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

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

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

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

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

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

121 Kingsley West

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

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

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

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

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

Developer Peter Allen.

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

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

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

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

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

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff.

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

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

The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

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

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

121 Kingsley West: Public Hearing

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

From left: Architect Marc Rueter and developer Tom Fitzsimmons.

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

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

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

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

121 Kingsley West: Commission Discussion

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

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

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

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

Kirk Westphal asked about floor-area ratio (FAR). FAR – a measure of density – is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.

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

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Developer Tom Fitzsimmons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officer Elections, Bylaws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Master Plan Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annual Work Program

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

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously adopted the work program.

Betke Annexation & Zoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager Update

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Ordinance Revisions Committee

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

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

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

Communications & Commentary: Resolution of Appreciation

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

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

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

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters.

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

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

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners had debated the proposed revisions at a Feb. 4, 2014 working session. Some of the same issues were raised during the Feb. 20 discussion, which was relatively brief.

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

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

In other action, commissioners recommended rezoning a parcel on the city’s north side to public land (PL). The 2.2-acre site at 3301 Traverwood Drive, donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. It was originally zoned R4D (multi-family dwelling) and had been part of a larger site that’s being developed with an apartment complex.

During communications, Kirk Westphal reported on a project that the environmental commission is working on: a neighborhood mini-grant program. Volunteers would coordinate a competitive grant program for community groups, who could apply to fund projects that address one of the city’s goals in its sustainability framework. That’s in the planning stages, he said.

Westphal also distributed a copy of a resolution recently passed by the city’s energy commission. It supports a recommendation to hire a full-time employee to focus on projects that help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. Westphal indicated that the planning commission’s executive committee would be discussing it. The energy commission would like a supporting resolution from the planning commission.

Commissioners also heard from two Skyline High School students, who spoke during public commentary as part of a class assignment. They talked about the importance of the Huron River and of the Huron River Watershed Council‘s River Up project. The planning commission’s work plan includes looking at how to implement recommendations from city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force.

Revisions to Bylaws

Revisions to the bylaws of the planning commission were on the Feb. 20 agenda. The changes related to two issues: how city councilmembers interact with the commission, and public hearings. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed revisions at start of Feb. 20 meeting]

In giving the staff report, planning manager Wendy Rampson recalled that the issue of public hearings had emerged last fall, when a public hearing for revisions to downtown zoning had continued over several meetings.  The issue about whether the same person could speak multiple times during the same public hearing – even if that hearing was held during different meetings – had been debated by commissioners on Oct. 15, 2013, during the middle of a public hearing on the downtown zoning changes.

Subsequently, a proposed revision related to this issue in the bylaws was brought forward by commissioner Jeremy Peters on Nov. 6, 2013, but no vote was taken.

On Feb. 20, Rampson reviewed the sections that were affected by the proposed revisions. She noted that the bylaws, if approved, would allow the commission to waive the limitation on speaking turns and allow the public hearing to carry over to the next meeting.

Here’s the draft proposed at the beginning of the Feb. 20 discussion [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

Article VIII Public Hearings

…

Section 3. An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total. The first person identifying him/herself as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner, or representing an organized neighborhood group registered with the City of Ann Arbor, may speak for five (5) minutes in total. Subsequent speakers identifying themselves as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner or representing an organized neighborhood group, may speak for three (3) minutes in total. The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within this section. The Chair may extend the speaking time further at his/her discretion.

…

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another date meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original.

Regarding the other bylaws change related to interactions with councilmembers, Rampson reminded commissioners that this proposed revision had been suggested following a discussion at the commission’s Feb. 4, 2014 working session.

The revised section states:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Councilmember’s term in office.

No one spoke during the Feb. 20 public hearing on these proposed revisions.

Revisions to Bylaws: Commission Discussion – Public Hearings

Bonnie Bona said she struggled with the proposed revisions to both sections, but particularly with the section related to public hearings, “mostly because I didn’t want to give any perception of tightening or restricting public input.” But based on the commission’s previous discussions, she agreed with the need to create consistency with the city council’s practice.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Sabra Briere.

She also liked the fact that the revisions put in writing that the commission can waive the restriction and allow people to speak more than once during the same public hearing. That’s been the practice of the commission, she noted, but it hasn’t been written down. She thought the changes were clarifying and would offer guidance for future commissions.

Jeremy Peters told commissioners that the whole idea behind these revisions was to provide clarity and to match what happens at city council meetings, though he thought that the planning commission bylaws would now be clearer than the council rules. He said he wasn’t trying to force through these changes, and he didn’t have a strong opinion about them. He was just hoping to add clarity.

Sabra Briere read aloud from a portion of the staff memo accompanying the proposed revisions: ”The proposed changes clarify that public hearing speaking time is limited to a total of 3 minutes (or 5 minutes for registered organizations) for an item, with the opportunity for the commission to waive the limitation via a majority vote. This would allow for the commission to maximize discussion time on certain postponed items, but still allow for public commentary in situations where a petition or proposal has changed from the time of the original public hearing.”

Briere said she took that as a goal statement, to allow people to speak again if a petition has significantly changed. But she noted that when she read the proposed revisions for Section 5, she was having a hard time reconciling that with the goal statement – because Section 5 states that a person can’t speak again at the same public hearing.

Peters thought the last sentence in Section 3, which allows the commission to waive its rules, would address Briere’s concerns. He had proposed Section 5 to clarify when a public hearing begins and when it ends – because that hadn’t been clear in either the planning commission’s bylaws or the city council rules.

Kirk Westphal said the fact that Section 5 comes after Section 3 seems to undo the waiving of rules.

So Peters then proposed an amendment, to remove the last sentence of Section 3 and move it into a new, separate Section 6. He originally proposed that the new Section 6 would apply to the entire Article VIII of the bylaws, but accepted a friendly amendment offered by Briere to limit its application to Sections 3 and 5.

Section 6: The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within Sections 3 and 5.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved the amendment creating a new Section 6.

Westphal noted that during public hearings, the commission will need to be mindful that if an agenda item is postponed and the public hearing is carried over, the commission will need to provide the public with notice that they’ll have the option of speaking again at a future meeting.

Commissioners then voted on these revised bylaws, as amended:

Section 3. An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total. The first person identifying him/herself as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner, or representing an organized neighborhood group registered with the City of Ann Arbor, may speak for five (5) minutes in total. Subsequent speakers identifying themselves as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner or representing an organized neighborhood group, may speak for three (3) minutes in total.

…

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original.

Section 6. The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within Sections 3 and 5.

Outcome on public hearing revisions: Commissioners unanimously approved these revisions.

Revisions to Bylaws: Commission Discussion – Councilmember Interactions

Commissioners had debated at some length the proposed bylaws revisions at a Feb. 4, 2014 working session, discussing the issue of council interactions. The Feb. 20 discussion was relatively brief.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Jeremy Peters thought it was best for city councilmembers to manage their own conflicts of interest, and to avoid the legal issues that might arise from jumping in front of the city’s due process. The change prevents the city from the possibility of being sued, he said, so he supported the proposed revisions.

Sabra Briere said she had tried to come up with a situation in which the proposed Section 9 would be a problem, but she couldn’t come up with one. She could imagine that a situation might occur at the city’s historic district commission, where someone might want to come and present their case. But HDC operates much more independently of council than some other boards or commissions, she said, even though HDC members are also appointed by the council.

She couldn’t recall a time when a single-family homeowner came to the planning commission with a petition. It had occurred at the zoning board of appeals, but not the planning commission. Typically, items that come before the planning commission are brought forward by developers of large parcels, she said.

“I’m looking for the unintended consequences of this [bylaws] change,” she said. Briere asked whether any other commissioners or staff could recall the kind of situation that she had described. No one offered any examples.

Kirk Westphal cited a hypothetical situation in which a councilmember might request a rezoning, and would have to be recused from voting on the issue at council. So should they be given the opportunity to speak to the planning commission? He could imagine such a scenario, and wondered if the bylaws should include some kind of “release valve” to allow commissioners to waive the rule.

Diane Giannola recalled the HDC bylaws, saying that if you serve on the HDC, you can’t be a petitioner in front of that body. She drew a comparison to city councilmembers, saying they wouldn’t be able to bring a petition to the planning commission as long as they serve on the council.

Giannola was referring to Section 8 of the HDC bylaws [.pdf of HDC bylaws] :

Section 8. A Commissioner shall not be heard before the Commission as an applicant, representative of an applicant, or as a party interested in an application during the Commissioner’s term of office.

Regarding petitions to the planning commission, Briere responded that there were other options – for example, your spouse or lawyer could bring forward a petition. “It’s just that you the councilmember may not appear in front of the planning commission representing yourself on an issue that’s to be determined by the planning commission.” She could imagine a situation in which someone who is a developer is elected to the council. In that case, any petitions from the person would require representation by an architect, attorney, or someone else on the development team.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson recalled that many years ago, the mayor of Ann Arbor at that time was a developer – it was so long ago that “I think there were Republicans on the council at that time,” she quipped. [She was referring to Lou Belcher, a Republican who served as mayor from 1978 to 1985.] His projects came before the planning commission, but Rampson couldn’t recall whether he addressed the commission in those instances.

Peters agreed that the option exists for a councilmember to be represented by someone else, if an item that involves them comes before the planning commission. He hoped that councilmembers would choose not to come before the commission anyway, even if the bylaws didn’t explicitly ban it. But this change would make the rules straightforward and clear, he said.

The vote was then taken on this revised section:

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

Outcome: The revisions to planning commission bylaws on council interactions were unanimously approved. Any changes to the bylaws are also subject to review by the city attorney’s office and approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

Rezoning Donated Land

The Feb. 20 agenda included a resolution recommending that the city council rezone land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. The recommendation is to rezone it as public land.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline, south of Stapp Nature Area.

Katy Ryan, an intern with the planning unit, gave the staff report. She noted that city staff have recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land spans from Traverwood Drive and to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. The land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement, Ryan said. Staff is working to determine the exact route.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land), Ryan noted. This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, she said, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Rezoning Donated Land: Commission Discussion

Jeremy Peters applauded Bill Martin for donating the land, saying that he hoped others would be receptive to doing this kind of thing in the future.

Bonnie Bona asked when the PROS plan will be updated. Planning manager Wendy Rampson replied that Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, is close to starting the next review and update. The state requires that the plan be updated every five years, in order for the city to be eligible for state funds.

Bona noted that people are sensitive to the fact that PL does not mean that it’s definitely parkland. Rampson replied that it’s very clear the land is being donated as parkland.

Outcome: Planning commissioners recommended rezoning the parcel to public land. The item will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Two students from Skyline High School, who are part of the school’s communication, media and public policy magnet, spoke during the first opportunity for public commentary, as part of a class assignment.

Sahr Yazdani, a student from Skyline High School, spoke during public commentary at the planning commission’s Feb. 20, 2014 meeting.

Sahr Yazdani said she wanted to give a speech about the Huron River Watershed Council. She recalled kayaking on the Huron River as a child, and noted that many others have similar experiences. Ann Arbor is fortunate to have an organization like the HRWC, which works hard to protect the river, she said. The organization has established programs to combat the devastating effects of harmful elements in the river, like phosphorus and e coli.

Yazdani highlighted the River Up program, which includes clean-up as well as recreational activities, and encourages communities along the river to make it a destination. It’s important to support River Up, she said.

Daniel Schorin continued speaking on this topic, calling the Huron River a tremendous resource. But we need to ask if we’re using the river to its full potential, he said. That’s where the “build up” component of the River Up program comes into play. In order to transform the river corridor into the center of the Ann Arbor community, the city needs to build development facing the river, not away from it. This means constructing trails, playgrounds, offices, hotels and other infrastructure facing the banks of the river, he said.

Other communities like Milford, Dexter and Flat Rock have already stated their commitment to making the Huron River a highlight of their downtown plans, with parks, buildings and festivals along the river, he said. And projects like the Huron River Art Trail will help attract tourists and stimulate the local economy.

As the city plans for new infrastructure, Schorin asked that they consider facing it toward the river, “so we can make the Huron River the forefront of the community once again.”

Communications & Commentary: North Main/Huron River Corridor

Sabra Briere reported that she’s recently had several conversations with people concerned about North Main Street and the Huron River. She noted that the high school students during public commentary had talked about River Up, including the view that new construction should be turned toward the river.

The concerns that she’s heard are about the report by the North Main Huron River corridor task force, and questions about when the planning commission is going to look at whether the parcels in that area are properly zoned. She’s heard from three different people who are interested in new developments along that corridor, and they’re interested in what kind of zoning might be put in place.

Briere said she knew the commission had a lot on its plate, but she wanted to bring up the topic as a reminder.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the project is on the commission’s work plan. She said commissioners have given higher priority to zoning revisions for the downtown and R4C districts, as well as a review of the citizens participation ordinance. [Planning commissioners had most recently discussed their work plan at a Jan. 7, 2014 working session.]

