Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who co-sponsored a new ordinance banning use of cell phones while driving or bicycling. The ban does not apply to driving one's council chair before the meeting starts. (Photos by the writer.)

But it was approved without the support of the measure’s two sponsors, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). The version adopted by council specified a 3% minimum cut in compensation packages, taken over the aggregate of non-union workers. By the time the resolution was passed, it had also shed a “whereas” clause that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) called “self-laudatory.”

In development news, The Moravian – a planned unit development (PUD) proposed on East Madison Street – received unanimous council support at its first reading. Approval at two readings is required for final approval. But Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to a resident request made at the previous night’s caucus to give some clue at the first reading as to how councilmembers were thinking about the project: “I’ll be voting against it at second reading – so there’s no question in the community’s mind.”

Based on the Sunday caucus, The Moravian will face a protest petition, which raises the bar for approval from six to eight votes.

The council also wrangled through a proposed ban on cell phone use while driving and bicycling – at a level of detail unusual for a first reading. The measure had undergone enough revisions since it was approved at the council’s previous meeting that its status Monday was reset to a first reading. Dissent on the ban came from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who questioned whether it should be undertaken at the local level – as opposed to the state. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) also dissented, pointing to the fact that the ban did not include hands-free phones.

The council also transacted a variety of other business, including a repeal of the city’s bicycle registration program, which is to be replaced with a new system after further consultation with stakeholders. The bicycle registration program, as well as other business and announcements, will be wrapped up in Part 2 of this report.

The 3% Budget Directive

Before the council on Monday was a resolution that gave the city administrator, Roger Fraser, direction on preparing the city’s budget. Fraser must, per the city charter, submit a budget to the council by its second meeting in April – this year, that’s on April 19. By May 17, their second meeting in May, the council must vote to adopt the budget with any amendments they choose to make. If the council does not adopt a budget, then the budget proposed by the city administrator is adopted by default.

The resolution before the council on Monday night requires Fraser to report back on the directives by April 1, which is before the budget proposal is due.

The resolution before the council differed from an earlier version, which had called for a 3% reduction in the “base salary” of non-union workers. The version before the council on Monday called for a minimum of a 3% reduction in their “compensation packages.”

Budget Directive: Amendment on Travel Allowance

The resolution before the council eliminated a $1,000/year travel allowance for the mayor and a $560/year travel allowance for councilmembers.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) proposed an amendment to keep the mayor’s travel allowance, saying that it’s important for the mayor to go forward throughout the state to represent the city. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) agreed, saying that he’d been unaware that councilmembers had a travel allowance, and that he didn’t need one. However, said Anglin, the mayor is the symbol of the city.

Outcome: The amendment to keep the mayor’s travel allowance was approved, with dissent from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Budget Directive: Amendment on Self-Laudatory Language

The resolution included a “whereas” clause that listed off councilmembers who had voluntarily committed to giving back 3% of their council salaries as having demonstrated leadership. [Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Council Delays Vote on Pay Cuts"]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), whose name was listed, said that for his part he felt the clause was “self-laudatory” and did not see the need for it. An accompanying “resolved” clause called on all councilmembers to commit to the 3% give-back. Independently of whether it was possible for the council to compel the action of individual councilmembers, said Taylor, he felt it was not proper as a body to mandate something that is voluntary by nature.

Outcome: The clauses involving city councilmembers’ 3% salary give-back’s were deleted, with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Budget Directive: Amendment on Percentage for Administrator and Attorney

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) proposed an amendment to a “resolved” clause that singled out the city attorney and the city administrator among the non-union workers targeted by the resolution for a minimum 3% reduction in compensation.  The attorney and the administrator are positions that report directly to the council, and the council sets their salaries.

Calling the 3% artificial, Briere said she felt the top of the pay scale could take a bigger hit: 5%.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), however, said that she was encouraged by the word “minimum” and thought that it allowed enough flexibility, so she didn’t support specifying 5%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what the implications were numerically – the compensation packages covered salary, benefits, and vacation days. As much as he wanted the top administrators to show leadership, said Kunselman, he hesitated to use a broad brush.

Foreground to background: Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who had sponsored the resolution, said that the April deadline provided an opportunity to give additional direction before the final budget is proposed by the administrator.

Mayor Hieftje noted that council sets the pay of the city administrator and the city attorney, and could do so at their next performance review.

Higgins also noted that the resolution was a way to give public notice of the expectation and to give the two top administrators the “platform” to make changes.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that the 3% reduction was what they’d asked staff in general to accept and that the language specified a minimum, so he was not supportive of the amendment. He allowed, however, that if the amendment passed, he would be contributing an additional 2% of his council salary back to the city to bring his total up to 5%.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), however, said he felt that 5% was the proper place for the bar to be set.

Outcome: Briere’s amendment that reduced the city attorney and the city administrator’s compensation by 5% – instead of a minimum of 3% – failed, with support only from Briere and Taylor.

Budget Directive: Amendment on Collective versus Distributive

For linguists who specialize in the sub-field of semantics focusing on the the interpretation of English plurals, Monday’s council meeting would have been a welcome respite from their usual fodder, which tends to focus on pianos and the men who lift them.

Consider, for example, the following sentences about some men, say, Smith, Jones and Green:

1. The men ate cake.
2. The men gathered in the kitchen.
3. The men lifted a piano.

Sentence (1) is true just when Smith, Jones, and Green each ate cake. That is, the meaning of sentence (1) requires the eating of cake to distribute over each of them: Smith ate cake, Jones ate cake and Green ate cake. For sentence (2), Smith, Jones and Green each have to be in the kitchen together in some event of gathering, but the sentence is not about the men as individuals – it’s about the men collectively. That is, the meaning of the sentence does not require that Smith gathered, Jones gathered and Green gathered.

