diagonal requirement of 50% of the maximum parcel diagonal; (6) rezone the south half of the parcel at 425 S. Main (between William and Packard) from D1 to D2.

In addition, several recommendations relate to premiums: (1) require approval of the design review board for a project to be eligible for any premium; (2) revise the residential premium to be more specific about the types of units that will be eligible for premiums; (3) revise the affordable housing premium so that the provision of affordable housing is mandatory for receiving any premiums; (4) eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) include other types of premiums in addition to those currently available.

Perdu noted that other issues emerged during the review that are outside of the project’s scope, but that she and the city staff felt should receive additional attention from the city. Those issues are: (1) consider a review of D1 zoning for other “sensitive” properties that were not identified in the city council resolution, such as some areas of South University and Thayer; (2) survey what other communities have done to regulate the shading impacts of new high-rise developments, in addition to requiring step-backs and diagonals; and (3) further study of the sewer and stormwater infrastructure, and the connection between new development and requiring city residents to disconnect their footing drains.

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

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing

In total, 10 people spoke during the public hearing. In opening the hearing, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal stated that he anticipated the commission’s discussion would carry over to another meeting. In that case, the public hearing would be continued. However, he asked that people only speak one time during the hearing – so if they spoke that night, they would not be able to take another turn when the hearing continued on a different date. He noted that there are other opportunities to address the commission at the end of each meeting. [There is also public commentary at the start of each meeting.]

Jeff Crockett and Eleanor Pollack wait to speak during the Oct. 15 public hearing.

Piotr Michalowski told commissioners that he lived at the corner of Packard and Fourth. He thanked them for doing this difficult job, but said there are still some problems. He’s appalled by the prospect of what’s suggested for the Main Street corridor. There’s no reason for property there to be zoned D1 – any development would tower over the neighborhood. And why does the south entrance to Ann Arbor, with its low two- and three-story buildings, have to be zoned for buildings of such “monstrous” proportions? It should be zoned D2 or some other kind of creative zoning. Many houses in that area are historic and owner-occupied. He said the neighborhood has already been destroyed by the “monstrosity” on Fifth Avenue – City Place apartments. You can’t just allow for someone to build another horror, he said. Michalowski urged commissioners to reconsider this recommendation.

Eppie Potts objected to the constraint that someone could only speak once during the public hearing, even if it was carried over to additional meetings. “I’m really upset that we have to choose between tonight and whenever it is you take this up again.” People have input that would be useful, she said.

Tom Petiet, owner of 432 S. Fourth Ave., wanted to see the entire lot at Main and William zoned D2. Even though many houses near there aren’t owner-occupied, “renters have rights as well,” he said. There’s a garden at his house that would get less light if a tall building is constructed, so it’s a problem if there’s a building that’s two or three times as high as the existing DTE building. He noted that when the DTE building was proposed, the city promised residents that the building would have a three-foot setback from the alley, but that didn’t happen, he said. There’s no setback now. He’d recommend the commission go back to the drawing board regarding the zoning of this parcel.

Jeff Crockett complimented the city council and planning commission. He couldn’t recall a public input process like this, with numerous opportunities for people to give feedback. The report’s renderings were well done. Although he didn’t agree with every outcome, it’s a process that should be replicated in the future. He referred to the report’s recommendations regarding East Huron, and said he really wished these considerations had been in place four years ago. If these standards had been applied, then the 413 E. Huron project wouldn’t exist in its present form.

He also praised the fact that the recommendations would put teeth into the design review, but he’s concerned about some omissions. He said he’d spoken to the planning commission about the impact on trees, and he sees nothing in the recommendations that addresses this issue. Trees are covered under the city’s guidelines on natural features, he said, but there’s no teeth behind those guidelines. If trees are impacted, the only response is mitigation, “which essentially does very little.” You can knock down a 250-year-old oak tree and replace it with a few saplings, he said, and that’s totally unsatisfactory – especially considering that the city is named after trees.

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing – Debate over Continuation

After four people had spoken during the public hearing, Sabra Briere spoke up, saying she’d like to make a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair about the continuation of the public hearing. It seemed to her that the practice of the commission was to allow people to speak again, if a public hearing is continued over multiple meetings. Bonnie Bona seconded the motion.

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

Wendy Woods said she didn’t understand why the public hearing was being interrupted. It was her understanding that people could only speak once during a public hearing, even if it’s continued. That rule may not always be adhered to, she noted, because it can be hard to keep track of who has spoken previously. Diane Giannola said she remembered the rule in the same way as Woods, though she noted that sometimes the commission is more lenient and lets people speak twice.

Eleanore Adenekan didn’t think it was appropriate to stop the public hearing. Commissioners could have this discussion after the hearing, she said.

Briere replied that she’d looked up the point of order in Robert’s Rules of Order, and it stated that an appeal should be made as soon as possible after a ruling has been made, and that it’s appropriate to interrupt the speaker who has the floor, in order to appeal a ruling of the chair. She said she’s witnessed people speaking more than once at a public hearing, though the commission might not be rigorous in keeping track of names. But proposals often change, she said, and the commission has allowed people to speak when that happens.

Bona noted that regardless of the rules, this downtown zoning review “is a moving target.” It’s a complicated issue, and the commission hasn’t finished discussing the report or making changes. She expected people might have something important to say if the discussion continues at another meeting. That’s why she was in favor of allowing people to speak, even if it makes the commission’s meetings longer.

