The item had been postponed from the council’s May 19, 2014 meeting.

According to a staff memo written in response to a councilmember question, reskinning of the Larcom City Hall building would mean replacing the existing exterior walls and windows of the building. The result would be new squared-off exterior, eliminating the inverted pyramid design. The new exterior would hang vertically from the sixth floor.

The focus of the project is on improving energy efficiency. The memo describes existing windows as mostly single-pane glass on aluminum frames, which offer little insulation value. The project would also result in an incremental gain in square footage – because the lower floors would have the same footprint as the sixth floor, which is currently the largest floor of the building. According to the memo, materials used for the exterior would “blend better” with the recently constructed Justice Center, which adjoins city hall.

An amendment to the resolution made at the council meeting added a “resolved” clause that expressed support for an energy efficiency renovation at city hall. The consensus on the council was not to support cosmetic improvements.

Details on the council’s deliberations are provided in The Chronicle’s live updates filed during the meeting.

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

On Jan. 29, Kristin “KT” Tomey attended her first regular meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission since being appointed by the city council on Jan. 6. (Photos by the writer.)

Some commissioners expressed frustration that they had insufficient information on which to base their evaluation. And after about two hours of discussion – using a scoring rubric with seven criteria – commissioners had evaluated only a few projects: artist-designed street access (manhole) covers, art for the Springwater subdivision, and art for the corridors of Main Street and Plymouth Road. Because there were still several other items on the agenda, they voted to postpone further evaluation of possible capital projects until their next meeting.

In other action, commissioners discussed and approved a draft annual public art plan that’s officially due to the city council on Feb. 1, for projects to be undertaken in the fiscal year that begins July 1. It includes projects that are underway – like artwork for East Stadium bridges and Argo Cascades – as well as a proposal to add some enhanced capital projects, like street access covers on resurfaced roads.

The draft annual plan had been prepared by Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. Commissioners asked for some revisions and designated commissioner John Kotarski to work with Seagraves on a final version that will likely be presented to the council on Feb. 18. Kotarski praised the draft, saying “It has as much meat as anyone wants. It shows a lot of work. It shows an art commission that gets the message from an impatient city council.”

Commissioners also discussed a proposal from the Clean Energy Coalition to select and fund an artist who would help incorporate art into a new bike share program. They tabled action on this item, wanting additional information about the CEC’s expectations for funding.

This was AAPAC’s first regular meeting since Oct. 23, 2013, although they held a retreat in December and a planning session earlier in January. Throughout the evening, concerns were raised about the future of the public art program, in light of recent city council discussions. The council had postponed a requested six-month extension of Seagraves’ contract, and will be taking up that item on Feb. 3.

Also on the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance. The amendment would allow the council to return about $800,000 accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn, such as the street millage or sanitary sewer fund. It’s the latest in an ongoing transition for the city’s public art program – a transition that’s been unsettling for public art commissioners.

The Jan. 29 meeting marked another transition for AAPAC, which has seen considerable turnover during the past year. It was the first regular monthly meeting for the newest commissioner, Kristin “KT” Tomey, who was appointed by the city council on Jan. 6. And it was the last meeting for Malverne Winborne, whose term ended on Dec. 31. He did not seek reappointment, and was serving until the position was filled. His replacement, Jim Simpson, is expected to be confirmed in a vote at the city council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Winborne has served as vice chair of AAPAC – but the group held new officer elections on Jan. 29. Bob Miller was re-elected to another one-year term as chair, and John Kotarski was elected vice chair. There were no competing nominations, and both votes were unanimous.

Noting that the Jan. 29 meeting had been especially challenging, Miller thanked commissioners for their work. “This is probably the most belabored meeting I think we’ve ever gone through, aside from maybe one of the retreats,” he said. “I’m tapped out.” He jokingly cajoled commissioners: “Please do come back.”

Miller also encouraged students to return, as about two dozen students from Skyline High School – and some parents – attended the Jan. 29 meeting. “It’s the most amount of people we’ve ever had at any of our meetings,” Miller noted. One student pointed out that they were all from the same government class, facing a Jan. 31 deadline to attend a public meeting.

Future of Public Art Program

At the beginning of the Jan. 29 meeting, commissioners voted to amend the agenda – over the dissent of John Kotarski – to add an item for discussion about the interaction between AAPAC and the city council.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s part-time public art administrator.

Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, reviewed the current discussion that’s underway at city council. At their Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, councilmembers were asked to approve a six-month extension to the contract for the public art administrator – a part-time position held by Aaron Seagraves. Some councilmembers were concerned about the transition from the previous Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new approach, where public art will be “baked in” to the city’s capital projects or done with money that’s raised through other sources in the community. Also raised at that Jan. 21 city council meeting was the issue of as-yet-unallocated funding that remains from the Percent for Art program – about $800,000.

Ultimately, councilmembers postponed action on Seagraves’ contract extension – and that item is now on the Feb. 3 council agenda. The Feb. 3 agenda also includes initial consideration of an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). The amendment would allow the council to return money accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn – such as the street millage or sanitary sewer fund. The ordinance change would need a second and final council vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. Any transfer of public art money would require separate council action after the potential ordinance change.

Miller noted that when the council made revisions to the public art ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting, the remaining funds had been intended to provide a transition for the program. [At that time, Lumm had also tried unsuccessfully to return the remaining Percent for Art money to its funds of origins, but she didn't get sufficient support on the council to make that change.]

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator who attended AAPAC’s Jan. 29 meeting, added that it’s within the council’s “political prerogative to revisit that decision, which is what they are doing now.” He noted that when the council made changes to the program, they made no provisions to pay for arts administration. That’s why the contract extensions for Seagraves – who reports to Hupy – have been made.

If the council decides to return the roughly $800,000 to its funds of origin, Hupy said, it means there won’t be funds available during this interim period for public art. The intent going forward to include public art funding as part of certain capital improvement projects, but those are longer-term efforts. The other funding approach is to partner with outside organizations and do fundraising from the community, but that hasn’t yet gotten off the ground in a significant way. [It's also an option for the council to allocate money from the general fund to cover the salary of a public art administrator salary, but that option has not yet been publicly floated by city councilmembers.]

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Nick Zagar.

Hupy said that if the council doesn’t approve the current contract extension, then staff will be asking for a budget appropriation during the fiscal 2015 budget process for public art administration. That fiscal year runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. The staff is currently developing that budget, which will be brought forward to the council in the spring. “I’m not giving you a whole lot of clarity,” Hupy added, “because this is a process that’s in council’s hands.”

Hupy noted that the city council task force that brought forward a proposal last summer to restructure the public art program had envisioned a three-year transition process. “So to think you’re going to whip this in one or two meetings – you’re not going to do it that quickly,” he told commissioners.

Miller added that it’s still “muddy” as to how AAPAC will be structured to do fundraising and partnerships with outside organizations. He noted that some projects – a Coleman Jewett memorial, and the Canoe Imagine Art project, for example – are already using this approach. “So we’ve been moving toward this new model,” Miller said, “but the council still hasn’t figured out how to house the commission in a structure that will allow for us to be fundraising.” He noted that commissioners shouldn’t be the the people who go out and raising money – they should be advising the city on how to select art projects.

Nick Zagar expressed concern about the current status of AAPAC. “We’re volunteers trying to do things we’re passionate about, but there’s never any certainty about things.” And if the city eliminates the public art administrator’s position, “everything I’m sure will grind to a dramatic halt,” Zagar said. It’s hard to want to invest a lot of energy into the program, he added, given that commissioners don’t really have a clear direction about the program’s future.

Miller agreed, and said those questions will have to be answered by the council on Feb. 3. “Public art has been a hot topic since it started,” he said. “It would be nice if [the public art program] had some consistency behind it, for sure.”

Selection of Capital Projects for Public Art

On Jan. 22, AAPAC met in a planning session focused on fine-tuning a criteria and scoring rubric for prioritizing capital projects that could possibly have a public art component. [.pdf of draft scoring rubric]

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator.

The rubric is modeled after a similar system that’s used by city staff to score and prioritize projects in the capital improvements plan (CIP). Commissioners had been briefed on the CIP process at their Oct. 23, 2013 meeting by Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process.

The draft rubric includes seven categories, with scoring on a scale of 1-10: (1) distribution of art throughout the city; (2) locations of high use and high visibility; (3) placemaking; (4) integrated artwork (whether artwork can be integrated into a project or location); (5) partnerships; (6) funding; and (7) programming – whether a school or other organization could develop programs related to the artwork.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had selected 10 projects that are in the city’s current capital improvements plan (CIP) – three starting in fiscal 2015, and seven starting in fiscal 2016.

Those capital projects and possible public art enhancements proposed by Seagraves are:

• Annual street resurfacing (FY 2015): artist-designed street access covers (manhole covers) for the city’s water, sanitary sewer and stormwater systems.
• Sidewalk gaps (FY 2015): Sidewalk stamping.
• Mid-block street crossing improvements, pavement marking and sign replacement (FY 2015): Art to-be-determined for the streets.
• Six specific road projects (FY 2016): East Stadium Boulevard from Huchins to Kipke; Springwater subdivision (south of Packard, west of Platt); Main Street (non-motorized corridor); Plymouth Road (non-motorized corridor); Stone School Road improvements; Packard/Eisenhower, from Stone School to Platt. Artwork would be integrated into the projects.
• Ann Arbor Station (FY 2016): Art would be integrated into the project.

Seagraves noted that he focused on projects that could be included in the annual plan that AAPAC is required to submit to the city council in February. The intent is that the capital projects, when sent to the council for budgetary approval, would include funding for public art to be integrated into the work. He hoped that commissioners could reach a consensus score to prioritize these projects.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Ashlee Arder.

Commissioners spent about two hours discussing only a few projects on this list: street access covers, art for the Springwater subdivision, and art for the corridors along Main Street and Plymouth Road.

Some commissioners expressed frustration at having to score these items without having a specific project proposal to evaluate. When Seagraves asked who would define the project at this point, John Kotarski suggested that Seagraves would do that, and it would then be evaluated by commissioners. Malverne Winborne agreed: “We need something to grasp on to, and we don’t have it.”

Seagraves noted that it would be difficult to predetermine the art projects – that would be the work of a task force, after AAPAC identifies a CIP project for enhancement. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, explained that AAPAC at this point needs to rate the location or type of project and its suitability for art, rather than the specific artwork that might be part of a capital project.

Kotarski felt there was inadequate information to do the scoring. Bob Miller, AAPAC’s chair, directed Seagraves in the future to include photos of the locations, and some suggestions for possible art projects that might be appropriate. But Winborne expressed concern that this would be taking away from the artist’s creativity. “We’ve had long conversations about that,” he noted. “It seems like we’re sort of discounting that now, saying ‘We’ll do it.’” Winborne noted that there’s been turnover on AAPAC, so many of the current commissioners weren’t part of those previous discussions.

Ashlee Arder urged commissioners to focus on the information that they had, rather than on the information that wasn’t available yet. “We realize there are a lot of holes,” she said. Hupy reiterated the purpose of this process – to rate a site or capital project with regard to its potential for public art. Kotarski argued that without a concrete art project in mind, “it’s going to be very difficult for us to do that, in a meaningful way.”

There also was discussion at various points about definitions in the scoring criteria, and a consensus that the rubric needs to be tweaked. It emerged that some commissioners had different understandings of what the criteria meant.

At one point, to expedite the process, Kristin Tomey suggested eliminating some of the categories – like funding, for example, since all projects incorporated into a capital project would presumably receive funding from the city. She also suggested using walkability scores as part of the scoring, using the website Walk Score. It can help identify locations that are high use, she said. Three categories – distribution of art within the city, visibility, and placemaking – seemed like those that AAPAC should focus on, she added.

Miller suggested presenting the rubric to the city council, with notes indicating that there are certain aspects of the rubric that will be modified. Hupy supported that approach, saying it was understandable that there would be changes to the process, because this was the first time that AAPAC had done it.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Devon Akmon.

Hupy told the commissioners that they are suffering from what happens to other groups that go through this process: It’s very difficult at first, but gets easier as they score more projects. “It’s a process of learning,” he said. Hupy noted that the council has asked for staff to report back about AAPAC’s selection process – the rubric that the commission has been developing to help prioritize capital projects that could possibly be enhanced with public art. “So the work you’ve been doing is following the transition as laid out in the ordinance.”

Hupy also offered to bring back more supporting materials for commissioners to help them evaluate capital projects, and pointed out that nothing is set in stone at this point – they can revisit their decisions.

Nick Zagar also requested maps showing the location of existing public art – including art on the University of Michigan campus – to make it easier to tell what neighborhoods or areas don’t have public art. Devon Akmon suggested putting that information online, as a resource for commissioners but also as a marketing tool for the public.

Tomey recommended standardizing the presentation of material to commissioners, so they could be sure they had the information they needed.

After nearly two hours, Akmon pointed out that the group hadn’t finished scoring the 10 CIP projects that Seagraves had brought forward – and they still had most of their agenda to move through, in addition to that. He suggested postponing discussion of the other CIP projects, and tackling only two or three per meeting. “It’s a little fatiguing,” he said, describing the effort as almost like urban planning, with public art as the next step.

Miller agreed, saying “we’ve been stifled by this process.”

Hupy noted that in refining this scoring rubric, it might make sense to focus on locations as a first step, then looking at a public art concept as a second step. There seemed to be some consensus about taking this approach.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone further evaluation of the possible CIP projects that might be enhanced with public art. They’ll take up the task again at a future meeting.

Public Art Annual Plan

In the past, the public art annual plan was required to be submitted to the city council by April 1. But at AAPAC’s April 24, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to recommend shifting that date to Feb. 1 – a move intended to allow the council to make budget decisions based on recommendations from AAPAC. Shifting the date of the annual plan was linked to a major restructuring of the city’s public art program, which is still underway. The city council subsequently made revisions to the public art ordinance – Chapter 24 of the city code – that included the Feb. 1 deadline for submitting the annual plan. From the city code:

(2) The oversight body shall:
…
(B) By February 1 of each year, submit to City Council a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year, including enhanced projects and any proposed expenditure of donated, grant, or other funds. The plan shall also include a recommendation as to which projects from the current Capital Improvements Plan are appropriate for designation as enhanced projects; …

On Jan. 29, Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, presented a draft annual plan for fiscal 2015. He hoped AAPAC would approve that night, so that it could be forwarded to the city council. [.pdf of draft FY 2015 annual plan]

Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski.

John Kotarski characterized the draft as one of the best plans that AAPAC has ever created. It’s thorough, covering everything that the commission has done, and has a plan for moving forward, he said.

“It has as much meat as anyone wants,” Kotarski added. “It shows a lot of work. It shows an art commission that gets the message from an impatient city council.”

Bob Miller then asked about the wastewater treatment plant project that was included in the draft plan. “I don’t want to include it,” Kotarski replied, saying that the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum had withdrawn a proposal to partner on artwork at the new plant.

Six other ongoing public art projects were listed in the draft plan:

• Completion of the public art project at East Stadium bridges. Artist Catherine Widgery was recommended by a selection panel, and is completing modifications to the original design. The final design will be brought forward for additional public input, and will need approval by AAPAC and then by the city council. Installation is expected in FY 2015. The project’s total budget is $400,000.
• Completion of public art at Argo Cascades. The selection panel has tabled proposals by the previous two finalists, and is reviewing other options for that site. No recommendation has yet been made to AAPAC. The total budget is set at $150,000.
• Public art at Arbor Oaks Park. This project is in partnership with Bryant Neighborhood Association and the nonprofit Community Action Network, which is under contract with the city to run the Bryant Community Center. It will involve participation of the neighborhood in the design and creation of the artwork. A grant application to help fund this project was submitted to the Southeast Michigan Community Foundation in November 2013. No city public art funds have been allocated, and additional funding is expected to be raised through community donations.
• Canoe Imagine Art. AAPAC has approved $10,000 in funding for this community art project – a temporary art display in downtown Ann Arbor using old canoes from the city that would be repurposed as public art. The installation is expected to take place in fiscal 2015 or 2016, depending on funding. The project also has received a $21,000 grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs, and organizers plan to raise additional funds from private donors.
• Coleman Jewett Memorial. A bronze replica of an Adirondack chair made by Coleman Jewett will be located at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January of 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. AAPAC has committed $5,000 to the project, which has a total project of $36,000. Other funds will be raised from private donations, including a contribution from the Old West Side Association.
• Graphics for Control Boxes. Called “PowerArt,” this project involves wrapping about 40 traffic signal boxes in the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district with vinyl printed replicas of artwork. The initial pilot phase would focus on 14 boxes at a total cost of $41,000, to be split between the city and the DDA. AAPAC approved $20,500 for the first year as a pilot project. The project is being administered by the Arts Alliance in response to a DDA request.

In addition, Seagraves hoped to include some projects from the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which commissioners had discussed and started to evaluate earlier in the meeting. Kotarski suggested stating in the annual plan that AAPAC is working on a rubric and practicing the application of that rubric on potential projects – that it’s a work in progress.

Seagraves proposed including three projects from the FY 2015 CIP. Commissioners agreed, noting that there had been consensus on these projects during their earlier discussion:

• Annual street resurfacing (FY 2015): artist-designed street access covers (manhole covers) for the city’s water, sanitary sewer and stormwater systems.
• Sidewalk gaps (FY 2015): Sidewalk stamping.
• Mid-block street crossing improvements, pavement marking and sign replacement (FY 2015): Art to-be-determined for the streets.

Seagraves also recommended including dollar amounts to fund these projects – $60,000 for access covers and $60,000 for sidewalk stamping. Kotarski expressed concern that there wasn’t sufficient justification at this point for any particular amount. Seagraves said he’d research the cost so that he could include it in the plan.

Miller proposed that AAPAC approve the annual plan at that night’s meeting, contingent on revisions that Seagraves would make. Kristin Tomey asked whether commissioners could vote on the plan via email, after Seagraves made revisions. [The answer is no. Even if the public art commission were analyzed as a purely advisory body under the Michigan Open Meetings Act that would not allow the commission to ignore the OMA. That's because of a policy approved by the city council in 1991, which states that such groups are still expected to conform to the spirit of the OMA – to the best ability of that entity’s members. For more background on this issue, see "Column: A Reminder on Open Government."]

Malverne Winborne suggested that the commissioners approve the draft plan, then empower one commissioner to work with Seagraves on the final revisions. Miller asked Kotarski to take on that task.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the draft annual plan, and authorized John Kotarski to work with Aaron Seagraves in making final revisions.

The expectation at the Jan. 29 meeting was that the annual plan would be submitted to the council on Feb. 3. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle on Jan. 30, Seagraves said that the plan will instead be on a future agenda, possibly on Feb. 18.

Bike Share Program

AAPAC was asked to consider a proposal from the Clean Energy Coalition to select an artist who would work to incorporate art into a new bike share program. [.pdf of CEC proposal]

The bike share program, with a planned launch in the summer of 2014, will include 14 stations and 125 bikes at locations in downtown Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan campus.

In part, the proposal states:

CEC seeks a local artist to join the bike share team and contribute to several areas of the Ann Arbor bike share project. Specifically, CEC proposes to work directly with the Art Commission to select a local artist to work on the program. The artist would fill an integral role within the planning and launch processes currently in motion. In addition to standard graphic design work for promotional purposes, the artist will have the opportunity to design a collection of maps to feature bike share stations and local elements. The artist would also participate in marketing meetings and other planning activities to ensure that art is a deliberate and consistent attribute of the bike share program.

The position will run from late winter through the summer launch of bike share. CEC hopes to embrace the city’s vibrant culture of artists and creativity to design a unique identity for the bike share program, and commissioning a local artist is the ideal way to build this brand. This position would likely require 10-15 hours per week to attend partner meetings and produce the desired materials. CEC requests that the Public Art Commission cover the cost of the artist’s time and materials needed to produce artwork for the program. CEC will offer office space, make connections to program partners, and serve in a project management role to provide as much guidance as needed.

Nick Zagar questioned whether AAPAC could select a local artist. Bob Miller replied that the call for artists is open to anyone, and it’s up to the task force to select an artist – local or not. Miller began to elaborate, saying, “Speaking candidly about that…” He was cut off by John Kotarski, who cautioned: “I wouldn’t speak candidly, because your candid comments might very well be published.”

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Miller replied, saying “This is not something that’s secret. Dollar amounts sometimes dictate who gets involved.” [His point was that if a budget is low, it won't likely attract applicants from outside the area.] Kotarski noted that Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, had indicated it would be possible to select an artist as a “sole source provider” for a particular project. An open call for proposals, however, can’t be restricted geographically, he said. If AAPAC picked a single artist as a sole source provider, they’d have to explain why that particular artist has been selected. Kotarski said that Hupy had reviewed this process with the city attorney’s office too. [Hupy had left the meeting by this point.]

Zagar said it seemed like CEC was really looking for a graphic artist.

Commissioners also discussed where the funding might come from, if they pursued this project. In response to a suggestion from Miller, Kotarski expressed skepticism that the city council would allocate money from the city’s general fund. “Let’s bring it up at the next [council] meeting, when they’re sending the money back,” Kotarski quipped – a reference to the Feb. 3 council resolution that, if approved, would return remaining Percent for Art money to its original funding source.

Kotarski recommended that AAPAC endorse the project and help in any way they can, but without committing dollars to it.

Ashlee Arder noted that there were a lot of unanswered questions regarding the proposal, such as what kind of funding the CEC is requesting. She compared it to the much more detailed proposal that Deb Polich had provided for the PowerArt project. [.pdf of PowerArt proposal, made by Polich at AAPAC's Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.]

Miller said the commission would be hard-pressed to make a decision on this, without additional information. Kotarski added that AAPAC would be hard-pressed to spend any additional money at all, other than the projects that are in progress.

