And now the ballot language for the two proposed Ann Arbor city charter amendments has been certified by Michigan’s attorney general as meeting the requirements of the Home Rule City Act. The AG’s office communicated its conclusion in an Aug. 8, 2014 letter to Gov. Rick Snyder’s office.

The existing charter language imposes a one-year durational requirement of voter registration on elected and appointed officials in the city. But the federal court ruled that the city’s requirements were not enforceable, because they had been struck down as unconstitutional in two different court cases dating from the early 1970s. Similar durational requirements have – in the intervening years – been found constitutional in various jurisdictions. However, the court ruled on May 20 this year that the city could not enforce its requirements against Ward 3 Democratic primary candidate Bob Dascola – because the city had not re-enacted its requirement using a standard legislative process. The placement of a ballot proposal in front of voters on Nov. 4 will use the legislative process of a popular referendum on the charter to establish eligibility requirements that are enforceable.

The language approved by the council at its July 21 meeting imposes a requirement that in order to be mayor, someone would need to be a registered voter in the city, and to serve on the city council someone would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent – at the time they submit their paperwork to appear on the ballot.

For example, a potential candidate for the city council would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk.

With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. In the case of a vacancy that needs to be filled by appointment, the new charter requirement would require the person to be a registered voter in the geographic area they are being appointed to represent – at the time of appointment.

A second amendment to the charter to be decided by voters on Nov. 4 would acknowledge state law with respect to residency requirements for paid appointed officials. With a few exceptions, local municipalities can’t impose geographic requirements on the residence of paid officials. The amendment would also stipulate that unpaid appointed officials must be registered voters in the city, unless that requirement is waived by a seven-vote majority on the 11-member city council.

Action came at the council’s July 21, 2014 meeting. The council had one additional meeting on its calendar at which it could have voted to place the resolution on the ballot – on Aug. 7. That’s the last council meeting before the Aug. 12 deadline for certifying ballot language to the Washtenaw County clerk’s office.

The existing charter language imposes a one-year durational requirement of voter registration on elected and appointed officials in the city. But the federal court ruled that the city’s requirements were not enforceable, because they had been struck down as unconstitutional in two different court cases dating from the early 1970s. Similar durational requirements have – in the intervening years – been found constitutional in various jurisdictions. However, the court ruled on May 20 this year that the city could not enforce its requirements against Ward 3 Democratic primary candidate Bob Dascola – because the city had not re-enacted its requirement using a standard legislative process.

The placement of a ballot proposal in front of voters on Nov. 4 will use the legislative process of a popular referendum on the charter to establish eligibility requirements that are enforceable. The language approved by the council at its July 21 meeting imposes a requirement that in order to be mayor, someone would need to be a registered voter in the city, and to serve on the city council someone would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent – at the time they submit their paperwork to appear on the ballot.

For example, a potential candidate for the city council would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk.

With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. In the case of a vacancy that needs to be filled by appointment, the new charter requirement would require the person to be a registered voter in the geographic area they are being appointed to represent – at the time of appointment. 

A draft of the new charter language and the ballot proposal was made public two weeks ago in advance of the council’s July 7 meeting. But that draft did not appear on the council’s agenda for that meeting. A different draft appeared on the council’s July 21 agenda. A key difference between the two versions was that the July 21 version took an approach that split the question into two different ballot proposals – one dealing with elected officials and the other dealing with appointed officials. The splitting of the proposal into two questions came at the suggestion of the state attorney general’s office.

On the afternoon of Friday, July 18, the city attorney’s office was working with the state attorney general’s office on the wording of the charter amendment and the ballot proposal. The wording of the draft to be considered by the council at its July 21 meeting was initially not accurately reflected in the online agenda, because words that were supposed to have been struck through were not struck through. By late Saturday night, the wording had been corrected.

The final version approved by the council, which reflected some additional minor changes, was circulated to councilmembers about a half hour before the meeting started: [.pdf of 6:30 p.m. July 21, 2014 version]

Details of the council’s deliberations on July 21 are included in The Chronicle’s live updates, filed from council chambers 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.

Outcomes from the meeting are also reported in the Civic News Ticker.

A common theme among several items on the Ann Arbor city council’s July 21, 2014 agenda is infrastructure. That includes physical infrastructure – like roads, sidewalks, bridges and buildings. But it also includes legal infrastructure. The council will be considering a resolution that would put a charter amendment in front of voters for the Nov. 4 election. The amendment would establish eligibility requirements for elected officials, after a federal court ruled earlier this year that the existing charter requirements are not legally enforceable.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

Another significant item that was initially placed on the July 21 agenda – but is expected to be withdrawn by its sponsor, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) – is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to list the 415 W. Washington property for sale.

Two other land acquisition items on the agenda would put the city on the purchasing end. A resolution sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether it is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

And a resolution sponsored by Margie Teall (Ward 4) would authorize the purchase of the property at 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC). Cost of the purchase would be $195,000, to be reimbursed to the city by AAHC. The AAHC is undertaking reconstruction of its properties adjoining this parcel, and this acquisition would facilitate that.

The July 21 meeting is the council’s last one before the Tuesday, Aug. 5 primary elections. The meeting that week is shifted from Monday to Thursday, and will fall on Aug. 7.

Physical infrastructure on the agenda includes a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Another road reconstruction project on the agenda is a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter.

A second agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Final approval of a special assessment for an additional sidewalk construction project also appears on the agenda. The sidewalk construction will be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14.

On July 21 the council will also be asked to approve a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program. That includes the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue.

Six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant to be purchased from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682 is another agenda item.

With respect to legal infrastructure, a federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election. The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

Several items related to development also appear on the council’s July 21 agenda. The council will consider a site plan for 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center.

The council will also consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett. The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage.

For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council will consider giving initial approval at its July 21 meeting to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district).

Not tied to any particular project on the July 21 agenda is final consideration by the council of a change to downtown zoning. The item is confined to a 1.1-acre parcel at 425 S. Main St. at the southeast corner of William and Main. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) – at its June 16 meeting that followed a complex series of votes. At the same meeting, the council also gave initial approval to a change to the overlay character district for the parcel, after amending the height limit – from 100 feet to 60 feet. Zoning changes require two votes by the council, taken at separate meetings, because they are changes to the city’s ordinances.

Another ordinance change on the July 21 agenda – which is getting final consideration by the council – is one that clarifies the composition and appointment process for the city’s environmental commission. Related thematically to that item is a resolution that clarifies the composition of the city’s commission on disability issues.

The consent agenda for July 21 includes an item that indicates the approach of fall – approval of the change to traffic patterns for the Aug. 27-29 University of Michigan student move-in.

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

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

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s July 21 agenda includes several items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Springwater Street Reconstruction

The council will consider a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Funding for the project will be drawn from the street millage fund ($883,316), stormwater fund ($903,065), and drinking water funds ($489,574) for a total project cost of $2,275,955.

Funding from the drinking water and stormwater funds is based on the fact that the project includes replacing the existing water main and performing stormwater system improvements – including construction of sand filters within the Butternut Street and Nordman Avenue right-of-way. Construction is expected to start in August 2014 with completion expected this fall.

Physical Infrastructure: Stone School Road

The council will consider a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter

A new 5-foot wide, concrete sidewalk will be constructed on the west side of the roadway from Pheasant Run Circle to Ellsworth Road. Included in the project is the replacement of the existing 16-inch water main in Stone School Road. The water main has broken several times. A short segment of 8-inch sanitary sewer is included in the project. Bioswales and “in-line” stormwater detention will be included. An existing jack-arch culvert under Old Stone School Road along Malletts Creek will be removed, in order to improve creek hydraulics, habitat and stormwater quality. New street lights along Stone School Road will also be installed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church, Barton

The council will consider an agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding. It will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Here’s how the funding breaks down:

Project Funding
               Scio Church    Barton       TOTAL
Federal Share     $164,000   $36,000    $200,000
Local Share        199,474    42,626     242,100
Spcl Assess          1,626     1,980       3,606            

TOTAL             $365,100   $80,606    $445,706

-

Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

The council will consider giving final approval of the assessment roll for the construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail, after a public hearing. The council voted to set the public hearing for the July 21 meeting on June 6, 2014. The cost that will be assessed to adjoining property owners is $72,218.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14. The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s part of the city’s Complete Streets program.

In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

Infrastructure: Bridge Inspections

The council will consider approval of a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program.

The city is required by federal law to inspect its bridges every two years. The city’s approach is to inspect about half of its bridges each year in order to even out the cost.

Bridges to be inspected include the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue, which is considered a bridge.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the following bridges will be inspected in 2014: Island Drive over the Traver Creek; Maiden Lane over the Huron River; Fuller Road (eastbound and westbound) over the Huron River; Huron Parkway over the Huron River, Norfolk Southern Railroad and Geddes Avenue; and Wastewater Treatment Plant Drive over the Huron River.

And in 2015, the following bridges will be inspected: Broadway over the Huron River; Broadway over Depot Street and the Norfolk Southern Railroad; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over S. State Street; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks; Fuller Road over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; East Medical Center Drive over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; Eisenhower Parkway over the Ann Arbor Railroad; the portion of the Fifth Avenue parking structure under South Fifth Avenue; and the University of Michigan tunnel under Huron Parkway.

Funding will come from the major street fund ($133,500) and the sewage disposal fund ($2,500). The University of Michigan and the DDA will reimburse the city for about $6,600 for inspections related to facilities they maintain.