Rampson said the commission’s master planning committee could start taking a look at the North Main Huron River task force recommendations. The first step would be to take a detailed inventory of the parcels along that corridor, including the size and characteristics of each parcel. That information would be helpful in determining appropriate zoning, she said.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Planning manager Wendy Rampson told commissioners that the Burton Commons project will hold a citizen participation meeting for the proposed apartment project on Wednesday, March 5 from 6-8 p.m. in the Pittsfield Elementary School library, 2543 Pittsfield Blvd. The proposal – 80 apartments in five buildings, plus a clubhouse – would be located at 2559-2825 Burton Road, on the east side of Burton north of Packard. A previously approved site plan is in effect, but the developer now is proposing an addition to the plan – a sound wall that runs the entire length of the east property line, between US-23 and the apartment buildings. Because the sound wall will impact natural features, it will come forward to the planning commission for review.

Rampson also reminded commissioners that they’d met with a property owner at a September 2013 working session, regarding a proposal to build an indoor/outdoor tennis facility. That project is now moving forward, and the owner will hold a citizen participation meeting in the next few weeks.

Communications & Commentary: Environmental & Energy Commissions

As the planning commission’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, Kirk Westphal reported on a project from that group: a neighborhood mini-grant program. Volunteers would coordinate a competitive grant program for community groups, who could apply to fund projects that address one of the city’s goals in its sustainability framework. That’s in the planning stages, he said.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Matt Naud – the city’s environmental coordinator – said that environmental commissioner Susan Hutton is taking the lead on this project. She is trying to raise $10,000 in order to give out grants of $2,000 – one grant in each of the city’s five wards. The likely fiduciary is the nonprofit Ann Arbor Awesome. Naud said the effort is modeled on some small neighborhood grant programs in Seattle.

On Feb. 20, Westphal also gave commissioners copies of a resolution that the energy commission recently passed, and which the environmental commission will be taking a look at too. He said the planning commission’s executive committee will be discussing it. He did not mention the topic.

A copy of the handout was obtained by The Chronicle after the meeting. It supports a recommendation to hire a full-time employee to focus on projects that help achieve goals in the city’s climate action plan. [.pdf of resolution]

The one resolved clause states:

Resolved, City of Ann Arbor Energy Commission recommends that the Ann Arbor City Council direct the City Administrator to restore the second position as an FTE (full time equivalent) to create and implement additional community energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy programs that further the Climate Action Plan’s adopted targets, reduce our community GHG emissions, provide economic benefit to our community and help to preserve our quality of life.

Communications & Commentary: Minutes

The Feb. 20 agenda included approval of planning commission minutes from last year – for the Nov. 19 and Dec. 3 meetings – as well as for the special meeting on Jan. 14, 2014.

Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and city council, reported that she’s heard concerns during public commentary time at city council that minutes of many city boards and commissions are very late getting to the council. [Minutes from the city's various boards, commissions and committees are attached to city council agendas.]

Briere encouraged that minutes of the planning commission be done in a timely fashion.

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

Absent: Ken Clein, Paras Parekh, Wendy Woods.

Next meeting: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, just before the start of the Feb. 20, 2014 AAATA board meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

That main item was a board vote to place a millage request before voters on May 6, 2014. The request – on a 0.7 mill tax that would be levied to pay for additional services over the next five years – would need a majority of votes across the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township to be approved.

The millage is supposed to pay for a set of service improvements over a period of five years. Those improvements include increased frequency during peak hours, extended service in the evenings, and additional service on weekends. Some looped routes are being replaced with out-and-back type route configurations. The plan does not include operation of rail-based services.

The AAATA has calculated that the improvements in service add up to 90,000 additional service hours per year, compared to the current service levels, which is a 44% increase.

The board’s vote to put the question on a May 6 ballot was unanimous, and came after more than a dozen people spoke during public commentary at the start of the meeting, urging the board to take the step of making a funding request of voters.

Elected officials as well as leaders of the faith, labor and disability communities all spoke in favor of making the request of voters to fund the service expansion, citing arguments based on economic and social justice. They pointed to the long period of planning that had begun about three years ago with a much more ambitious effort to expand service countywide. The current, more limited approach – focused just on the “urban core” area of the city of Ann Arbor and the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions – was a way to meet urgent transportation needs, they said.

After the board’s vote, during public commentary at the end of the meeting, one Ypsilanti resident recalled her own history marching with Rosa Parks down Woodward Avenue in Detroit. Although she’s been involved in activism for many years, she told the board, she could not think of anything that she was in the room to witness that was this important to her personally and to the city in which she lives.

Compared to typical AAATA board meetings, the atmosphere was relatively boisterous, as supporters at times chanted, “More buses, more places, more often!” But one speaker at the end of the meeting cautioned against the celebratory mood, saying there was now a lot of work to do. A counterpoint to the solid support the board heard from most of the speakers had been offered by the very first speaker of the evening. He asked the board to delay the election until November, arguing that it would save the roughly $80,000-$100,000 cost of holding the May election, and result in broader participation in the vote. Another point raised by that speaker was concern that everyone pay an equitable share for the additional transportation.

Although the main event was the resolution that placed the millage question on the ballot, the board’s agenda featured nine other items, many of which were at least tangentially related to the millage question.

For example, in other action the board approved a change to its budget to allow for up to $100,000 to be spent on the cost of holding the special election. The board also approved a funding agreement with Ypsilanti Township, to make explicit what will happen to the township’s existing purchase of service agreement (POSA) if the millage is approved. And as part of the board’s routine annual business, it approved a funding request to the state of Michigan – but did not factor in an increased level of service in the budget submitted to the state. That was done on the instruction of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. That request can be amended if the millage succeeds.

Also at the Feb. 20 meeting, the board approved changes to its bylaws. Those changes were prompted by a change in governance to the AAATA last year – the addition of the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions. With the increase from seven to 10 members, the definition for the number of board members constituting a quorum or a majority needed to be modified. Out of that review of the bylaws came a decision to increase public speaking turns from a two-minute time limit to three minutes.

In other business, the board approved the hiring of a consultant to help the AAATA with a planned upgrade to its computer-aided dispatch and vehicle locating software. The board also approved the recently completed audit report for the 2013 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Another item approved by the board was a new contract for unarmed security services. And finally, the board authorized a contract for an insurance broker.

Among the various operational updates received by the board was the announcement that the newly constructed Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor would be open by March 17, 2014.

Ballot Question

Several items on the Feb. 20 agenda related to putting a 0.7 mill tax proposal on the May 6, 2014 ballot.

Ballot Question: Public Commentary – Meeting Start

Brian introduced himself as a 10-year Ann Arbor resident. He asked that the board delay the placement of the millage question on the ballot until the November 2014 general election. Given a multi-million dollar investment, a delay of six months would not be that significant. He felt there was no real reason not to talk to “the majority of citizens who want into this, or potentially not into this.” He pointed to the additional $80,000-$100,000 the AAATA would need to spend to hold a special election in May instead of waiting until November.

He also asked that all communities pay an equal millage rate. [The millage to be levied by the AAATA, on which voters will decide on May 6, will have an equal rate across all three jurisdictions. The point being raised was that the city of Ann Arbor and the city of Ypsilanti already levy city millages that are dedicated to transit and are passed through to the AAATA.] Ann Arbor property owners have paid a millage for many years, he pointed out, and that has bought a lot of capital, infrastructure and equipment to support the transportation system. Ann Arbor residents have fronted a lot of the cost to the AAATA, so it would be fair for everyone to pay equally into the system. He concluded by thanking the board for their time and service to the community.

State representative Jeff Irwin (D-53), an Ann Arbor resident, thanked the AAATA for the excellent service that is provided in his community. He reported that he’d had the opportunity to use the service many times. It was wonderful that a small Midwestern like Ann Arbor can have a bus service as great as the AAATA.

State representative Jeff Irwin (D-53).

He supported the AAATA’s effort to continue to examine and propose to the public a plan to really expand that service – to increase the amount of service in the evenings or on Sundays. But he also encouraged the exploration of expanding service in a more thorough way outside the boundaries of the city of Ann Arbor. That would respect the economic reality of the region we live in, Irwin said. It’s important to do a better job of serving Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township and the city of Ypsilanti.

This is a great idea, Irwin said, because when you connect people and places, then great things happen. That’s because people have an opportunity to get to the doctor or get to church or get to the store. Businesses and people also connect, he said. He asked the AAATA board to continue the effort to propose new options for citizens, so that the transportation network in Ann Arbor can expand in a complete way to include all of Ann Arbor’s neighbors “in a way that our citizens deserve.” He hoped he had a chance as a citizen to vote on this issue – because we’ve been talking about this for a long time. “The community is ready for expansion, I believe, and I’m certainly ready for expansion.”

Mark Coryell introduced himself as president of the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3907, which represents employees of the Environmental Protection Agency lab in Ann Arbor. He was also speaking on behalf of WeROC – the Washtenaw Regional Organizing Coalition. He asked those who were there to support the board’s vote to stand – and around 30 people rose from their seats. He called the analysis that the AAATA had put into the question “really quite impressive.” He called Irwin’s comments on point, and told the AAATA it was a national leader. What WeROC sees is a good community investment in the future, at a time when other communities are disinvesting in the things that would bring them a future – future jobs, future growth and future quality of life. WeROC represents a lot of labor and faith-based organizations, he said.

And the people WeROC represents and ministers to would be using these services, Coryell said. He added that we shouldn’t take for granted that everyone owns a motor vehicle. When you arrive in southeast Michigan from a major metropolitan area in another part of the country, it’s amazing how dependent Michigan is on the motor vehicle, he said. “We are behind the times in adjusting to the new future of sharing our transportation systems,” he said. When the snow melts, people will be reluctant to drive on the roads, and he ventured that a lot of people would want to take the bus to work. So WeROC sees a lot of benefit to those people that the organization represents.

Ypsilanti mayor pro tem Lois Richardson told the board she was speaking with her political hat.

For workers, it would help get them back and forth between a job, he said, and public transportation makes it cheaper for them. WeROC supports the millage, Coryell concluded, and would like to see the board vote affirmatively.

Lois Richardson introduced herself as mayor pro tem of the city of Ypsilanti.

It’s been a real pleasure to work with the AAATA’s CEO, Michael Ford, over the last year or two to bring more service into Ypsilanti, she said. She’s looking forward to the expansion and she would support it. She’s a member of WeROC, she noted, but right now, she was speaking with her “political hat.” She appreciated the bus service in Ypsilanti.

She had moved away from the area for a while, and when she first moved back, she was a regular transit customer and always got good service. Now, she reported, she’s an occasional transit customer. And the service she gets is good. She thanked Ann Arbor for the years it has supported the bus service. She was looking forward to expanded service in Ypsilanti. Richardson congratulated Ford for doing a good job bringing the effort to this point: “You need my help? Call me.”

Dave Hendricks introduced himself as pastor at Emmanuel Lutheran Church in Ypsilanti.

He wanted to look at the issue from a religious perspective. His congregation serves a population in Ypsilanti that is sometimes forgotten, he said. They provide food pantry options, clothing and a hot meal during the week. The folks who need those services, he said, are the people who need bus services.

Pastor Dave Hendricks of Emmanuel Lutheran Church in Ypsilanti.

Just from a theological perspective, he and his congregation feel that the transportation expansion is an opportunity to serve people who are sometimes marginalized. He hoped the AAATA would continue its efforts.

Roderick Casey introduced himself as an elected Democratic delegate for Ypsilanti Township, and also a member of WeROC. He told the board, they were doing a great job. In the 36 years he’s lived here the population has boomed, he said. But he was now very concerned about a phenomenon that has come to Ypsilanti: insurance redlining. It’s really hurting a lot of people in the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township – because it causes the price of insurance to go up. So right now transportation expansion is needed. He asked the board to continue to support expansion of service.

Jim McAsey introduced himself as an organizer with the Graduate Employees Organization, also a member of WeROC. “Is WeROC in the house?” he asked, and that drew applause and cheers. “We believe passionately that public transportation is a social justice issue,” he said. There are many people in the community who don’t own cars who still need to get around. GEO members don’t make a lot of money and cars are very expensive, he said. So a lot of GEO members depend on buses – because rent is expensive in Ann Arbor and they need to get back and forth. Many GEO members live in Ypsilanti and they have trouble getting back and forth on the weekends or late at night. GEO members need better public transportation, he said. “The bus system here is fabulous, but let’s make it even better,” he told the board. GEO supports the millage. “Let’s get it done. We’ll help you get it done,” he concluded.