Kristin Tomey wondered about the process by which proposals like this are brought forward to AAPAC. Miller replied that in the past, most proposals haven’t provided the level of detail that AAPAC would like to see.

By way of background, the commission has previously developed a project intake form as a template for new projects. The project intake form is posted on AAPAC’s website. However, some commissioners have criticized the current process. The issue was debated at AAPAC’s Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. From The Chronicle’s report:

As he did during the Canoe Imagine Art discussion, John Kotarski said he’d like a more elaborate proposal for this and all projects that come to AAPAC for approval. He thought that the fundraising materials that [Marsha] Chamberlin had developed might serve that purpose.

Chamberlin pointed out that this project was approved about six months ago and has been discussed at virtually every meeting since then. “I just assumed people were up to speed on it,” she said.

Kotarski said his intent isn’t to get AAPAC up to speed. Rather, this kind of documentation will show the public that AAPAC was thorough in its work, before making decisions. He said he was critical of all the intake forms, and he’d emailed Aaron Seagraves with his comments. “I think our approach now is shoot, ready aim,” Kotarski said. “We are making decisions before we really, fully have a fleshed out concept and idea.” He’d like to change their approach, and said the Arts Alliance proposal [for PowerArt] provides a good model.

Chamberlin replied that the commission had developed the process of using project intake forms, so it should be a commission decision if they want to change that approach. These projects have been documented and presented to the commission at previous meetings, she noted.

Connie Brown felt that Kotarski was raising a broader issue, and she agreed that going forward, each project should have a more detailed packet of material. Bob Miller asked [Aaron] Seagraves to provide that type of packet in the future.

Chamberlin noted that this would dramatically change the process that AAPAC has developed. That process entails initial approval by AAPAC to move ahead on a project, followed by the formation of a task force to flesh out a more detailed proposal, on which AAPAC then votes.

After further discussion, commissioners reached consensus for Seagraves to compile more detailed proposals for AAPAC projects.

At the Jan. 29 meeting, Kotarski said he’d like to endorse the CEC bike share project, but that at this time AAPAC couldn’t commit any funding to it. Malverne Winborne reminded Kotarski about previous discussions that AAPAC has had about not endorsing projects. [The issue of endorsements arose when AAPAC was approached about endorsing a large Whirlydoodle installation. At AAPAC's July 25, 2012 meeting, Kotarski was unsuccessful in convincing other commissioners to support an endorsement policy for non-city-funded art projects. After a lengthy debate, AAPAC passed a resolution at that meeting stating that the commission would not make endorsements – and Kotarski cast the lone dissenting vote. There has been considerable turnover on the commission since that time.]

Winborne explained to new commissioners that there had been concern about “scope creep” at a time when AAPAC was trying to focus on moving forward with projects funded by the city’s Percent for Art program. Kotarski told Winborne that he’d take back his recommendation to endorse the bike share program.

Kotarski then moved to table the item until AAPAC received more information about the proposal.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to table the CEC bike share proposal.

Officer Elections

AAPAC’s bylaws call for the commission to hold officer elections for chair and vice chair in January, by secret ballot. From the bylaws:

Article VI Officers
Section 1. The officers of AAPAC shall be a Chair and Vice-Chair. The officers shall be elected by secret ballot each year from among the voting members of AAPAC. The officers shall be elected for a one-year term by a majority of the voting members currently serving on AAPAC. No member shall serve more than three (3) consecutive one-year terms in one office. The term of the officers shall run from the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January to the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January of the following year. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws]

Bob Miller has served as chair for the past year, and offered to serve again. There were no other competing nominations.

Malverne Winborne attended his last meeting as an Ann Arbor public art commissioner on Jan. 29.

The current vice chair, Malverne Winborne, is stepping down from AAPAC. He did not seek reappointment after serving one three-year term, and the Jan. 29 meeting was his final one. John Kotarski was nominated as vice chair, and there were no competing nominations.

Votes were taken on slips of yellow paper and tallied by Winborne.

Outcome: Bob Miller and John Kotarski were unanimously elected as chair and vice chair of AAPAC.

At the city council’s Jan. 21 meeting, Jim Simpson was nominated to fill the vacancy of Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013. A confirmation vote on Simpson’s appointment is expected at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Simpson works with the software firm Duo Security in Ann Arbor, and is affiliated with Baron Glassworks in Ypsilanti.

Commissioners present: Devon Akmon, Ashlee Arder, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Kristin Tomey, Malverne Winborne, Nick Zagar. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioner Bonnie Bona talks with city planning manager Wendy Rampson before the start of the commission’s Dec. 3, 2013 meeting. Bona was successful in advocating for the downzoning of a parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William. (Photos by the writer.)

In general, the recommendations aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

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

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

On Dec. 3, commissioners heard from three people during the public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main, including one of the property owners, Andy Klein. Speaking on behalf of the owners was Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, who suggested a third option to consider: Keep the D1 zoning on that site, but reduce the maximum height to 122 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 50% of the maximum diagonal dimension of the site. Ted Annis, who lives near that location, called for D2 zoning there.

Bonnie Bona, who’d been involved in the original A2D2 zoning process that’s now being partially reviewed, advocated for downzoning the entire site at 425 S. Main, to provide a buffer between D1 zoning and the nearby residential neighborhood. Some commissioners, including chair Kirk Westphal, wanted more density in the downtown, and noted that the site has allowed for denser development since the 1960s. The final vote on the recommendation for that site was 5-4, with support from Bona, Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were Westphal, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola and Paras Parekh.

Also, because of feedback received from the city’s design review board, commissioners revisited a recommendation that they’d previously settled regarding compliance with design guidelines. They unanimously voted to change the recommendation – so that it would require mandatory compliance with some of the design guidelines. The intent is to develop a process that will clarify the design compliance that will be required in order to receive premiums.

The vote on the full resolution with all of the recommendations, as amended, passed unanimously.

The next step is for the council to review the recommendations and give direction back to the commission about which recommendations to implement. At that point, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee would work with city planning staff to craft actual ordinance language. Any specific ordinance changes would be reviewed by the full planning commission and ultimately would require city council approval before taking effect. That process would include additional opportunities for public input.

Also on Dec. 3, commissioners reviewed the 2015-2020 capital improvements plan (CIP). After about an hour of discussion – touching on street lights, sidewalks, the rail station, public engagement, and other issues – they voted unanimously to adopt the updated CIP as a supporting document for the city’s master plan, and to recommend that the city council base its FY 2015 capital budget on the CIP.

The CIP includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of staff memo and CIP for FY 2015-2020] Most of the updates relate to FY 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. This year reflects the first-time inclusion of projects undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Downtown Zoning Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing

Ted Annis told commissioners that he lived across the street from the property at 425 S. Main. He’d been following the commission’s recommendations and had been glad to see that – at their Nov. 12 working session – they had agreed that the parcel should be zoned D2 and not D1. He supported that decision.

Ted Annis.

He read aloud from an email he sent out to his neighborhood group and other neighborhood groups after that meeting. In the email, he stated that the planning commission had agreed to change the zoning to D2 rather than the D1 zoning that had been recommended by the consultant. [The commission didn't formally vote on any of the recommendations at that working session, though they did discuss the recommendations and indicated some support for downzoning.]

Annis called the D2 zoning “more logical and aesthetically pleasing” for building heights downtown. He thought that the outcome would be accepted by the downtown community, with the exception of one or two property owners. “Unless there is a last minute flip-flop by planning commission, city council should be spared the agony of the downtown zoning fight,” he said.

Referring to a proposal from the owners of 425 S. Main for a modified D1 zoning, Annis told commissioners that he didn’t agree with that. “I think D2 makes sense for that parcel, and most of the downtown citizens that I work with agree to that,” he concluded.

Andy Klein spoke next, introducing himself as one of the owners of 425 S. Main. Noting that he’d spoken to the commission on previous occasions, Klein said this site was developed 30 years ago and it’s a valuable asset to the community. The real question is the future, he said. They have a tenant with a long-term lease, but in the long-term, the question is whether they’ll be able to build a landmark building there. Obviously, they’d want to develop something that has value and that’s important to the community, he said.

The change from D1 to D2 would represent a 70% reduction in allowable height, Klein noted. “That’s not urban planning. That’s just a knee-jerk reaction to reduce height because people have been unhappy with other developments.” He pointed out that the consultant, Erin Perdu, had recommended a 150 feet height limit on the site. Klein then introduced Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, who had been hired to come up with a “reasonable solution” for the site. Klein noted that Neumann/Smith had designed Zaragon West, a building that he described as successful for this community. [The apartment building, with retail on the first floor, is located at the southeast corner of Thompson and William.]

Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture.

Scott Bonney told commissioners that his firm designed Zaragon Place before A2D2 was enacted. [That apartment complex, also with retail on the ground floor, is on East University between Willard and South University.] He said the city “sort of wrote the ordinance around that, what we did at Zaragon Place.” After that, he added, Zaragon West was the “poster child for D1.”

Bonney reviewed some slides that showed an alternative zoning for the 425 S. Main site, as well as what could be built given the current zoning in that area. [.pdf of Bonney's slides] D1 zoning allows a height of 180 feet, while D2 areas have a height of 60 feet. The alternative proposal put forward by Bonney would match the height of Ashley Mews, which is located on the opposite side of Main Street from the 425 S. Main site. The suggestion was to put a 122-foot height limit on the property as a compromise, as well as keeping a diagonal restriction. [Diagonals are a method of controlling shape, and typically allow for taller but less massive buildings.]

Bonney said that a 122-foot building is lower than what is allowed nearby under D1 zoning, and that a diagonal requirement would result in slender buildings. He urged commissioners to consider this alternative zoning.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Main & William Site

Kirk Westphal began the discussion by asking planning manager Wendy Rampson to review the history of the 425 S. Main site.

Rampson described the area’s zoning prior to the adoption of A2D2 in 2009. The site was previously zoned C2BR, based on zoning categories established in 1963. What’s now called the core downtown was zoned C2A, with the fringe downtown zoned C2B. That zoning didn’t allow for residential use in the downtown core, so subsequently zones were created (C2AR, C2BR) where residential use was permitted. After several high-rises were built – including Campus Inn, Tower Plaza and University Towers – the city commissioned a study of the downtown zoning, conducted by JJR.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Until 2009, there were no height limits in the C2A, C2AR, C2B and C2BR zoning districts. For parcels zoned C2BR – including 425 S. Main – there was a 300% by-right floor-area ratio (FAR) and up to 600% FAR with premiums. [FAR, a measure of density, is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.]

When the premiums were revised in the 1990s, that FAR for C2BR districts increased to 660%. The D1 zoning on the 425 S. Main site now is fairly similar to the previous zoning, Rampson said, aside from the height limit and change in premiums.

Sabra Briere asked Rampson to explain why there was an increase in the use of PUDs (planned unit developments) between 1985 and 2005. Rampson said the increase was due primarily to limitations on FAR. One North Main and 305 E. Liberty were PUDs, for example, because the buildings exceeded the 600% FAR. The PUDs were one way to get bigger buildings in terms of floor area, not necessarily height, she said.

Westphal asked whether the 425 S. Main site had been discussed during the A2D2 process. Had the D1 zoning been called into question?

All of the “edge” parcels were discussed during A2D2, Rampson replied. Any of the properties that abutted residential or that were constrained by the floodplain were debated. The areas along the north side of East Huron as well as along some parts of South University were “hotly debated,” she recalled. The 425 S. Main site had been discussed, she said, “but not at the same level.”

In order to lessen the impact of D1 in some areas, the height limit was reduced for certain character overlay districts – including on East Huron and South University. [.pdf of character overlay district maps]

Bonnie Bona provided additional historical context regarding the A2D2 process. The council had created several committees to tackle specific aspects of the project, like design guidelines, historic districts and zoning. Bona served on the committee that looked at zoning. That group decided that the entire D1 core should be surrounded by D2, she said – and that was the recommendation that the zoning committee sent to an A2D2 steering committee. The steering committee changed that recommendation, however. The discussion centered around whether a block should be split into different zoning districts, Bona recalled.

Looking east at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William. The northern half of the site is a surface parking lot, with a building that houses DTE offices on the southern half. Nearby residential houses are visible to the east of the property.

On East Huron, for example, the zoning committee had recommended placing D2 between residential areas and D1 districts. The exception was on parcels adjacent to the University of Michigan, because the university can build whatever it wants, Bona said, so there was no need for a transition zone.

So why did the D2 recommendation get changed? Some people felt that when you’re driving along East Huron, Bona explained, “the buildings should be the same on both sides.” The problem is that it’s a very shallow site between parcels on the north side of East Huron and the Old Fourth Ward, she noted. So the zoning committee had recommended D2 for the north side of East Huron. The steering committee wanted the same zoning on both sides instead.

The 425 S. Main site probably got changed from D2 to D1 because of its history, Bona said, and because of the desire to have the same zoning on both sides of Main Street. “I don’t agree with that,” she added. “I think the world is much more interesting when it’s not so completely obvious and literal.” There were a lot of changes during the A2D2 process, she noted. “It wasn’t quite horse trading, but it kind of felt like that. What it felt like was ‘What hill am I going to die on, and what am I going to let go?’ – for everyone on the planning commission, and everyone on the council. Everybody kind of had their favorite spot that they wanted to protect, and had to compromise on others.”

Westphal asked Rampson to review the zoning of parcels surrounding the 425 S. Main site. She explained that adjacent parcels along William – including where the Beer Depot is located – are zoned D2, with residential zoning (R4C) further south on Fourth Avenue. Responding to a query from Sabra Briere, Rampson said that the parcels along the south side of William, east of the alley that separates the Beer Depot site from the 425 S. Main site – are in the East William historic District. [.pdf of East William historic district map]

Rampson explained that parcels in a historic district can’t use premiums. So sites that are zoned D2 would be limited to 200% FAR. Bona noted that if a 200% FAR building filled the entire site of a parcel located in an historic district, the building could not be 60 feet tall, because of the FAR limitations.

Overall, the idea of the A2D2 process was to reduce the density in some areas with D2 zoning, Rampson explained. The 425 S. Main site was zoned D1 – with a height limit of 180 feet – because it was considered to be part of the Main Street character district.

Commissioners also discussed the possibility of using split zoning on the site – the northern half toward William as D1, and the southern half toward Packard as D2. Diane Giannola wondered whether that would mean that a tower could be built on the northern half, but not on the southern half. That’s right, Rampson replied.

Jeremy Peters wondered about the height of the Bethlehem United Church of Christ on South Fourth. It seemed taller than nearby residential structures, he said. That’s true, Rampson said, but she didn’t know how tall it was.

Slide by architect Scott Bonney showing potential structures on and around 425 S. Main. In the foreground is planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Bona said that to her, the entire 425 S. Main site should be zoned D2. If split zoning were used, she’d only support D1 zoning on the very north end, next to the Beer Depot – “and that’s hardly worth doing.” Sixty feet height limits are still a big transition to residential areas, she said, and anything higher than that “would be unfortunate.”

Westphal clarified with Rampson that if the site had split zoning, only two residential parcels would directly abut the D1 portion. He felt that’s why the split-zoning proposal is compelling.

Bona expressed concern about affecting even those two residential properties. “Those houses are just as important to not overpower as a whole row of them,” she said.

Diane Giannola liked the idea of split zoning, saying that it would look better visually. With D2, she’s worried about getting a long, 60-foot-high building on the entire site. “I’d rather have taller, more compact buildings,” she said, not a huge, massive apartment building. She thought the city could get a better building with D1 zoning and a 120-foot height limit on the northern part of the site.

Briere described the site as massive. With D2 – a 200% FAR – you could build quite a large building, she said, even without premiums. She suggested considering whether there should be mandatory open space, so that the entire FAR couldn’t be used. “I’m really frustrated at talking about this,” she said, because it’s not clear how to go about getting the right design. “So much of it depends on the quality of the developer.”

Bona suggested that the issue of blocky versus slender buildings could be addressed by using diagonals, rather than split zoning.

Bona also clarified with Rampson that if the site were rezoned to D2, the owners could still seek a PUD (planned unit development) to build more square footage in exchange for community benefits. Westphal followed up by asking whether PUDs are something that the city wants to encourage. “No,” Rampson replied. One of the stated goals of the A2D2 process was to eliminate a trend of using PUDs to develop downtown sites.

Ken Clein reviewed the zoning of D1 – with by-right FAR of 400%, and more FAR with premiums – compared to D2, with by-right FAR of 200%, and up to 400% with premiums.

Planning commissioner Ken Clein.

Westphal pointed to the city’s master plan and the issue of density, and the notion that denser development should be located downtown, near public transit. It’s compelling to him to have opportunities for people to live without relying on cars. If the parcel were downzoned, that could potentially eliminate housing for 100 or 200 people, he said. The master plan also talks about protecting residential areas, so that’s why he’s struggling with this site.

This is the most challenging parcel of those that the council directed the commission to look at, Clein said. The site is so large that you could probably put two or three buildings on it that are the size of Zaragon West. The process that the commission and city council have to go through is to balance the rights of property owners with the ability to develop downtown property to support the tax base, Clein said, and to protect the rights of the nearby neighbors. “It’s a compromise, no matter what,” he said.

Personally, as an architect, Clein said, he’d be very comfortable with zoning the entire site as D2. However, it was instructive to hear about the site’s history, he added, and to know that the property has been zoned something similar to D1 since the mid-1960s. You could say that the owners had their chance to develop it, but didn’t – so “too bad,” Clein said. Or you could say to the neighbors that development could have happened at any time over the past few decades. “There’s validity in both of those points,” he said.

Split zoning would offer a compromise to greater density and height, Clein added. Alternatively, one option would be to change the maximum height of the Main Street character district, and to add a diagonal requirement, he said. Given the site’s history, he’d be willing to support a compromise that would leave part of the site D1, especially at the corner.

Bona added another piece of historical context, referring to the downtown plan that was written in 1988. It was the first time that the concept of “interface zones” between downtown and residential neighborhoods was introduced. When the A2D2 process took place nearly 20 years later, none of the recommendations for interface zones had been enacted, she said. “So this isn’t a new issue that came up now,” she said. “The neighborhoods around downtown have been fighting for an interface zone since 1988 – and probably before that.”

Commissioners continued discussing the option of split zoning, along with some combination of step-backs and diagonals, to limit the impact on the residential neighborhood.

Bona said she personally didn’t like the character overlay zoning, finding it “overly detailed.” If the commission wants to recommend step-backs or diagonals, they should do it for the entire downtown, she said, not just this site. Noting that commissioners seemed to be stuck, Bona formally put forward a recommendation: To rezone the entire site D2, and to establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 in the Main Street character district.

Westphal asked Rampson to review the height limits in D2 districts. She explained that height is determined by character district, and there is no current D2 zoning in the Main Street character district. For D2 sites in all other character districts, however, the height limit is 60 feet.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Clein floated the possibility of having two different heights on the site, even if the entire site were zoned D2. Briere clarified with Rampson that there’s a two-story minimum height in D2 districts. The by-right FAR is 200%, and up to 400% with premiums.

Westphal noted that by downzoning the site to D2, it would go from a possible 900% FAR (with premiums) to 400% (with premiums). In terms of affecting the property’s value, he said, it’s a challenge to rezone the entire site as D2. Bona replied that from a density perspective, 400% FAR is still a lot – and it’s a lot more density than the R4C zoning. Also, 60 feet is a tall building that belongs downtown, not in the neighborhoods, she said.

Concerns about massiveness are important, she said, and it’s something that the design guidelines attempted to address. She suggested revisiting the design guidelines as the best way to handle those concerns, noting that it’s a problem everywhere, not just at this site. Development of the Brown Block – currently a surface parking lot bounded by Huron, Ashley, Washington and First streets – is “a scary thought,” Bona said. The idea of using diagonals or step-backs for one site almost creates spot zoning, she said, which isn’t a desired approach.

After additional back-and-forth, commissioners voted on Bona’s proposed recommendation:

Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character district.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the recommendation on a 5-4 vote, with support from Bonnie Bona, Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were Kirk Westphal, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola and Paras Parekh.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Design Review

During her update to the commission, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that she’d met with the design review board in November to go over the commission’s draft recommendations. Board members had expressed some concern, she said, for the recommendation that they felt would make the board the “sole gatekeeper” for premiums. The design guidelines were drafted to be flexible, they said, and weren’t intended to be structured for decision-making. “They were worried that they’d be placed in a position of having some pretty subjective standards to apply to a project, and saying yea or nay to whether a project can obtain premiums,” Rampson said.

In general, the design review board members felt there was value for the board to being involved in the discussion about premiums, Rampson said. They thought it would make sense to have a joint meeting with the planning commission to flesh out some of these issues, she said.

Rampson noted that at this point, there are no items on the agenda for the commission’s Jan. 7 meeting, so it might be possible to schedule a joint meeting then. Another possibility would be the Jan. 14 working session.

Bonnie Bona said that based on this feedback, she’d like to discuss the recommendation that commissioners had previously voted on at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting. That recommendation stated:

Revise the premium conditions to require compliance with Design Review Board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.

Bona noted that when A2D2 was being developed, the planning commission and city council had considered making the design review guidelines mandatory. “So it’s not like we haven’t had this discussion before,” she said, adding that she thought it would be good to discuss the option of making some guidelines mandatory.

Jeremy Peters didn’t think the commission needed to button down details at this point. The recommendation didn’t call for mandated compliance, he said. The commission was just recommending that the council consider requiring compliance, he said.

From left: Eppie Potts talks with Ann Arbor planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Ken Clein agreed with Peters, and was in favor of leaving the recommendation unchanged. Bona noted that the language of the resolution stated that the commission was making a set of recommendations, and the recommendation for this item was to require compliance. “We’re not recommending to consider requiring compliance,” she said. “We’re recommending requiring compliance.”