Infrastructure: Wastewater Pumps

An item to purchase six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant is on the July 21 agenda. The pumps would be bought from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the city’s wastewater treatment plant has six 150-horsepower secondary effluent pumps that are about 35 years old. When the plant is operating in typical mode, two of the six pumps are in continuous operation. Occasionally, when the Huron River is at high levels, additional pumps are used to pump secondary effluent simultaneously to the sand filters and the river.

Over the past three years, three of the pumps have failed. One of the pumps was irreparable, and the other two pumps were repaired but are not reliable for long-term use. The remaining three pumps are fully functional, but in a worn condition.

Failure of the secondary effluent pumps was unforeseen, according to the staff memo, so the cost of their replacement was not included in the design of the Facilities Renovations Project (FRP) currently under construction at the wastewater treatment plant. The city’s attempt to include replacement of the pumps in the FRP and to receive funding through the state’s revolving fund loan program was rejected by the Michigan Depart. of Environmental Quality, according to the staff memo.

Legal Infrastructure

A federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. That ruling was based on early 1970s decisions that struck down Ann Arbor’s city charter eligibility requirements as unconstitutional. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

For example, a potential candidate for the city council would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) provided a text of the correct draft to media outlets: [.pdf of July 18, 2014 charter amendment resolution text]

On the afternoon of Friday, July 18, the city attorney’s office was working with the state attorney general’s office on the wording of the charter amendment and the ballot proposal. The proposal has been divided into two questions – one focused on elective officers, and the other dealing with appointive officers.

According to information provided on the Michigan Secretary of State’s website, confirmed by the Washtenaw County clerk’s office, the council would have until Aug. 12, 2014 to meet the deadline for placing a question on the ballot. Before the deadline, the council has one additional meeting after July 21 – on Aug. 7.

So it would be an option for the council to postpone consideration of this amendment at their July 21 meeting.

Land Sale

Appearing initially on the July 21 agenda was an item sponsored by Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje with the title “Resolution to List for Sale 415 W. Washington and Appropriate Funds for Allen Creek Greenway Master Plan.” As of mid-day Friday, July 18, no text or memo was included in the resolution.

Warpehoski responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle by saying that the resolution might be pulled, depending on the outcome of a meeting of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy on July 18. [The item was then updated with text. The amount to be allocated for the master planning effort was $250,000.]

On July 19, however, Warpehoski announced that he’d be withdrawing the resolution. An excerpt from the comment he left on The Chronicle’s meeting preview article reads as follows:

At the request of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy Board, I am withdrawing the resolution from the Council agenda.

The resolution to fund the creation of a greenway master plan and development of the greenway through the sale of the non-floodway portion of 415 W. Washington was developed in partnership with Bob Galardi, chair of the Greenway Conservancy, and Jonathan Bulkley, chair of the Greenway Roundtable.

Bob and Jonathan had discussed the potential resolution with the Conservancy board. They found some initial support from the board. At their meeting on July 18, the Conservancy Board reviewed the final resolution, but were not able to come to agreement to support the resolution at this time. As the conservancy does not have clarity in supporting the resolution, I am withdrawing it. From the beginning, the my approach to this was that if the Conservancy was supportive then we could bring it forward. If the conservancy was not in support then we would not move forward in this way.

The city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel is highlighted in yellow.

Warpehoski indicated to The Chronicle that one reason a master plan for the greenway is important is that the lack of such a plan hurt the city’s application for funding from the state of Michigan to support renovations to the 721 N. Main property. The city did not receive the state grant after applying for it in early 2013.

In addition, Warpehoski wrote, there’s an opportunity to partner with the University of Michigan and a class taught by Larissa Larsen, a professor of urban and regional planning and natural resources. Such a partnership would reduce costs of the planning effort.

The idea of funding work on a master plan for the Allen Creek greenway was discussed most recently at the June 16, 2014 council meeting, in the context of a resolution that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had brought forward that would have jump-started an effort to redesign Liberty Plaza at the corner of Division and Liberty streets. Taylor’s resolution would have appropriated $23,577 for the work, which was to have included input from a variety of stakeholders, including adjacent property owners.

That resolution was ultimately referred by the council to the park advisory commission (PAC). At PAC’s July 15 meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to advocate for an integrated approach to the “library block,” which includes Liberty Plaza. But PAC postponed discussion related to Liberty Plaza and the council resolution, as only five of nine voting members were present. Taylor is an ex officio non-voting member of PAC, but had not discussed the resolution at previous PAC meetings. He attended PAC’s July 15 meeting.

The June 16 council meeting discussion featured the following exchange between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Hieftje, recorded in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting:

10:15 p.m. Kunselman asks if this means that Liberty Plaza would jump ahead of developing a master plan for the Allen Creek Greenway. Hieftje says that if Kunselman can be a bit patient, there will be a master plan proposed soon.

10:18 p.m. Hieftje says that an Allen Creek Greenway master plan might be prepared before the end of the budget year. Kunselman asks if there’d been any council direction to start any of the activity that Hieftje has described. Yes, Hieftje says, there was a resolution involving 415 W. Washington. Kunselman reiterates the fact that staff has not been directed specifically to develop a greenway master plan. He’s reiterating the lack of resources for park planning. There are 157 parks in the city and he wonders why Liberty Plaza has become the most important one. Kunselman will support the referral to PAC.

If the council had directed the 415 W. Washington property to be listed for sale, it would have been the third downtown city-owned property to be listed for sale in the last year and a half. The council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a broker for the old Y lot at Fifth and William at its March 4, 2013 meeting. And on Nov. 18, 2013, the council authorized the sale of the lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

And the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting to confirm its earlier decision to direct the city administrator to list the development rights for the top of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. On July 1, city administrator Steve Powers notified the council that he’d selected CBRE to market and broker the sale of the development rights.

The 415 W. Washington parcel is currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system, which has averaged about $18,000 in revenue per month, or about $216,000 a year over the last two years. The parcel also includes several buildings that previously served as the road commission facility and the city maintenance yard. A study commissioned by the city of the property concluded that the cost of stabilizing and renovating all of the buildings could be as high as $6 million. [.pdf of Aug. 29, 2013 report] That study came after the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios had stepped forward with an interest in the possible renovation and reuse of the building as artist studio space. For additional background on that, see “City Council Parcels Out Tasks: Open Space.”

Ultimately the city moved toward demolishing the buildings. The city administrator’s proposed FY 2015 budget included $300,000 for the demolition of the buildings, but the council amended out that allocation during its deliberations on May 19, 2014:

1:40 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition. This proposal will simply eliminate general fund support for demolition of the city-owned buildings at 415 W. Washington. [Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin]

1:54 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman, Taylor and Warpehoski.

Two pieces of land immediately adjacent to 415 W. Washington have been in the news recently. At their July 1, 2014 meeting, city planning commissioners approved The Mark condo project for the parcel on Liberty Street where a car wash is currently located. The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units.

And at the July 2, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, it was announced that the final site recommendation for a downtown stop for the WALLY rail line is for the east side of the railroad tracks between Liberty and Washington streets – opposite of where the former city maintenance yard was located at 415 W. Washington. It was reported at that meeting that it would not be a full station. Rather, it would be a platform with canopies and a ramp to Washington Street to the north and a sidewalk connection to the south onto Liberty. The stop would be built entirely within the railroad right-of-way – and there would be no taking of public or private property. The site would be contingent on the WALLY project moving forward.

Land Purchase: Burton Commons

Appearing on the July 21 agenda is a resolution for the city to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether the land is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

Animated .gif of the Burton Commons property showing the demolition of single-family homes on the parcels – from aerial images in the Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system.

The land is immediately adjacent to US-23 to the east and Sylvan Park to the north. A residential neighborhood lies to the west of the land.

The resolution is sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who had told his council colleagues at their June 2, 2014 meeting that he’d be bringing forward such a resolution. The idea would be to use open space millage money to purchase the land. The resolution states that the estimated fair market value, according to the city assessor, is $628,800.

One-third of the open space millage proceeds are supposed to be allocated to acquisition of land within the city limits. At the June 2 meeting, Kunselman argued for the purchase based on the positive impact on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north.

The purchase of the land would also be consistent with a sentiment Kunselman expressed at a recent mayoral candidate forum – that there was resistance in Ward 3, which he represents, to “dumping and piling on” affordable housing in that ward.

Kunselman is a candidate for mayor in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, along with three other councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The July 21 council meeting is the last one before the Aug. 5 election. That week the meeting is shifted to Thursday from Monday, due to the Tuesday election.

Land Purchase: 3401 Platt Road

On the July 21 agenda is an item that would authorize the city to purchase the parcel at 3401 Platt Road.

Purchase of the blue-highlighted parcel could be authorized by the city council at its July 21 meeting.

The parcel is adjacent to Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) properties that AAHC is planning to reconstruct.

Four units currently stand at the location, but AAHC has previously announced plans to demolish those structures and replace them with 32 units of housing – a net gain of 28 units.

Now, however, the AAHC is interested in expanding that project, using the additional adjacent property. At the planning commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that because the AAHC has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. This is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing.

Earlier this year, at its April 21, 2014 meeting, council gave several approvals  in connection with the AAHC renovations. The acquisition of the additional parcel will help the AAHC with its plans for the property.

Three of the existing four houses are in the floodway, and the water table is higher than the basements. When it rains, the properties flood. So the plan is to tear down the existing buildings, and construct new housing further north on the same site, on land that’s currently vacant.

The AAHC will be reimbursing the city for the $195,00 cost of the 1.17-acre property.