Lionel Swan introduced himself as an employee of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD). He works in the young adult program – which is for 18-26 year-olds. The WISD tries to teach skills like being able to get to their jobs. These are kids with cognitive disabilities, he said. The bus system is “absolutely essential in our program,” he told the board. He agreed with everyone who spoke in favor of expansion. He allowed there were some routes he would like to see extend a little farther. He told the board he rode the bus about four times a week – and he was always impressed by the timeliness and cleanliness of the buses and the friendliness of the drivers toward a very needy group of folks.

The proceedings were documented by several people in the audience using smartphones.

Sam Facus introduced himself as a graduating senior at the University of Michigan. He’s very dependent on the bus service in Ann Arbor, he said. As a graduating senior who’d like to stay in the community and not own a car, it’s very enticing to him to have better public transit options to get where he needs to go and to live a sustainable life.

Joel Batterman told the board he now lives in Detroit, but he’s an Ann Arbor native, so he feels a close connection with his hometown. Since he was a high school senior at Huron High School, he’s been interested in how to improve transit – in the area and in the wider Detroit region. He now works with MOSES, which does congregation-based community organizing in Detroit. WeROC is the Washtenaw County affiliate. Better public transit is a key pillar to a prosperous region, he said.

He’d heard some concerns about the multi-jurisdictional nature of the millage. It’s a new and different thing for this community, but it’s urgently needed, he contended. Growing up in Ann Arbor, he didn’t get over to Ypsilanti that often. But he’s come to understand that the communities – in the county and in the region – are really intertwined. “We can’t allow the boundaries that Thomas Jefferson’s surveyors drew 200 years ago to get in the way of providing transportation … wherever people need to go.” Batterman concluded his remarks by saying he was looking forward to extended hours on Route #2 and Route #4 whenever he’s home.

Martha Valadez, an organizer with Partners for Transit, told the board she was happy and pleased to see the turnout at the board meeting in support of the expansion. She told the board the attendance at the board meeting by residents of all three jurisdictions was evidence that they really are adamant about the need for more transit now.

Her group was happy to see that the planning and development committee had recommended the 0.7 mill tax be placed on the ballot. It’s important that additional services be put in place this year, she said. Last week, Partners for Transit held a coalition meeting with over 35 organizations that are really passionate about transit. After the board’s decision, she said, she hoped they would be able to move forward by getting the word out about the importance of transit expansion.

Susan Borey [unconfirmed spelling] introduced herself as a former member of the Washtenaw County committee for disability issues. At that time she was employed and mostly used taxicabs. Now she’s unemployed and a senior, and she relies on the buses. She called the AAATA bus drivers the “finest ladies and gentlemen I have ever known,” which drew immediate applause.

Ian Robinson, president of the Huron Valley Central Labor Council.

She was very concerned about maintaining the quality of service in Ann Arbor as the AAATA expands. For example, seniors need bus shelters and benches. There’s no longer a shelter along Huron Street near Lurie Terrace, she said. She pointed out that there’s not good public transportation that lets you off directly at the Quality 16 theater on Jackson Road, in Scio Township. She also described how the bus service is wonderful in this town – but bus stops are not cleared of snow. The curbs are absolutely and positively treacherous, she said. She couldn’t imagine how people with disabilities manage with wheelchairs and scooters.

Ian Robinson introduced himself as a University of Michigan faculty member and the newly elected president of the Huron Valley Central Labor Council.

The council will be discussing endorsing the millage to support the expansion of transit at its next meeting – the first Tuesday in March. He plans to argue in favor of it on two grounds: (1) regional development; and (2) social justice.

It’s critical to have sound regional infrastructure, Robinson said. It’s critical that people can still get transportation to work. Good public infrastructure is a core principle of sound economic development, he said. As far as social justice goes, he added, the labor council stands for all working people.

Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living (CIL) director of advocacy and education Carolyn Grawi addressed the board. She told the board that if there were better transit across the state, she could have arrived 25 minutes earlier.

Carolyn Grawi, Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living (CIL) director of advocacy and education.

She’d just come from Lansing. She then led supporters in a chant: “More buses, more places, more often!” We need services everywhere, she said. Some community members across all three areas of the urban core do not have service today: “We need services to get where we need to go.”

The services from AAATA have been outstanding for many years, but improvement in necessary, Grawi said. We need to make sure that anyone who wants to ride the bus or wants to board a paratransit vehicle can get to where they need to go, as often as it’s necessary.

Right now there are people who are missing medical appointments and who can’t get jobs because of a lack of transportation. The AAATA gets lots of people where they need to go on a timely basis, she said. But there are a lot who are still waiting to get there.

Grawi concluded by telling the board that Ann Arbor CIL has endorsed the millage proposal. The Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition (WBWC) also endorsed the millage, as did Partners for Transit.

She concluded with another round of chants: “More buses, more places, more often!”

Ballot Question: CEO’s Remarks

About the millage request, CEO Michael Ford called the vote “the big ask that’s on the agenda.” He called the vote to put the millage on the ballot one of the most important actions taken by the AAATA in the last decade or so. The board had demonstrated its commitment to the vision last month when it approved the five-year program. The next commitment was to take a step toward approving the funding component of that program, Ford said. He believed that the AAATA had sufficient support, saying “I’ve heard a lot tonight.” He pointed to grass-roots organizations, businesses, community leaders, employees who had participated in the planning process – as well as bus riders.

Ford said that to get to this point, the AAATA had engaged citizens, business leaders, elected officials in pursuit of a plan to provide improved public transportation service. The AAATA had heard over and over again about the unmet service demands. The leaders of the urban core communities had supported the effort. Ford then ticked through the names of those who’d participated: Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje; Ann Arbor city councilmembers Sabra Briere, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman and Chuck Warpehoski; Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber; Ypsilanti city councilmember Pete Murdock; Ypsilanti city manager Ralph Lange; Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo; and Ypsilanti Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe.

Supported by that leadership, Ford said the AAATA had developed the five-year service plan. Based on input from the community, riders and others, adjustments had been made to the service plan. The final component is the funding proposal, Ford said.

Ford stated that the funding proposal had been fully supported by a financial task force led by former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel. Ford invited Guenzel to the podium to summarize the task force’s report.

Ballot Question: Financial Task Force

Guenzel began by congratulating Ford and the board for bringing the process to this point. He put the current financial task force in the context of the original task force that dated back to 2011, when the now-demised countywide initiative was underway.

From left: former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel and AAATA outside legal counsel Jerry Lax.

The AAATA had asked some people to come together to test that countywide plan, to see whether it was accurate in its assumptions about services, and also about the amount of money it would take to fund that plan.

A sub-group had been established to work closely with AAATA staff and issued a report saying the countywide plan was well prepared, complete and reasonable, he said.

Now, a couple of years later, Guenzel continued, we’re at a very different point. The group was asked to conduct the same kind of review for the five-year urban core transit plan.

The group had met in December, January and February, Guenzel reported. That resulted in a consensus finding that the AAATA’s methods and assumptions related to that plan were reasonable.

He read aloud from the document produced by his work group [.pdf of Feb. 5, 2014 financial task force finding]:

Findings and Recommendations. The FTF recognizes the accomplishments of the Service Review Sub-Group, as follows:

• The Service Review Sub-Group was charged with examining a Five Year Transit Improvement Program budget containing a list of proposed services for the Urban Core communities of Washtenaw County. As the result of the deliberations, analysis, and effort, the Service Review Sub-Group determined that the funding analysis (Appendix 1) is reasonable.
• The Service Review Sub-Group reviewed the development of the service program that includes later night service on weekdays, more hours of service on weekends, new service for both the east and west sides of the service areas, and more service for seniors and people with disabilities. The Service Review Sub-Group found no material issues with the method used in calculating the service hours and the proposed schedules. (Appendix 2)
• The Service Review Sub-Group discussed the assumptions made for the ridership level estimates identified in the program. Staff shared the estimates of Steer Davies Gleave (SDG) estimates and increases seen on Route 4 serving Washtenaw Avenue combined with the general system growth over the past ten years, as data supporting assumptions regarding ridership growth. SDG estimates were interpolated by Authority to arrive at annual growth rate assumptions. (Appendix 3)
• The Service Review Sub-Group further discussed revenue vulnerabilities related to ridership forecasts and 2012 legislation repealing the personal property tax beginning in 2014. The Service Review Sub-Group requested a ‘what-if’ analysis of two questions:
  1. What is the financial risk of a 25% shortfall in projected ridership growth, and therefore passenger revenues?, and
  2. What is the financial risk of an uncompensated shortfall in the personal property tax revenues? (The 2012 legislation will exempt personal property from taxation by local jurisdictions by 2023, but a referendum scheduled for August 2014, if successful could make up at least some fraction of the revenue shortfall.)

About the personal property tax question, Guenzel summed up the financial task force view as: “Who knows for sure?” It might affect the AAATA by a maximum of about $300,000, Guenzel said. There’s enough flexibility in the long-term plan to take care of that, he added. A shortfall in ridership projections could also be absorbed by the plan, Guenzel said. So the task force felt confident in the soundness of the planning work the AAATA had done.

Guenzel summed up by recommending that the financial task force be allowed to continue to meet from time to time. More importantly, he continued, the funding level is complete and they found it to be reasonable. So the task force found the AAATA’s assumptions to be reasonable – concerning the level of services and that a 0.7 mill tax, combined with the rest of the revenue, would support that program over five years.

After Guenzel concluded his remarks, Ford wrapped up by saying, “Tonight it’s up to you, the board, to take the next step, to make this plan a reality.”

Ballot Question: Issue Analysis

AAATA strategic planner Michael Benham gave a presentation to the board on the issue analysis. From the board’s information packet, here are the pro-con arguments listed for making a funding request.

Arguments in favor of TheRide placing a property tax levy on the ballot:

• The need for improved transit service is immediate as evidenced by the many requests for service that TheRide has received during the planning period and on a day-to-day basis, and TheRide has worked with the community to propose a specific program of services that responds to that need.
• Millage funding will allow TheRide to leverage State and Federal dollars that would not otherwise come to the region. It is estimated that each new local millage dollar will attract 2 additional dollars of State and Federal money.
• TheRide’s funding sources have been relatively fixed for many years, while demand for service in all areas has increased. TheRide provided a record setting 6.6 million trips in 2013 for example. The unmet need for transit services will only be satisfied by additional service, which must be paid for with new funding sources.
• In the particular case of Ypsilanti City, their general revenue millage has reached its cap and an Authority millage is the only way to pay for additional transit services.
• As TheRide system becomes increasingly regional – with many routes crossing jurisdictional boundaries – it makes sense to begin the transition to a more regionally funded system.
• Community surveys conducted in 2011 and 2013 indicate that support for transit is extremely high, that TheRide is regarded as a very well-run organization, and that there is significant willingness on the part of voters to support a millage for transit.
• TheRide’s reputation as a very well-run organization is reinforced by comparisons to other transit agencies, as evidenced by the findings of our recent Peer Comparison.
• The recent Annual Audit and the findings of the Financial Task Force also reinforce TheRide’s reputation as financially sound and well-managed.

Risks / Issues related to placing a property tax levy on the ballot:

• The most obvious risk is that a majority of the people will not vote for the millage and it will not be approved. However, if this was the outcome, TheRide would continue to provide service, making minor improvements within existing budget constraints, as it has for many years. Existing service would continue and unmet needs for transportation would remain unmet.
• Passage of an Authority millage will create a new level of accountability for TheRide, requiring the Authority to ‘prove’ the value of its services every five years (and this might be considered an advantage by some). TheRide’s Continuous Improvement Program will need to expand to track new services and make any needed adjustments.
• The emergence of a 4-county Regional Transportation Authority has raised a concern that a separate millage might be sought by that organization. The State Law that created the RTA provides for additional regional taxing mechanisms that might be more closely aligned with and acceptable for funding regional transportation services than local property tax millages. There is no Regional funding request planned currently. It could be years before the RTA identifies its preferred funding level and approach. Most importantly, the RTA is primarily concerned with regional (4-county) transit issues while TheRide’s program is focused strictly on meeting local transportation needs with local services.
• Many of the proposed services in the program are during off-peak travel times like evenings and weekends when fewer people are traveling. Ridership can take years to build to expected levels. TheRide will have to carefully manage expectations so that evolving services are given a chance to develop.
• TheRide’s funding model is not well understood by some, which has led to questions as to whether the funding model is ‘fair’. The 5YTIP has been designed to ensure that each community pays for the service they get, either via a millage or through a Purchase of Service Agreement. Ann Arbor will pay more for service because Ann Arbor will receive more service.  The other communities pay less for service because they get less service. POSA communities pay for their services based on fully allocated costs. A particular concern voiced by several individuals is that the transit millage should be ‘flat’, that is, levied at the same rate throughout TheRide’s jurisdiction. The recommendation for funding is a flat 0.7 mil levy across the entire jurisdiction of the Authority.
• A question has been raised about the role of passenger fares in paying for the services proposed in the 5YTIP. Passenger fares currently account for about 20% of operating costs, which is typical for a transit organization of TheRide’s size. The funding proposal for proposed new services is expected to maintain that ratio over the long run. TheRide’s last fare increase was implemented in two phases, with an increase from $1 to 1.25 in May of 2009 and an increase from $1.25 to $1.50 in May 2010. There were corresponding increases in reduced fares for special users at the same time. Fares for advanced reservations on A-Ride (services for seniors and individuals with a disability) also increased during the same time period from $2.00 to $2.50 to $3.00. TheRide’s fares are in line with those seen in the industry as a whole. It is believed that another fare increase so soon after the 50% increase during 2009- 2010 would be excessive and detrimental to ridership. Staff recommends consideration of a fare increase during the implementation period of the 5YTIP, but not to include it as a foregone conclusion.