Jeremy Peters agreed with Bona and Briere, because it seemed like the rules haven’t been consistently applied, and out of an interest in hearing public commentary on issues that are very important.

Kirk Westphal said he took comfort in knowing that there’s an opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting. Peters pointed out that in that case, a decision would already have been made by the commission.

Adenekan explained that she didn’t object to having people speak more than once. But when Westphal had stated the one-turn rule at the start of the hearing, no one had objected, she said. She opposed interrupting the hearing to decide this issue. Briere replied that she had been checking the parliamentary rules to make certain that her understanding was accurate – that’s why she didn’t object immediately.

Giannola called it a standard rule at city council and the planning commission, though she again noted that it wasn’t followed consistently. “I guess we’re sort of being punished now for being generous in some of the other public meetings.” If people speak more than one time, the public hearings last for hours and hours, she said, and some people don’t attend to have their say because the hearings are so long. Everyone should have the chance to speak.

Giannola pointed out that email is an effective way to communicate, and can be even more effective than speaking in person. Bona agreed, and encouraged people to provide written comments, even if they also decide to speak at the hearing.

Woods said she didn’t think Westphal had made a ruling, as Briere had stated. He had just been reminding people of the commission’s rules, Woods said. It was standard practice, to make sure that everyone has the chance to speak. “I’m sorry if people are offended, but I do think that if we have these rules, either we’re going to have them or we’re not.” She said she might support allowing people to speak more than once, but it should be clear that this is an exception. “I also don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be somehow blindsided by something that …wasn’t a part of how we’ve been operating.”

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters.

Saying he didn’t have a stake in how this turns out, Paras Parekh said he’d just like the commission to follow its rules and be consistent, one way or another.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the commission’s bylaws are silent on this issue, but the city council rules are very specific about only allowing one speaking turn per hearing. In the past, when a public hearing is continued and additional information might be coming forward at a future meeting, it makes sense to allow people to review a revised plan, she said. When nothing is anticipated to change, “it’s really open to interpretation about how much time or how many opportunities people have to be able to speak,” she said. “We’ve done both practices.”

Giannola said she couldn’t support Briere’s proposal, because she thinks that process and precedent are important. Going forward, the commission will be setting a precedent, so commissioners should be aware of what their vote will mean.

Giannola also wondered if the chair could vote, since the motion related to his action. “In America, everybody gets a vote,” Woods quipped.

It was clarified that an affirmative vote would uphold the ruling of the chair, while a negative vote would overturn it and allow for people to speak more than once if the public hearing were continued.

Outcome: On a 3-5 vote, commissioners overturned the chair’s original ruling. Voting in favor of the original ruling were Kirk Westphal, Diane Giannola and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh.

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing – Continued

The public hearing continued. Eleanor Pollack said she thinks of the downtown core between State and Main streets as being bounded by the north side of William and the south side of Huron. Whatever occurs anywhere along the south side of William directly impacts an in-town residential neighborhood. The same is true for the north side of Huron, she said.

The fact that there is also commercial activity in these areas doesn’t diminish the need for careful constriction of new development, Pollack said. For these areas, D2 should be the most allowable density, and it should be further tempered by approval of the design review board for a project to be eligible for any premium. For over 40 years, residents of in-town neighborhoods have asked the city to ensure that adjacent new development be respectful of the neighborhoods and compatible with them. Now is the time for the city to respond to those requests in a concrete way, she concluded.

Will Leaf said the planning commission and city council have the opportunity to provide more space for people to live and work without harming the near downtown residential neighborhoods. Two problems are facing Ann Arbor and the rest of the country, he said: (1) poverty and the lack of affordable housing for poor and middle-class people, and (2) the destruction of the environment. Both are affected by the amount of space downtown. Why is housing more expensive in downtown Ann Arbor, compared to rural areas like in Pittsfield Township? The answer is space, Leaf said, and the value of the land. “If you could create more space, I think you could reduce the cost of housing.”

From left: Jack Eaton and Ted Annis.

Leaf recommended reading a report by the Harvard Institute of Economic Research: “The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability.” He read a section from the report, which stated that zoning restrictions appear to cause higher prices. He recommended allowing for taller buildings – that is, more space – further away from residential neighborhoods, perhaps by limiting the maximum height of the structure to one-half the distance to the nearest restricted area. That would be a comprehensive way of addressing the D2 buffering problem. If it’s addressed parcel-by-parcel, Leaf thought there would be perpetual issues of people not feeling that their neighborhood is protected sufficiently.

Regarding the environment, it’s better to have more people living downtown where they can be less dependent on the automobile, he said. It improves air quality and reduces traffic. The way to do that is to lower the cost of housing by creating more space for it. He’s in favor of a variable height limit, which would allow taller buildings in the center of downtown, and shorter ones around the edge. He drew an analogy to Ford Motor Co. giving out a million Jaguars – it would have the effect of lowering car prices. The same would be true if more downtown housing is built.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council. The ward has been almost entirely left out of this discussion because it’s not within the boundaries of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, he said. Under the tenure of mayor John Hieftje and of the Republican leadership prior to that, there have been no policies that require zoning for affordable housing or that promote diversity of housing in every block of the city, Partridge contended. He likened it to attitudes of the Klu Klux Klan when they came to Ann Arbor several years ago.