But it is the city that must execute the transaction, under Ann Arbor City Code, Chapter 8, Section 1:209(3):

All deeds, mortgages, contracts, leases, purchases, or other agreements regarding real property which is or may be put under the control of the housing commission, including agreements to acquire or dispose of real property, shall be approved and executed in the name of the City of Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor City Council may, by resolution, decide to convey or assign to the housing commission any rights of the city to a particular property owned by the City of Ann Arbor which is under the control of the housing commission and such resolution shall authorize the City Administrator, Mayor and Clerk to take all action necessary to effect such conveyance or assignment.

Development

On the council’s July 21 agenda are several items related to development.

Development: Jackson Drive-Thru

The council will consider approval of a site plan for a new drive-thru restaurant on Jackson Avenue – near the I-94 interchange. The planning commission recommended approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of 2625 Jackson Ave.

The site is located at 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center. The gas pump islands and canopy will be removed. The total project would cost an estimated $400,000. [.pdf of staff memo]

The restaurant’s single lane drive-thru would primarily be accessed from a proposed curbcut on Jackson Ave., with an exit through the Westgate Shopping Center Jackson Ave. entrance. An existing curbcut off Jackson to the east would be closed. The new curbcut has been approved by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and would prevent left turns onto Jackson. The drive-thru lane provides stacking for up to four vehicles and would be screened to the north by the proposed building.

In a separate vote at their June 17 meeting, commissioners granted a special exception use for this project, which does not require additional city council approval. This was the first drive-thru proposal that has come through the city’s approval process since the city council approved changes to the Chapter 55 zoning ordinance that regulates drive-thrus. That approval came at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

Development: Dusty’s Collision

The council will consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett.

Aerial view of Dusty Collision site.

The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. A previous building at that location was torn down in 2013. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage. The project is estimated to cost $2 million.

The site will include 106 spaces of exterior parking, including 24 spaces that will be deferred until needed, according to the staff memo. One bicycle hoop – for 2 bike parking spaces – will be located near the front of the building.

The planning commission’s recommendation for approval, made at its June 3, 2014 meeting, was contingent on the owner – Whitney’s Collision West of Ann Arbor – providing one footing drain disconnect before the city issues a certificate of occupancy. [.pdf of staff memo]

Development: State Street Village

For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council will consider giving initial approval at its July 21 meeting to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district).

A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of a site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project. It’s a $10 million project put forward by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. at 2221-2223 S. State St. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

The front part of the site is currently a surface parking lot, and is zoned O (office). The rear parcel – 4.5 acres – is vacant, and zoned M1 (limited industrial). Residential developments are permitted in office-zoned areas. [.pdf of staff report]

The development will include 114 parking spaces in the rear of the site and 13 spaces for the front. Another 22 spaces in the surface parking lot will be shared by the existing office building just south of the site.

In addition, 44 covered bicycle spaces and 8 enclosed bicycle spaces will be provided near the entrances of the apartment buildings and 2 hoops will be placed near the entrance of the rental office building.

Instead of making a $48,360 requested donation to the city for parks, McKinley has proposed two 8×10-foot grilling patios with picnic tables and grills.

According to the staff memo, the footing drains of 18 homes, or flow equivalent to 71.91 gallons per minute, will need to be disconnected from the city’s sanitary sewer system to mitigate flow from this proposed development.

Only the initial consideration of the rezoning issue will be before the council on July 21. The site plan approval will be considered at a future meeting, likely at the same meeting when the council gives final consideration to the rezoning.

Development: Downtown Zoning

The council will consider giving final approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Initial approval was given to rezoning from D1 to D2, with an amended height limit – of 60 feet. The original height limit in the ordinance revision considered by the council was 100 feet.

Initial approval by the council came at its June 16, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

The council’s initial approval came only after two votes on each of the parts of the zoning, as councilmembers had first decided to refer the height limit issue back to the planning commission, but ultimately decided to amend the height limit to 60 feet. A summary of the deliberations is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting.

By way of background, currently a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Considered separately by the council on July 21 will be final votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to specify the height limit at 60 feet, not the 100 feet that the planning commission had recommended. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

Upper-story setbacks, specified in the character district overlay along with the height limits, were specified based on the 100-foot limit. So the planning staff will likely present the council with some revised language on the setbacks, in order to be consistent with the amended 60-foot limit.

The planning commission recommended both the zoning changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development.

The item affecting 425 S. Main is just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

The current D1 zoning for 425 S. Main allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Board and Commissions

Two commissions are the topic of separate council agenda items: the environmental commission; and the commission on disability issues.

Boards and Commission: Environmental

The council will give final consideration to an amendment to the city ordinance establishing the environmental commission (EC). Initial approval was given at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting.

The ordinance change relates in part to the way that nominations to the EC are made. The EC is one of the few boards or commissions in the city for which the mayor does not make nominations. The more familiar procedure – for most boards and commissions – includes a mayoral nomination at one council meeting, followed by the confirmation vote of the council at a subsequent meeting.

In the past, the council has mimicked this procedure for the EC by having some councilmember put a resolution on the agenda appointing a member to the EC, and then postponing the resolution until the next meeting. The ordinance revisions include clarification that the nominations put forward by the council as a body to the EC are to be made by the two councilmembers who serve as the council’s representatives to the EC.

Besides two slots for council representatives, the EC includes positions for members of the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission. The ordinance revision to be given final consideration on July 21 makes clear that those groups make their appointments to the EC without further city council approval. This specific revision comes after the planning commission had selected Kirk Westphal from its membership to serve on the EC earlier this year. Some councilmembers voted against his confirmation, when the council was asked to confirm his selection two months ago. For background on that vote, see “Hutton, Westphal Reappointed to EC.”

The staff memo summarizes the changes to the ordinance regulating appointments to boards and commissions as follows:

• clarifies that the councilmembers currently serving on the environmental commission nominate persons for “at-large” appointments, which are then approved by council resolution;
• clarifies that the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission each designate a representative to the environmental commission without council approval and for a one-year term;
• clarifies that the 3-year terms should be equally staggered;
• removes references to the Leslie Science Center Advisory Board, which no longer exists;
• requires the city administrator or the designated support staff of the environmental commission to notify council of vacancies – previously this was delegated to the clerk’s office, which does not always have immediate knowledge of vacancies;
• contains a few minor, non-substantive corrections and clarifications.

Mark Clevey’s name had been scheduled to be put before the council on July 7 to be confirmed as a member of the EC, but was withdrawn – because he is the selection by the energy commission to represent the energy commission on the EC. Once enacted, the energy commission appointment to EC (like that of other boards and commissions to the EC) will be for one year and will not need city council approval.

Boards and Commission: Disabilities

The council will consider a resolution that clarifies the membership on the city’s commission on disabilities. The clarification concerns the city council representative, who will be appointed for a one-year term annually. Currently the council’s representative to the commission on disability issues is Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

3:38 p.m. Names of speakers who have signed up for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting are now available. A total of eight people are signed up for public commentary reserved time. Three people will be speaking in support of boycotting Israel and stopping the current assault on Gaza: Blaine Coleman, Mohammad Aggour, Mozhgan Savabieasfahani. Three people will be speaking about the recent eviction of a homeless encampment in Broadway Park. Thomas Partridge will be speaking in support of electing Democrat Mark Schauer as governor, affordable housing and accommodations for those with disabilities. And Kermit Schlansker will be addressing the council on the topic of “crime of city government.”

4:27 p.m. Responses from staff to councilmember questions are now available: [.pdf of July 21, 2014 staff responses]

4:44 p.m. There’s a large .pdf with a map in the agenda responses. Here’s just the map: [.pdf of parks map for underserved areas]. Here’s the rest of the agenda responses: [.pdf of just text from July 21, 2014 staff agenda responses]

6:19 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Right now the council chambers are empty except for The Chronicle.

6:25 p.m. Most recent version of the charter amendment ballot proposal has now been sent around to councilmembers: [.pdf of latest version]

6:49 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have arrived. About a dozen folks in the audience. Eaton quizzes a student here for a class assignment who wants her agenda signed: “Do you know what ward you live in?” “Yes, Two.” “I’m impressed!”

6:52 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers and city attorney Stephen Postema have arrived.

6:55 p.m. Still only two councilmembers in chambers. Now Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived.

6:57 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje has arrived.

7:05 p.m. Still not here are Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

7:10 p.m. Now the only missing councilmember is Kailasapathy.

7:11 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:12 p.m. Roll call of council. Petersen and Kailasapathy are not here.

7:12 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda for tonight.

7:13 p.m. Communications from the city administrator.

7:14 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers notes that there’s a letter to HUD attached to the agenda, which indicates that Ann Arbor will continue to participate in the Urban County, as opposed to receiving CDBG funds on its own. Powers had told the council at its last meeting that this was the decision he’d be making, unless he received different direction. [.pdf of letter to HUD]. He also notes the Aug. 2, soccer game that will be taking place. Game start will be 4:06 p.m. Usual football game day regulations will apply. Powers will be a member of the county board’s road funding subcommittee. He’ll keep the council updated on the committee’s work, he says.

7:14 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

A total of eight people are signed up for public commentary reserved time. Three people will be speaking in support of boycotting Israel and stopping the current assault on Gaza: Blaine Coleman, Mohammad Aggour, Mozhgan Savabieasfahani. Three people will be speaking about the recent eviction of a homeless encampment in Broadway Park. Thomas Partridge will be speaking in support of electing Democrat Mark Schauer as governor, affordable housing and accommodations for those with disabilities. And Kermit Schlansker will be addressing the council on the topic of “crime of city government.” Hieftje has reviewed the rules on signs – that they must be held at the sides of the room.