Ballot Question: Survey Results

Reporting out from the planning and development committee, board member Eric Mahler summarized a presentation from Hugh Clark of CJI Research that was given to the committee at its Feb. 11 meeting. [For earlier Chronicle coverage of those survey results, see: "Survey: Majority Favorable on Transit Tax"]

The survey of 842 registered voters in the three-member jurisdictions of AAATA was conducted by CJI in late 2013 to gauge support for public transit and possibly a future millage. It found that 63% of those surveyed would probably or definitely support a transit millage.

AAATA board member Eric Mahler.

Mahler highlighted some of the other results of the survey: about 54% think that changes in the area are taking us in the right direction; and 59% think that in general, development improves things, while 21% think that development hinders the area. That’s counter to national trends, Mahler said. People here are feeling good about the direction the area is taking and about where they live, he said.

Of those polled, 57% reported that they’d used the AAATA in the last year, Mahler said. [The survey question asked if the respondent or anyone in the household had used the AAATA in the last year.] Of those surveyed, 79% had a favorable opinion of the ride, Mahler said. Only 6% had an unfavorable opinion, he said.

On the millage question, Mahler noted that for a survey question asking if respondents had heard anything about the proposed expansion of the AAATA’s member jurisdictions, 49% said they had not. About 45% said they’d heard something. Of those who use the AAATA at least once a month, 53% said they were likely to use the new service, Mahler said.

Mahler also noted for the survey question on additional services for seniors, 45% said they’d be in favor of more taxes to support additional services for seniors, while 40% said they would not. Mahler said that even without the educational effort that’s still to come, those numbers are good news for the AAATA.

When asked what priorities public transit should have, the top response was that public transportation supports seniors and those with disabilities – with 93% saying that is an important aspect of public transportation. Attracting jobs came in at 85%, and 83% said that it gets more people to more jobs. That’s what the message has to be, Mahler concluded.

It was clear that there’s an opportunity and a need to educate for this effort, Mahler said. It’s also clear that the AAATA has credibility and trust with the public that it’s willing to listen.

Ballot Question: Board Discussion – Ballot Language

When the board reached the item on its agenda, board chair Charles Griffith said it was a historic move for the AAATA, so the board did not take it lightly.

From the audience, Carolyn Grawi asked that the resolution be read aloud. Griffith then read aloud the entire resolution.

The specific ballot language that Griffith read aloud  differed from the language drafted and included in the original board packet. The approved language explicitly highlights the capture of a portion of the millage by TIF (tax increment finance) authorities. The approved language also swaps in “seniors” for “the elderly”:

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT MILLAGE

To improve public bus, van, and paratransit services – including expanded service hours, routes, destinations, and services for seniors and people who have disabilities – shall the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority levy a new annual tax of 0.7 mills ($0.70 per $1000 of taxable value) on all taxable property within the City of Ann Arbor, the City of Ypsilanti, and the Charter Township of Ypsilanti for the years 2014-2018 inclusive? The estimate of revenue if this millage is approved is $ 4,368,847.00 for 2014. This revenue will be disbursed to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority and, as required by law, a portion may be subject to capture by the downtown development authorities of the Cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, and the local development finance authority of the Charter Township of Ypsilanti.

The ballot language is subject to requirements in Michigan’s General Property Tax Act.

Earlier in the meeting, reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson said the committee had talked about the ballot language “a lot, a lot, a lot.”

AAATA board member Roger Kerson.

They thought it had been finalized, but then it had to be tweaked, he said, describing a couple of cycles of finalization and further tweaking. They’d worked very hard to be compliant with all the laws that apply when you make an ask from voters. It must be clear what the money is to be used for.

The proposed language will be used for buses, vans and paratransit, he said, not airplanes, helicopters or trains. After much analysis, Kerson continued, there’s a requirement that it be noted in the ballot language that some of the new tax would be captured by tax increment finance authorities (TIFAs) like downtown development authorities and brownfield authorities.

Kerson said that the “huge majority” of the funding, 97-98%, would go to the AAATA, but that the remainder could be captured by TIFAs. The PMER committee concluded that this is “the right move at the right time.”

Ballot Question: Board Commentary

Larry Krieg led off comments by saying it’s a historic event for the AAATA. It’s important to take a moment to think about it and say why it’s important, he said. He was a teacher at Washtenaw Community College for 25 years, he said. Something he noticed when he taught there was “when a student’s car failed, they would be very likely to fail my class.” Many of his students lived in Ypsilanti Township or other parts of the county that are not served by the AAATA. That’s important because “education of our people is going to be the root of our future prosperity.”

He also saw WCC grads who were looking for jobs, who did not own cars. Even though they were qualified for certain jobs, they were sometimes not able to accept available jobs, because they could not get to those jobs. By having better transportation, job seekers will have the ability to reach other parts of Ypsilanti township and city.

Krieg said he was impressed by the careful work that AAATA staff had done in preparing the proposal. Some people might wonder why the board did not vote on this last month, he said. The reason is that there needs to be careful analysis of the likelihood of success and exactly what the money is going for. He’s now convinced that the analysis has been done and the AAATA has an excellent chance of going forward with this.

Responding to the issues of fairness that had been raised, Krieg noted that the millage rate is flat. But he allowed that Ann Arbor residents will be paying more – through an existing millage. Ann Arbor also gets more transportation services, he noted. He had checked with the staff and gone over the figures and had determined that what AAATA strategic planner Michael Benham had said in his presentation was true: People will get what they pay for. About Ypsilanti Township, which he represents on the board, Krieg said: “We are paying less, and we are getting less.”

One thing a lot of people don’t realize, Krieg said, is that a gas pump works two ways: it pumps gas into your car and money out of the state and out of the local economy. On the other hand, when you pay a few cents for a transit tax, the vast majority stays in our community, he said. Michigan is a donor state as far as money that leaves the state and goes through the rest of the county.

Roger Kerson observed that when the AAATA board had started the conversation about expanding transit, he thought there were only three current board members serving on the board at the time. [Charles Griffith and Anya Dale were also serving at the time.] At that time, the AAATA had a more expansive [countywide] vision, he said. The nature of the AAATA board is to be collaborative and transparent, he said, so that expansive plan was adjusted based on feedback from constituents and others.

What the AAATA is doing now is downscaled compared to the original vision of a countywide authority. The current plan “is the right plan and it’s the right time,” he said. It’s been an educational process, and he was glad the AAATA went through it. He felt the right lens through which to view the issue is “needs.” People need to get around, he said. He also stated that this is a “pay to play” financing mechanism.

Board chair Charles Griffith offered a final comment of his own. He told the people who came out to the meeting that the board appreciated hearing from them. Over the years, many people had asked the AAATA for this or that additional service. When those had been small requests, the AAATA had sometimes been able to meet the request. But for other larger requests, he noted, the answer had always been the same: Unless a new source of revenue can be found, a new service can’t be added without taking away some other service. Now the AAATA can finally say: If the voters agree, the AAATA can provide you with that additional service.

Griffith’s remarks prompted a standing ovation from the audience.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to place a 0.7 mill transit tax on the May 6, 2014 ballot.

Ballot Question: Public Commentary – End of Meeting

Harvey Summers told the board that he was a member of WeROC. He thanked board members for their vote and looked forward to supporting the millage with his vote.

Carolyn Grawi spoke on behalf of CIL, WBWC and Partners for Transit. She thanked the board for their vote and the AAATA staff for their hard work.

John Waterman thanked the board for their work. [Waterman was one of five finalists for the initial appointment to the board of the southeast Michigan regional transit authority. He founded the nonprofit Programs to Educate All Cyclists (PEAC).] A good plan has been laid out, but the “game is on,” and he cautioned that there is a lot of work to be done. He also cautioned against the celebratory mood. He would put efforts of his staff and students to help pass the millage.

Michelle Barney.

On the topic of paratransit service, Waterman stressed the need to train as many people with disabilities as possible to use the fixed-route service, which is more cost efficient and leads to greater independence. It also opens up paratransit service for those who cannot do without it, he said.

Michelle Barney told the board that she wanted to thank them for their vote, saying, “I was almost on the verge of tears when you voted,” because it meant that much to her personally.

She told the board that the community was losing University of Michigan grads who are moving away due to a lack of transit. There’s a real sea change going on, she said, with many young people opting not to try to own cars, because they’re sick of them. It also provides service to people of different racial groups.

She recalled her own history as a bus organizer in 1959 for a youth march for integrated schools started from Cass Tech in Detroit to Washington D.C. She also recalled marching down Woodward Avenue with Rosa Parks in 1964-65.

She’s been involved in activism for many years, Barney told the board, and she could not think of anything that she was in the room to witness that was this important to her personally and to the city in which she lives.

Funding Agreement with Ypsilanti Township

By way of background, the 0.7 mill tax, if approved on May 6, 2014, would be the first ever levied by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. Existing dedicated transportation taxes, levied by the two cities and passed through to the AAATA, would remain in place.

For Ann Arbor, the rate for the existing tax is 2.056 mills, which is expected to generate a little over $10 million by 2019, the fifth year of the AAATA’s transportation improvement plan. For the city of Ypsilanti, the rate for the existing transit millage is 0.9789, which is expected to generate about $314,000 in 2019.

For the owner of an Ann Arbor house with a market value of $200,000 and taxable value of $100,000, a 0.7 mill tax translates into $70 annually, which would be paid in addition to the existing transit millage. If the millage were to pass, the total Ann Arbor transit tax paid on a taxable value of $100,000 would be about $270 a year.

If it’s approved by voters, the total amount of revenue expected to be generated by the 0.7 mill tax in 2014 is $4,368,847.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of how the roughly $4.3 million generated by the new AAATA millage would fit into the overall funding picture for AAATA services:

Revenue Source     Amount
State              $12,910,884
Federal            $4,507,490
Fares              $8,801,200
A2: 2.056          $10,980,259
A2: 0.70           $3,387,910
Ypsi C: 0.9789     $313,798
Ypsi C: 0.70       $202,730
Ypsi TWP: 0.70     $778,207
POSA               $1,087,344
Third Party        $1,204,196
Advertising        $375,000
TOTAL              $42,969,822

-

Here’s how that breakdown shapes up as a pie chart:

Pie chart of revenue sources for AAATA five-year transit improvements. (Data from AAATA, chart by The Chronicle. )

In Ypsilanti Township, the AAATA calculates the 0.7 mill levy to be commensurate with the level of service the township would receive as a result of transportation improvements. But the 0.7 mill levy would generate about twice as much as the amount paid by the township in its current purchase of service agreement (POSA). So Ypsilanti Township’s POSA amount would not be paid in addition to revenue from the 0.7 mill tax.

The board considered an additional item at its Feb. 20 meeting – a funding agreement with Ypsilanti Township governing that POSA. The agreement makes clear that if the 0.7 mill tax passes, then the township’s service, which would increase under the transportation improvement plan, would be paid by the 0.7 mill tax. [.pdf of AAATA agreement with Ypsilanti Township]

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson described the funding agreement with Ypsilanti Township.

From left: AAATA board members Eli Cooper and Larry Krieg.

On joining the AAATA, the township had pledged to continue to provide the same amount that it’s currently paying through its POSA, Kerson explained. If the millage passes, it will generate more than twice what the POSA amount is – $800,000 compared to about $325,000, Kerson said.

That’s the amount of service Ypsilanti Township will get, he said. So as far as fairness goes, everybody gets the service they pay for, he said. That’s why the committee recommended the agreement to the full board.

When the board reached the item on its agenda, Larry Krieg – the Ypsilanti Township representative to the AAATA board – asked the board to support the resolution on the funding agreement with the township, saying that without this agreement, the rest of the five-year plan wouldn’t work.

Outcome: The board voted to approve the funding agreement with Ypsilanti Township.