Sentence (3) is the one that applies to the discussion at the city council meeting. It’s a sentence that has a distributive meaning – it could be about Smith lifting a piano, Jones lifting a piano and Green lifting a piano. Or it could have a collective meaning – it could be about Smith, Jones and Green, who worked together to lift a piano. On the collective meaning, it’s not the case that Smith lifted a piano, and Jones lifted a piano and Green lifted a piano.

At issue was the following “resolved” clause in the budget resolution:

RESOLVED, That beginning July 1, 2010 the compensation packages for all non-union employees will be reduced by a minimum of 3%;

Replace “the compensation packages for all non-union employees” with “the men” and replace “be reduced by a minimum of 3%” with “lift a piano” and you get something like sentence (3).

Councilmembers debated whether the resolution meant that the total of compensation packages summed over all employees had to be reduced by 3% – maybe Smith got a 1% cut but Jones got a 4% cut – or rather that it meant each employee had to get at least a 3% cut.

The Chronicle asked Peter Lasersohn, a professor of linguistics and specialist in the semantics of plurals at the University of Illinois, to weigh in on that question. His response was unambiguous:

Sentences with plural definite subjects are systematically ambiguous between collective and distributive readings, so I think the “RESOLVED” clause can be interpreted either way. I feel bad for Jones …

At the city council meeting, it was Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who brought up the question of the distributive versus the collective understanding of the sentence. He’d begun his questioning by asking if the city administrator was “compelled” by the resolution to deliver a budget as described by the resolution. City attorney Stephen Postema allowed that this was the intent of the resolution, but that it was the budget process itself [see section introduction] that compelled the kind of budget the council wanted.

As Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wraps up his point about the aggregate interpretation of the budget directive, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) raises her hand to ask to speak.

Hohnke wanted to know if the 3% reduction applied to each person. Turning to Fraser, he asked: “How do you understand this?” Fraser replied that the resolution did not specify how to do it and that his staff’s job was to come back with their suggestion as to how to do it.

About the idea that it was each employee who had to have at least a 3% cut, concluded Hohnke: “That’s not what I’m understanding you to understand.” Otherwise put, Hohnke was on the same page with Fraser that it did not require a minimum 3% reduction of each employee’s compensation.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) weighed in, saying that it was fine if the intent was to allow for an aggregation that amounted to a 3% reduction, but contended that was not what the resolution said. “If Jones is not reduced, then it’s not consistent,” he said. Taylor then proposed an amendment that added the phrase “in the aggregate.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) objected, saying that what Taylor was doing was changing the words to something that Fraser already understood the resolution to mean, and that they would have an opportunity to make any adjustments in April.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) characterized the change as a grammarian’s correction, which she appreciated. City attorney Stephen Postema weighed in, saying that Higgins was correct about the opportunity in April, but allowed that Taylor’s suggestion of “in the aggregate” was useful.

When Sandi Smith (Ward 1) attempted to end the deliberation on Taylor’s proposed amendment by “calling the question,” the motion to end deliberations narrowly failed with only five votes – those of Smith, Briere, Rapundalo, Higgins, and Hohnke.

So Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who sponsored the original resolution, weighed in. The intent, he said, actually was to set a baseline, with the idea that Fraser could adjust that.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) observed that Fraser and Taylor had a different interpretation of what the resolution said – so it was worth addressing – and wondered if deleting the word “all” would help. Taylor didn’t think so, saying that it was useful for highlighting the aggregate.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) took the “grammatical quibbling” to illustrate the futility of the process. By “process” he meant the idea that the council would express a budget directive in the form of a resolution. He’d weighed in earlier during the deliberations against the idea of doing that, and asked Higgins, who was one of the most senior members of the council, if that had been done in the past. Higgins affirmed it had been done.

Also on the subject of process, earlier in the deliberations Rapundalo had said that in the past the budget committee had given budget directives that had “never seen the light of day.” Passing a resolution of the council was a way to make it public and transparent, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje gave a nudge to wrap up the discussion by saying that if they were spending that much time on this amendment, then the budget decisions themselves were going to be “fun.”

Before they voted on Taylor’s amendment, Hohnke picked up on the topic of process, and noted that Fraser had asked the council for direction, and that the resolution provided that explicit direction.

Outcome: The amendment inserting “in the aggregate” succeeded, with Anglin, Briere, Derezinski, Taylor, Kunselman, Teall and Hohnke voting for it.

Overall final outcome: The council passed the 3% budget directive resolution as amended, with dissent from Derezinski, Rapundalo and Higgins.

Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving

Before the council was an ordinance that prohibits use of cell phones while driving or bicycling.

Cell Phones: Public Commentary

At the conclusion of their meeting during public commentary general time, two speakers addressed the council about cell phone use. One speaker was concerned about allowing exceptions for certain people involved in emergency preparedness exercises – that set a bad precedent, he said. He encouraged the city to allow the issue to be addressed at the state level.

A second speaker asked the council to at least consider the cost of informing the public that such an ordinance would be enforced in the city, noting that there were numerous access points into the city, where signage might be required.

Cell Phones: Council Deliberations

The ordinance had already won the support of the council at its previous meeting. But it had undergone changes that were numerous enough that an additional first reading was warranted, said one of the measure’s sponsors, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), on Monday. The changes were not really substantive, he contended, but their sheer number created enough red lines that it gave “the appearance thereof.”

Paul Green, a research professor at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, provided some expert testimony on cell phone use while driving.

The changes, he said, were the result of various communication with other councilmembers and community members. Rapundalo called to the podium Paul Green, a research professor at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, whose research focuses on driver distraction and driver workload.

One of the key research findings that Green explained to councilmembers was the idea that the problem with cell phones is not the object held in the hand, but rather the distraction of the conversation. The proposed ordinance would also make it illegal to do “destination entry” for GPS devices – Green explained that the distraction of a GPS device use was in the attention required to do that data entry, not in reading the map or listening to directions.