7:18 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a former candidate for the state legislature. He calls on the public to support Mark Schauer for governor of Michigan. Local municipalities need to be fully funded, he says. Funding for additional affordable housing must be planned, he says. The Ann Arbor city council should be taking a statewide leadership role in providing access to people with disabilities. He calls on people to “put down their placards” and their calls for what to do about the Middle East.

7:22 p.m. Blaine Coleman begins to speak. Hieftje tells Mozhgan Savabieasfahani to move to the side with her sign. Coleman ticks through some grim statistics from the violence in Gaza. He calls for a public hearing on a boycott of Israel. Chants of “Boycott Israel, Stop Bombing Gaza!” Hieftje admonishes those who are joining the chant that only one person can speak at a time. Coleman is calling councilmembers by name, asking them to be the conscience of Ann Arbor. He tells them that the deaths of those in Gaza is partially on their hands. Background on recent Middle East events: [link to July 20, 2014 NYT article]

7:24 p.m. Sheri Wander tells the council she’s just returned from the Middle East. What the hell is wrong with humanity, she asks. She returned home to see people in Detroit hauled off to jail for protesting the shut-off of water. Then she got a call from friends of hers who were living in tents (Broadway Park in Ann Arbor) and were having their belongings bulldozed. Briere had said: “I can’t tell you what to do because you have no legal options.” That makes her sick, Wander says. Wander says she had heard candidates at the homelessness forum say that the law is the most important thing. It’s their job to change the law, she says.

7:27 p.m. Tracy Williams says he’s a resident of Mercy House and a member of Camp Misfit. He thanks those who have spoken out against what has been happening in Gaza. Here in Ann Arbor, campers were led to believe that if they stayed 50 feet away from the tracks they would be allowed to stay – and they’d abided by that. In response to the idea that the law is the most important thing, he ventures that the most important thing is to keep human beings live. He asks the council to meet a challenge: If they provide the councilmembers with a sleeping bag and a tarp, will they live outside for a week?

7:29 p.m. Timothy Green introduces himself as a MISSION board member. He thanks Briere for coming out in person to the eviction in process at Broadway Park. Homelessness has become illegal in Ann Arbor, he says. “You’re making them criminals,” he says. “You go to jail, that’s you guys’ answer! … It’s not right how the homeless are treated in this place,” he says.

7:32 p.m. Mohammad Aggour says that 13 days ago the Israeli government began its assault on Gaza. He’s 18 years old and attends Washtenaw Technical Middle College, he says. The casualties in Gaza are 70% women and children, he says. He says that he doesn’t want his tax dollars going to support this. He describes four children who were killed as they were playing soccer on the beach. “Forget about me being Arab,” he says. We have to focus on the fact that we are human. He calls for a boycott of Israel. He asks for a public hearing on a boycott of Israel.

7:37 p.m. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani takes the podium to rhythmic clapping. She says they are all ready to come to many more meetings in the future. Israel has been murdering the people of Palestine since the beginning, she says. She’s come to the council for the last 12 years, she says, asking them to do something. She says they will come back again and again to ask for a public hearing on a boycott of Israel. Without U.S. support, Israel could not undertake this military action, she says. It’s clear to the entire world that Israel is an “outlaw state,” she says. She holds the council responsible. “We are planning to come over and over and over again,” she says. The anger that they hear in her voice is nothing compared to the anger of a mother who has lost her child. Chants ensue: “Boycott Israel, Stop Bombing Gaza!” Hieftje says that he understands they’ll be coming back, but if they intend to disrupt city government, they should give some thought to whether that’s the image they want to present.

7:39 p.m. Kermit Schlansker is addressing climate change. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, he says. The city has concentrated on removing factories from inside the city, he says, but we need to manufacture things, or else go broke. He says that the Platt Road property where the juvenile court stood previously should become a factory.

7:40 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived in the interim.

7:40 p.m. Communications from council.

7:40 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) reports that Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is ill and can’t make it. She sends her regrets.

7:42 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is explaining that the greenway master plan funding resolution will be withdrawn. The lack of a master plan hinders the ability to secure outside funding, he says. This resolution wasn’t the right approach at the right time, but he’s ok with that. There might be a different resolution next meeting, he says.

7:43 p.m. Warpehoski says that the issue that he’d talked about at the last meeting – a change to the way elections are conducted – is not ripe for this election cycle. But he’ll continue to work on it.

7:44 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is talking about the proposed Glendale condo development. He says that the city should think about acquiring land using the open space and parkland acquisition millage. He thanks those for coming to speak on Gaza. Coleman asks from the audience, “So where’s the public hearing.”

7:46 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is talking about the public participation meeting last week on the proposed Toll Brothers development north of Nixon Road. The 900 units proposed in that general area will be a conflict point for the community, she says. She’s committed to holding another meeting about planning for the intersection of Dhu Varren and Nixon roads.

7:46 p.m. MC-1 Confirmations The council is being asked to confirm nominations to city boards and commissions that were made at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting: Theresa Whiting, replacing John Sullivan on the airport advisory commission; and Shoshannah Lenski as a re-appointment to the energy commission.

7:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted confirm the appointments.

7:47 p.m. Public Hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Tonight there are six public hearings. The first two involve the rezoning of the parcel on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Also receiving a hearing is the special assessment for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project. Two site plans are the subject of public hearings – for Dusty’s Collision and for a drive-thru retail establishment on Jackson Road. Finally, a public hearing is being held on a change to the city’s ordinance on boards and commissions – which will clarify appointments to the environmental commission.

• PH-1 Downtown Character Overlay Zoning Districts. [For additional background, see Development: Downtown Zoning above.]
• PH-2 Rezoning of 1.1 Acres from D1 (Downtown Core Base District) to D2 (Downtown Interface Base District), 425 South Main Street.
• PH-3 Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment roll. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]
• PH-4 Dusty’s Collision site plan. [For additional background, see Development: Dusty's Collision above.]
• PH-5 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru site plan. [For additional background, see Development: Jackson Drive-Thru above.]
• PH-6 Amend ordinance on boards and commissions. [For additional background, see Boards and Commission: Environmental above.]

7:47 p.m. PH-1 Downtown Character Overlay Zoning Districts.

7:48 p.m. Edward Vielmetti says that he’s commenting about the way that the public has been informed about this proposed change. The packet does not include a map, he points out.

7:49 p.m. Blaine Coleman asks Mike Anglin when there will be a public hearing on the boycott of Israel. That draws a sharp rebuke from mayor John Hieftje to the effect that remarks during the public hearing must be confined to the topic of the public hearing.

7:51 p.m. Eppie Potts is addressing the council. She’s supporting the 60-foot height limit.

7:52 p.m. Ted Annis rises to speak on PH-2. Hieftje tells him that will be in a few minutes.

7:52 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He says that new zoning should be integrated with requirements on accessibility.

7:55 p.m. A woman is now addressing the council telling them that she’s glad the property is being rezoned from D-1 to D-2. She wonders if the effect will be to allow sunlight to fall on adjoining properties. There’s also a problem with building right on the alleyway, she says.

7:56 p.m. PH-2 Rezoning of 1.1 Acres from D1 (Downtown Core Base District) to D2 (Downtown Interface Base District), 425 South Main Street.

7:56 p.m. Ted Annis says he supports the item. He expresses thanks for all the work that has been done to get things straightened out.

7:58 p.m. Edward Vielmetti points out an error in the map that is in the planning staff report: Baker Commons has not been updated to show that it is no longer zoned PL (public land). He encourages the council to delay their vote, until accurate maps can be provided.

8:00 p.m. Andy Klein, an owner of the property, is speaking against this zoning change. This is against the recommendation of the city’s hired consultant as well as the city planning commission, he says. He reviews the history of the parcel. The report from the consultant calls the parcel a key gateway site, he notes. The planning commission had recommended D-2 with a height of 100 feet – which would give flexibility to avoid less appealing massive structures.

8:02 p.m. Joel Smith is addressing the council, saying that it’s a gateway parcel. He’s been the architectural team for the new Y site as well as the Zaragon building, he says. Good design can always be debated, he allows. D-2 with 60 feet would result in a 60-foot wall against someone’s backyard, he says.

8:04 p.m. Thomas Partridge says the council should allow for a building that is large enough to have accessibility for lower-income residents of the city. There should be office space that is affordable for lower-income residents and businesses in the city, he says. The council should give priority to the human elements of the zoning requirements, he says.

8:05 p.m. PH-3 Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment roll.

8:07 p.m. This hearing will be kept open through the next meeting at Margie Teall’s request, Hieftje says. Edward Vielmetti again addresses the council on the issue of maps. Several parcels are marked for future recovery instead of current recovery. He’s concerned that someone who might purchase a parcel that will be annexed won’t realize that they could be assessed these costs. He again encourages the council to delay consideration until an accurate map can be provided.

8:08 p.m. A resident who will be assessed is protesting the special assessment. She says they’re being forced and bullied into paying for a development. Her husband is a senior, she says. They already are in the city of Ann Arbor. She calls the assessment unfair.

8:09 p.m. Hieftje says that this public hearing will remain open in the event that the item, which comes later on the agenda, is postponed.

8:09 p.m. PH-4 Dusty’s Collision site plan.

8:10 p.m. Thomas Partridge says that the property should be accessible to seniors and the handicapped. There should be a universal requirement that all businesses be accessible, Partridge says.