Eppie Potts said she was glad to hear the commission’s discussion at their Oct. 8 working session, including changes to D1 and D2 zoning, as well as premiums. The city isn’t getting public benefits from premiums, so she’s glad those are being reconsidered. But do commissioners really think D2 is a buffer? she asked. It allows for buildings that are twice as high as the nearby neighborhoods. And why limit the locations that the commission is discussing to the three sites that were mentioned by the city council? There are other locations at the edge of downtown that would be “devastated” by D1 zoning, she said. New premiums are also needed – such as required open space, affordable housing and design that respects context.

Ted Annis called the zoning recommendation for the parcel at Main and William a “mistake.” Even though the report notes that D2 was the most popular zoning option for that site based on responses to an online survey, the consultant didn’t recommend D2 on that site. He took great exception to that conclusion, and he hoped commissioners did, too. D1 zoning on that corner would allow for a building that’s massive and inconsistent with surrounding buildings. He urged the commission to send the report back to the consultant, Erin Perdu, and have D2 for the entire site incorporated into the report before it goes to city council. [Perdu's recommendation is to zone half of the site – at the southeast corner of Main and William – as D1, with the other half D2.]

Julie Ritter said there seems to be a fear of offending developers and sending them away from Ann Arbor, and she’s curious about that. She noted that she worked in commercial real estate for 11 years, and was personally responsible for the operation of two shopping centers and several office buildings in southeast Michigan, and did due diligence on buildings in other states. Real estate development is a very aggressive industry. “I’ve seen incredible power plays. I’ve seen grown men cry,” she said. But developers have very thick skins and they don’t scare easily. They’re smart and rational, “and if they smell money, they will figure out a way to get it.”

There’s a lot of development happening, Ritter said, and Ann Arbor is losing its unique character. Developers don’t like uncertainty, and become anxious if they don’t know what they’re supposed to do and if that uncertainty costs them money. If they know the expectations in advance – and know that the requirements will be enforced – they’ll figure out how to make it work. Give them a high bar and enforce it, she said, and give residents buildings that they can get behind and be excited about rather than dismayed by. Don’t be intimidated by developers’ threats of lawsuits or financial hardship. The commission has a lot of power, Ritter said, and she wanted them to use it consciously and wisely to make Ann Arbor the “great, beautiful, civilized city that we all envision.”

The final speaker was Doug Kelbaugh, professor at the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning. “I would have been a little bit peppier, had it been earlier,” he joked. His remarks restated commentary he made at the Oct. 8 work session. There are three very vulnerable areas that were designated D1 in 2009 and that need the commission’s close scrutiny: (1) on Thayer near North University; (2) the former Borders bookstore site on East Liberty; and (3) the area along Ann and Fourth. William and Main is a tough call, Kelbaugh said, adding that he understands the dynamics there. He visited the site again and think the possible height is exacerbated because there’s a rise coming into town just south of the site, which would exaggerate the height. Any building at the corner of Main and William should be roughly the height of the existing DTE building, roughly 100 feet. It seems reasonable to have split zoning on that site, he said – adding that’s often the norm.

Kelbaugh said he often uses the former Y lot for a class exercise, asking his students to design development there. Most students don’t go as high as 180 feet or even 150 feet because they think it’s too tall in that location. And these are students, he noted, who are generally in favor of the most exotic and dramatic architecture possible. Finally, he said the northern portion of Huron needs to be a new kind of zone. Perhaps there should be new zoning east of Maynard as well, he said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Credit Union

Wendy Woods began by noting that the commission had received an email from Tiffany Ford, CEO of the University of Michigan Credit Union. [.pdf of Tiffany Ford's email] The credit union owns a parcel next to city hall that’s being considered for rezoning from D1 to D2, and Ford’s email states that she is “completely opposed to the downzoning.”

Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates.

Woods told commissioners that she’s a member of UMCU, and wasn’t sure whether she should recuse herself from this issue or get an opinion from the city attorney. As there are about 55,000 members, “I may not be the only one,” she said.

Four other members indicated that they are also UMCU members: Kirk Westphal, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters and Sabra Briere.

Briere said she thought recusals are allowed only if the decision affects you materially. “I don’t believe that my decision is likely to affect me materially and uniquely,” she said. Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that the discussion is about a recommendation to do something, not the action itself. However, she suggested that commissioners could hold off on discussing that particular parcel and she would check with the city attorney’s office for guidance. There are plenty of other items that commissioners can address first, she said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Diagonals

Sabra Briere asked about diagonals, noting that Erin Perdu had recommended the use of diagonals in two specific areas – at Main and William, and in the East Huron 1 character district. Briere wondered whether the city should consider using diagonals across the entire D1 zoning, beyond just specific areas. [Diagonals are a method of controlling shape, and typically allow for taller but less massive buildings.]

Perdu replied that her recommendations were based on the sites that the city had specifically hired her to evaluate. But it would be appropriate to look at using diagonals for the entire D1 area, she said.

In explaining how she had arrived at the specific diagonal recommendation, Perdu said she recommended a flat number for the East Huron 1 character district because the parcels along that street are more uniform in size. In contrast, the site at Main and William is very large. To determine the diagonal for that site, Perdu said she tested the diagonals on existing buildings in that area, and made a proportional recommendation based on those comparisons.