Why, asked Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), was talking on the phone different from talking to a passenger? Green explained that the key difference was that the passenger is also aware of the driving situation: you come to a stop, then look left and right – your passenger also looks left and right. The person on the other end of a cell phone conversation with a driver, Green said, will continue to “blab on until they hear a crash.” Listening to the radio, Green said, is completely discretionary, whereas the demands of a phone conversation are not – it’s rude not to take one’s regular conversational turn.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to know whether the ordinance made cell phone use while driving a primary or secondary offense. It’s proposed to be a primary offense, which means that police officers would be able to pull over a driver just for cell phone use. Secondary traffic offenses are only enforced if there is some other reason to pull a driver over.

Responding to a question from Rapundalo, chief of police Barnett Jones said it was important that it be a primary offense, because it would allow them to begin to “harden the community” against the behavior. Jones cited a 2003-04 statistic that attributed 24,000 traffic deaths nationwide to cell phone use while driving. He characterized it as a major safety hazard.

Chief Jones allowed that he himself has switched to hands-free Bluetooth technology for use while driving. Taylor picked up later on the hands-free versus hand-held distinction, and pointed to Green’s research conclusion that the distraction arises not because the hands are occupied, but because the mind is occupied. So Taylor wanted to know how the ordinance might be enforced, if the exception for hands-free use were not made in the ordinance. [The ordinance language provides for a number of exceptions, hands-free devices among them.]

Jones said that without the exception, it would put officers in a very prohibitive position. In that case, he said, they should consider going the whole way, and address people applying lipstick and eating cheeseburgers as well.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said that if it was about safety, then “let’s go all the way.” She took a shot at the overall clarity of the language, asking, “Was this written up by the attorney’s office?” When city attorney Stephen Postema acknowledged that it had been written up by his office, she told him that she had to break down the paragraphs to understand what it meant.

Higgins asked Jones if other non-driving tasks were prohibited under other aspects of the vehicle code. Jones allowed that something like applying lipstick while driving could be enforced as “careless driving.” Higgins wanted to know why use of a cell phone while driving could not be handled the same way. Jones said that having an ordinance with specific language addressing cell phones made it “cleaner in a court of law.”

Higgins also asked about the burden of proof. In the case that a driver offers a defense that they were using a device in a hands-free manner, the burden of proof falls to the driver.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered what the difference was between holding an iPhone with a map displayed on it – which seemed to be prohibited – versus holding a paper map. Green clarified that the ordinance as written allowed someone to look at an iPhone map, but not to enter the destination.

Taylor came back to the data entry question by focusing on the “or otherwise operate” phrase in the ordinance. If the concern was typing, he said, they should talk about typing. Green clarified that the “or otherwise operate” phrase was meant to prevent the pressing of the various buttons to select “points of interest” from the map, which entailed reading through detailed menus of options.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she had trouble with the ordinance – she’d prefer to see it done at the state level. She said she appreciated the efforts and the work of those who’d put time into the ordinance, but she felt it should happen in the context of the Michigan State Vehicle Code. Rapundalo had mentioned earlier that violations of the local ordinance would not result in points added to a driver’s license – because there’s no analogous state statute.

Hiefte said he thought that the work on the ordinance, with the changes that had been made to the ordinance since its first introduction, was a good example of the process working to produce a better piece of legislation.

Outcome: The ordinance banning cell phone use while driving or cycling was approved on first reading with dissent from Higgins and Smith. Enactment will be contingent on approval at a second reading.

Planned Unit Development (PUD): The Moravian

Planned unit developments are requests for rezoning of a parcel to accommodate projects that offer a public benefit in exchange for the rezoning. They are, stressed Stephen Kunselman on Monday night, discretionary on the part of the city council. They contrast with “by right” proposals that meet all aspects of city code. Kunselman also offered a tweak of the interpretation of the letters PUD – “promises until developed” – an allusion to the fact that a number of PUDs have been granted, but never built.

The Moravian is an almost 75,000-square-foot, four-story building over one level of parking containing 62 dwelling units, with a combined total of 150 bedrooms, and 90 off-street parking spaces. Twelve of the 62 proposed dwelling units are to be for affordable- to lower-income households. The project is located on East Madison Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues.

Moravian: Public Comment

Several people signed up to comment during reserved time at the start of the meeting, but not all of them appeared. Speculation called out from the audience suggested some might have had problems finding parking or that they thought their speaking time was at the end of the meeting.

Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, touched on a number of points speaking in opposition to the project. She contended that since the year 2000, 41 projects had been approved by the city that had not begun construction – for example, 601 S. Forest, Ann Arbor City Apartments, Broadway Village, and Kingsley Lane. She noted that there was a high percentage of vacancy in developments targeting student renters – 411 Lofts and The Courtyards, for example.

Strassmann also emphasized that South Fifth Avenue is a major commuter artery and that it needs to flow smoothly. The addition of 150 more bedrooms and 90 parking spaces, she feared, would cause ingress/egress problems. She was also concerned about the net effect on affordable housing, saying that while The Moravian offered 12 units of affordable housing, 19 units would be lost.

Shirley Zempel characterized The Moravian as “huge.” The building goes right up to the sidewalk on three sides, she said – Fifth Avenue, East Madison Street, and Fourth Avenue. She echoed the point Strassmann had made about the impact on traffic along Fifth, saying she’d have difficulty pulling out of her own driveway.

Kim Kachadoorian stressed the idea that The Moravian was not in downtown, but rather near downtown. She cautioned the council that some of the renderings provided by the developer showed surrounding houses with 5-6 stairs leading up to their front porches, when in fact they had 3-4 stairs. This left the impression that the houses were taller than they are, she said. Kachadoorian also contended that one rendering of The Moravian depicted the 5-story building as the same height as a 3-story University of Michigan building across Fourth Avenue from The Moravian. She cautioned against giveaways for developers.