8:11 p.m. Edward Vielmetti is complaining that the map does not have a scale bar.

8:11 p.m. PH-5 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru site plan.

8:12 p.m. No one speaks on this public hearing.

8:12 p.m. PH-6 Amend ordinance on boards and commissions.

8:13 p.m. Edward Vielmetti says he was at city hall on Friday to pick up the agenda. At that time there was not a clean copy of the resolution. Hieftje points out to Vielmetti that this is not the item on the city charter amendment. “You should still do what I said!” he quips.

8:14 p.m. A-1 Approval of minutes.

8:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve its minutes from the last meeting.

8:14 p.m. Consent Agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Emergency PO with Barrett Paving Materials ($12,815).
• CA-2 Emergency PO with E.T. MacKenzie for storm culvert repair on Dhu Varren ($76,882).
• CA-3 Approve contract with Industrial Organizational Solutions, Inc. (I/O) to Conduct AAPD Promotional Assessment in FY15 ($32,755).
• CA-4 Approve changes to traffic patterns and parking for the 2014 University of Michigan student move-in program from Aug. 27-29, 2014.
• CA-5 Recognize the Skyline Friends of the Arts as a civic nonprofit organization operating in Ann Arbor for the purpose of obtaining a charitable gaming license.

8:14 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does.

8:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve its consent agenda.

8:14 p.m. B-1 Main Street overlay text amendments. These next two items relate to the 1.1-acre parcel at 425 S. Main St. at the southeast corner of William and Main. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) – at its June 16 meeting, following a complex series of votes. At the same meeting, the council also gave initial approval to a change to the overlay character district for the parcel, after amending the height limit – from 100 feet to 60 feet. [For additional background, see Development: Downtown Zoning above.] This first item includes the height limit.

8:17 p.m. Briere notes it’s the second reading of an ordinance change. The language is slightly changed, she says. One of the issues is solar impact, she says. The original version called for a 100-foot building and a stepback after the fourth story. Establishing the 60-foot limit would put a 60-foot wall against someone’s property, she said.

8:19 p.m. Teall asks what the impact would be of amending the height to 100 feet. “I am not … the true god of planning,” Briere says, but attempts to explain. Building a four-story wall at the edge of the alleyway would be a possibility, whether the height limit is 100 feet or 60 feet. Planning manager Wendy Rampson comes to the podium at Anglin’s request.

8:22 p.m. Rampson reviews how the council amended the height from 100 feet down to 60 feet at its last meeting. Anglin says that he and other councilmembers are trying to protect delicate areas of transitions. When a proposal can change a neighborhood radically, that’s a concern, he says. He questions whether there should be a solid wall right on the alley.

8:25 p.m. Anglin wants to know how tall Baker Commons is. Rampson says she doesn’t know but can look it up. Anglin says he won’t approve anything until the council knows what could be built there. He doesn’t want a Stalinist building to be possible that can be used as a threat.

8:26 p.m. Anglin wants to send this back to the planning commission so that the planning commission can provide some examples of what could be built – before the battles start.

8:28 p.m. Lumm says she supports the 60-foot limit. She knows that the planning commission recommended 100 feet. She’s concerned about building up to the property line. Rampson clarifies that the east edge of the property is 16 feet away from the adjoining residential properties – because of the alleyway.

8:30 p.m. Rampson is reviewing the planning commission’s rationale for the stepbacks in the upper floors in conjunction with the 100-foot height limit. She notes that there is not currently a proposal to develop the property.

8:34 p.m. Hieftje says that he thinks there are some issues that might not be resolved tonight, and hints that a postponement might be in order. Petersen invites the property owner to the podium. The property owner and the architect are explaining how a 60-foot height would constrain design. Petersen asks about development fees. [She asked a question about fees in advance of the meeting that drew a staff written response that include the following: "The Varsity building, at 425 East Washington Street, paid approximately $20,000 in site plan fees, $23,000 in civil plan review fees, $319,000 in building permit fees; and $311,000 in utility connection charges. Inspection fees are not included in these figures. The Varsity is a 13-story, 177,000-square foot apartment building having a 695% FAR."]

8:35 p.m. Kunselman says he’d like to see an idea of what the property owner would propose and then the council could define the zoning around that.

8:37 p.m. Kunselman asks what the minimum height they could live with. Klein says that the bifurcated zoning – half the parcel D-1 and half of it D-2 – was something they could live with. The original conversation was not 60 feet versus 100 feet, but rather 60 feet versus 180 feet. It was well thought out and well debated by the planning commission, Klein says.

8:39 p.m. Kunselman says the council is struggling, but the council has to get it right. He’s open to what the owner can offer, being more flexible on the corner. There’s more back-and-forth between Kunselman and the owners.

8:41 p.m. Teall asks when the owners can develop some drawings. Hieftje invites the owners to sit back down. Rampson is asked for advice on how long it would take for planning staff to work with the owners. Rampson indicates that it would likely go back only to the ordinance revisions committee of the planning commission – so about a month. Hieftje stresses that the feedback from the council is about a four-story wall facing the residential side and a four-story blocky building.

8:43 p.m. Eaton says that four-story blocky buildings are typical of Main Street. Petersen asks that a more robust analysis of the upfront fees for development be provided during the period of postponement. Hieftje quips that the matter should be postponed until the second meeting in November. The second meeting in September is now the date certain to which a postponement is proposed.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone consideration of the character district overlay for 425 S. Main with a specified height limit of 60 feet – until the second meeting in September.

8:46 p.m. B-2 425 South Main St. city-initiated rezoning. This is the zoning part of the question related to 425 S. Main.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone consideration of the downzoning of 425 Main from D-1 to D-2 – until the council’s second meeting in September.

8:46 p.m. B-3 Environmental Commission ordinance amendment. This ordinance change clarifies the composition and appointment process for the city’s environmental commission. [For additional background, see Boards and Commission: Environmental above.]

8:47 p.m. Briere is reviewing what the ordinance amendment will do. She asks for the support of other councilmembers.

8:48 p.m. Anglin asks if PAC could appoint someone for a year to the EC and then appoint that same person the following year. That would depend on PAC, Briere says.

8:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the change to the city’s ordinance on boards and commissions to clarify how appointments to the EC work.

8:49 p.m. We’re in recess.

9:05 p.m. We’re back.

9:05 p.m. C-1 State Street Village Rezoning. For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council is considering tonight giving initial approval to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). [For additional background, see Development: State Street Village above.]

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval to the State Street Village rezoning. Final approval will come at a future meeting.

9:06 p.m. DC-1 Membership composition of the commission on disability issues. This resolution would clarify the way that a council appointment was made to the commission on disability issues last year. [For additional background, see Boards and Commission: Disabilities above.]

9:07 p.m. Petersen is reviewing the appointment a year ago and what this resolution does.

9:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to amend the resolution appointing a councilmember to the commission on disability issues.

9:07 p.m. DC-2 Gun Safety Week participation. From a staff memo accompanying the resolution: “During the week of July 20, 2014 through July 26, 2014 the Ann Arbor Police Department will be providing free gun locks and gun safety information to members of the public and collaborating with other Washtenaw County law enforcement agencies to enhance public knowledge and promote gun safety.” Stats cited in the resolution include the fact that Michigan’s overall firearm deaths from 2001-2010 were 10,825 (10.83 per 100,000 residents), Michigan’s firearm suicides in 2010 were 601 (6.08 per 100,000 residents), and Michigan’s firearm deaths for children ages 0-17 from 2001-2010 were 555 (2.23 per 100,000 residents). The information is from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Fatal Injury Data.”

9:10 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is explaining the background. The issue of preventing gun violence and unintentional gun deaths tends to get emotional, he says. One thing that could have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook would have been a gun safe – if the guns that the shooter had used had been locked away by his mother, that wouldn’t have been possible. One of the things the Ann Arbor police department is doing is passing out gun locks. If your child is going on a play date, then you can ask: Will there be an unlocked firearm in the house?

9:11 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) is thanking Warpehoski. This is an issue that got her involved in politics, she says. We can do something, she says, and this resolution will help.

9:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution on gun safety week participation.

9:11 p.m. DC-3 Charter amendment: Eligibility for elective office. A federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. That ruling was based on early 1970s decisions that struck down Ann Arbor’s city charter eligibility requirements as unconstitutional. On tonight’s agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot. The question has been divided into two separate proposals – one focused on elective officers, and the other dealing with appointive officers – reportedly on the advice of the state attorney general’s office.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has provided a text of the correct draft to media outlets, after the Legistar version was not formatted correctly with strikethrough text: [.pdf of July 18, 2014 charter amendment resolution text]

9:12 p.m. The most recent version, as far as The Chronicle understands, is actually this one: [.pdf of most recent version]

9:13 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the three types of city officers: elected officials, paid appointed officials (city administrator, police chief, etc.) and volunteer appointed officials.

9:14 p.m. Lumm says that the city is in “no man’s land” because there are no legally enforceable requirements. Lumm says she’s not committed to a vote tonight, but wants the conversation to start tonight.

9:16 p.m. Briere thanks Lumm for bringing the proposal forward. She’s questioning Lumm’s contention, which Lumm made during her remarks, that the council has not adhered to the 7-vote majority requirement for non-city residents. Hieftje confirms the council has applied that requirement. Briere wonders if that is necessary to address in this proposal, but says it just restates what is already there, so she doesn’t have a problem with it.