If the commission feels, based on feedback from the design review board, that they should “tread carefully around that and get more input,” she said, “I think we might make this more of a consideration rather than a requirement.”

Wendy Woods expressed concern that if the recommendation is changed, it will end up with what is currently in place – that a developer can consider input from the design review board, but not actually make changes to the design. She wasn’t in favor of changing the recommendation, but supported having a conversation with the design review board.

Ken Clein noted that there seemed to be some confusion over the word “consider.” There’s a difference between asking council to consider a recommendation, compared to recommending that a developer consider input from the design review board. So in the planning commission’s recommendations to council, he said, commissioners should be very clear about their intent.

Bona indicated that Woods had interpreted her suggestion in a completely different way than what she had intended, so it hadn’t been clear.

Sabra Briere said she’d be happy if the planning commission could use input from the design review board as a tool to determine whether a project has met all the requirements of the ordinance – without making the design review board more powerful than it was created to be. It was designed to be a voluntary board that gives advice, she said, but not as a board to make recommendations about whether to approve a project. She’d like to include the board’s input as part of the approval process regarding premiums, “rather than the design review board handing us a fait accompli, and we feel our hands are tied then.”

As a way to incorporate Briere’s comments, Peters suggested a possible alternative recommendation: “Revise the premium conditions to allow the planning commission to use design review board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.”

Clein agreed that he didn’t want to put a new burden on the design review board, or hamstring the planning commission or city council. However, members of the community as well as developers have both indicated that they want the city to “Tell us what you want,” he said. So he’s reluctant to do anything that will make it less clear to developers what’s required in order to secure premiums.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods, Jeremy Peters, Paras Parekh.

Bona noted that when it was decided that the design guidelines would be voluntary, the guidelines were written in a different way than if they had been mandatory. Not every design guideline should be mandatory, she added. On the other hand, there were things that didn’t become mandatory in 2009 that should perhaps now be revisited, Bona said. She wanted to recommend a mandatory requirement for some of the design guidelines. If the council agrees, then the commission and others can look at which guidelines should be mandatory versus voluntary.

Another thing to be determined is which body – the design review board, planning commission or council – determines whether those mandatory requirements have been met, Bona said.

Diane Giannola interpreted the commission’s original recommendation as simply requiring compliance with the design review board’s report on a project, not requiring compliance with all of the design guidelines.

Bona then made another suggestion for revision: “Revise the premium conditions to consider requiring mandatory compliance with some design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.”

Clein suggested replacing the word “some” with “core” – to indicate that it will be a subset of the overall guidelines. Bona agreed to that change.

Woods said she’d support this, but expressed concern that the recommendation was in danger losing the essence of its original intent. “It’s starting to feel a little watered down from where it started,” she said.

Westphal wanted to eliminate the word “consider.” Bona said she’d be in favor of that, noting that she’d included the word as a reflection of the concerns cited by the design review board. Westphal thought that using “design guidelines” rather than “design review board” addressed that concern.

Rampson noted the design review board had mentioned another initiative that the council had started, but that hasn’t moved ahead: A review of the design guidelines. [A task force was established through council action on March 4, 2013 to review the downtown design guidelines, but that group has not yet met. Westphal had served on the original design guidelines task force in 2010, but had asked to be removed from the group when it was reconstituted earlier this year.] The expectation was that these two efforts – a review of downtown zoning, and a review of the design guidelines – would go hand-in-hand, Rampson said.

Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and the Ann Arbor city council.

Rampson characterized the current guidelines, which were adopted by the council in 2011, as “fairly subjective and qualitative.” [.pdf of design guidelines]

Briere said she’d ask mayor John Hieftje if the design guidelines review could move ahead.

Woods expressed some concern about whether the commission would be taking on a much bigger task – if their recommendation opened the door for a broader review of design guidelines. The term “design guidelines” seemed nebulous, she said, and she wondered if it referred to “a list of things that everybody learns in Landscape 101 or urban planning? What is that? What really are we saying?”

Bona replied, saying there might be some changes recommended to the city’s existing design guidelines, based on the task force review. “There is no magic book of design guidelines,” she added. “It’s whatever we want to put in there, and we think we can figure out a way to get.”

Eleanore Adenekan weighed in, saying she wanted to make sure the word “consider” had been removed from the revised recommendation.

Bona described the review of design guidelines as a project, and she didn’t think the guidelines would be nebulous after that project is completed. The end result should be a clear set of mandatory design requirements and voluntary guidelines.

The final revised recommendation states:

Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved this recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Main Street Character District

Sabra Briere indicated that she had some concerns about height in the Main Street character district. The community has not absorbed the fact that four buildings on Main Street could be demolished and replaced with 180-foot buildings as infill. There are two buildings now that are empty – the former Middle Kingdom restaurant, and the former house where an ice cream parlor was located. Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that those sites are in the Main Street historic district, so the heights would be limited. [.pdf of Main Street historic district map] Rampson noted that the southern edge of the district has a jagged edge, and there are some properties between Liberty and William that aren’t in the district.

Briere noted that the surface parking lot at the northeast corner of Main and William – next to Palio restaurant – isn’t in the historic district, nor are the buildings directly north of that.

In general, Briere anticipates that there will be problems in this area, but she noted that it’s not part of the council’s current charge to the planning commission. She said she didn’t want mission creep, but it might be appropriate to discuss this issue as part of a review of the design guidelines.

Outcome: There was no formal recommendation on this item.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Main Motion

The final set of recommendations, as amended, are:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.
• Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.
• Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.
• Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing.
• Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms.
• Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium.”
• Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

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

Rampson told commissioners that unless the recommendations move forward in an expedited way, it’s likely that they’ll be included at the council’s second meeting in January – on Jan. 20, 2014.

Capital Improvements Plan 2015-2020

The Dec. 3 agenda included a resolution to approve the city of Ann Arbor’s capital improvements plan (CIP) for 2015-2020.

Deb Gosselin, a city staffer who oversees the capital improvements plan.

The CIP provides a roadmap for investments in a wide variety of infrastructure projects. It is prepared by city staff and is the basis for budget decisions made by the city council, but the council does not approve the CIP. That’s the purview of the planning commission.

Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, transportation and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon. Major updates are conducted every two years. This year is considered an “off” year with only minor adjustments.

The updated plan covers the fiscal years 2015-2020, but most of the updates relate to FY 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. It includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of staff memo and CIP for FY 2015-2020] The plan indicates changes in scheduling compared to the previous CIP, as well as funding adjustments and new projects. In the report, new projects are indicated with gray shading. This year the gray shading primarily reflects first-time inclusion of projects undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission.

The DDA’s projects are included this year due in part to an ordinance change approved by the city council on Nov. 18, 2013 which added, among other language: “The authority shall submit their capital budgets to incorporate them into the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP).”

The CIP contains over 300 projects in 13 different asset categories. Of those, 127 projects require funding in FY 2014 – the current fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2013 – or in FY 2015. Funding needed in FY 2015 totals $62.253 million. That’s $11,881,800 (23.59%) more in FY 2015 than was included in last year’s CIP. But most of that increase is due to the addition of the DDA and housing projects. If those projects weren’t included, funding needs for FY 2015 would have dropped by 27.55%, That’s because many FY 2015 street construction projects were pushed back to FY 2016 or later to allow time to develop a pavement asset management program.

The housing commission projects primarily relate to an effort to renovate and redevelop the city’s public housing properties. [See Chronicle coverage: "Work Progresses on Public Housing Overhaul."]

Highlights of FY 2015 projects by the DDA include $2.5 million for elevators in the Fourth and William parking structure, $600,000 for a first-floor build-out of the Fourth and William parking structure, $250,000 for a South University streetscape project, $50,000 for vehicle charging stations, and $30,000 for crosswalk repairs in the DDA district.

Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process, was on hand to give an overview of the document and to field questions from commissioners. The planning commission’s meeting also included a public hearing on the CIP, but no one spoke.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Street Lights, Signals

Sabra Briere asked about the funding line for lights on Main Street, scheduled in FY 2015. It’s not clear what entity is providing that funding, she said. Deb Gosselin replied that the report provided to commissioners didn’t include that information, but it’s available in the online database.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioner and city councilmember Sabra Briere talks with Deb Gosselin.

The line item in the 2015-2020 CIP that Briere referred to was $588,000 in FY 2015 for “TR-OT-14-01 S Main St Street Light Poles, William to Huron.” By way of background, the CIP for 2014-2019 that the planning commission approved on Dec. 18, 2012 included the same line time, but at $600,000 for FY 2014. [.pdf of 2014-2019 CIP as approved by the planning commission on Dec. 18, 2012] A separate document that shows the funding sources for CIP items in 2014-2019 lists the funding source for that line item as “Operating Transfer from 0003″ – the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment financing (TIF) fund – but the document indicated that no funding had yet been authorized.

In fact, the issue of which entity would for the Main Street light pole replacement – the city or the DDA – has been a point of contention. The question was answered the day after the planning commission meeting, on Dec. 4, when the DDA board voted to allocate $280,000 to the project. That amount, added to a previously approved $300,000 from the DDA, covers the entire cost of the replacement. For details of the history of this dispute, see Chronicle coverage: “DDA Ponies Up for Main Street Light Poles.”

At the planning commission’s Dec. 3 meeting, Briere noted that councilmembers have been talking about adding improved street light options for several locations around town, including Dhu Varren, Pontiac Trail, Stone School Road and others. But she didn’t see a subsection in the CIP for lighting, so she wondered where such projects would be listed. Gosselin replied that there’s not a separate category for street lighting. Also, only projects costing more than $100,000 are included in the CIP, so it’s possible that individual street light projects fall below that threshold.

Briere wondered if items like flashing beacons or HAWK signals would also fall below the $100,000 threshold. Gosselin explained that often those items are bundled with street construction projects, and that funding typically comes from federal or state sources. Briere said that given the conversation that occurred at the Dec. 3 city council meeting, “I have a feeling that we’re going to need to be able to pull that information out.” [Briere was alluding to a debate over proposed changes to the city's crosswalk ordinance.] Gosselin agreed, saying that the recently formed pedestrian safety task force would likely want that kind of information, too.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Streets, Sidewalks

Briere referred to an organization that grades the streets in Michigan each year, saying “it never makes the city look good.” Gosselin noted that SEMCOG (the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) does street ratings, using a system called PASER [Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating]. Ann Arbor uses a Pavement Condition Index. [.xls spreadsheet of PCI for 2001-2010]

Gosselin reported that the city has hired a firm to do a sign inventory, and that same firm might be hired to a PCI rating for all of the city’s streets as well. It would be the first time that the city has PCI ratings of all of its streets during the same timeframe. The city is looking at possibly doing a full-scale rating every three years, she said.

Briere said she knew that city staff takes an inventory of streets every spring and fall. In the spring, they look at what has deteriorated over the winter. In the fall, they try to anticipate the needs for the following spring. “But spring is always a surprise,” she said. People living on a street have no “visceral memory, that’s connected to a calendar, of when that street was last in good condition,” Briere said. So when the staff prepares a list of street projects, it would be helpful to include information about when it was last resurfaced and the current condition, she said.

Eleanore Adenekan asked about sidewalk gap projects. Gosselin reported that the city council has funded development of a sidewalk gap strategic plan. [In May 2013, when the council adopted the city's budget for the current fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2013, it included a $75,000 allocation for a study of sidewalk gaps, so that they can be prioritized.] Gosselin said the scope recently expanded to include a pedestrian safety plan. But that study isn’t completed, she added, so it hasn’t generated any projects in the CIP yet. “I certainly anticipate that it will,” she said.

In addition to an inventory of sidewalk gaps, the staff will be building a prioritization tool specifically for sidewalks, with points awarded for different elements like how far the sidewalk would be from a school, for example. There will be a lot of public engagement on this project, Gosselin said. In addition, the city will be exploring potential funding sources. To fill every sidewalk gap, the city has estimated it would cost between $25 million to $50 million, she said. So it won’t happen all at once.

Briere noted that the city is trying to roll sidewalk gap construction into broader road projects. For example, Newport Road from M-14 to the city limit is going to be resurfaced in FY 2014. Residents have been contacted about a possible sidewalk plan and there will be a community meeting on Jan. 2. A sidewalk is needed from Riverwood to Wines Elementary School, she said. “It’s an important thing for a community that was built to rely on a [school] bus, and who no longer has access to a school bus.” The project has taken over two years to get this far, she noted, and will be another year before it’s completed.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Rail Station

Kirk Westphal asked if a future reconstructed rail station is part of the CIP. Yes, Gosselin replied. She noted that the project has “started and stopped a number of times,” and she indicated that the outcome will depend on available funding as well as “community values at the time.” [The project is listed under the "Alternative Transportation" category. Line items include $2.6 million for final design in FY 2016 and $44.5 million for construction, also in FY 2016. The project would require city council approval to move forward.] Gosselin noted that the staff listed construction in FY 2016 as a placeholder, but “it’s not going to stay in 2016, because – it’s just not,” she said.

The project is included in the CIP so that “the need is memorialized,” Gosselin said, and as each stage gets funded “it will keep moving along.”

Westphal asked whether the station would be considered a city asset. When Gosselin hesitated, Briere said the determination hasn’t been made. The current station is built on Amtrak-owned property and is an Amtrak building, Briere noted. If another station is built, “where it’s built would determine who owns it,” she said, “as much as what funding is used to build it.”

The project is a city project that’s 80% federally funded for the current stage, Briere said. The location hasn’t been determined, she noted. At this point it’s a city project, she added – that’s why it’s in the CIP. She pointed out that the connector study is listed in the CIP as well, even though much of that project won’t end up being an asset that the city owns.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Housing Commission

Wendy Woods asked about changes at the Ann Arbor housing commission (AAHC). Her understanding was that the commission is getting a federal grant to improve some of the city’s public housing. [Woods is married to Ronald Woods, who serves as president of the housing commission.]

By way of background, in January 2013 the housing commission board selected Norstar as a co-developer for a major overhaul to the city’s public housing. AAHC is using low-income housing tax credits from the state of Michigan as the primary funding source for renovating its properties. It’s part of a broader effort to help AAHC convert Ann Arbor’s public housing units into public/private partnerships through a new rental assistance demonstration program, known as RAD, offered by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). AAHC was accepted into the program late last year. The goal is to allow AAHC to use private financing for capital improvements in its existing housing stock, which is decades-old and in need of major upgrades.

Housing commission projects included in the 2015-2020 CIP total $21.23 million, including renovations at Baker Commons ($4.195 million), Green Baxter Court ($6.325 million), Miller Manor ($4.8 million) and Maple Meadows ($4.544 million).

Gosselin replied that some of these projects are approved, while others are still in the pipeline. She noted that the projects include energy efficiency and other improvements.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – University Collaboration

Woods wondered what happens when the city finds out about a big project that the University of Michigan is doing. She referred to the large graduate student complex that was announced earlier this year. [The project is for a 370,000-square-foot, eight-story building on the north side of East Madison Street between South Division and Thompson streets, where Blimpy Burger was formerly located. The anticipated opening date is fall 2015.] Woods asked how the city handled unexpected projects like that, which could affect the city’s infrastructure.

“With the university, I would say it’s an ever-evolving relationship,” Gosselin replied. Part of the challenge that the university has is with the board of regents approval process, she added. “My perception is that it’s difficult for staff to share as much as I would like or that city staff would like to have more lead time on knowing what’s coming. They’re reluctant to state ‘We’re doing this’ until the board [of regents] has blessed it.”

If the university creates a new need – for example, with a project that might require a new water main – then the city treats them like a private developer, Gosselin said. That means asking UM to pay for up-sizing the main. “We’re trying to do that with the university. There are times in the past when they’ve participated with street costs, but we can’t compel them to.” Ideally, it could be a smoother process, she added, “but we work with it the best that we can.”

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Parks

Paras Parekh asked about the $60 million total listed in the line item for ”Open Space and Park Acquisitions.” Was that amount merely a budget, but with no expectation that there would be that much land to acquire? [The line item indicates that $26 million had been spent in previous years, with $2 million in revenues listed each year from FY 2015 through 2019, then $24 million listed in FY 2020.]

Planning commissioners Paras Parekh and Sabra Briere.

Gosselin replied that the $2 million was the annual amount of revenue from the city’s open space and park preservation millage. It’s not necessarily the amount that might be spent, she explained.

By way of background, in 2003 Ann Arbor voters passed a 30-year 0.5 mill tax called the open space and parkland preservation millage. It appears on the summer tax bill as the line item CITY PARK ACQ. The city’s policy has been to allocate one-third of the millage for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the greenbelt program.

To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being paid back with revenue from the millage. Debt service on that bond in FY 2013 year totaled $1.227 million. [.pdf of fiscal 2013 activity report] [.pdf of FY 2013 financial statements]

In FY 2013, which ended June 30, 2013, $2.141 million in revenue came from millage proceeds. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Colin Smith – manager of parks and recreation for the city – explained that the $24 million listed in FY 2020 represents the remainder of the millage funds through 2033, at an estimated $2 million per year.

Parekh asked what happens to the money if it’s not spent? It’s kept in a fund balance, Gosselin explained. [As of June 30, 2013, the fund balance for the millage stood at $8.856 million, with about equal amounts designated for the greenbelt ($4.413 million) and park acquisitions ($4.442 million).]

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Asset Management

Bonnie Bona asked how the staff assesses the totality of the city’s assets, and makes sure infrastructure doesn’t crumble before it’s repaired or replaced.

No community will say that they’re exactly where they want to be in that regard, Gosselin replied, including Ann Arbor. The CIP is a short-term planning tool, she added. “Six years is not a long time, when it comes to infrastructure.” The city is doing long-term asset plans for several of the 13 asset groups, she said. There’s a water asset management plan that’s underway, for example, that includes prioritization related to the consequences if a particular water main fails. Another project focuses on pavement asset management, looking at options beyond repaving or resurfacing. A stormwater asset management plan is also in the works.

Gosselin said the water asset management is probably the most challenging financially, because a lot of water mains were installed at about the same time during the building boom of the 1960s. The cast iron used during that era has been relatively problematic, she said, and there’s a lot of work being done so that the city can be proactive.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters listen to Deb Gosselin (foreground) talk about the city’s capital improvements plan.

Regarding roads, Gosselin said that Ann Arbor’s street millage “is such a privilege.” She’s worked in other communities that didn’t have that revenue source. A millage is a much more stable funding source, she said.

Kirk Westphal asked how the city staff assesses the impact of a large development on the city’s infrastructure, and how it’s determined whether a developer must pay for an upgrade.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson said that it’s done in a variety of ways. Generally, if a development is going to impact the sanitary sewer system, for example, the developers aer required to upsize the capacity before they build. The Landmark apartment complex on South University is one example where the developers had to upsize the sanitary sewer, she said, and they shouldered the whole cost for that. In other cases, like traffic intersection improvements, the city determines a “fair share” contribution based on the amount of traffic that a project is expected to generate, she said, and that’s included in a development agreement. Those contributions are often used to match federal or state funding sources to complete a project. The Plymouth/Green intersection is an example of that.

In response to a query from Westphal, Rampson said that the city is not proactively upsizing infrastructure in order to support future growth, although that’s an approach that some communities take, she said.

Ken Clein asked how the prioritization model works. Gosselin explained that prioritization works within each asset group – that is, the city doesn’t pit a water project against a road project. Within an asset category, each project gets ranked by a team of people, which results in an overall ranking. The lower the number, the higher the priority. Then the staff looks at funding and programming. The next step is done in a very old-fashioned way, she reported – by listing projects on a board and seeing how much money is available, and how many projects can be funded from that pot of funding.

Westphal wanted to know if the prioritization model is being tweaked. Gosselin replied that it’s been five years since it’s been revised in any significant way. The one change that was made last year was to incorporate the city’s new sustainability framework – by asking how many of the city’s 16 sustainability goals a project is contributing to. This winter, she’s planning to do a detailed evaluation of the prioritization criteria, she said. “I don’t anticipate big changes, but there will be some.”

Westphal asked about the typical percentage of expenditures on a city’s asset base, benchmarked against other communities. Does Ann Arbor spend more or less on road maintenance, for example, than other cities? Rampson elaborated on the question, asking if there are best practices for the amount spent on maintenance of infrastructure.

Gosselin said the city hasn’t done a benchmarking study. The city’s prioritization model is considered cutting edge, she noted, with staff from other cities frequently calling to ask about it. She said that it’s difficult to make comparisons, because so much of the work depends on the availability of funding sources. For example, Ann Arbor probably looks like it’s spending way more on roads compared to other communities, because the city has a street millage.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – 415 W. Washington

Clein asked about the 415 W. Washington project, which is listed in the CIP with $300,000 in FY 2015. Gosselin replied that she was torn about what dollar amount to attach to the project. The council commissioned a study of the site, which is in the hands of the city administrator, she said. It’s unclear what the council will decide to do when they’re presented with a variety of options. The $300,000 figure is “basic,” she said.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Public Engagement

Bonnie Bona asked how projects end up on the CIP. Gosselin replied that there are several ways that projects get added. Often the city staff will identify a need, but sometimes a project is recommended by an advisory body – like the planning commission or the park advisory commission – or from the city council. Other projects are driven by needs identified in the city’s master plan, or are spearheaded by citizens, like the skatepark that’s under construction at Veterans Memorial Park, or the sidewalk construction along Scio Church Road. She estimated that about 75% of projects are generated from staff input.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Jeremy Peters said he appreciated Gosselin’s responsiveness to questions and openness to input from the public. Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that it’s been a challenge getting public input – she noted that no one had attended the public hearing on the CIP that night, for example. She told commissioners that if they’re able to tap their networks for input and bring suggestions back to the staff, that helps staff members understand the needs of residents.