Budget Change to Cover Cost of May Election

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson noted that because the AAATA millage would be the only item on the ballot, the AAATA would need to pay the cost of administering the election. That would be between $80,000 and $100,000, Kerson said. So the board would need to amend the budget to do that. He pointed out that in this scenario, the millage would generate $4.3 million, which would be matched about 2:1 by federal and state revenues. So if the millage proposal passes, that would equate to $12 million annually, against a $100,000 one-time expense.

Those remarks came as an indirect response to public commentary that had called for a delay until November 2014 to hold the election in order to save the cost to the AAATA of holding the millage vote.

Given the views that had been expressed during public commentary about the need for rapid implementation, Kerson said, the committee concurred that the AAATA should go ahead with that cost.

When the board reached the item on its agenda, there was no further discussion.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the budget change to pay for the cost of the May 6, 2014 election.

Bylaws

The board considered approval of several changes to its bylaws. One change gives speakers during public commentary an extra minute per turn to address the board. The time limits per speaker for each of two slots on the agenda are increased from two to three minutes as part of the bylaws changes. So someone could address the board for a total of six minutes at a meeting.

That additional change to the bylaws comes as AAATA board members reviewed their rules and revised them to reflect the addition of two new member jurisdictions in addition to the city of Ann Arbor: the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. It was last year, under separate processes, that the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions were admitted into the AAATA. The authority also changed its name at the time to include the word “area.” [.pdf of AAATA bylaws changes]

The bylaws changes considered by the board included some straightforward consequences of the increase from seven to 10 board members, such as: changing the definition of a quorum from four to six members; and raising the majority approval threshold from four to six members – for items like adopting a labor contract or approving a financial transaction in excess of 5% of the annual budget.

A change that was independent of the board size was also considered for some other voting items: relaxing the requirement from “a majority of the Board duly appointed and confirmed” to “a majority vote of board members present.” That means some types of resolutions could win approval with support from as few as four board members at a meeting.

In a separate board action, before the bylaws change the board considered a resolution to waive a condition in the bylaws that requires written notice be given to board members two weeks before a vote on a bylaws change. The resolution was prompted by additional amendments that had been made within the two-week window. One of the bylaws changes considered on Feb. 20 was to relax the requirement of notice to just one week in advance of a vote.

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson noted that as some later amendments were made, the board had not provided the full period of notice to board members to take action that night – under the bylaws. The bylaws have a provision for waiving that notice, which the board would be using that evening.

Bylaws: Board Discussion

When the board reached the item on the agenda, Eli Cooper asked if there had been any follow-up on the voting provisions in the bylaws – about how other entities handled similar issues.

AAATA board member Jack Bernard.

AAATA financial analyst and planner Bill De Groot responded to Cooper, saying staff had looked into the question of voting power with respect to the possibility that a minority of the board could count as a majority for a vote. For important business, he said, there was the greater requirement of majority already in the bylaws and that was increased consistent with the added members of the board.

Jack Bernard said he wanted to mention for the record that the newly revised bylaws include a specific time reference, related to the terms of appointments for individual board members. ["The term of office of a Board member shall be five years other than for members of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority Board as of June 15, 2013, who shall serve for the remainder of their terms, as provided by the Articles."]

The next time the bylaws are changed, Bernard said, the time reference should be removed.

Outcome: On separate votes, the board unanimously approved the waiver of the notice requirement and the changes to the bylaws.

State Funding Request

The AAATA has to apply every year to the state of Michigan for its state operating assistance. According to staff memos in the board’s information packet, the Michigan Dept. of Transportation instructed AAATA not to include assumptions of the five-year service improvement plan in this year’s application.

So this year’s application to the state for the AAATA’s portion of Act 51 money will include a budget as follows: estimated federal funds of $5,348,338, estimated state funds of $9,905,017, estimated local funds of $11,241,134, estimated fare box of $6,184,503, and estimated other funds of $647,288 – with total estimated expenses of $33,326,000.

That application for state operating assistance could be amended, if the millage vote on May 6 succeeds.

Reporting from the planning and development committee, Eric Mahler said the committee had heard a review from AAATA manager of service development, Chris White, on the AAATA’s application for state operating assistance. That includes both capital and operating funds. Because the millage has not yet passed, MDOT had requested that the AAATA not include expansion of services in the request. Mahler ventured that the request from the state could be amended when the millage passes, which White indicated was the case.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the application for state funding assistance.

CAD/AVL Consulting

The board considered awarding a $168,000 consulting contract to TransSystems of Boston, Mass. to assist the AAATA in making an upgrade in its computer-aided dispatch and vehicle-locating software (CAD/AVL).

As part of a planned upgrade for this type of software for its regular fixed-route buses, the AAATA is also looking to bring in-house the reservation and booking of paratransit rides. That’s currently part of its contracted paratransit service provider’s scope of work. That service provider is SelectRide. The switch to in-house paratransit bookings is planned for May 1, 2015, the day after the AAATA’s current contract with SelectRide ends. That contract was recently extended through April 30, 2015 in action taken by the AAATA board at its Dec. 19, 2013 meeting.

By implementing the paratransit part of the project, the AAATA wants to get some experience with the upgraded software before moving forward with its regular fixed-route buses.

According to staff memos in the board’s informational packet for the Feb. 20 meeting, the type of CAD/AVL system that the AAATA is upgrading allows dispatchers to locate, track and manage fixed-route bus operations. It also provides information on real-time adherence to the bus schedule. Further, it monitors and reports the status of engine components and on-board systems, such as the wheelchair ramp.

Reporting out from the planning and development committee, Eric Mahler noted that the consultant is important to make the most of the opportunity to upgrade the technology in a cost-effective way. Without the consultant, it’s felt that the AAATA might miss important opportunities to improve the service and to save money. Mahler said the urgency of hiring the consultant had been well established, saying that it’s important that the project get started right away because the upgrade to the AAATA’s systems depends on it.

When the board reached the item on its agenda, Eli Cooper noted that Ann Arbor is a place where networked automobiles are being piloted. He would willingly support keeping transit in the high-tech game.

Jack Bernard noted that the advanced system is critical for better paratransit service – so that a rider can, for example, have as much notice as possible that a ride won’t be arriving until the end of a scheduled window. He urged the board to support the resolution.

Larry Krieg wanted people to understand that the system the AAATA will be replacing was cutting edge 15 years ago. Equating one software year to 10 human years resulted in a system that was 150 years old, he said. Some of the problems that the AAATA has had with locating buses for interactive maps relates to the way the “elderly” system is trying to get information out.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the contract with TransSystems.

CAD/AVL Consulting: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Carolyn Grawi spoke on behalf of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. And she responded indirectly to some of the remarks on accessibility.

“As you know, I have high expectations,” she said. The mobile app is great, but she wanted to note that about one-third of the population or more can’t use it. It’s important that when a new feature is launched, it’s launched to be accessible from the start. The print size for the mobile app is too small and does not change in size. She was excited to see the board moving ahead with the AVL/CAD consulting, which will lead to a software upgrade. Scheduling is a nightmare right now, she said. She also told the board that the AAATA doesn’t have enough paratransit vehicles on the road.

FY 2013 Audit

The board was asked to consider a resolution accepting the audit report for the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, 2013 (FY 2013). [.pdf of FY 2013 audit report]

FY 2013 Audit: Presentation from Auditor

David Helisek and Josh Yde of Plante Moran gave the board a presentation on its FY 2013 audit. The AAATA fiscal year runs from October through September, so the FY 2013 audit was for the year ending on Sept. 30, 2013. Two documents were presented: the financial statements, including the federal programs audit; and the required communications to those charged with governance.

From left: Dave Helisek of Plante Moran and AAATA controller Phil Webb.

Helisek reported that the presentation had been made in greater detail to the AAATA’s performance monitoring and external relations (PMER) committee earlier in the week.
Helisek noted that the bulk of the first document is the AAATA’s document – the financial statements. The only part of that contributed by Plante Moran are the first two pages, which includes the independent auditor’s report.

Helisek told the board that the report showed an “unmodified opinion,” which is the highest level of assurance that an auditor can give a set of financial statements, he said. That means that the statements fairly reflect the position of the authority as of Sept. 30, 2013 as well as the changes in that position. That’s the opinion that the AAATA strives to achieve on an annual basis, and it’s the one that Plante Moran has given for the third year in a row, he said.

Josh Yde highlighted some details from the balance sheet. He first noted that GASB 63 standards had changed the wording from “net assets” to “net position.” The total assets are now up to $66.2 million, he noted, which is up by about $12 million compared to FY 2012. Most of that is due to the increase in capital assets with the construction of the Blake Transit Center. Equipment is also up about $6.8 million, he noted, mostly due to new bus purchases in the current year.

Liabilities increased from about $2.9 million to $4.4 million. Most of that is due to accounts payable – related to the Blake Transit Center as well as other outstanding expenses. Finally, the net position increased to about $62 million, up from about $51 million last year. Most of that is due to the investment in capital assets, he said.

The unrestricted net position is up about $400,000 this year, Yde said. That means the current revenues are covering the cost of AAATA’s current costs of providing services. He noted, however, that of the $14.7 million, about $7.5 million relates to property tax revenue that will need to be used for operations in FY 2014.

The statement of revenues, expenses and changes in net position shows that operating revenues increased about $3.2 million. The largest portion of that is due to the increase in the depreciation in all the new assets, as the infrastructure continues to grow. Operating revenues are up about $240,000. Most of that is due to AirRide revenues, which was in operation for the full fiscal year.

The non-operating revenue is all up, Yde continued. Local non-operating revenue is up about $1.4 million. And most that is due to property tax revenue as well as purchase of service agreements  (POSAs).

Before capital contributions, Yde said, all that leads to a change in net position of about negative $4.7 million. After the capital contributions of $15 million, that results in a change in net position of positive $10.4 million.

Helisek picked up the presentation from there. He reviewed the federal compliance portion of the audit. If you spend more than $500,000 of federal money, then a federal compliance audit is required, he explained.

The amount of federal funds spent by the AAATA in the FY 2013 was just under $17 million. Helisek told the board that they tested the federal transit cluster of about $14 million. So about 83% of the funds that came to the AAATA were tested. He said that they’d come across no issues of non-compliance as it relates to deficiencies or weaknesses.

Helisek noted that there was one finding on the last page: related to a depreciation expense calculation. As part of the audit, they did some testing and noted there needed to be some adjustments to some specific assets related to depreciation. That was brought to the attention of AAATA financial staff and they agreed with Plante Moran’s view, and they made the adjustment. He told the board that while it was an adjustment, it was a “non-cash adjustment.” It did not affect the budget over the year. However, auditing standards do require that the issue be communicated to the board.

As far as the letter to those charged with governance, Helisek noted that the first section is pretty much boilerplate. What you’re looking for are problems, he said, adding that there’s no communication on problems. The audit went very well and there were no disagreements with management on standards or the application of auditing standards.

The second section of the letter is more focused on legislative issues and informational items – things that might be “hot in Lansing,” he said. The one item that has been hot for the last 18 months is the state’s personal property tax, and the election that’s coming up in August. That could change how property taxes are collected, and would affect any entity that relies on property taxes. [The Aug. 5, 2014 ballot measure would mitigate against loss of personal property tax revenues by replacing part of the state use tax with a local tax administered to the benefit of metropolitan areas in Michigan.]

FY 2013 Audit: Board Discussion

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson noted that on page 8 of the audit report, the amount the AAATA had spent on administration had gone down [$7,258,563 in FY 2013 compared to $7,277,201 in FY 2012] but money spent on operations went up [$24,811,414 in FY 2013 compared to $21,635,160 in FY 2012]. That showed the AAATA was putting its resources into “putting buses on the street,” he said, calling it a good sign.

When the board reached the item on its agenda, there was no discussion.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to accept the FY 2013 audit report.

Insurance Broker

The board considered awarding a new five-year contract to Marsh USA Inc. of Grand Rapids, Mich. – the same insurance broker that’s consulted for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority for the last 10 years. The contract is for up to $270,000 of consulting work.

Marsh USA will provide insurance brokerage services for general, automobile, workers’ compensation, property and public officials/employee liability insurances.

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson noted that the AAATA purchases about $1 million worth of insurance every year, which is necessary given that the AAATA is driving buses around. So the AAATA uses a broker to help get the best price, Kerson said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the contract with Marsh USA.

Unarmed Security

The board considered awarding a contract for unarmed security guard services to DK Security. The contract covers three properties: AAATA headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Hwy., the Blake Transit Center at 328 S. Fifth Ave. in Ann Arbor, and the Ypsilanti Transit Center at 220 Pearl St.

The contract was for one year, with an option to extend the contract for four one-year periods.

The contract conforms with AAATA’s living wage policy, which mirrors that of the city of Ann Arbor. The policy currently requires vendors to pay a minimum wage of $13.96 per hour without providing health care benefits and $12.52 per hour when providing health care benefits.