9:19 p.m. Taylor says he thinks the conversation should start tonight, but thinks it should likely be postponed until the next meeting. Taylor then either misreads the proposal, or else doesn’t have the correct copy in front of him. Warpehoski says he is glad to see this coming forward. He thanks Lumm. He’s comfortable with voting on it tonight or also postponing.

9:21 p.m. City attorney Stephen Postema says that assistant city attorney Mary Fales has been working with the state attorney general on this. Fales is now reviewing the fact that the deadline is Aug. 12 for certification to the county clerk. Fales says that she anticipates that the language in the packet tonight would be approved by the AG’s office, based on the informal conversations she’s had with that office.

9:23 p.m. Petersen asks Fales to comment on the pros and cons of eliminating the one-year durational requirement. Postema corrects Petersen: There is no requirement there – even though you see it there in the charter. That’s what the federal court ruled, he says. Postema says that a one-year residency program is now considered constitutional. So the council could put the same language that is currently in the charter in front of voters for reenactment.

9:25 p.m. Warpehoski asks what the next chance would be to reenact eligibility requirements, if it failed? The same question can’t be asked for another two years, Fales explains. Kunselman asks that the new proposed language be read aloud – just the ballot questions. Fales is now reading aloud the ballot questions.

9:27 p.m. Fales is explaining Act 212 of 1999 – which says that city employees can’t be subject to residency requirements.

9:28 p.m. Briere says that the situation is at best confusing. She wants to know what the communications plan is so that citizens are in a position to make an educated decision. City administrator Steve Powers says that the city could use existing tools and devices in a way that educates but does not advocate.

9:30 p.m. Teall is asking about the appointive officers question. She says that it’s confusing to her. She wants two separate sentences.

9:32 p.m. Fales says that a single ballot question has to have a single statement. She ventures that it could be separated into three questions total. Teall doesn’t seem enthusiastic about that. Eaton says that it’s imperative to pass requirements for the elected officers. He wants just the one topic addressed. That’s what confused voters back in 2003, he says. We’re already complying with state law. He didn’t think it was worth the risk to confuse the voters. The first ballot question is necessary while the second one is not, Eaton says. Kunselman responds to Eaton: “I concur.”

9:34 p.m. Fales says that the phrase “a city officer” in the original charter language has the effect that it covers both kinds of officers – elected and appointed officers. So the AG’s office is requiring two ballot questions. Kunselman quips: “Then I don’t concur.”

9:35 p.m. Fales is reading aloud the ballot language to incorporate the final minor changes.

9:38 p.m. Briere is asking about the elimination of a reference to “or a party caucus.”

9:41 p.m. Fales says that the language was recommended to be struck by the AG’s office because Ann Arbor’s city charter doesn’t provide a mechanism for that nominating process, though it could do so under state law. Briere is describing a hypothetical scenario where a minority party determined a candidate by “bowling or knitting” – and wants to know how that candidate would be placed on the ballot. She wants to be confident that such a candidate would be eligible to run as representatives of that party.

9:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to place the two ballot questions on city charter eligibility requirements in front of voters in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

9:41 p.m. DC-4 414 N. Main sidewalk easement. This is an easement in standard form, and is conveyed at no cost to the city.

9:42 p.m. Briere is explaining that this and the next item have councilmembers’ sponsorship, because the documentation was prepared too late to be placed on the agenda by staff.

9:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the 414 N. Main sidewalk easement.

9:42 p.m. DC-5 401 N. Fourth sidewalk easement. This is an easement in standard form conveyed at no cost to the city.

9:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the 401 N. Fourth sidewalk easement.

9:42 p.m. DC-6 List 415 W. Washington and appropriate funds for Allen Creek greenway master plan. This item has been withdrawn by its sponsor, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). [For additional background, see Land Sale above.]

9:43 p.m. Outcome: The council did not vote on this item, because it has been withdrawn.

9:43 p.m. DC-7 Purchase 3401 Platt Road. This parcel is located to the north of an existing AAHC property. Four units currently stand at the location, but AAHC has previously announced plans to demolish those structures and replace them with 32 units of housing – a net gain of 28 units. Now, however, the AAHC is interested in expanding that project, using the additional adjacent property.

At the planning commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that because the AAHC has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. This is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing. [For additional background, see Land Purchase: 3401 Platt Road above.]

9:44 p.m. Lumm asks Jennifer Hall to come to the podium. She notes that the owner doesn’t want to accept the contingency that the AAHC gets financing. Lumm wants to know what happens if the AAHC doesn’t get financing for its project. Hall explains that the AAHC will re-apply until it gets the funding.

9:44 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the purchase of 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

9:45 p.m. DC-8 Issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to RWB Group LLC dba Taste. This was recommended by the liquor license review committee.

9:45 p.m. Lumm, as chair of the liquor license review committee, is reading aloud a statement explaining the background.

9:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to RWB Group LLC dba Taste.

9:45 p.m. DC-9 Authorize city to inquire about Burton Road property for parkland acquisition. This is a resolution that would direct city to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether the land is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction, called Burton Commons. The parcel is located in Ward 3. The item was sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). [For additional background, see Land Purchase: Burton Commons above.]

9:48 p.m. Kunselman says he’s just emailed everyone on the council some information. He’s explaining the background of the affordable housing development, which dates back to 2006. The road is unimproved, he notes. It’s not even fair to call it a road, he says. It’s a two-track. The adjacent neighbors are on a roller coaster ride wondering about the future of the property, he says. If this resolution doesn’t pass, or if the owner has no interest in selling, he’d propose rezoning the property to be consistent with the other land in the area.

9:49 p.m. When the greenbelt advisory commission had recommended the acquisition of development rights north of Loch Alpine, outside the city, it was clear to Kunselman that we were forgetting about the importance of parkland here in the city. It wasn’t fair for him to whine about that without putting a proposal in front of the council, he says.

9:52 p.m. Kunselman says he met with the park advisory commission’s land acquisition committee in closed session, so he couldn’t talk about that. He characterizes the map that LAC provided – showing areas “underserved” with parks – as flexible. His own property is classified as “underserved,” he says. He’s pointing out various barriers to developing the parcel on Burton Road – construction of a sound wall and paving of the road. He portrays this move as eliminating a competitor of the AAHC.

9:53 p.m. Kunselman is asking for the council’s blessing for the simple inquiry. It’s adjacent to an existing park, he says. He asks for the council’s indulgence in supporting this.

9:55 p.m. Warpehoski is proposing four additional “whereas” clauses and a “resolved” clause. He’s adding 312 Glendale into the mix, which has an assessed value $345,200. An inquiry would be made with the 312 Glendale owner, according to Warpehoski’s amendment. A controversial condo development is proposed for that site. The project had been postponed by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its July 1, 2014 meeting, following lengthy public commentary by neighbors who oppose the development.

9:59 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s grateful to Kunselman’s inspiration.

9:59 p.m. Anglin says that public lands can be used to mitigate flooding. That increases land values, he says.

10:01 p.m. Petersen says that the city is the largest property owner in the city and it would take land off the tax rolls. A vote to inquire shouldn’t mean that the city will purchase the land, she says. The city always complains when the University of Michigan does that, she notes.

10:02 p.m. Hieftje is expressing caution that this is buying out developers. He wants these proposals to come from the park advisory commission.

10:03 p.m. Here’s Warpehoski’s amendment: [.pdf of Warpehoski's amendment to include Glendale]

10:05 p.m. Briere is talking about meetings she’s had with residents who’ve had a development proposed near them, who want the city to purchase the land so it can become a park. There’s a difference between making a proactive effort to add parks, as opposed to acquiring land to block a development, she notes.

10:06 p.m. Glendale has been before the planning commission twice, Briere points out, and the Burton Road property has been in front of the council in the past. She wonders why they’re not talking about those other parcels where no one is proposing to develop something there. It’s never a mistake to ask a question, but she’s fearful this will open a door and give us a real problem with acquisition of more undeveloped land that the city has no way to deal with.

10:08 p.m. Kunselman cites Bluffs Park and Dicken Woods as examples of properties in some phase of development, which the city decided to purchase. He also points out that the city also purchased two vacant properties to provide access to Bluffs Park. Back-and-forth between Kunselman and Hieftje ensues.

10:10 p.m. The resolution is just asking to talk, Kunselman says.

10:11 p.m. Lumm cites staff member responses to Warpehoski’s questions, pointing out that staff doesn’t recommend using the Glendale property for stormwater management.

10:12 p.m. Warpehoski is now making a pitch for his amendment. He mentions the location as a possible dog park. He asks that councilmembers not vote yes on this if they know now that they won’t vote yes on the actual land acquisition.

10:15 p.m. Anglin says: “There’s a tremendous amount of water out there.” The topography in Ward 5 is different, he says. It was good that Dicken Woods was acquired, Anglin says, through Eaton’s efforts. Anglin is reviewing the work of county water resources commissioner. The Glendale development has been downsized considerably, Anglin allows. If you have land, it can absorb water, he says.

10:16 p.m. Outcome: Outcome on amendment: The council has voted to approve Warpehoski’s Glendale amendment. Dissenting were Hieftje, Petersen, Lumm and Teall.

10:18 p.m. Taylor says that PAC has expertise not only on the quality of land but also the ability of the city to incorporate these properties into the park system. So he wants to amend the resolution so that it sends the issue to PAC, instead of the city administrator for recommendation.

10:19 p.m. PAC would review the properties to determine if they are suitable for acquisition – by Oct. 1. If PAC so determines, then the city administrator would inquire with the owners about the availability of the property.