Paras Parekh noted that the CIP lists so many great things that are planned – in parks, for example. How does the public find out pro-actively what’s been completed? “I think people are proud of the city, and I think if they knew more about all these great things that are happening,” he said, “I think there’d be more people here tonight and there’d just be more of an engaged citizenry around what we should be doing and taking pride in where we’re headed.”

Gosselin said she’d like to develop ward-by-ward maps of projects. There was a pilot attempt to do that last year, but it didn’t work out. The staff is continuing to work on it, with information available on the CIP page. In addition, the city website is being redesigned to make it easier to navigate, she said.

Gosselin also reported that the city’s new communications specialist, Robert Kellar, is very enthusiastic about exploring different ways to improve communications. Parekh encouraged the use of social media like Pinterest, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. “That’s where people are,” he said. Wendy Rampson pointed out that “it’s easier to promote an Argo Cascades than it is a new sewer.”

Rampson noted that during the construction of East Stadium Bridges, the city set up a bridge cam and promoted that through social media.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the 2015-2020 CIP.

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

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 17, 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 planning commission’s meeting also included a public hearing on the CIP, but no one spoke.

Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, transportation and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon.

The updated plan covers the fiscal years 2015-2020, and includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of staff memo and CIP for FY 2015-2020] The plan indicates changes in scheduling compared to the previous CIP, as well as funding adjustments and new projects. In the report, new projects are indicated with gray shading.  This year the gray shading primarily reflects first-time inclusion of projects undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission.

The DDA’s projects are included this year due in part to an ordinance change approved by the city council on Nov. 18, 2013 which added, among other language: “The authority shall submit their capital budgets to incorporate them into the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP).”

The CIP contains over 300 projects in 13 different asset categories. Of those, 127 projects require funding in FY 2014 – the current fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2013 – or in FY 2015. Funding needed in FY 2015 totals $62.253 million. That’s $11,881,800 (23.59%) more in FY 2015 than was included in last year’s CIP. But most of that increase is due to the addition of the DDA and housing projects. If those projects weren’t included, funding needs for FY 2015 would have dropped by 27.55%, That’s because many FY15 street construction projects were pushed back to FY 2016 or later to allow time to develop a pavement asset management program.

The housing commission projects primarily relate to an effort to renovate and redevelop the city’s public housing properties. [See Chronicle coverage: "Work Progresses on Public Housing Overhaul."] Highlights of FY 2015 projects by the DDA include $2.5 million for elevators in the Fourth and William parking structure, $600,000 for a first-floor build-out of the Fourth and William parking structure, $250,000 for a South University streetscape project, $50,000 for vehicle charging stations, and $30,000 for crosswalk repairs in the DDA district.

Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process, was on hand to field questions from commissioners. After about an hour of discussion, commissioners voted unanimously to adopt the 2015-2015 CIP as a supporting document for the city’s master plan, and to recommend that the city council base its FY 2015 capital budget on the CIP.

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

Rendering of “Bucket Cascade” proposal by Mags Harries and Lajos Heder. It’s one of two finalists for public art at the city’s Argo Cascades.

Commissioners were briefed about the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which will now be integral to the public art program. AAPAC and city staff will identify projects in the CIP that might be candidates for public art “enhancements” – if the council agrees and provides additional funding for that purpose. It’s a change from the previous Percent for Art program, which the city council eliminated earlier this year.

Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process, attended AAPAC’s meeting and described a decision-making matrix that’s used to help city staff prioritize capital projects. AAPAC plans to use that matrix as a model for developing its own method of prioritizing potential public art projects.

Commissioners also briefly discussed four possible capital projects that might include public art enhancements, including an enclosure of the farmers market, and a retaining wall to be built as part of a Stadium Boulevard reconstruction.

Some of these issues will likely be picked up during a retreat that’s set for Nov. 20. The idea of a retreat was proposed by one of the newer commissioners, Ashlee Arder, as a way to get to know each other better, as well as to discuss the creation of AAPAC’s annual plan, which is due to the council in early 2014. Arder also hopes to assemble a “curated team” from different sectors of the community, to help AAPAC develop ideas for fostering public art as well as the broader creative sector.

Also at their most recent meeting, commissioners acted on a specific project that’s already underway. They authorized applying for a $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan to fund a public art project in the Arbor Oaks/Bryant neighborhood on Ann Arbor’s southeast side. But they tabled another proposal – for artwork at the roundabout on South State and Ellsworth – until their February 2014 meeting, allowing time for commissioners to see how it might fit into an overall public art plan.

Updates were provided during the meeting on several other projects, including the Coleman Jewett memorial at the farmers market, finalists for artwork at Argo Cascades, and a plan to add an artistic element to the city’s new bike share program.

Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)

Deb Gosselin, who manages the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), attended AAPAC’s meeting on Oct. 23 to review the CIP process. [.pdf of CIP for FY 2014-2019] She had previously briefed the commission at its Feb. 27, 2013 meeting, prior to changes in the way that the public art program is funded. Since then, the city council has eliminated the Percent for Art funding mechanism. That happened at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Deb Gosselin, who manages the city’s capital improvements plan, attended the Oct. 23 AAPAC meeting.

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

Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, streets and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon. More than 300 projects are part of the CIP, including both projects that are funded as well as those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified.

The document must be approved by the city’s planning commission, not the city council. The planning commission approved the most recent CIP at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. The city council then uses the CIP in its budget planning process.

In her Oct. 23 briefing, Gosselin noted that the CIP schedule now affects when the city makes decisions about public art. She told commissioners that Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had looked through the CIP to find projects where it might be appropriate to incorporate public art.

Gosselin reviewed the CIP process, and described the decision-making matrix that’s used to help city staff prioritize capital projects. [.pdf of CIP prioritization matrix] She said the matrix is a tool that AAPAC might want to modify and use for its own decision-making on projects that might incorporate public art. Seagraves indicated he’d work with Gosselin to draft a similar matrix for AAPAC.

In theory, virtually any of the capital projects in the CIP could incorporate public art, Gosselin said. To do that, AAPAC would first need to identify a project in the CIP and request that it be enhanced, she explained. Although the planning commission is charged with approving the CIP, the city council is the entity that approves the budget for specific projects.

For capital projects that the city council has already funded for fiscal 2014 and 2015, it’s too late to build a public art enhancement into the budget. However, Gosselin noted that AAPAC could decide to use funds from the previous Percent for Art program that are unspent, and apply those funds toward capital projects that are already underway.

Beyond that, now is the time for AAPAC to look at items in the CIP starting in fiscal 2016, as projects that could potentially be enhanced with public art. In AAPAC’s annual report that’s due to the city council in early 2014, commissioners should flag projects that commissioners would like for the city to enhance, Gosselin said. AAPAC should also identify a specific budget amount that would need to be added to the project, in order to cover the public art enhancement and maintenance. That budget enhancement requires city council approval.

The lead time also helps managers of capital projects to work with designers and artists from the very early stages, she noted.

Summary chart of projects in the 2014-2019 Ann Arbor capital improvements plan (CIP).

Capital Improvements Plan (CIP): AAPAC Discussion

Connie Brown wondered about setting a public art enhancement budget at such an early stage, when it might be difficult to know how much is required. How much flexibility would there be to increase the amount at a later date? Deb Gosselin acknowledged that since this process of incorporating public art is new, it’s a bit hard to know how it will work. She thought there will likely be some flexibility, but the public art estimated budget needs to be as close as possible to the actual amount. “You’re in essence saying ‘Give me a budget and I’ll figure out what to do with it later,’” Gosselin said.

Connie Brown.

Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, noted that it’s not unusual for a capital project’s budget to change dramatically, from the time it’s first entered into the CIP to the time the budget is approved by the council. If the project is slated for Year 6 of the CIP – that is, six years in the future – it’s not as critical for the budget to be as precise.

For projects in which public art is part of the design process, Gosselin explained that the public art budget would be incorporated into a project’s construction contract, which would require city council approval. But if the artwork is conceived of as a standalone piece, it might have its own separate budget, with separate council approval.

Hupy described two approval thresholds: (1) when a capital project is approved, with an estimated budget; and (2) when a specific construction contract is approved for that project. “That is where the final release of money comes from,” he said.

John Kotarski wondered whether it would be appropriate to suggest a specific genre of public art when AAPAC recommends an enhancement – like a mural or street stamping. Hupy replied that it depends on the timeframe. A more general suggestion would work for projects that are in Year 6 of the CIP, he said. But for projects that are closer to being built – in Years 1 or 2 – then AAPAC should be more specific about what it would like to do and how much it would cost.

Seagraves then presented four projects from the CIP from fiscal 2016 and beyond that he had identified as having potential for public art enhancements. The budgets in the CIP do not yet include amounts for public art:

• Farmers Market enclosure ($90,000). Possible public art incorporated into design.
• Stadium Boulevard reconstruction from Hutchins to Kipke, including sidewalks ($3.84 million). Possible artwork on new retaining wall.
• Springwater subdivision street reconstruction ($2.18 million). Possible standalone artwork.
• Annual sidewalk repair program, citywide ($9 million): Possible sidewalk stamps.

Seagraves plans to meet with managers for these projects, to get more details about what the projects will entail.

Ashlee Arder clarified with Gosselin that any public art budget would be added to these existing budgets. Gosselin noted that some capital projects might have multiple funding sources, which means that public art enhancements might also draw from multiple funding sources. Hupy cautioned that some projects have a funding “twist” in that they might be funded in part with federal, state or county dollars. “And they will say no to art – that’s not their purpose,” he said.

Gosselin noted that capital projects for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission are now being listed in the city’s CIP. The AAHC has several large projects on the horizon, and Gosselin reported that AAHC director Jennifer Hall had made a point of saying she’d welcome public art added to those, if possible. This might be a case where AAPAC could solicit private funding for a project, Gosselin said. [For background on the AAHC effort, see Chronicle coverage: "Work Progresses on Public Housing Overhaul."]

South State Roundabout

On the agenda was an item to approve the budget for a public art project at the roundabout at South State Street and Ellsworth. The proposed budget was between $70,000 to $100,000 using funds that remain from the now-defunct Percent for Art program, tied to street projects. [.pdf of roundabout public art proposal]

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

This project had been previously approved but then suspended by AAPAC several months ago, because commissioners had wanted to coordinate it with the city’s South State Street corridor plan. [By way of background, both the planning commission and city council subsequently approved the South State Street corridor plan to be added to the city's master plan. The council took that action on June 15, 2013.]

Connie Brown said she didn’t feel like she could make a decision on this project right now. She wanted to evaluate it in concert with other projects that AAPAC is considering, rather than take a piecemeal approach. Because AAPAC would be looking at long-term projects in the CIP, Brown proposed holding off on a decision about the roundabout until the broader context was clearer.

John Kotarski said he tended to agree with Brown, but he thought that it might take a longer time to put together the broader context. He said he felt comfortable moving forward with this project, because the proposal contained the level of detail that he had asked for. He thought AAPAC should start moving forward with some of these projects.

Commissioners discussed whether they could reverse their decision, if they approved it now but later decided that there were other projects that should take priority.

Brown wondered what the impetus was for doing it now. Bob Miller replied that it was brought to AAPAC as a project and it was “smiled upon.” Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, pointed out that construction of the roundabout was finished, and it’s “not going to pick up and move anywhere in the next six months or six years.” He indicated that AAPAC could take some time to make a decision.

Marsha Chamberlin weighed in, saying that if AAPAC takes two or three months to develop its prioritization matrix, modeled after the CIP matrix, then they’ll have a more objective, defensible way of approaching the selection of projects.

After further discussion, Kotarski moved to table the roundabout item until AAPAC’s February 2014 meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to table the item until their February 2014 meeting.

Grant for Arbor Oaks Public Art

Commissioners were asked to approve the application of a $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan. It would fund a public art project in the Arbor Oaks/Bryant neighborhood on Ann Arbor’s southeast side. [.pdf of draft grant proposal]

Marsha Chamberlin.

By way of background, at AAPAC’s June 26, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved setting up an exploratory task force for possible artwork in the Arbor Oaks Park, located in the Bryant neighborhood on the city’s southeast side. [.pdf of Arbor Oaks intake form] Task force members include public art commissioners Malverne Winborne and Nick Zagar; Derek Miller, deputy director of the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN); and CAN board member David Jones, as well as local residents.

The task force has met twice. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that the ideas being discussed all focus on having some kind of community project with a lot of involvement from residents, similar to the approach taken for the mural in Allmendinger Park.

The problem, he noted, is funding. There is currently no clear funding source from the city, but a grant is available from the community foundation. The deadline to apply is Nov. 15.

Marsha Chamberlin expressed some concern about the time it would take to write the grant application. She noted that Seagraves was being asked to do a lot, and his position is only part-time. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, indicated that the Arbor Oaks project was a very valuable investment in a part of the community that some people view as underserved.

Chamberlin replied that she wasn’t against the project, but she wanted commissioners to be aware of how Seagraves is allocating his time. Hupy suggested that other city staff could help Seagraves complete the application.

Responding to a query from Connie Brown, Seagraves reported that no matching funds are required from AAPAC.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to approve application for the $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Southeast Michigan.

AAPAC Retreat

Ashlee Arder, who was appointed to AAPAC in March of 2013, put forward a proposal to schedule a retreat. The purpose would be to create a forum for commissioners to get to know each other better, as well as to discuss the creation of AAPAC’s annual plan.

John Kotarski and Ashlee Arder.

Commissioners were supportive of this proposal. The discussion focused on whether to have a facilitator and how formal it should be. Arder said she’d conceived it to be relatively informal, but she could see the advantage of having a facilitator. This idea is to share each commissioner’s skill sets and personal interests, and tie those into the goals of AAPAC. “Let’s get together and figure out what we’re doing and who we are,” she said.

There was also discussion about a venue, with Arder advocating to hold it at a location other than AAPAC’s usual meeting spot – which is a basement conference room at city hall. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, reminded commissioners that the retreat would need to be posted and held in a place that’s accessible to the public, in order to comply with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to set a retreat for Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 4:30 p.m. at a location to be determined.

Outreach Committee

Ashlee Arder also proposed creating a community engagement committee to develop strategies for program participation, resident input and public art education.

John Kotarski contended that AAPAC already has an outreach committee that was created at AAPAC’s June 26, 2013 meeting. Some commissioners, including Arder, Connie Brown and Marsha Chamberlin, said they didn’t realize such a committee existed. [According to both the minutes of that meeting and The Chronicle's report, commissioners on June 26 voted to appoint Kotarski to the role of community outreach and engagement, and Chamberlin to the role of media relations. From The Chronicle's report: "During the June 26 meeting, commissioners also voted on appointments related to outreach – making John Kotarski responsible for community outreach and engagement, and Marsha Chamberlin for media relations. Those roles were not defined, and do not appear to be connected to existing AAPAC committees."]

Kotarski urged Arder to join the outreach committee, and asked her to withdraw her resolution. She agreed, and talked about the kind of work she hoped to do, which in part involves bringing together a “curated team” from different sectors of the community to develop ideas for fostering public art as well as the broader creative sector. She intends to bring forward a formal proposal about this effort at a future meeting.

Outcome: Arder withdrew her resolution to create a community engagement committee.

Project Updates

Several other projects were discussed briefly during the Oct. 23 meeting, by way of updates. These projects were either already in progress when the city council temporarily halted spending on public art late last year, or don’t use Percent for Art funds. Here are some highlights.

Project Updates: Canoe Imagine Art

Marsha Chamberlin gave an update on a community project called Canoe Imagine Art. At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to participate in the project, but did not commit to providing any funding at that time. On Sept. 25, commissioners voted to contribute $10,000 to the project. [.pdf of project intake form]

The project will use 30 old aluminum canoes from the city of Ann Arbor’s Argo canoe livery, which 10 artists and 20 community groups will turn into artwork that will be displayed throughout the downtown in 2014. Partners in the project include the Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB), the Main Street Area Association (MSAA), the Arts Alliance, and the Huron River Watershed Council.

On Oct. 23, Chamberlin reported that the city attorney’s office had requested that she stop promoting the project until a legal review is completed of the application process for artists. She expressed some frustration that the project’s momentum had come to a “screeching halt.”

As of Nov. 11, the project’s website includes this notice:

Submissions temporarily on hold
Do not use this site to submit a proposal for Canoe Imagine Art. Applications are on hold awaiting resolution by the City of Ann Arbor as to the best way to handle submissions to Canoe Imagine Art. If you plan to submit, enter your email below and we will notify you as to how to submit a proposal.

Project Updates: Argo Cascades

Two finalists for artwork at Argo Cascades are Jann Rosen-Queralt of Maryland and Mags Harries & Lajos Heder of Cambridge, Mass. came to town on Oct. 17 to present their conceptual designs to the selection task force and the public at city hall. The presentations were recorded by Community Television Network, and include feedback from the task force. [link to Rosen-Queralt CTN presentation] [link to Harries & Heder CTN presentation]

Rosen-Queralt is proposing artistic embellishments on the bridge railing, as well as a drinking fountain with similar embellishments. The proposal by Harries and Heder is called a “bucket cascade,” and would involve an interactive feature that allows people to operate pumps – using a pedal device on the bridge – that would draw up water from Argo Cascades and send it cascading back into the river.

Rendering of Bucket Cascades proposal by Mags Harries and Lajos Heder.

Rendering of proposal by Jann Rosen-Queralt for Argo Cascades bridge.

Task force members are John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne, Cheryl Saam, Margaret Parker, Cathy Fleisher, Bonnie Greenspoon, Julie Grand, and Colin Smith. The project has a budget of $150,000.

There is currently a survey posted on A2 Open City Hall to solicit additional input.

Seagraves reported that John Kotarski and Bob Miller will be attending the meetings of other city boards and commissions to make presentations about these two proposals and to get feedback. The task force will then make a recommendation to AAPAC, which will in turn make a recommendation to the city council.

Marsha Chamberlin wondered how much difference it makes to do the kind of outreach that Kotarski and Miller are undertaking. They made a similar effort before the task force made a recommendation for the artwork at the East Stadium bridges.

Connie Brown explained that there’s a broader purpose – to help people understand the process, and to create opportunities to engage others in the city’s public art program. Kotarski recalled that when he and Miller attended a Ward 2 meeting, it started out fairly confrontational. But by the end, residents seemed to better understand the process and support it. He said the outreach will help enhance and support the task force’s decision.

Project Updates: East Stadium Bridges

In early August, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for public art on the East Stadium bridges in Ann Arbor. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery, who subsequently revised her proposal. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. A conference call with the artist was held on Sept. 6 with panel members to discuss the proposal. [.pdf of panel feedback]

The new design incorporates glass paneled louvers with tree images in three locations on and under the bridge, to connect the locations thematically. Widgery is still revising her design, according to Seagraves. It would need to be reviewed by AAPAC and get final approval by the city council.

Project Updates: Bike Share Program

Ashlee Arder reported that she’ll be working with the Clean Energy Coalition, the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to figure out how to incorporate an artistic element into the city’s new bike share stations. The CEC is managing the bike share program, with a targeted launch of April 2014.

Arder said she was hoping to learn more about the bike community, and to develop some partnerships for this project. In addition to bike stations on UM’s campus, potential stations in Ann Arbor could be located at: (1) Ashley & Liberty; (2) Fifth Avenue & Library Lane; (3) Liberty & Division; (4) Kerrytown, at Detroit & Fifth: and (5) South State & Hoover.

Project Updates: First & Kingsley Rain Garden

At their Aug. 28, 2013 meeting, commissioners had approved Joshua Wiener‘s schematic design for public art at a planned rain garden, to be located at the southeast corner of First & Kingsley. [.pdf of staff memo, including itemized budget] Wiener is continuing to finalize designs, for installation in the spring.

The Denver artist is working with landscapers to incorporate public art into a new rain garden at that location, which is in a floodplain. The project has a $27,000 budget, though the artist’s contract would be for $23,380.

His proposal is for sculptures showing the outlines of five fish. They’re small mouth bass, in different sizes, made of white epoxy-painted steel and pointed toward the Huron River. The largest sculpture will be just under 8 feet tall, 20 feet wide and about 5 feet deep. Two of the fish will be large enough to serve as benches.

Project Updates: Coleman Jewett Memorial

Marsha Chamberlin gave a brief update on the memorial for Coleman Jewett. [.pdf of Jewett memorial intake form]

At a special meeting on March 7, 2013, AAPAC had voted to accept developing the memorial for Coleman Jewett as an official AAPAC project. The original proposal was for a bronze Adirondack chair at the Ann Arbor farmers market. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private foundation has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs.

A memorandum of understanding has been negotiated between the Jewett family, the city, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, which will act as a fiduciary for fundraising. The plan now calls for two full-sized replicas in bronze, at an estimated cost of $15,000 each.

The total budget is estimated to be $30,000 to $35,000. At AAPAC’s Sept. 25, 2013 meeting, commissioners voted to allocate $5,000 of AAPAC funds to help kick off the additional fundraising.

On Oct. 23, Chamberlin reported that she’d be going to the Ann Arbor farmers market on Saturday to meet with vendors and describe the project to them. Each stall would also be given a donation envelope, she said, in the hopes of raising funds from vendors for the project.

Commissioners present: Ashlee Arder, Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Nick Zagar. Also: Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Devon Akmon, Malverne Winborne.

Next meeting: Instead of its regular monthly meeting, AAPAC has scheduled a retreat for Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. at a location to be determined. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of public entities like the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, and Deb Gosselin, who handles the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). Gosselin attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting to talk about the CIP process, which the commission is using as a planning tool for future public art projects. (Photos by the writer.)