The amount of the contract is not to exceed $270,400, which provides up to 14,299 hours (holidays included) of security coverage at a fixed-hourly rate.

The previous vendor, Advance Security, was one of 15 bidders for the work, but was not selected.

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson noted that the bids that came back for the unarmed security work were a little bit lower than the incumbent vendor had bid, so the AAATA would be saving a little money on that. He noted that the new vendor still complied with the AAATA’s living wage policy.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the unarmed security contract with DK Security.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Feb. 20 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Ridership

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson updated the board on ridership. Ridership is down due to the weather, he said, which would probably affect the yearly total because the drop was fairly significant in January.

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center

As part of his report to the board, CEO Michael Ford noted that the AAATA had received a temporary certificate of occupancy for the new Blake Transit Center last Friday (Feb. 14, 2014) and the move into the facility is scheduled for the week of March 10. The building will be open by March 17, which is St. Patrick’s Day, Ford pointed out. There’s still more work to do, but Ford wanted to thank AAATA maintenance manager Terry Black and anyone who had anything to do with supporting that project.

Ford also thanked the bus riders and the drivers for “hanging in there” during the transition. It’s been a struggle, given the weather conditions.

Comm/Comm: Blake Transit Center Art

Reporting out from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson said the committee had previewed the public art component for the BTC, saying it “looks really cools.” It’s a tile mosaic of figures representing the diversity of the community, he said. It’s less than $100,000 so the board does not need to approve it, Kerson noted, but it the board will be kept in the loop.

Present: Charles Griffith, Eric Mahler, Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale, Gillian Ream Gainsley, Jack Bernard, Larry Krieg.

Absent: Sue Gott.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, March 20, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [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 Area Transportation Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already on board The Chronicle bus, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

That additional change to their bylaws came as AAATA board members reviewed their rules and revised them to reflect the addition of two new member jurisdictions in addition to the city of Ann Arbor: the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. It was last year, under separate processes, that the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions were admitted into the AAATA. The authority also changed its name at the time to include the word “area.” [.pdf of AAATA bylaws changes]

Action on the bylaws came at the AAATA board’s Feb. 20, 2014 meeting.

The bylaws changes included some straightforward consequences of the increase from seven to 10 board members, such as: changing the definition of a quorum from four to six members; and raising the majority approval threshold from four to six members – for items like adopting a labor contract or approving a financial transaction in excess of 5% of the annual budget.

A change that was independent of the board size was also made for some other voting items: relaxing the requirement from “a majority of the Board duly appointed and confirmed” to “a majority vote of board members present.” That means some types of resolutions could win approval with support from as few as four board members at a meeting.

In a separate board action, before the bylaws change was approved at the Feb. 20 meeting, the board passed a resolution to waive a condition in the bylaws that requires written notice be given to board members two weeks before a vote on a bylaws change. The resolution was prompted by additional amendments that had been made within the two-week window. One of the bylaws changes made on Feb. 20 was to relax the requirement of notice to just one week in advance of a vote.

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth Ave., where the AAATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

Commissioners had debated the proposed revisions at a Feb. 4, 2014 working session. Some of the same issues were raised during the Feb. 20 discussion, which was relatively brief.

One revision clarifies the limitations on a city councilmember’s interaction with the commission. The revised section states:

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

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

The revisions would clarify a process that was debated by commissioners on Oct. 15, 2013, during the middle of a public hearing on downtown zoning changes. A proposed revision related to this issue in the bylaws was brought forward by commissioner Jeremy Peters on Nov. 6, 2013, but no vote was taken.

The revised bylaws for public hearings that were approved on Feb. 20 state:

Section 3. An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total. The first person identifying him/herself as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner, or representing an organized neighborhood group registered with the City of Ann Arbor, may speak for five (5) minutes in total. Subsequent speakers identifying themselves as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner or representing an organized neighborhood group, may speak for three (3) minutes in total.
…
Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original.

Section 6. The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within sections 3-5.

Any changes to the bylaws are subject to review and approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

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

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

The planning commission had given approval to changes in its bylaws about six months ago – at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

The bylaws changes were considered but postponed twice by the city council last year – first at the council’s Nov. 7, 2013 meeting, then at the Dec. 16, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws changes]

The council had held off voting to approve the bylaws changes as the planning commission has considered further revisions to its bylaws – related to the number of times someone can speak during a public hearing, and whether city councilmembers are allowed to address the planning commission during the commission’s meetings.

At a regular meeting of the planning commission, the additional revisions were discussed most recently on Nov. 6, 2013. The additional changes were also discussed at a planning commission working session on Jan. 7. The item is on the agenda for a Feb. 4 planning commission working session.

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

Extract from Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority records of attendance at committee meetings. Scanned by The Chronicle.

A piece of legislation that would “modernize” Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act moved out of the House Oversight Committee.

Progress on that legislation will be interesting to track as the bill possibly makes its way into state law. [.pdf of HB 4001]

For now, I’d like to focus on just one clause of the proposed legislation. And I’d like to connect that to some otherwise unrelated dots, one of which is an upcoming Ann Arbor city council vote.

That vote – on an appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – will take place either at the council’s next meeting on Nov. 18 or possibly at its following meeting on Dec. 2.

I’ll work backwards from the upcoming council decision.

Every year the post-election council votes, soon after being seated, to confirm membership of its own internal committees – and to make council appointments to other boards and commissions. That includes an appointment to the DDA board. Under city ordinance and state statute, the city administrator or the mayor can serve on the Ann Arbor DDA board. [1] For the period of John Hieftje’s long tenure as mayor, it’s been Hieftje, not the city administrator, who has filled that slot on the DDA board.

Some councilmembers might be looking for a objective, performance-based (i.e., non-political) reason to appoint city administrator Steve Powers to the DDA board, instead of Hieftje. Poor attendance by Hieftje at committee meetings over the last two years would be a possible candidate for that reason.

That’s because, according to the DDA’s bylaws, continuing membership on the DDA board is contingent on active board service. According to the bylaws, an objective measure of active service on the board includes 70% attendance at one of the board’s two standing committee meetings. [2] [.pdf of DDA bylaws as revised 2010]

And attendance records of those committee meetings for the past two fiscal years (from July 2011 to the present) do not reflect at least 70% attendance by Hieftje. In fact they don’t appear to indicate attendance by Hieftje at any of the committee meetings for that period. [3]

The connection to Michigan’s FOIA is the attendance records. The DDA produced those attendance records to The Chronicle in response to a request made under Michigan’s existing FOIA. Evaluating those attendance records was somewhat challenging, because they were kept as handwritten notes in less-than-model penmanship. [4]

The DDA responded to our request under the FOIA by making paper copies of the paper originals. That meets the minimum requirement of the state statute to produce copies of records. However, it does not meet the reasonable expectation for operation of a modern office – one that is equipped with a multi-purpose business machine that will scan to a .pdf file just as easily as it will make a paper copy.

The advantages of digital copies in the form of a .pdf file – compared to paper copies – are, I think, self-evident. So in responding to requests made under the FOIA, the DDA should be using the scanning functionality of its office machine and providing digital copies to requestors. The Chronicle should not need to use its time and resources to scan those documents as an extra, unnecessary step in the process. [.pdf of DDA committee attendance records, scanned by The Chronicle]

But Michigan’s current FOIA does not provide an explicit way to force a public body to use digital technology to copy records when responding to requests made under the FOIA.

And that’s the connection to the final dot. The “modernized” version of Michigan’s FOIA that moved out of committee last week includes this clause: “The requestor may stipulate that the requested records be provided on digital media, electronically mailed, or otherwise electronically provided to him or her in lieu of paper copies.”

According to a Sarah Schillio, legislative director for Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-53) of Ann Arbor, it was Irwin’s work with other representatives that resulted in the added language allowing requestors to stipulate digital copies.

To Jeff and the other legislators who helped insert that language: Thank you – I hope that clause stays in a version that is enacted into law.

Notes

[1] Questions have been raised about this issue, but based on a 8-page analysis by the Ann Arbor city attorney’s office, either the mayor or the city administrator can serve on the Ann Arbor DDA board.

[2] We can leave aside the question of whether this makes sense to include in the organization’s bylaws. But it’s worth noting that the DDA board itself does not have the power to remove one of its own members. By state statute, removal of a DDA board member (for cause) is a power reserved for the city council – after the member to be removed has been given an opportunity to be heard. It’s a decision that can be appealed to the circuit court.

[3] Of the DDA current board membership, an initial assessment of the attendance records by The Chronicle seems to indicate that only Hieftje and probably Russ Collins fall short of the 70% attendance threshold. The handwriting in the attendance records was in some cases challenging to decipher with some names running off the edge of the photocopied page.

[4] The most recent committee notes, however – included in the board’s information packet for its Nov. 6 meeting and recorded after The Chronicle’s request for attendance records – were typed out. So in the future, it should be easier to track compliance of DDA board members with the attendance requirement in the bylaws. [.pdf of October 2013 committee meeting minutes]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public policy issues like Michigan’s FOIA and public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. 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!

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal. (Photos by the writer.)

In a non-voting item, the commission was presented with a possible change to its bylaws – that could clarify whether someone is allowed to speak more than once at the same public hearing. The bylaws themselves prescribe that changes to the bylaws can only be voted on after their presentation at a previous meeting. The city council would need to give final approval to any bylaws changes.

The following evening, on Nov. 7, the city council delayed consideration of an earlier bylaws change that the planning commission had approved (dealing with accessibility issues) – to allow for the possibility that the council could eventually approve both changes in one action.

The bylaws issue involving public hearings had stemmed from an Oct. 15, 2013 debate among commissioners about the ability of a person to address the commission more than one time during the same public hearing. The Oct. 15 public hearing involved the downtown zoning review that the planning commission was directed by the city council to complete by Oct. 1. That public hearing continued at the commission’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. It marked the third time in the past month that commissioners have heard public input on a consultant’s report with recommendations to changes in the city’s downtown zoning.

The commission didn’t vote on the zoning review item, however. It will be taken up again at a Nov. 12 work session, with an eye toward eventually making a recommendation to the city council.

The majority sentiment among the nearly dozen people who spoke to the commission about the zoning review on Nov. 6 was that the consultant’s recommendations did not adequately address the need for buffering between areas zoned D1 and those zoned residential. However, the owner of the building on property at the southeast corner of William and Main – where DTE offices are located – did not share that sentiment. He offered his perspective that the parcel should not have zoning applied that splits the parcel between D1 and D2 zoning, which is the consultant’s recommendation.

Planning commissioners did not engage in substantive discussion on the downtown zoning review. Instead they focused on what procedure to use in delaying consideration of a resolution that would make a recommendation to the city council. The inclination to delay stemmed from a request by two commissioners who were absent due to illness – Sabra Briere and Wendy Woods.

The outcome of the scheduling discussion was to postpone consideration until the commission’s next working session on Nov. 12 – which will start at 7 p.m. in a basement conference room at city hall. The public will be heard at the end of the commission’s working session discussion. Commissioners at the Nov. 6 meeting indicated that they’ll likely need more than just one additional discussion to come to a consensus on what the recommendation to the city council should be. They won’t be voting on anything at the Nov. 12 working session.

This report also includes material on the downtown zoning review from the meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board earlier in the day on Nov. 6. 

Traverwood Apartments

At its Nov. 6 meeting, the planning commission considered the Traverwood Apartments project – a complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. Commissioners had three separate items in front of them for consideration: a site plan and development agreement, a rezoning request, and a wetland use permit.

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

The project is being developed by Ann Arbor-based First Martin Corp. Action had been postponed at the commission’s Sept. 17, 2013 meeting due to outstanding issues related to utilities, natural features, connections from the site to adjacent properties, and wetland mitigation. Those issues have been addressed, according to the city’s planning staff.

Subsequently, First Martin decided to donate the 2-acre high-quality woodland portion on the north end of the site to the city for parkland. It would be an addition to the Stapp Nature Area, which was created when First Martin sold another parcel to the city in 2003.

Due to that donation of land, the Traverwood Apartment site was reduced from 21.8 acres to 19.82 acres, which is currently vacant. 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). The smaller lot needs to be rezoned R4D.

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.

The complex will include a 6,150-square-foot community building near the center of the site, with a leasing office, meetings rooms, a small kitchen and an exercise facility. An outdoor pool with patio will be located adjacent to the building. There will also be a play area with playground structures and benches.

The project could be constructed in phases, with the first phase consisting of 11 buildings and the community center. The site will include 336 parking spaces – 152 spaces inside garages and 184 surface parking spaces.

According to a staff memo, the property has several significant natural features. About 40 landmark trees will be removed for construction. An additional 165 trees will be planted on the property to mitigate the trees that will be removed. The owner will also put in a woodchip path connecting to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area to the north.