10:20 p.m. Hieftje wants to change the word “suitable” to “desirable.” That’s accepted as friendly. Lumm wants staff input as well as input from PAC. That’s fine with Taylor.

10:22 p.m. Kunselman says he had wanted to avoid wasting time – if the owner was not even interested in selling. There’s no sense in investing time in PAC’s review, if the property owner is not even interested in selling, he says.

10:24 p.m. AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall is asked to the podium. She describes how the Burton Commons development is a “friendly competitor.” She says that the obstacles that Kunselman has identified are significant to the redevelopment of the Burton Road property – the sound barrier, and the road. She says the owner would be interested in selling, but points out that they’ve invested $2 million in it.

10:25 p.m. Briere says she would be much happier if the council were considering other parcels that are not currently under consideration for development. Hieftje asks Briere to focus on Taylor’s amendment.

10:27 p.m. Briere says she has no problem sending it to PAC and the land acquisition committee of PAC.

10:28 p.m. Eaton is echoing Kunselman’s sentiments that we should put this in the right order – first find out if the owners might be interested in selling. He’ll vote against Taylor’s amendment.

10:28 p.m. Warpehoski ventures that council could go into closed session to hear the LAC report. Hieftje says that the discussion is still on Taylor’s amendment.

10:32 p.m. Outcome: Taylor’s amendment has been accepted as friendly.

10:34 p.m. Petersen agrees with Warpehoski’s point that councilmembers should not vote yes on this if they would not support the actual purchase of the property. Lumm is expressing some caution. Teall says she’d like to see both parcels become parks. But she’s concerned that because the proposals are not coming from PAC, she wonders about maintenance and programming. So she doesn’t think she can support the purchase in the end.

10:38 p.m. Eaton says that the greenbelt and open space millage included a commitment to voters to spend 1/3 of the proceeds on acquisitions within the city. He says he doesn’t think the Burton Road property will be developed anyway. The Glendale neighbors would probably adopt a park there and the maintenance costs would not be that great. Hieftje picks up on Eaton’s point that the Burton Road property won’t be developed, saying that this would be helping out a developer. LAC was “keeping their powder dry” in case properties like AAPS Eberwhite Woods or Pioneer Woods needed to be purchased, Hieftje says.

10:40 p.m. Briere focuses on the statement that 1/3 of the open space and parkland acquisition millage is supposed to be spent inside the city. She wants a historical breakdown. Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, approaches the podium. Bahl doesn’t know off the top of his head. Briere says that information needs to be sent out to all councilmembers. Warpehoski calls the question.

10:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize inquiry about the availability of the property on Burton Road and on Glendale for sale – but only after and only if the land is available to seek input from PAC. Dissenting were Hieftje and Petersen.

Final wording on the key resolved clause was as follows:

RESOLVED, That Council authorizes City staff to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road and 312 Glendale Road about the availability of the property for City purchase, in whole or in part, and if available, requests the Parks Advisory Commission and staff to review 2805 Burton Road and 312 Glendale Road and advise City Council prior to October 1, 2014 whether they are desirable for City purchase using parkland acquisition funds and private contributions

10:42 p.m. DB-1 Dusty’s Collision site plan. The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. A previous building at that location was torn down in 2013. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage. The project is estimated to cost $2 million. [For additional background, see Development: Dusty's Collision above.]

10:43 p.m. Taylor asks for permission to refrain from voting as it’s a client of his. Permission is granted by the council.

10:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for Dusty’s Collision.

10:43 p.m. DB-2 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru site plan. This is a site plan for 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center. [For additional background, see Development: Jackson Drive-Thru above.]

10:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for the 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru.

10:43 p.m. DS-1 Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment. The cost that will be assessed to adjoining property owners for this project is $72,218. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14. The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s part of the city’s Complete Streets program. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone approval of the assessment roll for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk construction project.

10:45 p.m. DS-2 Contract with DLZ Michigan, Inc. ($104,107) for 2014-2015 bridge inspection project. The city is required by federal law to inspect its bridges every two years. The city’s approach is to inspect about half of its bridges each year in order to even out the cost. Bridges to be inspected include the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue, which is considered a bridge.[For additional background, see Infrastructure: Bridge Inspections above.]

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the 2014-2015 bridge inspection project

10:45 p.m. DS-3 Construction contract with Bailey Excavating, Inc. ($1,537,608) for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. This contract will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Springwater Street Reconstruction above.]

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project.

10:45 p.m. DS-4 MDOT agreement for the Scio Church and Barton Drive sidewalks project. This agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church, Barton above.]

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the MDOT agreement for the Scio Church and Barton Drive sidewalks project.

10:46 p.m. DS-5 MDOT agreement for the Stone School Road improvements project ($3,445,200). The affected portion of Stone School road is between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Stone School Road above.]

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to MDOT agreement for the Stone School Road improvements project.

10:46 p.m. DS-6 Purchase of six pumps for the wastewater treatment plant from Premier Pump Inc. ($425,682). The six secondary effluent pumps for the wastewater treatment plant are all in poor condition. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Wastewater Pumps above.]

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of six pumps for the wastewater treatment plant from Premier Pump Inc.

10:47 p.m. DS-7 Public utilities easement for 500 Huron Parkway. This is standard easement conveyed without cost to the city.

10:47 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the public utilities easement for 500 Huron Parkway.

10:47 p.m. Clerk’s report.

10:47 p.m.Outcome: The clerk’s report has been accepted.

10:48 p.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:49 p.m. Edward Vielmetti says that with the Glendale and the Burton Road issue, he appreciates the work that was done. But he says that the council should have availed itself of the option that Warpehoski had mentioned – to go into closed session to discussed the issue. That might have made for a shorter discussion, he says.

10:50 p.m. Hieftje offers the clarification that the action to remove the homeless encampment had been by MDOT, not the city. But there’s a longstanding city law against camping in the public parks, he notes. That would continue to be illegal, he says.

10:53 p.m. Briere says she hears routinely that some piece of vacant land has no owner, so that it’s somehow communal property. For those who decided that they wanted to live at Broadway Park, they knew they could not live in the park. But they believed that there was a piece of property near there that was not owned by anyone. “The days of pioneering are past in Ann Arbor,” Briere says. There’s no place that somebody doesn’t own, she says.

10:55 p.m. Kunselman says he appreciates Hieftje affirming that there are laws on the books against camping in public parks. He also addresses the possibility of rezoning Stone School Road to make tiny houses possible. He says it’s not as simple a matter as rezoning to PUD (planned unit development), and there’s a state law that has to be followed. Everyone took an oath to uphold the law, he says. To suggest that people can live in tents in PUD zoning is not accurate and that talk should stop, he says.

10:56 p.m. Lumm is thanking Paul Fulton, the IT staff member who assists councilmembers – as he is leaving the city to pursue a masters degree in Canada. He gets a round of applause.

10:56 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the July 21, 2014 meeting agenda.

Another significant item appearing on the July 21 agenda is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to list the 415 W. Washington property for sale. That would follow the listing of two other city-owned properties in the last year and a half – the former Y lot and the development rights to the top of the Library Lane parking garage.

Two other land acquisition item on the agenda would put the city on the purchasing end. A resolution sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether it is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

And a resolution sponsored by Margie Teall (Ward 4) would authorize the purchase of the property at 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC). Cost of the purchase would be $195,000, to be reimbursed to the city by AAHC. The AAHC is undertaking reconstruction of its properties adjoining this parcel, and this acquisition would facilitate that.

The July 21 meeting is the council’s last one before the Tuesday, Aug. 5 primary elections. The meeting that week is shifted from Monday to Thursday, and will fall on Aug. 7.

Physical infrastructure on the agenda includes a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Another road reconstruction project on the agenda is a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter.

A second agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Final approval of a special assessment for an additional sidewalk construction project also appears on the agenda. The sidewalk construction will be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14.

On July 21 the council will also be asked to approve a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program. That includes the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue.

Six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant to be purchased from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682 is another agenda item.

With respect to legal infrastructure, a federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election. The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements, would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

Several items related to development also appear on the council’s July 21 agenda. The council will consider a site plan for 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center.

The council will also consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett. The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage.

For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council will consider giving initial approval at its July 21 meeting to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district).

Not tied to any particular project on the July 21 agenda is final consideration by the council of a change to downtown zoning. The item is confined to a 1.1-acre parcel at 425 S. Main St. at the southeast corner of William and Main. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) at its June 16 meeting that followed a complex series of votes. At the same meeting, the council also gave initial approval to a change to the overlay character district for the parcel, after amending the height limit – from 100 feet to 60 feet. Zoning changes require two votes by the council, taken at separate meetings, because they are changes to the city’s ordinances.

Another ordinance change on the July 21 agenda – which is getting final consideration by the council – is one that clarifies the composition and appointment process for the city’s environmental commission. Related thematically to that item is a resolution that clarifies the composition of the city’s commission on disability issues.

The consent agenda for July 21 includes an item that indicates the approach of fall – approval of the change to traffic patterns for the Aug. 27-29 University of Michigan student move-in.

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

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s July 21 agenda includes several items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Springwater Street Reconstruction

The council will consider a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Funding for the project will be drawn from the street millage fund ($883,316), stormwater fund ($903,065), and drinking water funds ($489,574) for a total project cost of $2,275,955.

Funding from the drinking water and stormwater funds is based on the fact that the project includes replacing the existing water main and performing stormwater system improvements – including construction of sand filters within the Butternut Street and Nordman Avenue right-of-way. Construction is expected to start in August 2014 with completion expected this fall.