Claudius Vincenz also stressed that The Moravian was not in downtown, but rather near downtown. He characterized the city staff report as deficient and biased. He said that when reading through the staff report, he thought it was the developer’s application. He objected to the fact that the planning commission had referred to some houses in the the neighborhood with the word “dumps.” He allowed that they are not mansion-type houses, but that they are affordable.

Richard Jacobson spoke during public commentary general time at the conclusion of the meeting. He stressed that based on the PUD review standards, a request should not be granted if the request is made in order to circumvent existing zoning. Jacobson contended that the project, in fact, was an attempt to circumvent existing zoning standards. He characterized the housing offered as “private dorms.”

Anne Eisen also spoke at the conclusion of the meeting. She asked the council to read carefully the planning commission minutes. What the developer characterizes as support from neighbors is, in fact, not support, she said.

Kyle Mazurek, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of that organization as well as himself, a young professional living in Ward 5. He ticked through a number of benefits provided by the project: higher density development of the downtown area, expansion of workforce affordable housing opportunities in the downtown area, removal of blighted structures and obsolete industrial buildings, floodplain mitigation, property tax revenue to the city, enhanced housing options for young professionals, encouragement of alternative modes of transportation, enhancement of downtown area businesses and energy efficiency.

At the conclusion of the council meeting, speaking during public commentary general time, the developer of the project, Jeff Helminski, addressed the council saying that he recognized the challenge they faced in analyzing such a complex project, which had taken two years to bring to this point. He encouraged the council to rely on the city’s professional planning staff as well as the PUD standards of review. Responding to Strassmann’s concerns about approved projects that had not yet been built, he said he was confident that he could bring the project to fruition.

Responding to a report Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had given during his communications that he’d found studio apartments in the neighborhood that rented for $760 including utilities, Helminski stated that the affordable units in The Moravian would rent for no more than $690, and that their affordable status was assured in perpetuity through the supplemental regulations of the PUD. Addressing concerns about the FEMA flood maps that had not been finalized, he contended that the data was final and that The Moravian had been planned based on that data. What they were waiting for, he said, was the final publication of the maps based on the data.

Moravian: Council Deliberations

At the caucus held the previous evening, on Sunday, Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, indicated that a protest petition would be submitted against The Moravian. That would raise the bar for council approval from six to eight votes out of 11.

Jeff Helminski, developer of The Moravian, chatted with Margie Teall (Ward 4) before the council meeting started.

On Monday, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to a resident request made at the previous night’s caucus to give some clue at the first reading as to how councilmembers were thinking about the project: “I’ll be voting against it at second reading – so there’s no question in the community’s mind,” he said.

At the council table on Monday, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) made remarks that could fairly be interpreted to mean their support at second reading is uncertain. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) read from two contrasting passages in the city’s central area plan to illustrate the conflicting concerns that surround council’s evaluation of the project.

Council deliberations began with Hohnke alluding to another project in roughly the same neighborhood, Heritage Row – which began life as City Place. The council had voted down the City Place PUD a little over a year ago. Hohnke said he imagined that residents were getting a bit weary. He characterized the conversation about what kind of development is appropriate for the neighborhood as a “long slog.”

On the question “What is downtown?” Hohnke said it was clear for him: The downtown boundary is William Street. That meant, said Honhke, that the neighborhood under discussion – which lies south of William – is not downtown. So Hohnke said that many of the considerations for added public benefit offered by The Moravian – based on what’s called for in the downtown (e.g., added density) – did not carry a lot of weight with him. Hohnke concluded that the benefits required of a PUD were a significant threshold that had to be met, given that the city would be setting aside the existing zoning on the site.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reported that there had been an extended discussion at the previous night’s caucus and that he had a whole series of questions that he would be circulating by email. Among his concerns: statements by neighbors that had been misrepresented by the developer; the number of projects in the city that had been approved, but not started; flood maps that had not yet been issued.

During his communications time earlier in the meeting, Anglin said he’d walked the neighborhood and found a house with three studio units for rent: $760 including utilities. He questioned whether it was possible to build new construction that was equally affordable.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) picked up on the issue of flood maps, and Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, confirmed that no permits could be pulled until the FEMA flood maps were finalized, which would potentially be within the next year.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d vote yes at first reading so that the dialog could continue. She allowed that the Downtown Development Authority‘s taxing district is one way to define downtown. But she noted that the neighborhood in question was near downtown. She noted that there’d been a lot of time spent discussing what is appropriate in a near downtown neighborhood. One of those issues, she said, involved whether parking meters were appropriate there. [Smith has worked since last year to forestall installation of parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown, which were seen as a potential revenue source.]

Smith noted that they were getting pushback from people who also objected to development in the center city – they wanted the top of the Library Lot to be established as a park.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that the role of the first reading was to introduce a topic to the public, but that in this case, “it’s like introducing Methuselah.” Derezinski, who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, had already seen the project in a fair amount of detail when it was reviewed by that body. Derezinski stressed that the city’s professional planning staff had put a lot of time into the project. He said that you have to pay serious attention to staff recommendations – city staff had recommended approval, and the planning commission vote was 7-1 in favor. He urged his council colleagues to really read the staff report so that the project got a fair hearing.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed Derezinski’s sentiments, saying that the DDA boundary was artificial – the site in question was an urban neighborhood in an urban setting, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) suggested that for a project to take two years to come forward, it meant that there was likely something wrong with the project. He said he thought the project was out of context and character for the neighborhood and did not do much for “more doors on the street.” He felt that it was geared towards students. It was like taking The Courtyards housing development on the north end of Broadway, he said, and “plopping” it near downtown. He said he’d vote for it at first reading, but would oppose it at the second reading.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was not quite as definitive – she said she’d hate to cut off debate this early. She said she’d not looked at the project in detail, yet. Instead, she said, she’d oriented herself to the city’s central area plan and the PUD regulations [.txt file of PUD review standards].  She’d done that, she said, as a response to the challenge that had been made at the previous night’s caucus by Eppie Potts to give some clue what the council was thinking. Briere said it had caused her to reflect on what one should say at a first reading, when the council is just moving the process forward.