There are three wetlands on the site, and one will be removed. The owner must secure a wetland use permit from the city and a permit for wetland disturbance from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. The project includes removing 1,800 square feet of a regulated wetland, which currently leads from a natural pond to a regional detention basin. An underground piping system will be installed there. In addition, a new 2,700-square-foot wetland will be created at the southern edge of the preserved native woodland on the north end of the site.

Traverwood Apartments: Commissioner Discussion

City planner Jill Thacher reviewed the details of the project for the commission, noting that all outstanding review issues had been addressed. Thacher concluded her remarks by pointing out that the donation of land was scheduled for action by the city council before the end of the year. She stressed that the land donation was an entirely separate transaction from site plan review process.

No one addressed the commission during the public hearing.

First the commission considered the rezoning [ORL to R4D] and the site plan with its associated development agreement. That was followed by a vote on the wetland use permit.

Bona Bona led off by asking about the pavement plan and the sidewalks. At the podium available to answer questions was Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting. She thanked him for doing the sidewalk identification drawing, saying it was tedious but made it easier to visualize. She wanted to know about sidewalks adjacent to a parking space – where the front of vehicles would extend out over the sidewalk, reducing width available for pedestrians. How does that work, she asked, with a 7-foot-wide sidewalk?

Ophoff noted that the standard sidewalk width is 5 feet, and he indicated the 7-foot width is meant to accommodate the possibility of vehicular overhang. Bona complimented that aspect of the development. Bona also inquired about the wood chip paths, and whether they will end up connecting with a sidewalk in every case or to the path system on the adjacent park property. Ophoff described the drawing as informal, with the actual layout to be done in the field – as a joint exercise with city park staff.

City of Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson and Mike Martin of First Martin Corp.

Citing the project’s stormwater management features, Ken Clein asked if the intent was to undertake the southern half of the project as phase 1, with phase 2 contingent on marketing of the buildings in phase 1. Mike Martin, with First Martin Corp., indicated that the intent was to build the whole project in one phase, but there’s phasing described in order to give First Martin some flexibility.

Clein also inquired about the trash pickup areas. He asked Ophoff to review how that would work. He wanted an explanation about the distance of the pickup locations from the buildings.

Ophoff described how the types of containers used by the city for trash and recycling required access for trucks to be able to pull straight in as well as to access from the side. So he’d worked with city solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie to make sure that the trucks would have adequate access. He ventured that if a development has more than 30 units, it’s a requirement that such dumpsters be provided. Clein expressed concern that it might result in a bit of a walk for some residents to the trash receptacles.

Jeremy Peters said he was glad to see that the petitioner was able to provide information about the sidewalks that had been requested last time. He was also glad that wetland mitigation has been sorted out with the city staff.

Kirk Westphal asked about a possible impact to the Leslie Woods Nature Area. He sought confirmation that there was not an adverse impact to a steep slope. Ophoff described the tests that had been done to determine whether the site contained a woodland or not – and it did not.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning [ORL to R4D] and the site plan with its associated development agreement. That was followed by a unanimous vote on the wetland use permit.

Planning Commission Bylaws

Commissioners at their Nov. 6 meeting weighed a bylaws revision that would attempt to clarify the rules for speaking turns at public hearings. The commissioners had debated the question at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, when commission chair Kirk Westphal had indicated that speakers who addressed the commission during the public hearing at that meeting would not be able to speak again when the matter was postponed and the public hearing was continued.

The idea of the bylaws change would be to clarify the definition of a public hearing so that when a matter is postponed, its public hearing is continued – as opposed to starting a fresh public hearing. Applying a time limit of three minutes for each speaker would effectively rule out a situation where a person could speak multiple times in a public hearing on the same matter.

But the bylaws revision being considered by the commission could explicitly rule out multiple speaking turns by the same person at a public hearing. The possible revision, which was considered but not decided at the Nov. 6 meeting, also provides a mechanism for an exception.

The proposed revision, which commissioner Jeremy Peters had crafted for consideration by his colleagues, would add two items to the rules on public hearings (Article VIII). [Italics indicates a portion of the proposal that at least some commissioners seemed inclined to delete from the new sections]:

Section 6. If an item on the agenda which has a public hearing attached to it is postponed or continued at a later date, the public hearing on the later date will be deemed to be a continuation of that original public hearing.

Section 7. Members of the public may only be allowed to speak once during the entirety of a single public hearing, but shall not be precluded from speaking at multiple public hearings on separate agenda items. The Chair may entertain a motion from the Commission to modify this rule to allow a second turn at comment, as it pertains to an individual agenda item, as the Commission deems appropriate, by majority vote.

The revisions would clarify a process that was debated by commissioners on Oct. 15, during the middle of a public hearing on downtown zoning changes. Before that 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.

During that Oct. 15 debate, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the commission’s bylaws are silent on this 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.

The commission will likely vote on the proposed revisions at some upcoming meeting.

The bylaws were most recently revised at the commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting. Those changes related to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. The changes approved by commissioners on July 16 appeared the city council’s Nov. 7 agenda for approval. However, the council postponed consideration of those changes (until Dec. 16) in light of this possible new bylaws revision. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws on Nov. 7 city council agenda]

Planning Commission Bylaws: Commission Discussion

Under the bylaws themselves, the mechanism for changing the planning commission bylaws is first to present changes at a meeting of the commission, and to vote on those changes at a subsequent meeting. So the Nov. 6 discussion was not meant to lead to a vote that night. Commissioners engaged in considerable back-and-forth on the question.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson summarized the proposed change to the bylaws by noting that commissioner Jeremy Peters had drafted language to explain what it means when a public hearing is continued – for example, when the matter for which the public hearing is being held is postponed by the commission. A continued public hearing would be the same public hearing that started at the previous meeting, she explained: If you speak at the public hearing that started at one meeting, then when the public hearing is continued at the next meeting, you wouldn’t have an opportunity to speak again, she explained.

That new bylaw doesn’t preclude a person speaking at that meeting on other topics, she said. So the proposed bylaws change does allow people to speak multiple times at the same meeting, just not at the same public hearing. The commission’s customary practice in the past has been to allow people to speak more than once at a public hearing on the same project, she said. Rampson noted that the city council’s rule on speaking turns doesn’t limit a speaker to one turn, but rather three minutes. She ventured that if a person spoke 1.5 minutes they might be able to speak later for another 1.5 minutes at a city council public hearing. No one has ever done that, she said. Westphal quipped: “City council thanks you for that invitation!”

Rampson said the intent is to clarify what the rules are, and the point is to make it crystal clear. A provision to allow people to speak again is included, Westphal noted, if the commission takes a majority vote.

Peters stressed that the proposed change in the bylaws didn’t arise out of an interest in limiting comment but rather an interest in providing clarity and a desire to match the practice at city council as closely as possible. That way a clear standard would exist for all public bodies.

Commissioner discussion turned to the upcoming work session on Nov. 12 and how the possible continuation of a public hearing on the downtown zoning review would be handled. Ken Clein ventured that the public hearing would not be continued for the working session. Public hearings are only for the commission’s business meetings, he said. Westphal concurred, saying that it would simply be called public commentary.

Peters wondered if it would be of interest to get a legal opinion with respect to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act – on the question of not having the public hearing at the working session. He didn’t think it would violate the act, but wondered if a legal opinion would be useful.

Rampson indicated that she didn’t think a legal opinion was necessary: As long as an opportunity is provided for members of the public to address the commission in some fashion – not necessarily in the context of a formal public hearing – the conditions of the OMA are met. Reasonable limits can be put on time and extent of public comment, she said.

Clein appreciated the work Peters had done, and stated that he was in favor of creating bylaws consistent with expectations of other public bodies. He echoed Peters’ sentiment that the idea is not to limit public input. Paras Parekh worried about possible time lags between continuations of the same public hearing. Changes to a project might take place that could cause people to want to weigh in again. Peters indicated that the provision of an exception was meant to address that possibility. Rampson pointed out that if a project has taken longer than six months, the public hearing would need to be re-noticed.

Before the Nov. 6 meeting started, planning commissioner Paras Parekh (left) talked with Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting. Ophoff was at the meeting to answer questions about the Traverwood Apartments project.

Commissioner discussion then turned to the possibility of making the planning commission’s bylaws more consistent with the city council’s rule – by not explicitly stating a limit on the number of speaking turns. Peters ventured that to achieve that parallel with the city council’s approach, this clause could be eliminated: “… may only be allowed to speak once during the entirety of a single public hearing, but …”

If the 3-minute rule, as applied by the city council, prevented people from speaking on more than one occasion, that should be sufficient for the planning commission, too. Clein ventured that Peters’ approach made sense. Diane Giannola noted that it made sense, but was not clear to others.

Westphal ventured that it made sense to match the council’s approach, but it sounded like the council’s rules are not ideal. Peters said he wanted  to withdraw the proposal.

Rampson suggested that commissioners could take time at their Nov. 12 working session to hammer out the language, but that people had now been put on notice. Westphal said he hoped the bylaws change could be voted on at the next regular meeting, which falls on Nov. 19.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Downtown Zoning Review

The Nov. 6 meeting marked the third time in the past month that planning commissioners heard public input on a consultant’s report with recommendations to changes in the city’s downtown zoning. The item on the commission’s Nov. 6 agenda included the continuation of a public hearing that began on Oct. 15, 2013.

A consultant’s report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of 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]

In general, the recommendations – which were prepared by consultants ENP & Associates – call for some sections of the downtown to be downzoned, to create better transitions between residential neighborhoods and property that’s zoned for denser development. The recommendations also call for mandatory approval from the city’s design review board for any projects that are seeking premiums.

The recommendations reviewed on Oct. 15 and Nov. 6 include: (1) rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) rezone the municipal center parcel (city hall and Justice Center) 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; and (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.

This 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. The council’s direction was to make a recommendation 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, which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu has taken the lead on this project.

The commission will eventually vote on a final set of recommendations to be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Downtown Zoning Review: DDA Meeting

The Nov. 6 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – which took place at noon, or seven hours earlier than the planning commission’s meeting – also featured some discussion of the ongoing zoning review. That discussion is included in this report.

Reporting out from the downtown citizens advisory council, Ray Detter reviewed what he called the “mistakes” that were made during the A2D2 process that resulted in the current downtown zoning adopted in 2009. The CAC had based its analysis on a basic approach that would minimize the extent to which high-rise developments create negative impacts on neighbors in terms of height, scale, massing, shading and harm to natural and historic resources. Those are all considerations already in the city’s downtown plan, he said. The consultant for the review, Erin Perdu, has done a good job, Detter said. He added that he was going to call the issues “mistakes,” which he’d identify subsequently because he thought they were, in fact, mistakes that had resulted from the “rush” to enact the A2D2 zoning.

The first mistake, Detter said, was that the parcel currently occupied by the University of Michigan Credit Union [formerly the Ann Arbor News building, at the southwest corner of Division and Huron], should have been zoned D2 not D1. He noted that D2 has a height limit of 60 feet, compared to D1, which has a height limit of 180 feet. The parcel is clearly in an interface area, he contended, across the street from residential and historical properties in the Old Fourth Ward that require protection. That’s also true for the properties to the west of the UM Credit Union along the south side of Ann Street all the way to North Fourth Avenue, he said.

The second mistake, according to Detter, had been made obvious by the 413 E. Huron proposal, he said. The parking lot east of Sloan Plaza and west of Campus Inn should not be zoned D1 [which in that part of D1 zoning has an overlay reducing the height limit to 150 feet]. Rather, it should be D2 or some appropriate hybrid, he said, with a height limit of 120 feet and some combination of setback and diagonal requirements that keep it at least 25 feet away from Sloan Plaza. Detter said the goal was to prevent a structure from being built that would destroy the livability of Sloan Plaza or to the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. Detter said that the owner of Campus Inn and the parking lot in question, Dennis Dahlmann, supports the zoning change.

The recommendation by the consultant, Detter said, is to include the frontage of Huron Street on its north side all the way to Ashley in this reduced zoning. Detter allowed that it was not part of the charge given by the city council to consider these properties, but the Ahmo’s property at the northwest corner of Division and Huron should not be zoned D1 with a height limit of 180 feet, Detter said. Rather, it should have some kind of hybrid zoning with a limit of 120 feet appropriate to the sites across from it, which Detter called one of the most historic sites in the city.

The third mistake that had been made in the 2009 A2D2 zoning, Detter said, was the property at the southeast corner of Main and William streets across from Ashley Mews. That should not be zoned D1 at 180 feet, Detter said, but rather D2 or some hybrid with reduced height and setbacks and diagonal requirements that would protect the historic properties on East William Street, he said. There are other mistakes as well, Detter said.

About the changes recommended in the consultant’s report, Detter said that the Ann Arbor community “wants this.” He also said it’s important not to continue to award premiums for additional floor area ratio (FAR), if the premiums depend on things that “we don’t want.” Among those things he said that the community doesn’t want is student housing. What the community does want are things like more open space, and perhaps affordable housing, Detter concluded.