Sabra Briere, who’s one of five city councilmembers on the committee, updated AAPAC on possible revisions to the city’s public art ordinance, as well as more general recommendations that are being prepared for the full council. Those proposed changes are likely to include eliminating the Percent for Art funding mechanism, creating a structure to solicit private donations and grants to support public art, directing staff to “bake in” artwork and architectural enhancements as part of overall city capital projects, and providing more administrative support – perhaps by contracting out those services.

AAPAC members had questions about the possible new approach, including questions about the commission’s own role. Briere advised them to continue working on existing projects that are funded through the Percent for Art approach, but noted that they should focus on future opportunities that don’t rely on Percent for Art funds.

The council committee continues to meet, and will eventually deliver recommendations and draft ordinance changes to the full council. This Chronicle report includes highlights from the committee’s most recent meeting on March 1. The committee next meets on March 15, before the council’s March 18 meeting. A moratorium on spending unallocated Percent for Art dollars expires on April 1.

In other action at AAPAC’s February meeting, commissioners heard from Jason Frenzel, stewardship coordinator for the Huron River Watershed Council, about a project that would raise awareness of how the city’s stormdrain system connects to the river. The project is proposed in two stages, starting with a chalk art contest at the June 14 Green Fair, during which artists would draw images and messaging around stormdrains on Main Street.

Commissioners also discussed how to move forward with a proposed memorial to Coleman Jewett – a bronze Adirondack chair at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private donor has already committed $5,000 to the memorial, but details are still being worked out about how to manage the project. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin indicated that she might call a special meeting in early March for commissioners to act on the proposal, which hasn’t formally been accepted by AAPAC. Update: The special meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, March 7 at 4:30 p.m. in the fifth-floor conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron.

Other project updates were made via a written report from Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator. The report stated that a task force has selected four artists as finalists for artwork on the East Stadium bridges, and they have been invited to an April 1 site visit/open house. The finalists are: Volkan Alkanoglu, based in Atlanta, Georgia; Sheila Klein of Bow, Washington; Rebar Group of San Francisco; and Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. The project has a budget of $400,000.

Only four commissioners attended the Feb. 27 meeting, and when one commissioner left early, the meeting was adjourned for lack of a quorum – before all agenda items were addressed. In part because of attendance issues, officer elections – which AAPAC bylaws state should happen in January – have not yet occurred. Ballots were mailed to commissioners last week, and results will be announced at AAPAC’s March 27 meeting. It’s expected that vice chair Malverne Winborne will be elected chair.

And although it was not discussed at the meeting, Cathy Gendron resigned from AAPAC in late February. She had been reappointed to AAPAC at the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting for a term through Jan. 20, 2016, but had not attended the commission’s January or February meetings.

Responding to a Chronicle query, Gendron stated in an email that she had agreed to stay on the commission through March, but would be unable to attend AAPAC meetings and decided to resign. ”It’s time for someone else to take my place.” There are now three vacancies on the nine-member commission.

Future of Ann Arbor’s Public Art Program

Ann Arbor’s public art program has been in limbo since Dec. 3, 2012, when the city council voted to halt the spending of funds accumulated through Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art program – except for projects that are already underway. The moratorium on spending lasts until April 1, 2013.

At that same Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, councilmembers appointed a council committee to review the public art program. Committee members are Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Margie Teall (Ward 4). They’ve been meeting regularly to work through possible revisions to the city’s public art ordinance, as well as to make more general recommendations about the program. [For background see Chronicle coverage: "City to Seek Feedback on Public Art Program," "Council's Public Art Committee Begins Work," as well as an update on the committee's work provided in the report of AAPAC's Jan. 23, 2013 meeting.]

Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is part of a five-member council committee that’s preparing recommendations on changes to the city’s public art program. She attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting to update commissioners on that work.

At the invitation of AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin, Briere attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting to talk about the committee’s work and to answer questions from commissioners.

Briere told commissioners that there’s a real philosophical difference among councilmembers on the committee regarding the current Percent for Art program. [That program sets aside 1% of each capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, for public art. It's been the primary funding mechanism since the council enacted the public art ordinance in 2007. (.pdf of current ordinance)]

One councilmember, Briere said, is firmly opposed to the Percent for Art approach, especially the idea of “pooling” funds. Another councilmember is firmly committed to the idea and believes that 1% is probably inadequate, Briere added. [Based on The Chronicle's observations of discussions at these council committee meetings, Briere was referring to Kunselman and Teall, respectively.] The other three councilmembers are trying to find a middle ground that achieves the goal of government support for art in public places, she said, but that doesn’t rely solely on restricted funds to do that.

[The issue of using restricted funds relates to using money that was originally designated for infrastructure like roads or utilities, and setting aside some of those funds for public art. Because the money is taken from restricted funds,  a thematic link must exist between the funding source and the public art expenditure. Although the ordinance doesn't use the term "nexus," this is the word commonly used by councilmembers to refer to the concept of connecting public art projects to their source of funding.]

Briere reported that the committee has discussed whether public art funding should be taken from the city’s general fund. But that approach would pit public art against other general fund services, like police and fire protection. This is one of many issues that the committee is thrashing through, she said.

There seems to be general consensus for having artwork “baked in” to capital projects. Instead of transferring out 1% of a project’s budget into a separate public art fund, the money would be included in the capital project’s budget with a directive to incorporate artistic elements or architectural enhancements into the design. This would make administering the public art program less administratively burdensome, according to city staff, and ensure that public art wouldn’t be an “add on” after the capital project is finished.

A draft of possible ordinance changes is being reviewed by the city attorney’s office, Briere said, and will eventually be “coughed out like a hairball on the rug.”

Future of Public Art Program: AAPAC’s Role

Connie Brown wondered what AAPAC’s role would be, if these kind of changes are enacted. Briere said the council has discovered that a bureaucratic burden was created by the current ordinance, so the goal is to lessen that burden, not increase it. Also, there’s a desire to focus on projects generated and supported by the community, she said, not by city government. By way of example, Briere cited a chalk art project being proposed by the Huron River Watershed Council, that doesn’t require city funding. [A report on that effort is provided later in this article.]

Briere noted that the public art program had been set up in a way that focused on Percent for Art funding. Because of that, it restricted AAPAC in ways that weren’t intended, she said. So in the revised ordinance, councilmembers want to include funding mechanisms for art that “grows out of the community.”

Marsha Chamberlin asked if there will be a “nexus test” – a reference to the requirement that artwork must link thematically to its funding source. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, responded: “If we do it right, it’s gone.” Chamberlin laughed, saying “Then let’s do it right!”

Briere advised commissioners to function as they are until the council provides further direction. She also encouraged them to focus on projects not funded by the Percent for Art mechanism – like the HRWC proposal, or a mural project at the farmers market, proposed by Linda Tenza at AAPAC’s Jan. 23, 2013 meeting. Commissioners should talk about opportunities that won’t rely on Percent for Art funds, she said.

Another such project could be artwork in the parking structure at the new City Apartments, being built at First and Washington. Though located on the lower levels of the building, it will become part of the city’s public parking system, which is managed by the Ann Arbor DDA under contract with the city. Briere noted that public art was supposed to be part of that project, “but everybody forgot that.” Chamberlin recalled that AAPAC had discussed the project years ago, but not recently. [The last time it was brought up publicly was at AAPAC's October 2008 meeting, in connection with a possible partnership with the DDA. Chamberlin is the only current commissioner who was also serving at that time.]

Briere expressed sympathy for the commission, noting that it’s an all volunteer group that’s been asked to manage a lot. However, she also pointed out that other city boards and commissions are also made up of volunteers, often with heavy workloads. She recognized that the public art program has struggled with staff support, and said that the council committee on public art plans to recommend that more staff support would be appropriate. [The current public art administrator's position, held by Aaron Seagraves, is a part-time job.]

AAPAC will likely continue to work in an advisory capacity, Briere explained. They’ll identify projects in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) that should incorporate public art or architectural enhancements, but they can also recommend other projects for the city to support – for example, artwork at “gateway” locations in the city. The council might decide to fund such projects, or to provide partial funding in conjunction with private donations, grants or other sources.

Malverne Winborne noted that from the commission’s standpoint, they’ll again be in uncharted waters. Although there won’t be restrictions like the those imposed by the Percent for Art approach, there also won’t be consistent, predictable funding sources.

Craig Hupy, Ann Arbor’s public services area administrator, attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting.

John Kotarski expressed support for the changes, saying he felt AAPAC could serve well as an advisory group to facilitate projects. He didn’t think AAPAC should act as a gatekeeper, and felt that commissioners should advocate for as much community engagement as possible. He’d like people to come to AAPAC asking for advice, not permission.

Chamberlin and Winborne argued that being a gatekeeper had positive attributes, ensuring quality and safety, for example. Chamberlin gave the example of the proposal for murals at the farmers market, calling it an imaginative idea but adding, “I’m not anxious to see cucumbers painted by third-graders.”

Winborne pointed out that commissioners have a responsibility to the citizens of Ann Arbor, and there needs to be a thorough process to evaluate projects that will be located on city property. That process should apply to donated works, even if no city money is involved, he said. “We don’t want schlock.”

Connie Brown agreed, noting that AAPAC could also guide potential donors to private property owners that might be interested in artwork, if it’s deemed inappropriate for city property. Brown suggested that AAPAC will need to find a way to reconcile these differing views of its role.

Kotarski wondered how something like FestiFools would be evaluated, calling it a great civic project. Brown indicated that perhaps the puppet heads could be put on display as a collection – saying that might be an appropriate way for the city to support the event.

Future of Public Art Program: CIP and Annual Plan

Changes to the public art program were also part of a discussion related to AAPAC’s annual plan and the city’s capital improvement projects. Deb Gosselin, who handles the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting to review the CIP process. [.pdf of CIP for FY 2014-2019]

Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, transportation and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon. The document must be approved by the city’s planning commission, not the city council. The planning commission approved the most recent CIP at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting. The city council then uses the CIP in its budget planning process.

Gosselin described it as a “moving document,” with more than 300 projects. It includes projects that are funded as well as those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. She told commissioners that Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had looked through CIP to find those where it might be appropriate to incorporate public art.

Aaron Seagraves, Ann Arbor’s public art administrator.

The CIP has been important to AAPAC because funding for the Percent for Art program has come from the city’s capital projects – with 1% of each capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, being set aside for public art. And even though it now appears that the Percent for Art funding approach could be eliminated, the goal will still likely be to start planning the public art component as early as possible, as part of the project’s design, rather than as an add-on.

Seagraves reported that he had identified 30 projects in the CIP as having longer-term potential. [.pdf of long-term capital projects for possible public art] He had also identified a smaller list of 12 projects that AAPAC might consider for inclusion in its annual plan for fiscal 2014. [.pdf of FY 2014 CIP projects for possible public art] Those near-term CIP projects include the replacement of street lights along Main Street, the creation of a park at 721 N. Main, and renovations at the wastewater treatment plant, among others.

Commissioners didn’t discuss either these potential CIP projects or the public art annual plan in detail. The plan is due to be submitted to the city council on April 1 and would cover activities that AAPAC intends to pursue in fiscal year 2014, which runs from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.

Even though the program’s future is unclear, commissioners have been advised to move ahead with their work on projects that have already been approved for funding, as well as with general planning efforts.

Seagraves recommended that commissioners email him with feedback and suggestions for the annual plan, so that he can prepare a draft for AAPAC’s March 27 meeting.

Outcome: This was not a voting item, and no action was taken.

Future of Public Art Program: Council Committee

Two days after AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting, the five-member city council committee on public art met to continue their work on possible revisions to two city ordinances that affect the public art program – Chapter 8 (organization of boards and commissions) and Chapter 24 (public art).

The 90-minute discussion focused on draft revisions that will be reviewed by the city attorney’s office. Councilmembers were continuing the work based on draft ordinance revisions and a memo of recommendations originally presented at the group’s Feb. 14 meeting. [.pdf of Feb. 14 draft revisions and memo, prior to most recent revisions]

The March 1 session was attended by AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin and Shoshana Hurand, program manager at the Arts Alliance. Also attending the meeting were Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford; Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator; and Christopher Frost, assistant city attorney.

Based on draft revisions, the Percent for Art funding mechanism would be eliminated. After current funds in that program are spent, the city’s public art fund “would cease to exist,” Crawford said.

Ann Arbor city councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Sally Petersen at a Feb. 14, 2013 meeting of the council’s public art committee.

Instead, funding for public art projects likely would be handled in multiple ways. It would be included as part of individual capital projects – “baked in” to a project as part of its budget, to pay for architectural enhancements or artwork. The hope is also to raise money through private donations and grants, which would be deposited in an existing “pass-through” account for public art that’s administered by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF).

At the March 1 council committee meeting, Chamberlin reported that AAACF charges a management fee of about 1-2%, but the infrastructure for managing private donations and other non-city funds is already set up. The account had been originally created before the city’s public art ordinance was enacted. Chamberlin noted that the pass-through account is different from the endowment accounts that AAACF also manages, which are more restrictive in terms of how and when funding can be withdrawn.

The city’s possible new approach to funding has implications for how to pay for a public art administrator. Currently, the part-time position is paid for out of Percent for Art funds, because the administrator works on projects related to projects that are funded by the Percent for Art mechanism. At previous council committee meetings, the idea had been floated to use remaining Percent for Art funds as “seed money” for a full-time public art administrator, until new funding sources are identified. But on March 1, Crawford said that wasn’t possible – because of the “nexus” requirement that Percent for Art expenditures be linked thematically to their fund of origin. He said one of the most difficult challenges in this transition will be to find a reliable funding source to pay for administration of the public art program.

Crawford also cited the difficulty of involving a city employee in private fundraising – as well as other restrictions that would be placed on city expenditures. For example, city funds couldn’t be used to pay for alcohol at a fundraising event. He discussed the possibility of contracting with an outside entity to administer the public art program, similar to the contract that the city has with The Conservation Fund, a nonprofit that manages the city’s greenbelt and parkland acquisition programs. This approach would provide more flexibility, he said.

Briere mentioned the nonprofit Arts Alliance, headquartered in Ann Arbor, as a possible entity that could handle such a contract. Shoshana Hurand, program manager for the alliance, indicated that they’d be willing to discuss the possibility, if that’s the direction that the city wants to head. She noted that the alliance has been contracted to work on public art planning for the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, using funding received through a more general grant from the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development. The alliance is also working with a donor who’s interested in public art projects for downtown Ann Arbor, she said, so the group is already involved in efforts related to public art within the city.

Teall supported exploring this approach, noting that the alliance – and its previous president, Tamara Real – had been involved in the initial stages of setting up the city’s public art program. The idea of contracting with that organization for administrative services was appealing, she said. She added that it would be important to retain transparency, if that’s the approach the city takes. She pointed out, as full disclosure, that Hurand is her neighbor and a co-founder of FestiFools.

FestiFools also came up in the context of a discussion about performance art. Committee members have struggled to define performance art, and their views differed on the use of city funds to support it. One of the criticisms of the Percent for Art approach is that it does not allow for funding of temporary art like exhibits or installations, events, or performance art. The current draft revisions have eliminated reference to performance art, but would include the ability to fund either temporary or permanent art.

Teall wanted to leave the door open for flexibility, but noted that dealing with temporary art could be an administrative nightmare. Chamberlin suggested that temporary art could be defined as existing at least three months, giving the example of Patrick Dougherty’s large woven stick sculptures that were installed temporarily on the University of Michigan campus several years ago. She said even if temporary art isn’t defined in the ordinance, it would make sense to have an administrative policy about it.

FestiFools – an annual parade down Main Street featuring large papier-mâché puppets – would be considered temporary art, Hurand said. She cautioned against being too restrictive in defining the term, and noted that there are a variety of experiential opportunities that the city might want to support – like the kind of thing that the Ann Arbor Summer Festival brings to town. If one of the city’s goals is to use public art for place-making, she said, then these kinds of things should at least be considered, whether they last one day, one month or three months.

The committee’s next meeting is set for Friday, March 15 at 11:30 a.m. at city hall. After that, there’s only one regular meeting of the full city council – on Monday, March 18 – before the moratorium on Percent for Art spending expires. That happens on April 1, unless it’s extended by the council.

It’s expected that the recommendations and draft ordinance changes brought forward by the committee to the full council will be further amended during council deliberations.

Huron River Awareness Project

Jason Frenzel, stewardship coordinator for the Huron River Watershed Council, attended AAPAC’s Feb. 27 meeting along with Jennifer Lawson, water resources manager for the city of Ann Arbor. They came to talk about a project that would raise awareness of how the city’s stormdrain system connects to the river.

Jennifer Lawson, water resources manager for the city of Ann Arbor, and Jason Frenzel, stewardship coordinator for the Huron River Watershed Council.

The idea has been done in other communities, Frenzel said: A competition to draw images and messages on the street around stormdrains, highlighting connections to the river. The Ann Arbor project is proposed in two stages, starting with a chalk art contest at the June 14 Green Fair on Main Street. Artists would use chalk art to draw images around the stormdrains along Main Street between Huron and William, with the winner selected by people who attend the fair. Frenzel said that local artist David Zinn, known for his chalk art installations, is willing to help as a consultant, and mayor John Hieftje has also indicated support.

The second phase of the project would entail working with neighborhoods, as part of HRWC’s stormdrain awareness program, to create chalk drawings around street stormdrains throughout the city, on a volunteer basis. The intent is for artists from phase 1 to help guide the work by neighborhood volunteers.

Expenses would be paid for at least in part out of the city’s stormwater fund, which includes money for educational efforts. There’s potential for funding from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as well. [.pdf of AAPAC intake form for this project]

Frenzel joked that he hoped to get “emotional support” from commissioners, as well as help in spreading the word to solicit artists through AAPAC’s network. The effort might also include some staff time from Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Huron River Awareness Project: Commission Discussion

Commissioners generally expressed enthusiasm for the project. John Kotarski suggested that AAPAC endorse it, but Marsha Chamberlin reminded him that the commission doesn’t do endorsements. [After a lengthy discussion at its July 25, 2012 meeting, AAPAC passed a resolution stating that the commission would not make endorsements. Kotarski had cast the lone dissenting vote.]

Malverne Winborne pointed out that Kotarski could endorse the project as an individual, but the commission had decided that it wasn’t appropriate for the group to make official endorsements. There was a consensus at the Feb. 27 meeting, however, that AAPAC could partner with HRWC in this effort.

Connie Brown wondered how much time Seagraves could spare for the work. She noted that his is a part-time position. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, told commissioners that any additional hours that Seagraves might spend on this project could be paid for from the stormwater fund.

Matt Utsunomiya, one of three Skyline High School students who were attending the meeting as part of a class assignment, suggested that artists could draw outlines that kids could color in with chalk, as a way to encourage more participation. Frenzel gave him a business card, and Winborne jokingly cautioned Utsunomiya that when you come up with an idea, “you own it.”

Outcome: No formal vote was taken, but commissioners reached consensus to partner with HRWC on this project.

Memorial for Coleman Jewett

Near the end of the meeting, John Kotarski mentioned an email sent by Marsha Chamberlin with her thoughts on how to proceed with a proposed memorial to Coleman Jewett. [.pdf of Chamberlin's email] The proposal that’s been floated in the community is to create a bronze Adirondack chair, to be located in the Ann Arbor farmers market where Jewett, a long-time local educator who died in January, sold furniture after he retired. A private donor has already committed $5,000 to the project.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners John Kotarski and Connie Brown.

Kotarski said his understanding is that Sarah Gay is willing to take on many of the issues that Chamberlin raised in her email. [Gay is an arts administrator who grew up in Ann Arbor. She has attended some of the meetings of the Ann Arbor city council committee that's working on revisions to the city's public art program.] He said Gay has already taken action, including talking with some councilmembers about the memorial project.

Chamberlin pointed out that Gay is taking action at Kotarski’s “instigation.” He acknowledged that he had talked to Gay about it, but said she was eager to take it on and has already talked to Jewett’s family, the Ann Arbor DDA, and the city’s parks staff, which oversees the market.

When Chamberlin replied that AAPAC still needs to consider whether to accept this as a project, Kotarski said he wasn’t sure they needed to do that. He didn’t want the commission to become an impediment. Chamberlin countered that she didn’t think AAPAC was being an impediment, but it’s necessary to bring the project through AAPAC’s formal process in order to solicit donations, she said. The funds would be held in an account managed by the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation.

At this point Malverne Winborne, on the advice of city councilmember Sabra Briere, moved to adjourn the meeting, as there was no longer a quorum. [Connie Brown had left before the discussion began, leaving only three AAPAC members at the meeting.]

After adjournment, the discussion continued. Chamberlin indicated that after AAPAC accepts the project, they can contact Gay about managing it on a pro bono basis. Winborne supported that approach, noting that it’s important to follow the process that commissioners have set up, and it takes discipline to do that. He said he doesn’t want to be a bureaucrat, but does take his role as commissioner seriously.

Kotarski argued that bureaucracy is fine, as long as it serves a purpose. He said his understanding is that Chamberlin will contact Gay and let her know what to do next. Chamberlin responded that it’s not up to Gay to do anything, and Winborne noted that he didn’t even know who she is.

Chamberlin pointed out that there’s a lot of sentiment to move ahead on this, but that the horse got ahead of the cart. She said she had already been meeting with the community foundation, when the foundation was also being contacted by Gay – it had been confusing and uncoordinated.

Kotarski replied that if Chamberlin wanted Gay to stop working on this, all she had to do was to tell Gay that.