The standards for PUD review referenced by Briere, contained in the city code and presented here in severely abbreviated form, are as follows:

(6) Standards for PUD zoning district review. The commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and City Council shall approve or deny the proposed PUD zoning district based on the following standards:

(a) The use or uses, physical characteristics, design features, or amenities proposed shall have a beneficial effect for the City, in terms of public health, safety, welfare, aesthetics, or convenience, or any combination thereof, on present and potential surrounding land uses. …

(b) This beneficial effect for the City shall be one which could not be achieved under any other zoning classification and shall be one which is not required to be provided under any existing standard, regulation or ordinance of any local, state or federal agency.

(c) The use or uses proposed shall not have a detrimental effect on public utilities or surrounding properties.

(d) The use or uses proposed shall be consistent with the master plan and policies adopted by the City or the petitioner shall provide adequate justification for departures from the approved plans and policies.

(e) If the proposed district allows residential uses, the residential density proposed shall be consistent with the residential density recommendation of the master plan, or the underlying zoning when the master plan does not contain a residential density recommendation, unless additional density has been proposed in order to provide affordable housing for lower income households …

(f) The supplemental regulations shall include analysis and justification sufficient to determine what the purported benefit is, how the special benefit will be provided, and performance standards by which the special benefit will be evaluated.

(g) Safe, convenient, uncongested, and well-defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation within and to the district shall be provided and, where feasible, the proposal shall encourage and support the use of alternative methods of transportation.

(h) Disturbance of existing natural features, historical features and historically significant architectural features of the district shall be limited to the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable use of the land and the benefit to the community shall be substantially greater than any negative impacts.

The passages from the city’s central area plan, which Briere read aloud, were these:

[page 21] Finally, the current zoning does not provide guidelines for what is appropriate density in relationship to the area, and it does not reflect density differences between the various neighborhoods.  The ordinance allows more bulk and density than many neighborhoods want or consider appropriate.  Conversely, the City Council and Planning Commission have steadily decreased allowable density since the 1960s, making it difficult for residential infill development to occur, resulting in nonconformities.

[page 41 ] In various locations around Ann Arbor, houses are overshadowed by larger commercial, residential or institutional buildings that are out of scale with existing surrounding development. In addition to being aesthetically displeasing, out-of-scale construction alters the quality of living conditions in adjacent structures by blocking air and light and by covering open green space with excessive building mass.

Outcome: The Moravian was given approval on first reading. Final approval would need to be given at a second reading.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, March 15, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Developer Jeff Helminski speaks to Ann Arbor planning commissioners about his project, The Moravian. In the background are commissioners Wendy Woods and Diane Giannola. (Photos by the writer.)

About two dozen residents attended the meeting. All but one of the 16 people who spoke during time for public commentary opposed the project, some vehemently.

Opponents’ main concern is that the five-story, 62-unit building is out of scale and out of character with the neighborhood, which has older homes, but is not protected by an historic district. [The neighborhood also is on the edge of an industrial area – The Moravian is planned on a lot across the street from the Fingerle Lumber complex.]

But in approving the requested planned unit development (PUD) zoning, commissioners cited a range of public benefits, including the 12 units of affordable housing within the building – a benefit that neighbors dispute. The project will now be considered by city council at an upcoming meeting.

Residents vow to continue fighting it. “We’re going to redouble our efforts,” Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, told commissioners after their vote.

Separately, planning commissioners approved a rezoning request for a gas station on Packard Road, with some stipulations.

The Moravian

The Moravian is the latest incarnation of a project that began its life as The Madison. Originally designed as a 14-story building with 161 units, The Madison also went through different versions, scaling back in response to city staff and neighborhood concerns. [See Chronicle coverage of a December 2008 meeting between neighbors and developer Jeff Helminski and Newcombe Clark of Bluestone Realty: "The Madison Redux"]

The Moravian was brought forward in 2009, coming before the planning commission in October. At that time, commissioners postponed action on the project, asking the developer to get additional feedback from the staff and neighbors, and to incorporate that feedback into the design.

Staff Report on The Moravian

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff gave a report on The Moravian – the staff recommended approval of the PUD zoning district and site plan. [The complete staff report (a 32.9 MB .pdf file) is available to download from the city's website.]

The PUD approval hinged on public benefits, and the staff report cited three: 1) innovation in land use, 2) efficiency in land use and energy, and 3) expansion of the city’s affordable housing supply.

In the case of The Moravian, the 12 units designated as affordable would be offered at rents accessible to people earning no more than 80% of the area median income (AMI).

Later in the meeting, in response to questions from commissioners, DiLeo elaborated on those benefits. The innovation in land use relates to the use of underground parking, rather than surface parking, she said. Efficiency in land use and energy includes the proposed LEED certification and the use of geothermal energy – a renewable source. The project includes 12 units of affordable housing, she noted, or 19% of the total units in the building. That was a benefit, especially given the location near downtown.