Paras Parekh asked how Perdu arrived at the 130-foot diagonal requirement for the East Huron 1 character district. Perdu replied that she looked at the table of existing buildings that the city planning staff had compiled. [.pdf list of downtown development projects since 2000] The 130-foot maximum was recommended in order to keep any new development in scale with existing buildings in that area, she said. It’s something that could be studied further and refined, she said.

Kirk Wesphal noted that the diagonal for the Main and William site – 50% of the maximum parcel diagonal – is recommended for the entire Main Street character district. Perdu clarified that it would be required if a building is within 20 feet of a residential area. Rampson explained that the Main and William site is the only parcel that falls within 20 feet of a residential area. All other parcels in the Main Street character district are adjacent to D1 or D2 sites.

Westphal said he’d be in favor of figuring out what the ideal diagonal is to orient sunlight toward the neighborhood.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Extending East Huron 1

The current East Huron 1 character district runs from Division to State, on the north side of Huron. The recommendation calls for extending that district westward to include the north half of the block between Division and Fifth. So it would include the parcel where Ahmo’s Gyros & Deli is now located, which is currently zoned D1. The downzoning would reduce the maximum height of development in that block to 120 feet (from the current 180 feet) and include new diagonal regulations recommended for the East Huron 1 character district.

Perdu noted that the owners of the properties that would be affected by this change haven’t been contacted yet. It would be a big change for the development potential of those properties, and Perdu recommended that someone from the city should reach out to the owners before any changes are made.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Premiums

Bonnie Bona referred to a comment made during the public hearing about the affordability of housing downtown. One of her concerns is that adding an affordable housing premium makes all of downtown housing potentially less affordable. She asked Perdu for feedback about how adding premiums might threaten the affordability of downtown housing.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Perdu replied that it’s an issue that the consultants, city staff and Ann Arbor housing commission struggled with. By including an affordable housing option as a premium, it’s potentially increasing the cost of development. But developers aren’t obligated to take advantage of that premium, she noted.

Perdu reported that this was also an issue that arose when discussing the recommendation to make the design review approval mandatory, in order to secure premiums. That requirement could extend the time it takes to work through the approval process, and in turn make a project more expensive. It’s difficult to quantify, she said. Perdu added that she heard from several developers who are concerned that the city might incentivize affordable housing at the expense of middle-of-the-road pricing.

Bona thought the quality of construction could also be threatened, if a developer is looking to cut costs. Rather than making a mandatory affordable housing provision for premiums – by either providing affordable housing on site or through a payment in lieu – perhaps a requirement of open space could be made instead. She asked for Perdu’s feedback on the idea that a project would have to have provisions for either affordable housing or open space. Perdu said she hadn’t considered that approach, but it’s reasonable to consider.

Westphal said he echoed Bona’s concerns about affordability. Adding to the housing supply citywide is a great way to get more affordable units, he said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Height Cap

Westphal said he’d heard concerns about a height cap limiting flexibility. A cap wouldn’t give the design review board or any governing body the ability to make exceptions that would allow developers to shape a building to reduce shading. So if the city is making design review mandatory, he wondered if there’d been any thought to providing more flexibility regarding an absolute height limit.

Perdu noted that this issue had emerged during the Oct. 8 working session, and perhaps it was worth more discussion. She understands there’s also a tradeoff between implementing diagonal restrictions and height caps, and that’s something developers struggle with.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Rezoning Public Land

Briere noted that one of the recommendations is to rezone the city hall site from PL (public land) to D2. The rationale is to allow for the unification of D2 zoning parcels adjacent to city hall. She said she’s struggling with the concept of public land not being zoned as public land.

Perdu replied that the extension of D2 zoning was a “second tier” recommendation, beyond addressing what the council resolution had directed. The goal was to extend D2 zoning westward, to connect with other existing D2 parcels. One option was just rezoning the north portion of the city hall site, facing Ann Street. There was discussion about whether it was better to rezone a half block rather than a full block, and ultimately the recommendation was for the full block. If the city ever decides to move city hall, the site could be redeveloped, she noted.

Bona asked whether the master plan would need to be changed, if the city hall block is rezoned to D2. City planning manager Wendy Rampson said she’d recommend amending the downtown plan – which is part of the city’s master plan – for all of the zoning changes that might be made.

Bona suggested that one way to deal with the city hall parcel is to give direction in the master plan, rather than actually rezoning the site.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Ground Floor Uses

Westphal noted that one thing the planning commission and staff had recommended – that got removed by the council and didn’t end up in the final A2D2 zoning – was to require active uses in the ground floor levels of downtown buildings. There were specific streets that were proposed to have a certain degree of retail frontage. The only parcel that it would relate to in the current review would be the parcel at Main and William. He’d be interested in looking at that requirement again, to make the ground floors pedestrian-friendly, especially on Main Street. He asked Perdu if she had gotten any feedback on that issue.

Perdu reported that “downtown real estate interests” had expressed concern about having specific requirements for ground floor uses. She’d gotten feedback that it was more important to have a building that fit in with the “urban fabric” and had an active design, with ground floors that could be used for a variety of purposes.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Consulting Services

Bona asked about Perdu’s availability, beyond the meeting that evening. Rampson replied that Perdu’s contract has ended, and likely wouldn’t be available after the Oct. 15 meeting.

Woods wondered if it was possible to extend Perdu’s contract. Rampson said that any additional work from Perdu would require authorization from the city council.

Perdu said she’d be willing to respond to questions via email, even if she wasn’t able to attend future meetings.