Officer Elections, Vacancies

At the end of the Feb. 27 meeting, Marsha Chamberlin told commissioners that they’d be receiving a ballot by mail to vote for AAPAC officers. AAPAC’s bylaws call for the commission to hold officer elections for chair and vice chair in January, by secret ballot. From the bylaws:

Article VI Officers
Section 1. The officers of AAPAC shall be a Chair and Vice-Chair. The officers shall be elected by secret ballot each year from among the voting members of AAPAC. The officers shall be elected for a one-year term by a majority of the voting members currently serving on AAPAC. No member shall serve more than three (3) consecutive one-year terms in one office. The term of the officers shall run from the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January to the date of AAPAC’s regular meeting in January of the following year. [.pdf of AAPAC bylaws]

But when the agenda item was reached at AAPAC’s Jan. 23, 2013 meeting, only four commissioners remained at the meeting, so no vote was taken.

At the Feb. 27 meeting, Kotarski said his understanding was that the vice chair would become chair. Chamberlin replied that it’s not written into the bylaws, but in the past, commissioners have felt that it’s a good idea for the vice chair to become chair. She reported that Malverne Winborne, AAPAC’s vice chair, had agreed to be chair, if elected, and that Bob Miller had indicated a willingness to serve as vice chair. Miller did not attend the Feb. 27 meeting.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – stated that the election results would be announced at AAPAC’s March 27 meeting.

Seagraves also confirmed via email that Cathy Gendron had resigned from AAPAC earlier in the week. There are now three vacancies on the nine-member commission. According to city records, Gendron had served two full terms. She was first appointed to the Commission on Art in Public Places (CAPP) in 2007. CAPP was the predecessor to AAPAC. She was then reappointed to AAPAC in 2010 for a term ending on Dec. 31, 2012. Most recently, she had been reappointed to AAPAC at the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting for a third term through Jan. 20, 2016, but she had not attended the commission’s Jan. 23 meeting.

In response to a Chronicle email, Gendron wrote that she previously had agree to stay on the commission through March of 2013, but would be unable to attend AAPAC meetings and had decided to resign. ”It’s time for someone else to take my place.”

Project Updates

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, provided updates in a written report. [.pdf of administrator's report] The items were not discussed during the meeting. Here are some highlights from the report:

• Justice Center: The Ed Carpenter glass hanging sculpture in the lobby of this building, next to city hall at the corner of Huron and Fifth, is set to be installed starting May 25, during Memorial Day weekend. About 20% of the project’s $150,000 budget is being paid to entities in the Ann Arbor region, according to Seagraves’ report.
• East Stadium Bridge: A task force has selected four artists as finalists for artwork on the East Stadium bridge, and have been invited to an April 1 site visit/open house. Those artists are: Volkan Alkanoglu, based in Atlanta, Georgia; Sheila Klein of Bow, Washington; Rebar Group of San Francisco; and Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. The project has a budget of $400,000.
• Rain Garden: Two finalists are being interviewed in early March for artwork in the city rain garden at First and Kingsley. A recommendation from the task force will be brought to AAPAC’s March 27 meeting for approval. The names of the two finalists have not been released.
• DIA Inside|Out: Installation on the Detroit Institute of Arts’ Inside|Out program artwork will begin on March 29 at these locations: Justice Center (Fifth & Huron); downtown fire station (Fifth & Ann); Lena (Main & Liberty); Kerrytown Market & Shops (Fourth & Kingsley); Sculpture Plaza (Fourth & Catherine); Zingerman’s Deli (Detroit & Kingsley); and the Liberty Street alley near Main Street.

Commissioners present: Connie Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Bob Miller, Wiltrud Simbuerger.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. in the fourth floor conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

An excerpt from the city of Ann Arbor’s capital improvements plan. TR-AT-12-04 is a pedestrian crossing of Ellsworth at Research Park Drive, near the Center for Independent Living. TR-AP-10-04 is a runway extension at the municipal airport – the brown shaded area.

Generally, about 58% of funding for these projects comes from utility fees and dedicated millages, and 39% from state or federal funds, leaving about 3% to be covered by the city’s general fund. In dollar figures, the amount of improvements that will tap the city’s general fund – or for which funding is otherwise not yet identified – is greater for the second year of this two-year budget cycle. For FY 2015, about $3.4 million of the needed capital improvements will either need to come from the general fund or have some other yet-to-be-determined funding source.

For FY 2014, the amount needed from the general fund or as-yet-undetermined sources is closer to $1.3 million. The city of Ann Arbor’s total general fund budget is around $80 million.

The projects range across the broad categories of: (1) municipal facilities (buildings, parks); (2) transportation (streets, sidewalks, paths, parking decks, train station); and (3) utilities (sanitary, storm, and drinking water).

Cresson Slotten – a city engineer and manager for the city’s systems planning unit – gave the capital improvements briefing to the city council on Feb. 11. The presentation was based on the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), which was approved by the city planning commission on Dec. 18, 2012.

Slotten also briefed the council on three significant study initiatives related to water systems – a city-wide stormwater study, a more focused study on the Malletts Creek watershed, and a sanitary sewer flow study. Those studies are part of the current year’s work.

In the course of Slotten’s presentation, councilmembers had questions about specific projects, including the footing-drain disconnection (FDD) program. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noticed the FDD program has no funding indicated beyond the $2.5 million that’s called for next year, in FY 2014. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, explained that the contract recently authorized by the council to study sanitary sewer flows would inform possible funding in future years.

Another project that drew scrutiny from councilmembers was a $540,000 for interim parking to support a possible commuter rail demonstration project. The city of Ann Arbor has told the Michigan Dept. of Transportation that it expects MDOT to pay for that parking. And Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked for clarification of the $2.6 million slated for FY 2015 for the design of the “Ann Arbor Station.” City staff clarified that the location of a possible new Amtrak station is currently still the subject of a council-approved $2.75 million study, 20% of which the city is funding, with the remaining 80% covered by a federal grant.

A new station has been controversial in part due to an initially proposed location on Fuller Road near the University of Michigan hospital – on land designated as city parkland. In the CIP, the construction of such a new station is $44.5 million, slated for FY 2016. That cost was not included in the figures presented by Slotten, which went only through FY 2015.

The city council chambers appear in the CIP in connection with two capital projects. A renovation to the chambers – pegged at $300,000 in FY 2015 – seemed to meet with scant enthusiasm from councilmembers. Likely to have a bit more traction with the council is the remaining asbestos abatement in the city hall building. Asbestos abatement was partly completed when renovations were done in connection with construction of the adjoining Justice Center. For the city council chambers portion of city hall’s second floor, abatement would cost about $200,000, and is included in the CIP for FY 2014.

A query from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) about Barton Dam projects drew out the fact that two projects listed for the concrete and steel portions of the dam  – a two-year total of about $1.65 million – could be joined by additional work that might be required on the adjoining earthen berm. The berm is part of the dam that holds the water in Barton Pond, the main source of the city’s drinking water. The possible berm project depends on the outcome of investigatory work that’s being done at the behest of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

A runway extension at the municipal airport – included in the CIP for FY 2014 at a cost of $2.14 million – was met with the observation from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) that an environmental assessment (EA) had not yet been acted on by the Federal Aviation Administration. The council had approved the last bit of funding for that study on Aug. 20, 2012. Without the finalized EA in place, Briere ventured, it would be difficult for her to vote for a capital budget that included the runway project.

The budget on which the council will vote this year will include a separate breakout of capital spending. The substantive conversation about the capital budget as it relates to the council’s established priorities is expected to begin to unfold at the council’s March 11 work session. Before then, a second work session is scheduled for Feb. 25, with an additional session slated for March 25, if necessary. Other topics discussed at the Feb. 11 work session included the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. Presentations on those topics are covered in separate Chronicle reports.

City administrator Steve Powers is required by the city charter to submit his proposed budget to the council by the second meeting in April, with any council amendments required by the second meeting in May. The city’s fiscal year begins July 1.

CIP Overview

Across all categories, a breakdown of funding requirements for capital improvement projects presented by Cresson Slotten include the following:

Category
                         FY 2014     FY 2015 
City-Owned Buildings  $1,113,000  $1,610,500
Parks and Recreation  $3,475,000  $3,375,000
Solid Waste              $40,000    $240,000
Airport               $2,301,000    $569,000
Alt Transportation    $2,176,000  $5,208,000
Bridges                 $412,000  $2,281,440
New Street                    $0  $1,125,000
Other Transportation    $950,000    $400,000
Parking Facilities      $430,000    $400,000
Street Construction  $13,704,000 $10,230,300
Sanitary System       $8,765,000  $8,260,000
Stormwater Mgmt       $4,400,000  $5,260,000
Water System         $11,400,000  $6,540,000
--------------------------------------------
TOTALS               $49,166,000 $45,499,240

-

Wet Weather Projects

Cresson Slotten led off the capital improvements discussion with a description of three current wet-weather study projects, which involve sanitary sewers and stormwater sewers. The drinking water system is not part of the mix for this set of projects – but is included in the CIP for the next two years for a total of about $15 million per year.

Wet Weather: Sanitary Flow

The city of Ann Arbor has separate sanitary and stormwater conveyance systems. But as Cresson Slotten characterized it to the city council at its Feb. 11 work session: “Water doesn’t care which system it’s in – it just wants to get to the river.”

Where rain goes: 70% runs off, and 23% soaks in, becomes part of underground flows or is absorbed by vegetation. It’s the remaining 7% of the rainwater that causes a problem for the sanitary sewer system – because the sanitary system is not designed to handle that kind of volume. (Diagram from the city of Ann Arbor.)

However, during construction of new developments before 1980, footing drains – permeable pipes buried around the perimeter of a foundation, roughly at the depth of a basement floor – were frequently connected directly to the sanitary sewer pipes. Those connections were convenient to make, because the footing drains and the sanitary sewers are buried at roughly the same depth.

However, during very heavy rains, that configuration leads to a volume of stormwater flow into the sanitary sewer system that it’s not designed to handle. That can cause two problems.

First, near the point where the extra water is entering the sanitary system, it can cause raw sewage to back up through the floor drains of basements.

Second, farther downstream at the wastewater treatment plant, the amount of water flowing into the plant can exceed the plant’s capacity. That can result in only partially-treated wastewater being discharged into the Huron River.

It was wastewater discharges into the river that led the city to agree to an administrative consent order with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to establish a way to offset the impact of new connections to the sanitary system required by new developments.

Footing drain disconnect (FDD) priority area in the southwest of Ann Arbor. Other priority areas, where nearly all the disconnections have been completed, lie in the northeast part of the city. (Diagram from the city of Ann Arbor.)

That program essentially requires developers who are building projects that place additional burdens on the sanitary sewer system to pay for a number of footing drain disconnections elsewhere in the city, according to a formula. The council’s Aug. 18, 2003 resolution authorized the consent order with the MDEQ.

The footing drain disconnect program was targeted initially in five neighborhoods that accounted for about half of all reported basement sewage backups.

Since implementation, 2,538 footing drains have been disconnected, including nearly all of the houses in three of the five areas. In the two other areas, between 55% and 60% of footing drains have been disconnected.

The city council decided on Sept. 17, 2012 to suspend temporarily the footing drain disconnection program.

And at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, the city council authorized a roughly $1 million study of Ann Arbor’s sanitary sewer flows – meant to assess the impact of the decade-long footing drain disconnection program. The point of the study is to see how well the FDD program has worked: Has it had more impact or less impact than expected? Have residents’ preferences changed with respect to how they’d like to see the issue addressed?

Wet Weather: Mallets Creek, Stormwater

The decision to suspend the FDD program came in the context of resident complaints.

In one of the remaining areas for the FDD program – the Glen Leven neighborhood – overland flooding during heavy rains in the spring of 2012 resulted in basement flooding in some houses that had been included in the FDD program. The FDD procedure includes the installation of a sump to collect water from the footing drains – which previously fed into the sanitary system – and a pump to move the water from the sump to the stormwater system. And in some cases, the pumps were reportedly not able to keep up with the influx into the footing drains.

Emphatic protest came from residents of that neighborhood, which has in recent weeks included rumblings of possible litigation. The litigation would be based on the legal theory that the city’s footing drain disconnection program has proceeded without valid contracts with homeowners, and that the installation of the wells and pumps constitutes an illegal “taking.”

Malletts Creek Study Area (Diagram from the city of Ann Arbor.)

The immediate cause of the overland flooding itself, however, likely includes the fact that the houses were built in an area through which a creekbed has historically flowed. [.jpg of image showing present-day development overlaid on aerial photography from the 1940s]

In that context, on Aug. 9, 2012, the council considered a resolution directing city staff to start negotiations with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to identify “opportunities for stormwater conveyance and stormwater quality improvement in the area of the Malletts Creek drainage district bounded by Ann Arbor-Saline Road upstream to I-94 and Scio Church Road.”

And on Oct. 15, 2012, the council approved a $200,000 study of the area by the water resources commissioner’s office.

Slotten also described a more general stormwater study project covering the whole city. It’s based on a 2007 completed GIS (geographic information system) inventory of public stormwater systems citywide. That study established a base model for the stormwater system. The current project aims to gather more detailed data to allow for a more fine-grained calibration of the base model. With the finely calibrated model, it will be possible to target needs in the system, Slotten said.

Slotten described how a number of stakeholder organizations have been included, as well as interested citizens in several specific neighborhoods that have experienced flooding in the past. The city is interested in getting reports from residents during heavy rains about where overland flooding and pooling is taking place. The city maintains a separate webpage for the stormwater system calibration project, which lists upcoming meetings, including some in early March.

Council CIP Concerns

During the Feb. 11 work session, councilmembers asked questions about a range of projects listed in the CIP. This report highlights some of their concerns, as well as staff responses to the issues that were raised.

Council CIP Concerns: Footing Drain Disconnection (FDD)

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the original FDD program began as capacity issue, and there’d been some involvement by the state of Michigan. Kunselman wanted to know: “Was there a consent order?” Kunselman’s question was handled by Craig Hupy, public services area administrator. Hupy allowed that there’d been a capacity issue in the collection system. The state of Michigan had entered a consent order at the water treatment plant, after a city task force was well down the road of arriving at a solution.

Kunselman asked if the consent order was still in force. Hupy indicated that the consent order had been “discharged.” One element of the consent order was to have a program in place to handle new connections – which the city now has, Hupy said. [That is the developer offset mitigation program, whereby new developments must offset the additional burden they place on the sanitary sewer system by paying for a formula-driven number of footing drain disconnections.]

Kunselman ventured that in reality, the capacity issues have been satisfied, but the FDD program continues – so Kunselman concluded that the point of the FDD was now not to satisfy the consent order. In that case, why did the program continue? Kunselman wondered. Hupy told Kunselman that the FDD continues because the city continues to have problems in the collection system.

Kunselman indicated that he thought there’d been unintended consequences, too. Hupy said that the point of the sanitary sewer flow study is to determine if there is a connection between the consequences Kunselman was alluding to.

Kunselman also noted that in the CIP there’s funding for FY 2014 but nothing thereafter. From the FDD line item in the CIP:

Current    FY 2014    FY 2015    Project
$11.05 M   $2.5 M     $0         FDD Project

-

Hupy told Kunselman that what’s in the CIP for FY 2014 is for disconnection of footing drains for several multi-family units, most of which are “upstream” of the Dartmoor priority area for footing drain disconnections [in the southwest part of the city]. The Dartmoor neighborhood wouldn’t be protected until those multi-family units are disconnected, Hupy said. Because the city did not yet know the results of the wet weather sanitary flow study for the sanitary sewer system, Hupy said, no programming of funds been made beyond 2014. No assumption was being made that the result of the study would cause the FDD to go forward, Hupy said.

Kunselman confirmed with Hupy that prior to the decision to embark on the sanitary flow study, the city had had an expectation that there would be additional funding needed for the FDD program. Hupy said that expectation had been based on a need to complete footing drain disconnections in the Glen Leven and Morehead priority areas.

Council CIP Concerns: City Council Chambers

The city council chambers appear in the CIP in a line item that comprises two capital projects.

Current    FY 2014    FY 2015    Project                 
$0         $0         $500,000   Larcom Mncpl Bldng
                                 2nd Floor/Cncl Chmbr Rnvt

-

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked about the $500,000 project to renovate the city council chambers. Her question was fielded by Matt Kulhanek, unit manager for fleet and facilities. He told Briere that the item has been included in previous CIPs. He described the project as part of the asbestos abatement project for the city hall building. About $200,000 is for completion of asbestos abatement on the second floor of city hall, Kulhanek explained, where council chambers are located. Asbestos in the clerk’s office portion of the second floor had been completed during the Justice Center construction.

The remaining $300,000 is for the renovation of the city council chambers. If that’s something the council has an interest in, it would be pursued, Kulhanek said – and if not, then not. [A couple of councilmembers seemed to indicate a lack of support as they shook their heads no.] But the city would in any case pursue asbestos abatement, Kulhanek said.

Kunselman got clarification from Kulhanek that asbestos abatement for city council chambers would include floor tile, as well as fireproofing above the ceiling.

By way of additional background, an implicit recognition of a possible need for improved city council meeting facilities dates back to plans for the Justice Center and city hall renovations. At one time that project included an addition – to be located on Huron Street, toward the eastern edge of the city’s property – which would have housed new city council chambers. The second floor of the current city hall would have been given over to the clerk’s office and the assessor’s office. Construction of new chambers external to the Larcom Building had been estimated to cost in the range of $2.5 million. [.pdf of courts/police schematics showing previously proposed new council chambers]

Council CIP Concerns: Airport

Included in the CIP are a number of projects for the Ann Arbor airport, including an extension of the main runway.

Current    FY 2014    FY 2015    Project 
$0         $2.14 M    $0         Runway Extension

-

At left, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) chats with Kathe Wunderlich before the Feb. 11, 2013 city council work session. Wunderlich is with the Committee for Preserving Community Quality, which opposes the proposed extension of a runway at Ann Arbor’s municipal airport.

In the past, the city council has amended the CIP to exclude the runway extension. [For an explanation of why this was essentially outside the authority of the city council, see: "Ann Arbor Budget Process Starts Up"]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that last summer [on Aug. 20, 2012] the council had approved a continuation of the work on the environmental assessment (EA) for the airport. At the time, councilmembers had asked if that would be the last time they’d be asked for funding. She did not believe the EA had been completed. She thought the EA would be completed before the council would be asked to consider funding that project.

Matt Kulhanek, unit manager for fleet and facilities, told Briere that the EA had been completed and had been submitted to the technical operations group of the Federal Aviation Administration. It has been sitting at the FAA since September, he reported, and the city anticipated there would be a six-month time frame for the FAA to consider it.

Briere reiterated her point that in the next two months, the city council would be asked to approve a budget, and she didn’t see how the council could include the runway extension in the budget without seeing the EA. [Background on the EA: "Ann Arbor Airport Study Gets Public Hearing"]

By way of additional background, Pittsfield Township – along with the citizens group Committee for Preserving Community Quality – has filed a formal petition with the U.S. Secretary of Transportation asking for the federal approval and funding of the Ann Arbor municipal airport runway extension to be blocked. [.pdf of Jan. 28, 2013 petition filed with U.S. Secretary of Transportation]

Council CIP Concerns: Rail Transit – Station, Parking

Two projects related to possible east-west rail service drew scrutiny from councilmembers.

Current    FY 2014    FY 2015    Project
$0         $40,000    $500,000   A2-Detroit Commuter Parking (Interim) 

$0         $2.6M      $0.00      Ann Arbor Station Final Design

-

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the interim parking project: “Where is that project? I never heard of that one.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Responding to Kunselman’s question was the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper. He explained that the project dates back three or four years when MDOT and SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) began to announce that commuter rail service would be forthcoming. Those entities weren’t planning on providing parking at the existing station. So the city developed an interim strategy, Cooper said, and included the project in the CIP at that time.

Including it was consistent with putting MDOT and SEMCOG on notice that if they were to provide commuter service, they’d need to provide parking out of their budget too, Cooper indicated. The city’s strategy for parking is to use the existing MichCon site, immediately across the tracks from the existing station, Cooper said. The staff estimated there’d be space for a 100-vehicle parking lot, and the amount listed in the CIP was consistent with the estimated expense. The city had not based the estimated expense on conversations with MichCon, Cooper said. The numbers reflect simply a staff estimate of what it would take to establish and operate additional parking on an interim basis for 2-3 years.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted to know what the planning commission’s discussion had been like on the Ann Arbor Station design, when that body had deliberated on the CIP. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who’s the city council appointee to the planning commission, indicated that the planning commission had not discussed the item.

Anglin said he was confused about the direction the city staff thought they had to continue with planning for the station.

By way of brief background, the location of a possible new Amtrak station is currently still the subject of a council-approved $2.75 million study, 20% of which the city is funding, with the remaining 80% covered by a federal grant. The council voted at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting to approve the additional expenditure of $550,000 from the city’s general fund to cover the local portion of the match. Dissenting on that vote were Mike Anglin and Jane Lumm; Stephen Kunselman was absent.

At the Feb. 11 session, Cooper responded to Anglin’s question by citing the context of the city’s 2009 transportation plan update, which the city council had adopted. That document was reviewed by the planning commission as well and adopted as part of the city’s master plan. The transportation plan includes 20 years of transportation improvements – roughly $106 million of city-based improvements, and $100 million of state and transit-authority type improvements, Cooper said.

With that as the backdrop for his response, Cooper noted that the city has a preliminary grant for the study of the location for a new station, which is anticipated to be completed in roughly the next 18 months. The next logical sequence would be final design project, Cooper said. In that context, it’s the staff’s responsibility to include it in the CIP, he concluded.

Anglin sought clarification about a possible decision for the location of the station to be designed: Was it determined to be on Fuller Road? The location is undefined, Cooper said, and that’s why the title of the line item is “Ann Arbor Station,” with no specified location.