In her presentation, DiLeo described several ways in which the current version of the project differs from the one presented in October. Among them:

• Affordable housing units were increased from nine to 12. The units designated as affordable entail all of the project’s nine one-bedroom apartments and three efficiency apartments.
• The total number of units decreased from 63 to 62, with 150 total bedrooms and “flex” rooms.
• There were changes to the three- and four-bedroom units. Previously, all bedrooms in those units were paired with bathrooms. In the current design, one bedroom in each of those units is designated a “flex” room, with no bathroom attached. So a previous four-bedroom unit is now described as a three-bedroom with flex room, and a previous three-bedroom unit is called a two-bedroom with flex room.
• Several architectural changes were made, including the addition of cornices, sills and other features, with changes in the exterior’s color, material and plane to make it a better fit for the character of the neighborhood, according to the staff report. Windows were increased in size and grouped, rather than placed at regular intervals.
• Outdoor terraces were added to the fourth floor, for use as “active” open space.
• To reduce the impact on the neighboring house at 543 S. Fourth Ave., a mansard roof was eliminated on that side, and outdoor terraces on the fourth floor were added to create a “step-down” effect.
• A maximum size was added to the description of live/work units – spaces designed for residents who are also small business owners, artists or sole practitioners (though non-residents could lease this first-floor space as well). There will be a minimum of two and a maximum of six live/work units, with each unit having a maximum of 1,200 square feet and a total maximum of 3,000 square feet for all live/work units.

Final approval of the PUD site plan will be subject to adoption of new flood maps being developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). DiLeo said those might not be completed for six months or so. Drafts of those maps show altered boundaries of the floodway, with the result that the floodway no longer includes the Moravian site. The project would still be located in the 100-year floodplain of Allen’s Creek. According to the staff report, the proposed development would provide about 29,900 cubic feet of flood storage in a stormwater management system, an increase of about 74% compared with capacity of the existing site.

Walt Spiller, center, talks with Shirley Zempel, right, and Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association. Spiller's two-story home would be an immediate neighbor of the five-story Moravian.

Public Commentary: Pre-Vote

Sixteen people spoke during a public hearing on the project, which lasted about an hour. Many comments touched on similar concerns. Here’s a sampling.

Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, said she represented residents and that there was “massive opposition” to the project – opposition that’s documented in petitions from residents, she said. It was incredible that the turnout for this meeting was as high as it was, she said, given that they’d just learned of the public hearing two days prior. She described the building as “an offense,” totally out of scale with other buildings in the neighborhood – 25 times bigger than the largest house, for example.

The public benefits cited are illusory, Strassmann added, noting that 19 units of affordable housing currently on the site will be eliminated, replaced by fewer units that are smaller. LEED certification – cited by staff as a benefit – can be avoided by paying penalties, she said.

Strassmann also expressed concern that what was being characterized as workforce housing would become housing for students, saying that vacancy rates show there’s not a need for that. She argued that the project is being pushed through without regard for the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or the city. “Please do not show us contempt,” she said. “Please protect our fundamental rights as citizens.”

Kim Kachadoorian described the Germantown area as the last intact near-downtown neighborhood, and said it was disheartening to see it dismembered for more student housing. There’s already a glut of housing for students and young professionals in the city, she said. And when the University of Michigan opens North Quad, a large student dormitory at the corner of State and Huron, she predicted there will be a significant increase in rental vacancies in the near-downtown area.

Kachadoorian also had concerns about parking. Though the project includes 90 parking spaces, most of them in an underground garage, there are enough bedrooms for between 150-300 people, she noted. Already there are cars parked illegally in that area every day, she said. Kachadoorian concluded by saying the project would be perfect for Ann Arbor – just not at that location.

Ellen Ramsburgh, a member of the city’s historic district commission, said she supported previous comments by the neighbors. She reminded commissioners that there were two relevant study committees whose work had not yet been completed: 1) the R4C & R2A zoning district study advisory committee, which is looking at possible ordinance changes in these residential districts, and 2) a study committee appointed by city council in August to explore whether an historic district would be appropriate for an area along Fourth and Fifth avenues – which could include the site of the proposed Moravian. [See Chronicle coverage of the historic district study committee: "Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards"]

Ramsburgh said she hoped the commission wouldn’t approve anything that’s not within the framework of those studies. Even though historic homes in that neighborhood aren’t currently protected under an historic district, she concluded, tearing down those homes would be just as much of a loss.

This elevation rendering of The Moravian shows the home of Walt Spiller to the north of the building. (Image links to larger file.)

Walt Spiller owns a home on Fifth Avenue that sits directly next to the site, to the north, where The Moravian would be built.  He also owns several rental properties in the area. He asked commissioners that residents near The Moravian be given the same consideration that was given to residents near the Packard Road gas station, a rezoning request discussed earlier in the meeting. [See below – commissioners added restrictions related to noise on the site.]

Spiller pointed out that the large tree depicted in the developer’s schematic of the site for The Moravian actually stood on his property. But his main point was an objection to how his remarks had been characterized by the developer in a report to the planning staff. He said the comments attributed to him in the report – which stated that his response to the project’s conceptual plan were “encouraging” – were a complete misinterpretation, and he wanted them to be stricken from the report. He said that in this case, PUD stands for “planning upside down,” given the scale of the project.

Ethel Potts, a former Ann Arbor planning commissioner, acknowledged that the project had been tweaked, but said that she saw no major changes from its previous version. The building’s height and mass don’t fit the area, she said. The affordable housing benefit cited by staff should be discounted, given the greater amount of affordable housing that will be displaced because of the project. Further, she said, PUDs are not supposed to grossly violate the underlying zoning – but this one does.

Potts also objected to the entrance for vehicles on Fifth Avenue, citing traffic concerns. And she noted that the building would be in the floodplain, and that a structure across the street – now occupied by the University of Michigan – regularly floods. In general, she said the project departs from the city’s central area plan and R4C residential zoning, and she urged commissioners not to approve it.

Jeff Helminski, developer for The Moravian, was the only speaker in favor of the project. He said the project had been altered in response to feedback from the city staff and neighbors, and that he hoped the commissioners would evaluate it based on the balance they’d achieved between the level of zoning variance requested and the level of public benefits.

Helminski noted that the project followed the guidance provided by the city’s office of community development regarding the affordable housing component. The Moravian will improve the character of this area, he said, as well as add $200,000 annually to the city’s tax base. During a time when the city and schools face a budget crisis, with possible layoffs of firefighters and teachers, the increase to the tax base should be an important factor, he said.