Giannola suggested emailing questions to Perdu, and continuing the discussion at the next planning commission meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone the item on the downtown zoning review.

Running Fit Building

A proposal to build a three-story addition to the one-story building on the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth – where Running Fit is located – was on the commission’s Oct. 15 agenda. The building is located on three parcels: 121 and 123 E. Liberty, and 220 S. Fourth Ave.

Aerial view of the Running Fit building (indicted with crosshatches), at the northwest corner of East Liberty and South Fourth.

The site plan calls for keeping the first floor as retail space, and creating six residential units on the upper three floors – one two-bedroom and five one-bedroom units. The project’s architect, Brad Moore, indicated that a decision hasn’t been made yet about whether the units will be apartments or condos.

The expansion would increase the building’s square footage from 2,515 square feet to 8,530 square feet. Some of the units will be on two levels, connected by circular staircases. The fourth floor will include a smaller unit, roof decks and a “green roof” with plantings.

The location in Ward 1 is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development. It’s also located in the Main Street Historic District. The city’s historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness on Aug. 15, 2013.

In terms of historical background, there were originally two buildings on the site that were built in the 1800s, but burned down in the 1950s.

The project is expected to cost about $900,000.

The site plan approval is contingent on constructing two Class A bicycle parking spaces in the Fourth & William parking structure – located about a half-block away – or paying a contribution to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to install the spaces. No vehicle parking is required. One footing drain disconnection is required.

Running Fit would remain open during construction. Staff recommended approval of the project.

Running Fit Building: Public Hearing

Seven people spoke at the public hearing on this project. First in line was Tom Partridge, who introduced himself as a Ward 5 write-in candidate for the Ann Arbor city council. It’s discriminatory to handicapped and senior citizens to add new residences downtown without adequate parking, he said. He noted that the only parking required is for “the mayor’s all-time favorite bicycle, even though I go around town and I don’t think I’ve ever seen the mayor on a bicycle.” Partridge recommended tabling the proposal in order to come up with adequate vehicle parking.

Ellen Ramsburgh, a member of the city’s historic district commission, expressed her support for the project, saying the design is very appropriate for that corner and will make it more vibrant and useful. The project has support from the historic district commission, she noted.

From left: Attorney Dan Dever and Ali Almiri, who owns the building at 119 E. Liberty.

Dan Dever, an attorney for the owner of the adjacent building on East Liberty, said that they would applaud this project except for one thing. After the fire in the 1950s, in 1982 his client and the owners of the Running Fit building agreed to install three windows on the second story “common wall” – the wall of his client’s building that faces east. Those windows have been there for over 30 years, and if the windows go away, it will impact the residents in those rental units. It would be possible to design the new addition to step back and allow light and air to reach the windows, Dever said. There has been communication between the parties, and Dever said he wasn’t going to argue whether there was a license or a contract between the two property owners. But the situation hasn’t been adequately addressed, and it would impact the economic viability of those rental units. He asked the commission not to approve the project, saying it would have an adverse impact on his client’s building.

A tenant of one of the second-story apartments at 119 1/2 E. Liberty – and whose bedroom has a window that overlooks the current Running Fit building – expressed concern that the new building would shut out all natural light. She’s also concerned about how long the construction will take and how parking will be affected. She noted that there’s a senior apartment building nearby on Fourth Avenue, which would also be affected by construction and parking.

Ali Almiri, who owns the adjacent building at 119 E. Liberty, told commissioners that he’s been an Ann Arbor resident for over 40 years. His partner had gained permission in 1982 to put windows on the east wall, he contended. Almiri said his partner handled everything with city hall, but his partner and his partner’s wife both died and now Almiri has no record of that agreement. If the windows are covered, that would affect his rental income. Every two years, inspectors from the city come to inspect the building and no one has ever said anything about the windows, he noted.

Tom Bourque, the attorney for Running Fit’s owner, responded to the previous speakers. Although they’ve said there’s a purported agreement from 1982, there’s no documentation from the city to indicate that a variance was obtained to allow the windows to be installed, he said. The windows are actually through the east wall of 119 E. Liberty as well as through a wall that remained from the original adjacent structure after the fire. From a legal standpoint, if anything was ever granted, at most it was a license. He didn’t believe it could be the basis for tabling the project by the planning commission, because that’s not an issue that the commission would be deciding. It’s a legal issue, he said.

Regarding the inspections, Bourque said he presumed those were housing inspections and the inspectors would have assumed that the windows were installed with a variance from the city. There’s no record to show that, he said – no recorded easement, no document stating that the windows can be there permanently or that the windows “run with the land.” He said the Running Fit owners have offered to send their architect, Brad Moore, into the building at 119 E. Liberty to see if there’s another way to get light into the building. They’re still willing to do that, he added, but that shouldn’t affect what the planning commission does.

Architect Brad Moore noted that just one footing drain disconnect is required for this project. The Running Fit building has no footing drains currently connected to the sanitary sewer, he said. The existing footings can support the proposed addition, he noted. Moore said he was available to answer any questions.

Running Fit’s co-owner, Randy Step, attended the meeting but did not speak during the public hearing.

Running Fit Building: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere began the discussion by noting that she hadn’t noticed the windows on the adjacent building, and she asked staff why someone would need variances for those windows. She also asked what the city’s practice would have been when the windows were installed.