Council CIP Concerns: Bridges

Cresson Slotten explained that the city is mandated to inspect all its bridges every two years as part of the biennial bridge inspection program. But the city divides the bridges into two categories – those over water and those over land. In one year, the city inspects all the over-water bridges, and the next year the city inspects the remaining bridges. So every year, the city is engaged in the inspection of some bridges.

One bridge drew a question from Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Current    FY 2014    FY 2015    Project
$317,000   $2.2 M     $813,000   Fuller/Maiden/MedCenter Bridges Rehab

-

Briere noted that this particular bridge – even with a priority of 1 – has been originally included for FY 2017. Now it’s been shifted to 2014. What’s changed?

From left: Ward 1 councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere.

Nick Hutchinson, interim head of project management, told Briere that the project was originally put in the CIP for FY 2016-17, but was shifted up after the staff looked at the biennial bridge inspection reports. The city thought that doing the maintenance sooner would be more cost effective. Another factor leading to the shifting of the project to an earlier year, Hutchinson said, is a project in the works for the intersection there. The city wanted to get the projects done the same year. [On Feb. 7, 2011, the council authorized a $460,139 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. to review previous studies of the Fuller Road/Maiden Lane/East Medical Center Drive intersection and propose a design for a reconfiguration of the intersection.]

Briere told Hutchinson that she would be really curious to see what the plan is for the Fuller Road/Maiden Lane/East Medical Center Drive intersection. She sees the bridge as a single system, and would like to see the bicycle path put under the bridge – as the bridge was designed to accommodate. Hutchinson told Briere he didn’t have a lot of detail to offer right then, but he knew it’s being studied.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) suggested that in replacing bridges, the city should try to partner with the University of Michigan, which has engineers working on flexible concrete and sophisticated sensors that allow for monitoring of stress remotely. Those approaches can allow identification of problems before they become visible.

Higgins felt that the city should be willing to participate in those university studies. Hutchinson reported that the city had had a meeting with engineering professor Victor Li, but the conversations haven’t gotten very far.

Council CIP Concerns: Barton Dam

Barton Dam is listed in two different items in the CIP.

Current    FY 2014    FY 2015    Project
$0         $100,000   $1.15 M    Barton Dam Concrete Repairs
$0         $0         $400,000   Barton Dam - Coating Struct. Steel

-

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for a description of the Barton Dam-related projects. Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, explained that the Barton Dam projects are listed with the water system projects because Barton Pond, which is formed by the dam, is the primary source of the city’s drinking water. Funding for the dam itself is in the general fund. The expectation is that work on the dam is split 50/50 between the general fund (based on the dam’s additional recreational purpose) and the drinking water fund.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

There are several issues associated with the dam, Hupy said. One is that the system that controls the gates – used to regulate the flow of the water – does not allow for control as finely tuned as regulators would like. Hupy went on to explain that to maintain Barton Dam as a “run of the river dam,” for every drop of water that enters the pond, a drop needs to go over the dam to compensate. The dam was built in the early 1900s and has had a few technology upgrades since then. Currently, the mechanism allows for adjustments by one link of a chain – a fraction of an inch – which isn’t fine enough, he said, to avoid a pattern of opening gates then soon closing them again. The uneven flow is a point of friction with “the fisheries folks,” Hupy noted. [For additional background, see "How Low can Argo Flow Go?"]

In addition to the concrete and steel part of the dam, a roughly 3/8-mile long earthen embankment is part of the structure that forms Barton Pond, Hupy explained. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has required the city to do some investigative work, and the city thinks there’ll be some follow-up work required when that investigative work is completed. [FERC is involved as a regulator because the Barton Dam generates electricity.]

Responding to a question from Taylor about the anticipated cost of the additional work, Hupy indicated that it would be “six figures.” The city is putting about $400,000 total in various parts of the budget for it. But until the study work is completed later this spring, the amount can’t be more precise, Hupy indicated. Because Barton is a federally controlled dam, whatever the work the city does will be what the regulator demands that the city does or doesn’t do. “Stay tuned,” Hupy told Taylor.

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

The Ann Arbor city council is beginning a budget planning process that should culminate in a council vote to adopt a fiscal year 2014 budget at its second meeting in May, which falls this year on May 20, 2013.

City administrator Steve Powers and chief financial officer Tom Crawford sketched out three kinds of topics they could explore with the full council at work sessions through the spring: (1) funding for items in the capital improvements plan (CIP); (2) budget impact analysis, broken down by service unit; and (3) additional resources required to support the city council’s five priority areas, which were  identified in a planning session late last year.

The top three priority areas are: (1) city budget and fiscal discipline; (2) public safety; and (3) infrastructure. Two additional areas were drawn from a raft of other possible issues as those to which the council wanted to devote time and energy over the next two years: (4) economic development; and (5) affordable housing.

Possible city council work session dates are the second and fourth Mondays of the month. Regular meetings fall on the first and third Mondays.

The city council will be adopting a final budget for fiscal year 2014 by its second meeting in May. FY 2014 starts on July 1, 2013. Although the council approves an annual budget for the next fiscal year, the city uses a two-year planning cycle. This year starts a new two-year cycle, the first complete one for city administrator Steve Powers, who started the job about a year and a half ago, in September of 2011.

During some back-and-forth with the budget committee about the staff’s ability to provide all the information to the council that the committee had been describing – within the timeframe of the budget season – Powers joked: “Tom and I aren’t rookies!” Powers was previously Marquette County administrator for 16 years. Crawford has served as Ann Arbor’s CFO for more than eight years.

The council’s five-member budget committee consists of: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

An interesting wrinkle that emerged during the budget committee’s discussion was the role to be played by the city council in shaping the capital improvements plan (CIP). In response to some interest expressed by committee members to amend the CIP, Powers encouraged them to think in terms of allocating funds (or not) for elements of the plan. That’s because the content of the CIP is the statutory responsibility of the planning commission, not of the city council. The city council’s role is to determine which projects should be funded, Powers explained. But it’s for the city planning commission to finalize the content of the CIP itself.

This report includes more on the Michigan Planning Enabling Act (Act 33 of 2008) and the city council’s recent history of amending the CIP.

Capital Improvements Plan: 2014-2019

The city’s planning commission has already voted, on Dec. 18, 2012, to approve the CIP for 2104-15. [.pdf of CIP for FY 2014-2019] The CIP is developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, transportation and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon.

This year, 377 projects are listed in 13 different asset categories. In the report, new projects are indicated with gray shading. They include renovating and/or remodeling five fire stations, 415 W. Washington site re-use, a park at 721 N. Main, urban park/plaza improvements, several street construction projects, a bike share program, and the design, study and construction of a new rail station.

Capital Improvements Plan: Amending the Plan?

Three years ago, on Feb. 16, 2010, the city council voted to amend the CIP after receiving it from the planning commission. On that occasion, the project that the council removed from the plan was one labeled the “Runway Safety Extension” for the city’s municipal airport.

The possible runway extension has been controversial for a few decades, but re-emerged again as a point of friction more recently in the context of an environmental assessment connected with the runway extension. [The runway extension is included again in this year's CIP.] The city council has voted periodically to fund the project, which taps non-local sources in addition to the smaller amounts needed from the city. The most recent vote by the council on that study came on Aug. 20, 2012.

Again on Feb. 7, 2011 city council amended the CIP to exclude the runway extension. Roger Fraser, who was city administrator at the time, hinted during the council’s meeting that the council was not actually expected to alter the plan itself [emphasis added]:

City administrator Roger Fraser noted that the planning commission is required to propose the CIP, but that not every item in the plan needs to have funding identified. Development of the plan, he said, complies with state law, and technically, the city council should simply be voting to receive the plan – implying that it was not really expected that the council would alter the plan.

Last year, on May 21, 2012, the council received the FY 2013-18 CIP attached to its agenda as a communication, and did not vote on it except to receive it along with several other communications. By that time, Powers had been serving as city administrator for about 9 months. The memo attached to the item on the agenda recited the past practice of amending the CIP, but noted that the city council did not need to act on the CIP [emphasis added]:

Similar to the City’s two-year budget process in which this year’s budget review by City Council consists of adjustments to the second year of the two-year budget presented to Council in the spring of 2011, the CIP approved by the Planning Commission consists of adjustments to the second year of the FY12-17 CIP approved by the Planning Commission on January 4, 2011. On February 7, 2011 City Council approved the FY12-17 CIP as the basis for the City’s capital budget, with the exception of the Airport Runway Safety Extension Project which was removed from the FY12 Capital Budget. As the adjustments to the CIP and to the capital budget under review by the Council were performed jointly, and with approval of the adjusted capital budget to be performed by Council following its review of the adjustments, no action regarding the CIP is required by City Council.

When Powers sketched out the overall concept for budget planning at the Jan. 22 meeting of the city council’s budget committee, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed an interest in amending the CIP. She noted that when she’d served on the council in the mid-1990s, she recalled undertaking amendments to the CIP. And Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled the more recent amendments of the CIP with respect to the airport runway.

Powers responded by pointing out that the CIP was not the purview of the governing body – in this case, the city council – but rather of the planning commission. What the council was responsible for, Powers explained, was allocating funds (or not) for the projects in the CIP. Powers alluded to the relatively recent change in the statute that lays out the responsibilities of the city planning commission. He confirmed later for The Chronicle that he was referring to the Michigan Planning Enabling Act 33 of 2008, which reads in relevant part:

125.3865 Capital improvements program of public structures and improvements; preparation; basis.
Sec. 65. (1) To further the desirable future development of the local unit of government under the master plan, a planning commission, after adoption of a master plan, shall annually prepare a capital improvements program of public structures and improvements, unless the planning commission is exempted from this requirement by charter or otherwise. If the planning commission is exempted, the legislative body either shall prepare and adopt a capital improvements program, separate from or as a part of the annual budget, or shall delegate the preparation of the capital improvements program to the chief elected official or a nonelected administrative official, subject to final approval by the legislative body. The capital improvements program shall show those public structures and improvements, in the general order of their priority, that in the commission’s judgment will be needed or desirable and can be undertaken within the ensuing 6-year period. The capital improvements program shall be based upon the requirements of the local unit of government for all types of public structures and improvements. Consequently, each agency or department of the local unit of government with authority for public structures or improvements shall upon request furnish the planning commission with lists, plans, and estimates of time and cost of those public structures and improvements.

In the case of Ann Arbor, there’s no exemption of the planning commission from having responsibility for the CIP.

At the committee meeting, Briere observed that – from her perspective as the recently appointed city council member to the planning commission – she perceived that planning commissioners viewed the CIP as a document that could be altered by the city council, and thus commissioners viewed it in some sense as merely a recommendation by the commission. She ventured that Powers’ explanation of the respective roles of the planning commission (which is responsible for the content of the plan) and the council (which is responsible for the budgeting of specific projects in the plan) would need to be incorporated into the planning commission’s culture.

Water Mains in the CIP

At the budget committee meeting, Lumm indicated that her interest in amending the CIP stemmed from a desire to see a water main replacement project in her ward be funded for 2014 instead of 2015. And in the course of deliberations during the city council session that followed the budget committee meeting, Lumm’s Ward 2 council colleague Sally Petersen mentioned a water main replacement project she wanted the city to undertake. The two councilmembers confirmed for The Chronicle that the specific water main project they meant was on Yellowstone, which is in the eastern area of the city, bounded by the east-west portion of Green Road on the north, and Bluett Road on the south.

The CIP for FY 2014-19 includes the Yellowstone water main replacement for 2015, and indicates a cost of $650,000. The CIP includes more than 30 different water main projects citywide. Projects are ranked on a priority scale with a number of factor weights. Lumm wants to see the Yellowstone moved a year earlier – to 2014. She responded to a query from The Chronicle by indicating that the Yellowstone water main has had six breaks in a five-month period.

Based on data compiled by The Chronicle from the city’s comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs), total water main breaks citywide in the last four years are less frequent per year than in the previous three. In 2012 there were 72 water main breaks citywide.

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks: 2006-2012. Data from city of Ann Arbor comprehensive annual financial reports.

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

A rendering that shows the proposed design for 544 Detroit St., at the corner of Detroit and North Division.

The project is located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest east of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors.

It was one of two residential projects that will now move to the Ann Arbor city council for consideration. The other one – Blue Heron Pond – is a townhome development located at the northwest corner of West Liberty and South Maple. A previous project at that location had languished under a different owner after one building was constructed in 2006. The new project includes nine buildings with a mix of two- and three-bedroom rental units.

In other action, rezoning requests for two other projects did not get recommendations for approval. A rezoning request and area plan waiver for 2271 S. State St. – which would allow for auto sales on the site, where Pilar’s Tamales restaurant had been located – was postponed. Planning commissioners wanted to hold off until a South State Street corridor study is completed. That’s expected to happen by the spring of 2013.

And receiving a technical denial was a rezoning request for 490 Huron Parkway from R3 (townhouse district) to R1B (single-family dwelling). Of the six commissioners at the Dec. 18 meeting, only five supported the request. It needed six votes for a recommendation of approval. Bonnie Bona voted against it, saying she supported more dense development in that area, which is located near Huron High School along a bus line. No construction is proposed at this point.

Commissioners also approved the city’s proposed capital improvements plan (CIP). The plan covers the fiscal years 2014-2019, and includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of CIP for FY 2014-2019]

544 Detroit

A plan to construct a three-story building at 544 Detroit St. with offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors was on the Ann Arbor planning commission’s Dec. 18 agenda.

Architect Marc Rueter, who designed the proposed three-story flatiron building at 544 Detroit.

The site – a triangle at the corner of Detroit and North Division – is in the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. The plan calls for demolishing a 560-square-foot gas station, which has been vacant for more than 30 years, and constructing a new 4,077-square-foot building. The city’s historic district commission (HDC) voted to issue a certificate of appropriateness to allow the demolition and new construction to occur. That happened at the HDC’s Oct. 11, 2012 meeting. A new curbcut is planned off Detroit Street, replacing other curbcuts on the site.

The proposal is a “planned project,” which allows modifications of the area, height, and placement requirements related to permanent open space preservation – if the project would result in “the preservation of natural features, additional open space, greater building or parking setback, energy conserving design, preservation of historic or architectural features, expansion of the supply of affordable housing for lower income households or a beneficial arrangement of buildings.” However, all other zoning code requirements must still be met – including the permitted uses, maximum density, and maximum floor area.

In this case, a planned project is requested to allow an additional 3.5 feet of building height for a “decorative parapet” on the building’s north end and a stair enclosure to access a roof deck from the third floor. The planned project also is needed to accommodate shorter front setbacks – 5 feet, versus the required 10-foot setbacks along Detroit and North Division streets, and a 19-foot rear setback, rather than the required 39 feet.

A modification is requested to the landscaping buffer to reduce the required width and allow for a six-foot-tall privacy fence on the east side. The city also requires that the project replace any bricks in Detroit Street that are affected by the construction.

The project’s architect is Marc Rueter of Ann Arbor, who was on hand to review the details, along with other representatives for the owner, Jack Epstein of Rockville, Maryland. According to a staff memo, the owner intends to pursue brownfield tax increment financing for the site.

544 Detroit: Public Hearing

Five people spoke during a public hearing on the project.

Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, noted that the city’s historic district commission had endorsed the project unanimously. The property “has distinguished itself for its blight,” she said, yet it’s the gateway to Ann Arbor’s oldest neighborhood. The proposed building has been beautifully designed, and will serve as a magnificent gateway into the historic district. It has elements that resonate with the neighborhood, and many artistic elements that aren’t required. She thinks the developer agrees that architecture makes the best public art, and this building will be wonderful public art. Crockett noted that the property is zoned C1 – and the building’s scale, massing and overall design fits perfectly. She pointed out that the last building before the gas station was built was a barn.

Aerial view of 544 Detroit Street (outlined in black). The street at the bottom center of this image is North Division – Detroit Street angles in from the bottom right.

There was a neighborhood meeting about the project, and Crockett reported that people were delighted with the design and that everyone driving over the Broadway bridge would see this beautiful structure. She acknowledged that the plan calls for the height to exceed the zoning in that area, but observed that the lot sits lower than the adjacent building.

Far less enthusiastic about the project was Ed Mahony, who owns 524 N. Division – two houses down the street from the proposed building. Though he’d like to see the blight cleaned up, he doesn’t want a three-story building there. It would totally block his view from his front porch. He noted that most houses in the neighborhood are less than 2,000 square feet and are set back from the street. He asked commissioners not to allow any variances so that the developer would have to reduce the size of the building.

Three people associated with the project addressed the commission. Dan Williams of Maven Development described the site as unique. He noted that two neighborhood meetings had been held about the proposal, and there had been lots of support for the building’s scale and character.

Architect Marc Rueter talked about the “tremendous vision” that Williams had for the property. Ann Arbor has only a few locations where diagonal streets create these unique building sites. That meant there was the opportunity to build a traditional flatiron-style building, he said. There’s another one – a two-story flatiron-style building – located at the intersection of Detroit and Fifth, across from Kerrytown Market & Shops. The idea is to push the building forward into the point of the triangle, Rueter explained, creating a very narrow “nose” where the balconies will be located. In the back, the only paving will be for a turnaround area – covered parking will be tucked underneath the building’s second floor, in the back with a new entrance off Detroit.

Serge van der Voo, the project’s landscaper, described various details about the trees and other plantings that are planned for the site. American elm trees – the Princeton variety, which are disease resistant – are recommended as street trees on the edges of the site. Plant beds would be installed around the foundation of the building, so there would be no lawn. Arrowood Viburnum would be put in next to the brick facade, with Broadmoor Juniper shrubs planted along the foundation and Liriope planted as ground cover. In the point of the triangle, Walkers Low Catmint – a long, blue-flowering perennial – would be planted. Trees along the back of the site include Amelanchier and Nigra Arborvitae.

544 Detroit: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere wondered if the project needed approval from the city’s zoning board of appeals, because of requested changes to the conflicting land use buffer. City planner Jill Thacher replied that it does not require ZBA approval.

Responding to a question from Briere about refuse collection, Thacher explained that residents will use 96-gallon carts that they roll onto Detroit Street for collection – there won’t be a dumpster on the site.

Looking south at 544 Detroit St. The one-story gray building is a former gas station that’s been abandoned for over 30 years. Detroit Street is in the foreground, with South Division on the left side of this view.

Briere also requested that future staff reports include images that provide context to the site – showing surrounding buildings and lots to see how they would be affected by an infill project like this one. She concluded her remarks by complimenting the landscape designer, saying that using catmint on the corner point coordinates well with the planting beds at the Broadway bridge, which also include catmint.

Diane Giannola asked what the historic district commission said about the project. Thacher recalled it as a very short but glowing conversation, noting that commissioners were pleased by the brick facade and fenestrations. There were no concerns about massing or size, she said, and the HDC vote had been unanimous.

Tony Derezinski wondered whether the project could be done without the requested changes to the conflicting land use buffer. Thacher replied that the building as proposed would not work. It would push the parking area so far forward, away from the back edge the lot, that you’d need to put the building on stilts or put parking underground, she said.

Derezinski described it as a very unusual lot – it took a lot of creativity to design a building for the site, and he thought they’d done a good job. He didn’t want the lot to remain as it is.

Saying the answer wouldn’t affect his vote, Eric Mahler asked about the project’s impact on the neighbor to the south. Thacher noted that the existing retaining wall would stay in place. She also pointed out that the house is a rental property.

Ken Clein asked several questions to get an idea about the price range for the two condo units. Dan Williams said they aren’t targeting students, but would more likely be sold to empty nesters. He indicated that the pricing for the units hasn’t been set.

Clein described the building’s design as handsome, saying that it fit well into the historic neighborhood. He understood that nearby residents would lose their “viewshed.” He noted that if the required setbacks stayed in place, it wouldn’t be a buildable site. The only hope would be for the city to buy the land and turn it into a park, he quipped – a remark that prompted a chuckle from Sabra Briere, who also serves on the city council.

Bonnie Bona liked the plan to have parking under the second floor – because it was covered, yet still open, she said. She also hoped that the project’s plans for energy conservation actually happen, and noted that often the commission has been disappointed in that regard by projects after they’re built. She noted that because of its density, the building itself was energy-conserving.

Relative to the building’s massing, Bona noted that even if the setbacks were enforced, zoning would allow it to be nearly as tall as it is in the current design. As a bookend to the neighborhood, it will provide a buffer to one of the area’s primary streets, she said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and changes to the required landscaping buffer. The project will next be considered by the city council.

South State Rezoning

A rezoning request and area plan waiver for 2271 S. State St. – which would allow for auto sales on the site – was on the planning commission’s Dec. 18 agenda. The city’s planning staff had recommended denial of the requests, noting that the changes did not align with uses in the city’s master plan for that area.

Aerial view showing 2271 South State Street. Most recently, Pilar’s Tamales had been located in a building at the front of the site. The large lot on the right side of this image is a parking lot for Ann Arbor Public Schools buses. The property on the left of the image is the University of Michigan tennis facility. On the bottom left is a portion of the Edwards Brothers printing business.

The 2.24-acre site is located on the east side of South State, across the street from a University of Michigan tennis facility. Most recently, Pilar’s Tamales restaurant was located there, though that building is now vacant. The owner, Capital Investment Co., requested rezoning from M1 (limited industrial) to M1A (limited light industrial) so that an auto dealership could be located there. The plan calls for renovating an existing 1,868-square-foot building that fronts South State, to use as a sales office, while using the rear warehouse as an auto repair shop. Repaired cars would be stored and sold in the front parking lot.