Commissioner Deliberations

Jean Carlberg began the discussion by asking a question about the flood maps – she wondered if the fact that the site plan approval is contingent on adoption of the flood maps meant that the project would be on hold until then. DiLeo explained that staff had discussed the issue with the developer, who understood that constraint. Building permits wouldn’t be issued until the new maps are adopted, but if the site plan were approved, the developer could move ahead to line up financing.

Planning commissioner Jean Carlberg, a former city councilmember, reviews documents during the Jan. 5 planning commission meeting.

Tony Derezinski, who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, asked DiLeo to respond to several residents who had raised safety concerns about traffic at the Fifth Avenue entrance.

DiLeo said that city traffic engineers had evaluated a traffic impact study that was done for the previous, higher-density proposal. They found that the location of the driveway met all the necessary requirements, she said. [From the staff report: "Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is well defined and access is safe. The traffic impact study provided for a previous, more intense development on this site concluded there would be no congestion in or near the district as a result of the rezoning. The previous traffic impact study conclusions continue to be valid for the currently proposed, less intense uses."]

Bonnie Bona, chair of the commission, asked for a response to some of the residents, who during public commentary had said that a computer-generated image of the building, from the perspective of an aerial view, was misleading. They contended that it appeared to show the five-story Moravian at a height level to a three-story building across the street.

Developer Jeff Helminski explained that the three-story building at the northwest corner of Fourth and Madison – used as offices by the University of Michigan – had a higher floor-to-floor span than The Moravian. That meant that the three stories reached the same height as the fourth floor of The Moravian, he said.

Erica Briggs clarified with Helminski that the fourth-floor terraces of the proposed Moravian were open to all residences – they are, he said. She also asked for a breakdown of the number of different sized units within the building. Here’s the breakdown:

• Three-bedroom plus flex room (formerly four-bedroom) = 6
• Two-bedroom plus flex room (formerly three-bedroom) = 36
• Two-bedroom = 8
• One-bedroom = 9
• Efficiency = 3

Briggs also cautioned the city’s planning staff to avoid making its report sound like a marketing brochure for the developer. She specifically cited the tone of the report’s section on supplemental regulations.

In characterizing her response to the project, Briggs said she was impressed by the tweaks that the developer had made. The project isn’t horrendous or monstrous, she said, and it fits with the city’s efforts to increase density downtown. However, it’s significant that the entire neighborhood opposes the project, and she was especially disturbed to hear that Walt Spiller’s remarks had been misrepresented by the developer. In addition, she felt the building was out of scale with the neighborhood, and that it would attract students, not young professionals.

Kirk Westphal echoed Briggs’ concerns about the marketing language in the staff report, and asked that all references to the types of people who might be living there be eliminated from the report before it goes to council.

Westhpal also clarified that the stormwater management system would be upgraded from the existing site – DiLeo confirmed that was correct.

Aerial view of The Moravian, looking northeast. A computer-generated image of the proposed project is located in the center of this picture – the U-shaped building. The South Main Market complex is in the foreground; Perry School, now used as offices by the University of Michigan, is to the upper right. (Links to larger image.)

Bona said she had struggled with this project, wanting to be open to creative ideas while at the same time protecting neighborhoods. Complicating the decision is the fact that this site is at the boundary between two zoning districts – to the south, the Fingerle Lumber property is zoned D2, a “transition” category that still allows for greater density than the residential zoning of R4C.

It carries some weight, Bona said, that The Moravian is down the hill from the residential neighborhood. Another factor: the Fingerle property, because it’s in the floodway, won’t likely be densely developed in the future – there will probably be a lot of open space on that site, she said. It’s important to look at the entire area, not just the neighborhood to the north.

Bonnie Bona also cited several of the public benefits as weighing in the development’s favor, including the use of renewable energy, the underground parking and the LEED certification. She noted that penalties written into the PUD for not complying with LEED were significant, so the developer would be more likely to comply.

“It’s not perfect, but I think I can imagine it being a good addition to the neighborhood over time,” she concluded.

Tony Derezinski agreed. He said it was significant to him that the project had earned staff approval – he takes their recommendations seriously, he said. Though opponents had shown up to the meeting, Derezinski said there are many people cited in the report who do approve of the project. He also noted that many of the people speaking against the project don’t actually live in that neighborhood. The project provides more low-cost housing and goes a long way toward improving that area, he said, and warrants approval.

Evan Pratt thanked everyone who had participated in the discussion about the project over the months, saying that their input had made the process rigorous, resulting in more benefits for the city. He offered an apology, on behalf of the city, about any notification problems that might have occurred, and said he hoped city staff would improve on that in the future.

Jean Carlberg said the project had definitely improved, saying the design was now reminiscent of row houses. The building did not seem out of scale to her, compared to the three-story structure nearby and the taller Perry School building just up the street. She said she had checked city records and found that there were only six owner-occupied homes nearby, out of 37 properties, so it was fair to characterize the neighborhood as primarily rental already.

The additional residents in the neighborhood would benefit the city’s downtown commercial district, which would be within walking distance. She said she’d been in favor of the development before, and was even more so now.

Diane Giannola took issue with what appeared to be a pejorative view of having housing for students in that area. She said whether students or young professionals, most people in their 20s had roommates. The project was perfectly within scale for the area, she said, and she supported it.

Both Erica Briggs and Wendy Woods responded to Carlberg’s comments about rental housing, saying that it shouldn’t matter if the houses in that area were owner-occupied or rented. Some renters take better care of their houses than homeowners, Briggs said. She added that the building seemed to fit from the perspective of the south side of that area, but she didn’t think they should dismiss the neighbors who were looking at the project from the perspective of their homes to the north.

Woods thanked residents who had voiced their concerns. She said it might sound corny, but it was important to remember that both sides of the debate are just trying to make the city a better place to raise their families.