City planner Jill Thacher reported that the city’s building official is concerned about whether the windows are fire-rated – that is, would the windows keep a fire out of the building, and vice versa. The planning staff did a document search and didn’t find any record of planning approvals or other records for those windows. The building official has indicated that there are some plans that are stored off-site, and copies of those plans have been requested, Thacher said. But the planning staff hadn’t yet received those copies, so they don’t know if the windows were part of a previous remodeling plan.

Briere noted that the city has a history of ensuring that new construction includes windows for bedrooms. She embraces that, although her understanding is that it’s not required in the building code. She asked the architect, Brad Moore, whether he’d considered a design that included air wells or light wells for those adjacent residential units.

From left: Running Fit co-owner Randy Step and attorney Tom Bourque.

Moore replied that offsetting the upper stories to accommodate window wells doesn’t work with the existing footing structure, so that idea was abandoned early in the design process. The state building code doesn’t require windows in bedrooms, he noted. Alternative ideas include skylights or “sun pipes.” Moore reported that his client has asked him to go look at the adjacent building and see what alternatives could be achieved.

Briere wondered if it would be possible to create a vertical shaft where each window is located. She said she was only asking in order to ensure that she’s thought of all the options. Moore said it would not be a small shaft, and would result in the loss of too much square footage so the project wouldn’t be viable as a result.

Eleanore Adenekan asked if the units would be condos or apartments. Moore said that hasn’t been determined yet.

Bonnie Bona asked how the trash will be handled, since there is no alley next to the building. Moore replied that it will be taken care of as it’s done now, with dedicated space for trash cans in an alley off East Liberty that’s three buildings to the west, running between East Liberty and East Washington. You would take your trash bag and walk down the sidewalk to the alley, he said. Bona indicated that it seems like a good system, though it’s a bit of a longer walk than most residents have.

Bona also asked about what appeared to be bricked-over windows on Fourth Avenue. Moore explained that those are opaque now – inside is display and shelf space for Running Fit. The owners have indicated that they’d like to put public art in that spot, perhaps mosaics by local artists to enhance the pedestrian experience, he said.

Bona also asked about the corner of the upper stories, where it appears to have a section with two stories of glass. She wondered what was behind the glass. Moore said the corner unit is a two-story unit, and the glass is part of that unit. The same design is used for the stairwell in the back of the proposed structure.

Regarding requirements for the Americans with Disabilities Act, Bona confirmed with Moore that there isn’t an elevator in the building. Moore explained that ADA requirements don’t apply to apartments. The federal Fair Housing Act deals with residential units, he said, and requires elevators only for clusters of more than three dwelling units. This development is being crafted as two “assemblages,” Moore explained. Each of those assemblages has a staircase, but there’s no common circulation to all the units – so no elevator is required.

Bona also asked how far the building is from the Blake Transit Center. About two-thirds of a block, Moore replied. Bona said the proximity is “very lucky” for residents who’ll live there.

Bona referred to the staff report, which cited concerns by the Ann Arbor DDA that the project maintain pedestrian access during construction. She asked whether there was any assurance of that. Thacher said she wasn’t aware of any mechanism that could be used to ensure that the sidewalk remains open all the time. Sidewalks probably won’t stay open for the entire duration of the project, she said. Bona said that before the project is forwarded to the city council, it would be nice to see a proposal for how the owners plan to deal with that issue.

Regarding the window issue, Bona said she’s worked on a building that needed to get variances for windows on a zero lot line – otherwise, windows aren’t allowed unless they have special fire-suppression qualities. For the building she worked on, the owner had to secure an easement in order to put in windows. She suggested that the planning staff should get a better explanation of that situation before it goes to the city council. She didn’t think it should hold up action by the planning commission, however.

Jeremy Peters echoed Bona’s comments about the windows. It seems to be a legal issue and he hoped that the building owners could work something out, but he thought it fell outside the planning commission’s process. He thought the public benefit of a green roof is good for stormwater mitigation, and that the addition would not be out of character for that location.

Thacher indicated that planning staff would continue to work with building officials and the city attorney’s office on the window issue. She didn’t believe it was a site plan issue. They would need a more definitive answer on these outstanding questions before the project goes to the city council.

In response to a question from Kirk Westphal, Thacher said there are rules governing the hours when construction can occur – 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. She also reported that the project would require permits from the city if sidewalks are closed, and permission from the DDA if parking spaces are used for construction equipment and staging.

Wendy Woods asked whether Running Fit would remain open. Running Fit’s co-owner, Randy Step, replied that the store would stay open for business.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend approval of the site plan for the Running Fit project. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants

On the Oct. 15 agenda was a site plan and rezoning for two new restaurants at Briarwood Mall.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the Macy’s parcel, where two new restaurants are proposed.

Angeline Lawrence gave the staff report. The proposal calls for building two new freestanding restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana. There will be landscaping around the restaurants, and a pedestrian plaza area leading into Macy’s.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 108 spaces. Additional bicycle parking will be added. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094.

A portion of the parking lot would need to be rezoned from P (parking) to C2B (business service). The site is located in Ward 4.