DDA board member Roger Hewitt responded to Detter’s remarks by focusing on Detter’s contention that the A2D2 process had been “rushed.” Having served on a steering committee for the A2D2 process, Hewitt said, it was not rushed compared to what’s going on now – it had lasted several years. Hewitt stated that the A2D2 process was certainly not a rushed process. The decisions that Detter was describing as “mistakes” had not been described as mistakes at the time, Hewitt noted. The A2D2 decisions had broad-based community support, Hewitt said. At that point Detter interjected that he wanted to respond to Hewitt, but board chair Sandi Smith told him that of course he could not.

Mayor John Hieftje followed up a bit later in the meeting on Hewitt’s remarks, saying that the A2D2 process took around six years. He pointed to the work of a downtown residential task force that was established in 2004, Hieftje characterized the amount of public input and workshops that went on for a number of years as unprecedented. At the time, the community had reached a consensus, he said. Hieftje allowed that, as Detter was pointing out, “we didn’t get everything right,” but he said not every detail was expected to be right. Some of those details are being worked through now, Hieftje said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Planning Commission Public Hearing

At the planning commission meeting, Ray Detter reprised the comments he’d made earlier in the day at the DDA board meeting. Several other people commented as well.

Norm Tyler told the commission he wanted to share some information that had first been put together by Doug Kelbaugh, a professor of architecture and urban planning at the University Michigan. Tyler showed the planning commission a superposed map of zoning revisions.

Norm Tyler.

[It's a similar map to the one described by Kelbaugh at the Feb. 19, 2013 city council meeting during his commentary on the 413 E. Huron project. Tyler owns a property just to the north of the 413 E. Huron project.] Tyler said he was speaking on behalf of Kelbaugh. The idea was based on simplifying the boundaries between D1 and other zoning designations.

It included a new D1.5 designation north of Huron Street as a transition area, Tyler said. A height limit there was recommended of 120 feet with a 10-foot setback from sidewalks. The existing D2 is used elsewhere as a transition between the core and surrounding residential areas. The proposal has been discussed by a group of representatives from the downtown and near downtown neighborhoods, he said. Tyler called the map a consensus map that had evolved from that discussion. He offered the map as a reference guide for the conversation.

Ethel Potts said that there’d been some substantial changes recommended by the consultant. She said the consultant was very good and managed a series of meetings quite open to the public. But Potts claimed that the council had limited the scope of the review, so the report is very limited. She saw this report as the first stage of a comprehensive evaluation of the D1 and D2 zoning designations. There are other locations – besides those included in the scope laid out by the council – at the edge of downtown where a buffer is needed, Potts said. Amendments are needed to the D2 zoning definition, because it does not function as a buffer. The flaws need to be corrected, she said, otherwise we will continue to have controversy.

Ted Annis introduced himself as a resident of 414 S. Main (Ashley Mews). He supported the proposed zoning map that was shown by Norm Tyler. That map solves a nasty problem for him, Annis said, allowing that he was looking after his own interests – because he had just bought a condo. Annis had a sense that the planning commission is reluctant to change the Perdu report, but he reminded the commissioners that the people addressing the commission that evening were “the neighborhood speaking to you.”

Andy Klein introduced himself as one of the owners of the DTE building at Main and William – he was the “K” in KRG Investments, he said. His father had developed the property in the early 1980s when interest rates were over 18%, and took a considerable risk to develop it. Klein said he’d built in the community for 25 years. He’d participated in the interview process done by the consultant, and had done the online surveys. Throughout his participation, he said, he’d talked about how he believed in development that is harmonious with surrounding areas. But he thought that cutting the allowable height of part of the property (through the split D1/D2 zoning) by 66% was a harsh reaction to recent undesirable projects. The split D1/D2 zoning would create an awkward situation for future development, he said.

So Klein supported an earlier recommendation by the consultant, which maintained the D1 zoning but reduced the height to 150 feet and used diagonals as a way to control the shape of the building. D2 is inconsistent with the other three buildings on the corner, he said. The consultant’s earlier recommendation had been a reasonable solution. It’s not possible to know what will happen with the property, but it’s important to preserve flexibility, he said.

Reducing the zoning could have a significant impact on taxes and limit creativity. Creativity is “what development is all about,” Klein said. The parcel could house a corporate headquarters, or become a landmark building that’s a gateway to the city. Applying D2 zoning there is not urban planning, he said, but rather a knee-jerk reaction to previous projects. He hoped that planning commissioners would consider a reasonable solution that benefits everyone.

Steve Bellock told the commissioners that he owned the 11-unit historic home immediately to the north of the 413 E. Huron project. He had loads of questions about how a town like Ann Arbor could come up with a building like 413 E. Huron, which was 150 feet tall. He had asked for a sun and shade study to see what effect the building would have, and contended that the study showed at 12 noon his house would be in shade 12 months of the year. That’s a 150-foot tall building without any regard for neighbors, he said. He cited the city council deliberations on the 413 E. Huron project, when Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had said she’d heard 9 hours of testimony of people only talking about how they didn’t like the project, but councilmembers voted for it because they feared the city was going to be sued. He ticked through the councilmembers who voted against the 413 E. Huron project, who had just won re-election: Briere, Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Marcia Higgins had voted for it the project. [She was a Ward 4 incumbent but lost the Democratic primary in August to Jack Eaton.]

Christine Crockett introduced herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Association. She responded to Klein’s support for maintaining the denser zoning on the grounds that it allowed more creativity, by saying that she didn’t think developers had shown much creativity. Instead she called the result “big shoeboxes in the sky.” Reconsidering the zoning now is good process and good planning, Crockett said. Zoning isn’t a matter of maximizing property value, she said. She didn’t have any cash in the “development game,” but she’d made an investment in time and effort and thought. She encouraged the commission to consider the review with great thoughtfulness. Ann Arbor’s zoning should allow for development while respecting the special atmosphere of this community, she said.

Gwen Nystuen told commissioners she lived on the edge of the South University district. That area had been left out of consideration in the current zoning review, she complained. Downtown still has places where there are no D2 buffers. She was very much in support of the map that Norm Tyler had shown.

Ellen Ramsburgh, who serves on the city’s historic district commission, echoed Nystuen’s remarks. This is the beginning of the discussion about problems that are inherent in the zoning, Ramsburgh said. She described some of the impacts of recent development on historic resources – The Varsity and how it affects the adjacent First Baptist Church. And 413 E. Huron affects the historic district of Ann and Division, she said. She generally agreed with the consultant’s recommendations about Ann and Huron streets. But the recommendations for Main and William will cause the same problems for that neighborhood as the 413 E. Huron project caused, and would affect the sustainability of that historic neighborhood, she said. Ramsburgh supported having a member of the HDC on the design review board. She reminded planning commissioners that in the past year, the HDC had sent two resolutions to the planning commission and the city council about the importance of upholding the historic district ordinance as well as the city’s zoning ordinance.

Jeff Crockett supported the map that Norm Tyler had presented earlier. He thought that the current zoning review is a good step, but said there are some further considerations that need to be made. He contended that the 413 E. Huron project had illustrated how city regulations offered no protection from impact on landmark features, and how traffic safety did not have an impact on the approval process. He asked the commission to consider the loopholes in the planning process that work to the advantage of developers.

Eleanor Linn introduced herself as a resident of Forest Court, in the South University area, which is zoned R4C, and abuts properties zoned D2 and D1. She thought those adjacent properties they should all be rezoned to D2. An interface is needed wherever D-type zoning meets residential properties, she said. Requiring a stepback on higher floors, but only setbacks on ground level, can’t preserve the usability of first-floor residential, she said, because it deprives residents of air and light.

Cy Hufano told commissioners he’d been a resident of Ann Arbor for 67 years, and he now lives at 505 E. Huron (Sloan Plaza) as a new resident there. He hadn’t previously been as involved in issues of city government and community as he has since moving downtown. When he speaks at these settings, he said, he doesn’t come at it from the technical side. He told commissioners they have a real struggle with balance. He encouraged them to focus on the balance between what’s good for citizens as human beings and what’s good for the city as a government and an entity. There’d been an enormous amount of human response to the 413 E. Huron project, he said, and his sense of it is that it’s not going to go away. He was not advocating against profit. But he encouraged commissioners to think about the balance in their deliberations. He cautioned against taking positions that are compromised by threats of being sued.

Downtown Zoning Review: Planning Commission Discussion

Due to the absence of Sabra Briere and Wendy Woods, commissioners were inclined to postpone a vote. Their back-and-forth centered on whether to use their upcoming working session, on Nov. 12, to deliberate on their recommendation to the city council. That meant that the originally planned topic for the session – a review of legal issues by assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald – would be shifted to a future working session. That’s what the commission decided to do.

Outcome: Commissioners postponed consideration of the downtown zoning review until their Nov. 12 working session. 

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

Absent: Sabra Briere, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Nov. 19, 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.

The design review board has not had bylaws up to now. The purpose of the board is to “foster excellence in the design of Ann Arbor’s built environment and to advise petitioners on how a project can meet the spirit and intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines.” [.pdf of design review board bylaws]

The planning commission had given approval to changes in its bylaws at its July 16, 2013 meeting. Those changes related to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws on Nov. 7 city council agenda].

Not the subject of a revision, but still the source of some recent community interest, is the following clause from the planning commission bylaws, which imposes a limitation on the ability of a councilmember to address the city planning commission:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

That part of the bylaws surfaced recently, when councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) on separate occasions sought to address the planning commission – Warpehoski on July 16, 2013 and Kailasapathy on Aug. 13, 2013.

Based on an analysis in the Michigan Municipal League’s “Handbook for Municipal Officials,” it may be problematic for a city councilmember to address a body like the planning commission. That’s not based on having a property interest in a matter, but rather because the council is the appointing body for the commission. The handbook presents the following scenario as an ethical exercise – using the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). From the MML Handbook:

Situation #2 Before you were elected to the city council you served on your city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), so you know the ZBA procedures very well. A few months after your election to council, your neighbor and campaign manager files a petition with the ZBA seeking a variance. Since you know how the ZBA works, he asks you to accompany him to the ZBA and to speak on his behalf. Should you do it?

The analysis offered by the handbook is the following:

No. The Michigan Court of Appeals has labeled this situation as “patently improper” and an abuse of public trust for the reason that the person making the argument to the ZBA is also one of the people charged with appointing the ZBA. This creates duress on the ZBA, raising doubt about the impartiality of the ZBA’s decision. Any decision made by the ZBA under these circumstances is void. See Barkey v. Nick, 11 Mich App 361 (1968).

The implication of the Ann Arbor city planning commission bylaw is that it’s permissible for a city councilmember to address the commission exactly when the councilmember is not the petitioner or does not have an interest in the matter. That situation appears to be explicitly deemed unethical by the MML Handbook, if the handbook’s analysis is extended from the ZBA to the planning commission.

The planning commission is also currently contemplating a further change to its bylaws, to clarify how many turns the same person can speak at a public hearing, and how public hearings are continued. It is that current contemplation of additional bylaws changes that led the council to postpone consideration until Dec. 16, the second meeting in December.

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.

The idea would be to clarify the definition of a public hearing so that when a matter is postponed, its public hearing is continued – as opposed to starting a fresh public hearing. Applying a time limit of three minutes for each speaker would effectively rule out a situation where a person could speak multiple times in a public hearing on the same matter. But the bylaw revision being considered by the commission could explicitly rule out multiple speaking turns by the same person at a public hearing. The revision also provides a mechanism for an exception.

The proposed revision, which commissioner Jeremy Peters had crafted for consideration by his colleagues, would add two items to the rules on public hearings (Article VIII). [Italics indicates a portion of the proposal that at least some commissioners seemed inclined to delete from the new sections]:

Section 6. If an item on the agenda which has a public hearing attached to it is postponed or continued at a later date, the public hearing on the later date will be deemed to be a continuation of that original public hearing.

Section 7. Members of the public may only be allowed to speak once during the entirety of a single public hearing, but shall not be precluded from speaking at multiple public hearings on separate agenda items. The Chair may entertain a motion from the Commission to modify this rule to allow a second turn at comment, as it pertains to an individual agenda item, as the Commission deems appropriate, by majority vote.

The revisions would clarify a process that was debated by commissioners on Oct. 15, during the middle of a public hearing on downtown zoning changes. Before that 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.

During that debate, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the commission’s bylaws are silent on this 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.

The commission will likely vote on the proposed revisions at some upcoming meeting.

The bylaws were most recently revised at the commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting. Those changes related to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. The changes approved by commissioners on July 16 are on the city council’s Nov. 7 agenda for approval. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws on Nov. 7 city council agenda]

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]