Westphal said he still had reservations about how the project comports with the central area plan. Regarding the PUD, he said he was on the fence about this project more than any others he’d encountered. He was also disappointed about the number of affordable housing units, and the fact that they were all one-bedroom and efficiency apartments. However, he said, the city staff are the experts, and their recommendation sets the bar higher for dissent.

Outcome: The commission voted to approve the PUD zoning and site plan for The Moravian, with Erica Briggs dissenting.

Erica Briggs was the only planning commissioner to vote against The Moravian. She cited concerns from the neighbors in explaining her decision.

Public Commentary: Post-Vote

Eight residents spoke during the meeting’s final public commentary time, berating commissioners for their decision and vowing to continue fighting the project. They commended Erica Briggs for her lone vote against it, one man tipping his hat to her in a dramatic flourish. Beverly Strassmann thanked Briggs for her integrity and for being the “lone, honest voice” on the commission.

With his voice raised in anger, Richard Jacobson verbally slammed commissioners, saying “you guys voted on a lie,” referring to the computer-generated rendering that showed the height of the five-story Moravian on par with the height of a neighboring three-story building. He said if the commission knowingly accepted a lie, that made them corrupt. Bonnie Bona, chair of the commission, repeatedly asked that he lower his voice – she had no gavel, but tried to restore order by tapping her nameplate on the table.

Another speaker attacked the commission’s professionalism, saying that their discussion of the building’s height centered on the computer-generated rendering, not on the actual elevation numbers. “You discussed this like children looking at a coloring book,” he said. He also criticized their discussion of hydrology, noting that the project’s storm collection system, which is designed to retain stormwater runoff for up to 24 hours, would be immaterial during a 100-year flood event. These points, among others, made it clear that commissioners had made up their minds before coming to the meeting, he said, and he hoped that they hadn’t reached their decision in a dark room with the developer.

Strassmann said that city officials couldn’t get away with this, and she urged residents to not lose hope. Because of the late notification about the public hearing, residents weren’t able to turn out in full force, she said, but anyone interested in continuing the fight should check out the Stop the Moravian website for updates. “We’ve seen bad things in Ann Arbor,” she said, “but this pretty much takes the cake.”

At the end of the commentary, Briggs said she could appreciate the fact that there was a lot of anger in the room, but that the tone of the public commentary had been disrespectful. She knew her colleagues to have integrity, she said. Her remarks prompted immediate outcry from those residents still gathered around the speakers podium, at which point Bona called for an adjournment of the meeting.

Gallup One Stop Gas Station

A far less contentious public hearing was held for a rezoning and site plan request for the Gallup One Stop gas station at 2955 Packard Road, just west of the intersection with Platt. The hearing and subsequent discussion was held prior to the public hearing and discussion on The Moravian.

Todd Quatro explains the renovation plans for the Gallup One Stop gas station on Packard. The owner, Charles Gallup, attended the meeting but did not address the commission.

Todd Quatro, who’s handling the project for the station’s owner, Charles Gallup, spoke during the public hearing in support of the request, and was on hand to answer questions from commissioners. Only one other person spoke during the hearing, wondering why the site needed to be rezoned and asking for clarification regarding setbacks and runoff into the Mallets Creek watershed.

Quatro told commissioners that the owner was trying to spruce up the station – which sells Citgo gas – in hopes of returning it to a profitable status. In response to a query from Jean Carlberg, he said that two nearby gas stations were struggling as well.

The request for rezoning from a C1 (local business district) to a C2B (business service district) is related in part to the site’s history. Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff said that as far as they could tell, there’d been a gas station at that location for 43 years, before the property was annexed into the city. It is currently non-conforming with the area’s C1 zoning, so the station can’t be expanded or altered without special permission. Quatro said they were following the city staff’s recommendations in seeking C2B rezoning.

The plan includes making a 464-square-foot addition to the existing 1,835-square-foot convenience center, creating 14 parking spaces and two bicycle parking spots, relocating the gas pumps, and installing a new canopy with recessed lighting. In addition, the project will entail landscaping – including 25 new red oak, red maple and white spruce trees – some minor regrading and a new stormwater detention system. Regarding landscaping, Erica Briggs urged Quatro to make the pedestrian experience along Packard – where bushes will be planted – as pleasant as possible.

Briggs also asked whether it would be possible to add a sidewalk from the sidewalk on Packard to the front of the convenience center. Because of the configuration of the site, the setbacks required and the location of the stormwater detention system, that would be difficult to do, Quatro said.

Charles Gallup, owner of the Gallup One Stop gas station on Packard Road, has been in the business more than 60 years.

Part of the reason for the reconfiguration is to improve the maneuverability of the large fuel trucks that pull into the station, Quatro said. They had consulted with one of the drivers about where to relocate the pumps, he said. The change also means that the pumps will be farther way from the apartment building on the east side of the site.

Many of the questions from commissioners related to the station’s impact on nearby residences. Bonnie Bona said she liked the proposed recessed lighting in the new canopy – she had stopped by the Citgo near Briarwood Mall, which has similar lighting. She described it as casting bright light in a directional way down on the pavement, but that it’s otherwise dim.

Several commissioners asked staff to add restrictions on the station’s hours of operation, which will be set at 6 a.m. until midnight. Also added to the proposal was a restriction limiting the use of exterior speakers to communication between customers at the pump and the station employees in the convenience store. This restriction was to address neighbors’ concerns over noise from the station – though several commissioners noted that they couldn’t control noise – including loud music – coming from the customers’ vehicles.

If approval is gained from council, the project will likely begin in April, Quatro said.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning, site plan and a special exemption use. The project will next be considered by city council.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Erica Briggs, Evan Pratt, Jean Carlberg, Kirk Westphal, Tony Derezinski, Wendy Woods

Absent: Eric Mahler

Next meeting: Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010, in city council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. The meeting is pushed back from its usual Tuesday date because of the Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. [confirm date]