By way of background, when the mall was built in 1973, the property was divided into seven parcels, each with its own parking. Over the years, several administrative amendments have been made to allow for additions and modifications to the original structure.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponement in order to allow the developer to deal with some outstanding issues related to zoning, landscaping, easements and utilities.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during the project’s public hearing. Tom Partridge called for planning commissioners to give senior citizens and others better access to the council chambers at city hall, saying that it didn’t currently meet fire code or ADA regulations. He also criticized representatives of developers in general for deliberately speaking in low volumes so that they couldn’t be heard. He said he was in favor of business and economic development, but this site plan was taking away needed parking spaces. He indicated that it was difficult to find parking at Briarwood Mall, especially handicapped spaces. Perhaps the restaurants should be required to provide off-site parking, he said, and transportation to and from the site.

Scott Richardson, representing the Briarwood Mall owners, said the new restaurants and other mall improvements will be a great benefit. He responded to staff comments regarding outstanding issues, and indicated that they are being addressed. He hoped that rather than postponing, the commission could vote to recommend the proposal, so that it could move forward to the city council. The hope is to complete construction of the restaurants so that they’ll be open by the holiday season of 2014, so there’s not a lot of time to spare, he said.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Commission Discussion

In response to a question from Diane Giannola, Scott Richardson clarified that there won’t be a road between the restaurants and Macy’s. The back of the restaurants will be just over 10 feet from the Macy’s wall. It’s a code-based separation, and isn’t intended for use by the public. The entrance to Macy’s will be between the two restaurants, and there will be landscaping to mask the space between the restaurants and the Macy’s wall.

Scott Richardson, a representative of Simon Company, the developer of Briarwood Mall.

In response to a query from Wendy Woods, Richardson said that Macy’s has embraced this concept of putting restaurants in front of its stores. Exterior walls of older department store buildings “are not the most aesthetically pleasing to look at,” he noted. So instead of looking at large cinder-block walls, it’s better to line them with restaurants that have architectural interest and life to provide a better experience for the shopper, he said. In general, the mall owners would like to see restaurants built against the mall, Richardson said, rather than located in “out parcels.” The goal is to promote cross-shopping, and to extend the duration of a shopper at the mall. If shoppers have to drive to a restaurant to eat, they’re more likely to leave and not return to the mall, he said.

Responding to another question, Richardson said the area where the restaurants will be located is designated for Macy’s expansion, and they are forgoing that opportunity for expansion.

Woods then asked Richardson to explain the concern that the city’s fire department had. Woods was referring to this section of the staff memo:

The entire footprint for Macy’s does not meet the 250 foot hydrant radius requirement. The site plan shows two hydrants, one on the northwest and the other on the northeast of Macy’s. However, the Fire Marshall has indicated that they are Post Indicator Values (PIV’s) and not hydrants; they cannot be used to meet hydrant radius requirements. The proposed FDC for proposed restaurant A does not meet the minimum 100 foot distance from a supporting hydrant.

Gary Tressel – with the engineering firm of Hubbell, Roth & Clark in Bloomfield Hills – responded. He indicated that the project will add two hydrants to bring it into compliance, and those will be included in the final engineering drawings that will be submitted to the city.

Woods wondered how the project would handle the dumpster areas. The city staff had indicated that the dumpster areas for these restaurants would need to be widened to create a 20-foot clear opening for a second dumpster for recycling. Richardson wasn’t sure how this would be handled, because it’s physically not possible to provide that 20-foot requirement at that location. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said it’s possible that the requirement could be waived or that other alternatives could be explored – such as providing another location for recycling in the vicinity.

Sabra Briere was concerned whether the new buildings will leave enough space for deliveries to be made in a corridor that serves Macy’s and other shops in the mall. Richardson replied that currently, delivery trucks park in the lane and use hand trucks to take deliveries into the mall. This new project will create a “service court,” he said, to be used for deliveries both to the restaurants as well as the mall stores. So trucks will be able to back up into the court, rather than park on the lane next to the mall. It’s the same area that will be used for trash and recycling pick-up, he said.

Briere wanted to know how composting will be handled for the restaurants. That’s a question that the restaurants need to answer when those specific site plans come in for approval, Richardson said. Briere suggested that he make the restaurants aware that the city is moving toward commercial composting, and that commercial recycling is already required.

Bonnie Bona asked about how the project fits into the city’s master plan for that area. “Malls are not where we want our urban planning to go,” she said, describing malls as “an isolated interior space surrounded by a ton of parking.” The city would rather see something more vibrant and more mixed use.

The east entrace to Macy’s at Briarwood Mall, where new restaurants are proposed.

The master plan for the Briarwood Mall area includes a recommendation to develop a safe designated pedestrian pathway from crosswalks to mall entrances through the parking lot, and to evaluate “innovative parking solutions” to use land more efficiently. The master plan also supports the rezoning of P (parking) districts to C2B (business service), as part of redeveloping the mall to increase its floor-area ratio (FAR).

Bona noted that the landscaping and paving plan for this proposed restaurant area is more detailed than is the landscaping on the entire Briarwood site. “The landscaping at Briarwood is pretty…” Bona paused, and Richardson quipped: “You can stop at pretty.”

Bona said landscaping is almost non-existent in other parts of the mall site, and she liked that the new plan for these restaurants to include making the area more attractive for pedestrians.

Bona asked how this project was part of a larger plan to make the mall more dynamic and “village-like.” She said she’s a proponent of not tearing down buildings, because that’s wasteful, but she hoped the buildings evolved into mixed-use space. She also told Richardson that the pedestrian connections to the restaurants “look entirely random.” She felt that the attention paid to the pedestrian experience stopped at the curb.