A previous project approved for that site in 1999 was started but never finished. The city’s master plan discourages commercial uses along South State, except for the sites adjacent to the Stimson and South Industrial commercial area. According to a staff memo, a corridor study that’s being developed for South State is expected to recommend a mix of office and residential uses for that area. The staff memo also notes that there are several compliance issues with the site, “including lack of required landscaping, an unfinished building foundation, deteriorated driveways and storm water drainage concerns.”

South State Rezoning: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during the public hearing for this item. David Diephuis, a resident of South State, told commissioners that he doesn’t support this project primarily because it doesn’t improve the South State corridor. He noted that the city has embarked on a corridor study with the goal of making the South State entrance into the city more attractive. This project doesn’t do that, he said. It might not appear that very much has changed along South State in the past 15 years, Diephuis said, but many property owners have improved their sites. He cited several examples, including the Produce Station, the Wintermeyer office buildings, the former Howard Cooper dealership, the relatively new office buildings on Oakbrook, and the detention pond in front of the FedEx building. In contrast, the proposal for 2271 S. State wouldn’t make a significant improvement to that site, he said. He hoped commissioners would recognize that it’s just not enough to warrant approval.

Representing the property owner was local attorney Scott Munzel. He noted that the current M1 zoning allows for only limited sales – on 10% of the building’s floor area, which would be about 100 square feet. That just wouldn’t work for auto sales, he said. There is no such constraint on M1A zoning. Munzel pointed out that the former Howard Cooper dealership – now called Germain of Ann Arbor – is located just down the street, so there are already similar uses along the corridor.

The site’s topography, which includes a significant grade drop, puts limits on potential uses, Munzel said. He noted that the current owners are somewhat risk averse. They’re willing to work through the city’s requirements to redevelop the site, but want to make sure they can do what they want on the site before moving forward. The first step is getting the site rezoned. Rezoning would be consistent with the existing master plan and its goal of encouraging economic development, he said. Munzel noted that the draft corridor study calls for office and residential uses along that part of South State, but there isn’t demand for that now.

Munzel also questioned the fairness of evaluating this rezoning request based on a corridor plan that’s not yet finished. If eventually there is demand for office and residential development, it would be easy for the owner to switch to that type of use. So approving the rezoning request would allow for better use of the site now, he concluded, while still allowing for potentially different uses in the future.

South State Rezoning: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere pointed out that other rezoning requests along South State Street had been made and denied, in part because of the pending corridor study. She wondered when that study would be completed, and whether the current rezoning request would likely be approved in the context of the study’s recommendation.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said the corridor study will be on the commission’s agenda in January of 2013 with a recommendation that it be distributed to neighboring municipalities for input. The M1A zoning is not consistent with the study’s recommendations, she said. There are already other areas along the corridor that are zoned M1A – including the former Howard Cooper dealership – and she didn’t think there was a sense that more M1A areas are needed.

From left: Planning commissioners Tony Derezinski and Eric Mahler.

Responding to a query from Tony Derezinski, city planner Chris Cheng indicated that the owner would need to bring the site into compliance with the previously approved site plan before any additional work could be done, even if the rezoning is approved. He noted that auto repair is allowed under the existing zoning. It’s just the limit on sales that’s an issue. Rampson observed that none of the restaurants that had previously been in business on that site had been operating there legally.

Diane Giannola was hesitant to approve rezoning – it wouldn’t be consistent with other recent actions, when the planning commission had denied rezoning requests along South State. She advised waiting, and noted that if the commission recommended approval to allow this use, it would contradict their public statements about the kinds of uses they wanted to see in that area. Noting that the site has been vacant for a long time, she said she’d love to see it being used. But it’s too much of a contradiction with what the commission has been working on for the past two years, she said.

By way of background, in 2011 the commission recommended denial of two zoning requests along the South State corridor. The operator of Treecity Health Collective, a medical marijuana dispensary at 1712 S. State, asked that the location be rezoned from O (office) to C1 (local business). And the owners of Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky had asked that 1643 and 1645 S. State St. be rezoned to C3 (fringe commercial district), which would allow their business to sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site. It has been annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township with M1 zoning.

Responding to a question from Ken Clein, Scott Munzel indicated that the current owners have owned the site for about a year. He observed that not all of his clients get into a deal knowing what they’re actually getting into. But the owners are well-funded, he said, and think it’s a great spot to renovate and sell cars. They know they need to do significant work to get the site up to code, Munzel said. He suspected they would return with a new site plan at some point, tailored for what they’d like to do on the lot.

Eric Mahler said that if it weren’t for the pending corridor study, he’d have no qualms approving this request. He suggested postponing action.

Bonnie Bona told commissioners that she was struggling with the issue. She could imagine the site being used for something that didn’t require a lot of investment. The corridor study will give everyone a sense of what the community wants, but it could take years for all of the properties along that stretch to see their value increase to make the new uses feasible. She said she didn’t want to create a situation in which something is done that can’t be undone. So the idea of putting something there that doesn’t require a lot of investment now felt OK to her.

Directing a question to Munzel, Bona wondered what changes along State Street would need to occur in order for the current owners to consider a residential or office development there? Munzel noted that in general, when land values increase, auto dealerships – which require large lots – tend to move further out into the suburbs. With time, he could imagine there would be a change in demand for uses on that parcel. It’s a lovely site with some nice views, he said, and he could see some potential for development at the top, closest to South State. But it’s unclear how many years that might take. Part of it involves financing, he added – would a bank give a loan for an office/residential development there? That might be 5-10 years out. He said he had wondered about some kind of conditional rezoning.

Rampson suggested that commissioners decide whether to wait for the corridor study to be completed, or to decide whether the rezoning is appropriate for the future use of the site. She would not recommend that any temporary component be part of their action.

After further discussion, commissioners reached a consensus to postpone action until the corridor study is completed. That’s expected to happen by the spring of 2013. Commissioners also indicated that they wanted to see a survey of the property to reflect current conditions, or a revised site plan.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone action on this request until the South State corridor study is completed. In the interim, they also requested a survey of the property to reflect current conditions, or a revised site plan.

Blue Heron Pond Townhomes

The site plan for a large townhome development at the northwest corner of West Liberty and South Maple was on the Dec. 18 agenda.

Architect Brad Moore describes the plan for Blue Heron Pond townhomes at the northwest corner of West Liberty and South Maple.

Blue Heron Pond is a planned project of 64 units on a 7.8-acre site that’s zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling). It’s the site of a development formerly called West Towne Condominiums that was started in 2005 but never completed. A building with 11 units has been constructed on the site, although the original developer – the Concannon Company – had planned to build 87 units.

The new owner, Norfolk Development, bought the property in the spring of 2012. The new $4.2 million project calls for constructing nine buildings in two phases. The first phase will include construction of four buildings along West Liberty, with the five other buildings in the site’s interior to be constructed at a later date. The complex will have a mix of two- and three-bedroom rental units ranging in size from 980 to 2,577 square feet, each with an attached one-car garage. Rents are expected to be in the $900 to $1,800 range.

The proposal is a planned project – rather than a by-right development – because a modification is being requested to the zoning requirements. Rather than the 20 feet between buildings that’s required in R4B zoning, the developer wants to reduce that amount to 15.7 feet between two of the buildings along West Liberty.

A large wetland in the center of the site will not be disturbed. A contribution of $26,000 to the city’s parks system has already been made, with the funds used for improvements at South Maple Park.

Blue Heron Pond Townhomes: Public Hearing

Brad Moore, the project’s architect, was the only person who spoke during a public hearing on this agenda item. He described the project, highlighting major differences between the former plan and the current one. The buildings now are smaller, reducing the intensity of development on the site. Open space has been increased while the amount of impervious surface has been reduced, as has the total number of dwelling units. The road, underground utilities, stormwater detention and other infrastructure will remain unchanged.

There will be four smaller buildings fronting West Liberty, rather than two large structures that were previously proposed. It’s the attempt to break up the building’s mass along West Liberty that prompted the request for a planned project, he said. They’re constrained in the building layout by the location of a water main and a road to the west, and are requesting a reduction in required space between two of the buildings.

He noted that the one building that’s already on the site has been completed and people are now living there. All but four of the new units will be townhouses. The other four will be stacked units, with the first floor handicap accessible.

Blue Heron Pond Townhomes: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked for more details about the wetland area. Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting replied that the wetland had been an existing feature on the site prior to the city’s approval of the previous site plan. The previous site plan had used it for rear-yard drainage, and the current site plan is proposing to do the same. Right now, because of the drought, the wetland is actually two small ponds, “but I assume it will return someday.” He said it wouldn’t surprise him if it were actually a manmade feature from way back.

Sabra Briere, who serves on the Ann Arbor planning commission as well as the city council, representing Ward 1.

Responding to a query from Tony Derezinski, Moore said that they hope to build an observation deck by the wetland. The area is populated by ducks, herons and turtles, he said.

Derezinski also noted that the commission had received a communication from a nearby resident, Judith Marks. She indicated that at a neighborhood meeting earlier this year, Jim Franke – representing the developer – had stated that they’d start building on the north side of the site. But the recent staff report states that the buildings on West Liberty would be constructed first. She wanted clarification, so Derezinski asked, “Which is it?” Moore replied that the West Liberty phase would be constructed first.

Sabra Briere wondered whether the path around the pond would be accessible to people who don’t live in the development. Moore indicated that there’s a connection to the path from the public sidewalk, so it will be possible for people to walk around the pond.

Responding to a question from Eric Mahler, Moore explained that the first two buildings on the site would have both two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. As the developers sense the market demand, they’ll adjust the additional buildings internally based on the more popular configurations.

Mahler clarified that regardless of the number of bedrooms, there will be only one parking space per dwelling unit. Moore said that some buildings – including those along West Liberty – will actually have two internal spaces per unit, because cars will be able to park front-to-back. There will also be a spot in front of the garage. In units with walk-out basements, the garage will only be large enough for one car.

Mahler noted that the project isn’t large enough to warrant a traffic study – but West Liberty can be a high-traffic street. Will there be any restrictions on turning into or out of the site onto West Liberty at certain times of the day? Moore said they aren’t proposing any turning restrictions. It’s believed that residents will learn when it’s difficult to make a left turn onto West Liberty, and use the exit onto Maple instead. Mahler noted that Maple isn’t necessarily less busy. Overall, he said, it’s nice to see the site developed and this is a big improvement over the previous site plan.

Diane Giannola asked how much visitor parking was available. Her concern is that because there’s no street parking in that area, there might not be enough parking for visitors. Matt Kowalski of the city’s planning staff reported that there will be 36 total spaces in surface parking throughout the development.

Bona noted that the units look smaller than the previous proposal, and she wondered if there had be a marketing change. There area 23 fewer units, and those units are smaller. “It’s hard to imagine a developer that’s not maxing out the square footage on a site, so there must be some reason why you decided to do that,” she said.

Moore said the developer felt the site had been “too maxed out” as it was previously configured, and that it would have been a detriment to marketing it. They felt they’d have a more marketable product if it were less dense.

Bona complimented the design, saying that the changes in the garages are significant. “That original building – just a bunch of garage doors slammed up against the road – always felt a little uninviting,” she said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the Blue Heron Pond site plan. It will move to the city council for consideration.

Huron Parkway Rezoning

On the agenda was a rezoning request for 490 Huron Parkway from R3 (townhouse district) to R1B (single-family dwelling). It would allow the currently vacant 1.22-acre site, located north of Ruthven Park, to be divided into three separate lots. City planning staff had recommended the rezoning, and noted that the adjacent parcel at 500 Huron Parkway is also zoned R1B.

Huron Parkway Rezoning: Public Hearing

Greg Elliott told commissioners that he is an Ann Arbor attorney who was filling in for the owner, Louis Johnson of the Johnson Building Group, and the project engineer, Brad Cousino of Terratek Design. He said he’d be happy to answer any questions.

Aerial view of 490 Huron Parkway, outlined in black. The major road running west of the site is Huron Parkway. The land on the far west of this image is the site of Huron High School.

Arlene Shy said she represented the Heritage Ridge condo development, located just north of the site. They were concerned about the grading on a steep slope located between the condo development and the site, which she said needs to be stabilized. The way that it’s been left is very risky, she said. The developer for that project – also Johnson Building Group – hasn’t replaced sod following the installation of a water hydrant on the property, Shy said, and several large trees had also been cut down as part of that project. Those trees haven’t been replaced, either. She reiterated that nothing has been done to stabilize the bank on that very steep slope, and it was a major concern for the Heritage Ridge homeowners.

Huron Parkway Rezoning: Commission Discussion

Tony Derezinski began by noting that he had attended a public meeting on this rezoning request in the summer, where the issue of the slope stabilization had been raised. He asked the city’s planning staff if action was being taken to resolve it.

City planner Chris Cheng replied that the city’s grading inspector has met with representatives of the developer, but the problems haven’t yet been taken care of. However, Cheng pointed out that the problems are not on the 490 Huron Parkway site. Rather, the steep bank is on adjacent land that’s owned by the same developer, where a single-family house is being built. Cheng said the city would withhold a certificate of occupancy for that house until the problems have been resolved.

Responding to another query from Derezinski, Cheng said that if the rezoning were to be approved, the parcel could be divided into a maximum of five lots – but there are no proposals at this time to do that.

Sabra Briere observed that the lot is about 130 feet from the busy intersection at Geddes and Huron Parkway. Has there been any consideration of traffic safety? She said she’s been hearing about significant issues with speed and safety at that intersection.

Cheng reported that the city’s traffic engineer approved the rezoning, and that a traffic study wasn’t deemed necessary because of the anticipated low volume of traffic associated with the site.

Responding to a question from Ken Clein about stormwater management, Cheng indicated that single-family homes don’t require stormwater management systems. Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that single-family houses do have to meet the city’s requirements related to changes in impervious surface. That’s part of the permitting process.

Bonnie Bona led the Dec. 18 planning commission meeting, in the absence of chair Kirk Westphal and vice chair Wendy Woods.

Bonnie Bona asked about impervious area for townhouses compared to single-family houses – has the city staff given any thought to that? Cheng answered that unlike single-family houses, townhouse developments require a site plan and therefore must come through the planning commission and the city council for review.

Bona wondered what the taxable value would be on the site, if the lots were divided for three single-family homes compared to 12 townhouses. Cheng replied that the vacant lot has been assessed at $300,000 – but the market would dictate the value after it’s developed. He noted that the lot has been vacant for more than 30 years, and he ventured that if it had been feasible to build 10-12 townhomes there, it probably would have happened already.

Bona then directed her questions at the developer’s representative – the attorney, Greg Elliott. She noted that Huron Parkway is on a bus line, and that most people who live in single-family homes of the size that would likely be built there don’t ride buses. There’s limited property to develop within the city, and she said it would be a shame to develop property that wouldn’t add to the usage of the bus system. She wondered why the developer would put single-family homes there, in an area surrounded by townhomes?

Elliott pointed out that single-family homes are a permitted use on the site. The layout for townhomes would be a practical problem because of the topography, he said, and there hasn’t been a market for them. He noted that Louis Johnson had previously submitted a plan for townhouses there, but it didn’t work out.

Bona said she couldn’t support the rezoning. With 70,000 people commuting into Ann Arbor each day, it didn’t make sense to build single-family homes in that area. “Single-family homes should be built in townships, where they don’t want bus service,” she said.

Clein indicated he was on the fence about the rezoning. He wasn’t sure what the benefit would be for the city. It’s true that there would be less traffic with single-family homes compared to townhomes, but there would be more impervious surface with a single-family house.

In response, Eric Mahler cited what he saw as several benefits to the city. The vacant parcel will be developed and more taxes will be collected – regardless of whether residents who live there ride the bus. Jobs will be created, he said, and it will be a better situation than exists now.

Outcome: The vote on the rezoning was 5-1, with Bonnie Bona voting against it. Because a rezoning needs six votes to achieve a recommendation of approval, the request received a technical denial. It will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Capital Improvements Plan 2014-2019

At its Dec. 18 meeting, Ann Arbor planning commissioners were asked to approve the city’s proposed capital improvements plan (CIP). No one attended a public hearing on the topic.

Deb Gosselin briefed planning commissioners at their Dec. 11 working session – pictured here – prior to presenting the capital improvements plan at their Dec. 18 regular meeting.

The plan covers the fiscal years 2014-2019, and includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of CIP for FY 2014-2019] Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, transportation and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon.

This year, there are 377 projects listed in 13 different asset categories. In the report, new projects are indicated with gray shading. They include renovating and/or remodeling five fire stations, 415 W. Washington site re-use, a park at 721 N. Main, urban park/plaza improvements, several street construction projects, a bike share program, and the design, study and construction of a new rail station.

Planning commissioners had been briefed on the CIP at a Dec. 11 working session by Cresson Slotten, systems planning unit manager, and Deb Gosselin, systems planning engineer. Both Gosselin and Slotten attended the commission’s Dec. 18 meeting to answer additional questions.

This year, the report also includes results from an online survey of residents. More than 200 people responded, and their input is being used to help prioritize projects. [.pdf of survey responses (aggregate)] [.pdf of survey responses (open response)] To make the final CIP information more accessible, the city is also planning to launch a CIP mapping system that will indicate the locations of projects, and allow users to click on the location for details about the project. That’s expected to be posted later this month as part of the city’s GIS (geographic information system) site.

Capital Improvements Plan 2014-2019: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere asked if there was a way to indicate whether the current plan reflects any changes in priorities for projects, compared to previous years. Deb Gosselin replied that it should be possible to create a report like that.

Briere then noted that remodeling and/or renovations for fire stations were listed in the report. She said that the inclusion of those projects reflects a staff priority that might change in the coming months. If priorities do change, Briere wondered what happens to the approved CIP impact that would have immediate impact on budgeting and staffing?

Gosselin replied that the staff is aware of ongoing discussions related to the fire stations. There’s always the flexibility to tweak the CIP, if necessary.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that from the staff’s perspective, a project can’t move forward unless it’s in the CIP. There are some projects that the council hasn’t yet made decisions on, so it’s better to include those projects in the CIP – even if no funding has been identified or approval given.

Tony Derezinski asked if the staff knew of any major changes in federal funding or other sources that might have an impact on the CIP. There’s nothing in the short-term, Gosselin said. But looking out six years or so, the city hopes to get federal funding to use for street and transportation projects, rather than using local millage funds.

Ken Clein asked about the item labeled “Ann Arbor Station NEPA/PE” with funding of $2.75 million from prior years. It relates to environmental assessment and preliminary engineering for a possible train station. It’s a component of a Federal Rail Administration grant that the city council accepted, and is required under National Environmental Policy Act guidelines. [For a detailed discussion by the council on this funding, see Chronicle coverage of their June 4, 2012 meeting.]

By way of additional background, 2014-2019 CIP contains two other line items related to the Ann Arbor Station: $2.6 million in 2015 for final design, and $44.5 million for construction, with no year designated.

Eric Mahler began by saying this was one of his favorite parts of the planning commission’s work. He asked about the line item for the drop-off station – $4.9 million in 2017. Gosselin replied that not all of the funding will come from the city. The plan for a new drop-off station had been pushed back to a later date, to give the city time to negotiate with other local governments to help with funding.

Cresson Slotten talked to planning commissioners at their Dec. 11 working session about the capital improvements plan (CIP). Slotten is manager of the city’s systems planning unit, which handles the CIP process.

Sabra Briere, who also serves on the city council, elaborated. The current drop-off station – at 2950 E. Ellsworth Road, near the intersection of Ellsworth and Platt – is located on a former landfill, she noted. The site is unstable and sinking, so the city plans to build a new station around the corner, on city-owned land. The expectation is that most people who use the drop-off station don’t live in the city, Briere continued. So the city’s solid waste staff is working with the county and other municipalities to build one station for the region.

As background, in December 2011, the city council approved a contract with the nonprofit Recycle Ann Arbor to operate the drop-off station, at no cost to the city, through June 30, 2016. According to a staff memo that accompanied the council resolution, the long-term plan for the station would be evaluated as part of the city’s solid waste plan update. A public hearing on a draft of that plan is set for Jan. 24 before the city’s environmental commission, on which Briere also serves.

Two actions related to the drop-off station are listed in the draft plan: (1) develop a report by June of 2014 with recommendations on the drop-off station as a regional facility and with expanded collection of materials; and (2) develop a plan for funding and cost-sharing partners with neighboring communities and the University of Michigan.

Referring to the overall CIP, Bonnie Bona asked how the public can get more information about it. Gosselin mentioned the new mapping feature that would allow users to identify projects geographically, and get details about each project by clicking on the location’s icon. It would be part of the city’s GIS site.

Bona also asked if the CIP included projects for which no funding has been identified. Yes, such projects are included, Gosselin said. She noted that the staff tries to identify at least the potential funding source, even if the funding hasn’t been secured.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2012 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 plan covers the fiscal years 2014-2019, and includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of CIP for FY 2014-2019] Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, transportation and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon.

This year, there are 377 projects listed in 13 different asset categories. In the report, new projects are indicated with gray shading. They include renovating and/or remodeling five fire stations, 415 W. Washington site re-use, a park at 721 N. Main, urban park/plaza improvements, several street construction projects, a bike share program, and the design, study and construction of a new rail station.

Planning commissioners had been briefed on the CIP at a Dec. 11 working session by Cresson Slotten, systems planning unit manager, and Deborah Gosselin, systems planning engineer. Both Gosselin and Slotten attended the commission’s Dec. 18 meeting to answer additional questions.

This year, the report also includes results from an online survey of residents. More than 200 people responded, and their input is being used to help prioritize projects. [.pdf of survey responses (aggregate)] [.pdf of survey responses (open response)] To make the final CIP information more accessible, the city is also planning to launch a CIP mapping system that will indicate the locations of projects, and allow users to click on the location for details about the project. That’s expected to be posted later this month as part of the city’s GIS (geographic information system) site.

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