Regarding long-term plans, Richardson said “you’ve got to start somewhere.” He noted that two-thirds to three-fourths of the parking lot at the mall is owned by other entities – not Simon Company, the Indianapolis-based firm that developed the mall. So Simon Company doesn’t have the ability to make changes there. Within Simon Company, there’s a unit called the asset intensification group, with the sole goal of taking surface parking lots and making the uses there more intense, by adding residential, office, medical, entertainment or other uses. To make that happen, Richardson said, there needs to be a public/private partnership, because “it’s not cheap.”

Bona said it wasn’t her intention to redesign Briarwood Mall on the spot. She wondered if there are things that the city can do to help facilitate a more intensive, desirable development – like a parking structure with retail uses on the first floor, rather than surface parking, which she called a “stormwater nightmare.”

Richardson replied that he’s “a young, ambitious developer at Simon, and I want to make every one of my assets the best.”

Rampson pointed out a challenge: The built infrastructure on the site hasn’t been addressed since 1987.

Regarding pedestrian connectivity, Richardson said that although it might not appear to be appealing, he thought it would be quite nice.

Jeremy Peters brought up the issue of bioswales, noting that the city’s staff didn’t believe the requirement for bio-retention had been met, given the number of parking spaces on the site. Richardson said that the project team planned to sit down with city staff and review the requirements, and if the bioswales aren’t big enough, they’ll be enlarged.

Kirk Westphal wondered what the maintenance schedule is for the mall’s bioswales. Tressel replied that litter pick-up would occur every week or so, depending on the need. There’s also an annual maintenance program for the bioswales, he said.

Westphal also asked whether there was ever consideration of making this a mixed-use project. “Not at this time,” Richardson replied, saying that the company doesn’t believe there’s demand for it. They’re also hampered by not owning parcels that would be appropriate for that kind of development. Long-term, the company is looking at it, especially because Ann Arbor is a college town, he said.

Westphal pointed out that the existing parking seems to exceed the maximum allowed by the city. Rampson replied that the site is considered non-conforming, because of that issue. The current project is proposing to remove parking spaces, she noted. “If they were going in the opposite direction, then that would require a variance.”

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Referring to peak parking capacity, Westphal asked if there are occasions when all the parking is used. Richardson reported that Briarwood Mall, compared to similar sized malls, has more parking per retail square footage. It’s busy between Nov. 15 and Dec. 31, he said, but other than that, parking isn’t an issue.

Giannola confirmed that the holiday season is the only time when the parking at Briarwood is at or near capacity.

Bona asked about whether there was only one bus stop. Yes, Richardson said, and it was recently relocated. A new bus shelter was also constructed, in conjunction with the recent mall renovation. Bona wondered whether there’s a need for more than one stop, since the mall is so large. Richardson said he’d be happy to discuss it with mall management.

Briere reported that she had just Googled the bus stops and it showed two locations at the mall. Richardson suggested that perhaps the map hadn’t yet been updated. The bus stop has been moved, and there’s only one, he said.

Woods thanked Richardson for keeping the bus stop at the mall. “There’s another part of town where that changed,” she noted. [Woods was referring to the decision by the owners of Arborland on Washtenaw Avenue not to allow an AAATA bus stop on their property.]

Woods asked if people park at Briarwood Mall on game days for University of Michigan football. Richardson said he wasn’t sure about parking, but the two new hotels that have opened in that area are fully booked on weekends when there are home games. “They kind of validate the demand” for hotel rooms, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to postpone action on the proposal.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Eat the Hub

Alex Perlman, a co-owner of the food carts The Beet Box and Cheese Dream, addressed commissioners during public commentary at the start of the meeting about a project at 1215 S. University. That site is the former location of Pinball Pete’s, which burned down in 2009. It’s been a blight on the South University corridor, he said, so he’s been working on a solution.

Alex Perlman, co-owner of The Beet Box and Cheese Dream, is proposing a new food cart area at 1215 S. University called Eat the Hub.

The project, called Eat the Hub, would repurpose the space as a temporary food cart yard that would accommodate between three to six carts. Perlman said he’s been working with planning staff, who’ve been helpful. But unfortunately, he added, current city ordinances “don’t reflect the ever-changing landscape that mobile food businesses require.” He said he’d appreciate any help to move this project forward.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager’s Report

As part of her planning manager’s report, Wendy Rampson, reported that earlier in the month the city staff held a public meeting about the intersection of Nixon, Dhu Varren and Green roads. The staff was on hand to answer questions and get feedback about the intersection, which she described as an “odd, offset intersection” with four-way stops that has caused concern in that neighborhood. With a potential development proposal on Nixon, the staff has heard a lot of concern, Rampson said. As a result of the meeting, there will be more information posted on the city’s website in a Q&A-style format, she said.

Any project there would eventually be part of the capital improvements plan (CIP), Rampson said. The CIP is up for an off-year review, she noted – not the full overhaul, but an update. The planning commission’s CIP committee – Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh – will meet on Oct. 30 with Deb Gosselin, who is overseeing this process.

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

Absent: Ken Clein.

Next regular meeting: Due to the Nov. 5 election, the next planning commission meeting will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the Macy’s parcel, where two new restaurants are proposed.

The proposal calls for building two new freestanding restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 108 spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094.

A portion of the parking lot would need to be rezoned from P (parking) to C2B (business service. The site is located in Ward 4.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponement in order to allow the developer to deal with some outstanding issues related to zoning, landscaping, easements and utilities.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]