Physical Infrastructure: Stone School Road

The council will consider a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter

A new 5-foot wide, concrete sidewalk will be constructed on the west side of the roadway from Pheasant Run Circle to Ellsworth Road. Included in the project is the replacement of the existing 16-inch water main in Stone School Road. The water main has broken several times. A short segment of 8-inch sanitary sewer is included in the project. Bioswales and “in-line” stormwater detention will be included. An existing jack-arch culvert under Old Stone School Road along Malletts Creek will be removed, in order to improve creek hydraulics, habitat and stormwater quality. New street lights along Stone School Road will also be installed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church, Barton

The council will consider an agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, that will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Here’s how the funding breaks down:

Project Funding
               Scio Church    Barton       TOTAL
Federal Share     $164,000   $36,000    $200,000
Local Share        199,474    42,626     242,100
Spcl Assess          1,626     1,980       3,606            

TOTAL             $365,100   $80,606    $445,706

-

Infrastucture: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

The council will consider giving final approval of the assessment roll for the construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail, after a public hearing. The council voted to set the public hearing for the July 21 meeting on June 6, 2014. The cost that will be assessed to adjoining property owners is $72,218.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14. The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s part of the city’s Complete Streets program.

In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

Infrastructure: Bridge Inspections

The council will consider approval of a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program.

The city is required by federal law to inspect its bridges every two years. The city’s approach is to inspect about half of its bridges each year in order to even out the cost.

Bridges to be inspected include the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue, which is considered a bridge.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the following bridges will be inspected in 2014: Island Drive over the Traver Creek; Maiden Lane over the Huron River; Fuller Road (eastbound and westbound) over the Huron River; Huron Parkway over the Huron River, Norfolk Southern Railroad and Geddes Avenue; and Wastewater Treatment Plant Drive over the Huron River.

And in 2015, the following bridges will be inspected: Broadway over the Huron River; Broadway over Depot Street and the Norfolk Southern Railroad; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over S. State Street; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks; Fuller Road over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; East Medical Center Drive over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; Eisenhower Parkway over the Ann Arbor Railroad; the portion of the Fifth Avenue parking structure under South Fifth Avenue; and the University of Michigan tunnel under Huron Parkway.

Funding will come from the major street fund ($133,500) and the sewage disposal fund ($2,500). The University of Michigan and the DDA will reimburse the city for about $6,600 for inspections related to facilities they maintain.

Infrastructure: Wastewater Pumps

Six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant to be purchased from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682 also appear on the council’s July 21 agenda.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the city’s wastewater treatment plant has six 150-horsepower secondary effluent pumps that are about 35 years old. When the plant is operating in typical mode, two of the six pumps are in continuous operation. Occasionally, when the Huron River is at high levels, additional pumps are used to pump secondary effluent simultaneously to the sand filters and the river.

Over the past three years, three of the pumps have failed. One of the pumps was irreparable, and the other two pumps were repaired but are not reliable for long-term use. The remaining three pumps are fully functional, but in a worn condition.

Failure of the secondary effluent pumps was unforeseen, according to the staff memo, so the cost of their replacement was not included in the design of the Facilities Renovations Project (FRP) currently under construction at the wastewater treatment plant. The city’s attempt to include replacement of the pumps in the FRP and to receive funding through the state’s revolving fund loan program was rejected by the Michigan Depart. of Environmental Quality, according to the staff memo.

Legal Infrastructure

A federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. That ruling was based on early 1970s decisions that struck down Ann Arbor’s city charter eligibility requirements as unconstitutional. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

For example, a potential candidate for the city council would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. Updated July 18: The Legistar version of the resolution does not reflect the struck-through text and is confusing to read. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has provided a text of the correct draft to media outlets: [.pdf of July 18, 2014 charter amendment resolution text]

Updated July 19 at 11:09 p.m.: City clerk Jackie Beaudry edited the Legistar entry to reflect the intended text accurately: [link]

On  the afternoon of Friday, July 18, the city attorney’s office was working with the state attorney general’s office on the wording of the charter amendment and the ballot proposal. The proposal has been divided into two questions – one focused on elective officers, and the other dealing with appointive officers.

According to information provided on the Michigan Secretary of State’s website, confirmed by the Washtenaw County clerk’s office, the council would have until Aug. 12, 2014 to meet the deadline for placing a question on the ballot. Before the deadline, the council has one additional meeting after July 21 – on Aug. 7.

So it would be an option for the council to postpone consideration of this amendment at their July 21 meeting.

Land Sale

Appearing on the July 21 agenda is an item sponsored by Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje with the title “Resolution to List for Sale 415 W. Washington and Appropriate Funds for Allen Creek Greenway Master Plan.” As of mid-day Friday, July 18, no text or memo was included in the resolution. But Warpehoski responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle by saying that the resolution might be pulled, depending on the outcome of a meeting of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy on July 18. [The item has since been updated with text. The amount to be allocated for the master planning effort is $250,000]

Updated July 19: Warpehoski has announced he will be withdrawing the resolution. For a detailed explanation, see the comment below. 

The city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel is highlighted in yellow.

To complete a greenway master plan, the informal ballpark estimate from city staff for cost and timeframe, according to Warpehoski, is $150,000 to $200,000 and from 18 to 24 months. The resolution would likely stipulate that the cost of the master plan work would be reimbursed to the general fund from the net proceeds of the land sale.

Warpehoski indicated that one reason a master plan for the greenway is important is that the lack of such a plan hurt the city’s application for funding from the state of Michigan to support renovations to the 721 N. Main property. The city did not receive the state grant after applying for it in early 2013.

In addition, Warpehoski wrote, there’s an opportunity to partner with the University of Michigan and a class taught by Larissa Larsen, a professor of urban and regional planning and natural resources. Such a partnership would reduce costs of the planning effort.

The idea of funding work on a master plan for the Allen Creek greenway was discussed most recently at the June 16, 2014 council meeting, in the context of a resolution that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had brought forward that would have jump-started an effort to redesign Liberty Plaza at the corner of Division and Liberty streets. Taylor’s resolution would have appropriated $23,577 for the work, which was to have included input from a variety of stakeholders, including adjacent property owners.

That resolution was ultimately referred by the council to the park advisory commission (PAC). At PAC’s July 15 meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to advocate for an integrated approach to the “library block,” which includes Liberty Plaza. But PAC postponed discussion related to Liberty Plaza and the council resolution, as only five of nine voting members were present. Taylor is an ex officio non-voting member of PAC, but had not discussed the resolution at previous PAC meetings. He attended PAC’s July 15 meeting.

The June 16 council meeting discussion featured the following exchange between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Hieftje, recorded in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting:

10:15 p.m. Kunselman asks if this means that Liberty Plaza would jump ahead of developing a master plan for the Allen Creek Greenway. Hieftje says that if Kunselman can be a bit patient, there will be a master plan proposed soon.

10:18 p.m. Hieftje says that an Allen Creek Greenway master plan might be prepared before the end of the budget year. Kunselman asks if there’d been any council direction to start any of the activity that Hieftje has described. Yes, Hieftje says, there was a resolution involving 415 W. Washington. Kunselman reiterates the fact that staff has not been directed specifically to develop a greenway master plan. He’s reiterating the lack of resources for park planning. There are 157 parks in the city and he wonders why Liberty Plaza has become the most important one. Kunselman will support the referral to PAC.

If the council directs the 415 W. Washington property to be listed for sale, it would be the third downtown city-owned property to be listed for sale in the last year and a half. The council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a broker for the old Y lot at Fifth and William at its March 4, 2013 meeting. And on Nov. 18, 2013, the council authorized the sale of the lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

And the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting to confirm its earlier decision to direct the city administrator to list the development rights for the top of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. On July 1, city administrator Steve Powers notified the council that he’d selected CBRE to market and broker the sale of the development rights.

The 415 W. Washington parcel is currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system, which has averaged about $18,000 in revenue per month, or about $216,000 a year over the last two years. The parcel also includes several buildings that previously served as the road commission facility and the city maintenance yard. A study commissioned by the city of the property concluded that the cost of stabilizing and renovating all of the buildings could be as high as $6 million. [.pdf of Aug. 29, 2013 report] That study came after the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios had stepped forward with an interest in the possible renovation and reuse of the building as artist studio space. For additional background on that, see “City Council Parcels Out Tasks: Open Space.”

Ultimately the city moved toward demolishing the buildings. The city administrator’s proposed FY 2015 budget included $300,000 for the demolition of the buildings, but the council amended out that allocation during its deliberations on May 19, 2014:

1:40 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition. This proposal will simply eliminate general fund support for demolition of the city-owned buildings at 415 W. Washington. [Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin]

1:54 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman, Taylor and Warpehoski.

Two pieces of land immediately adjacent to 415 W. Washington have been in the news recently. At their July 1, 2014 meeting, city planning commissioners approved The Mark condo project for the parcel on Liberty Street where a car wash is currently located. The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units.

And at the July 2, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, it was announced that the final site recommendation for a downtown stop for the WALLY rail line is for the east side of the railroad tracks between Liberty and Washington streets – opposite of where the former city maintenance yard was located at 415 W. Washington. It was reported at that meeting that it would not be a full station. Rather, it would be a platform with canopies and a ramp to Washington Street to the north and a sidewalk connection to the south onto Liberty. The stop would be built entirely within the railroad right-of-way – and there would be no taking of public or private property. The site would be contingent on the WALLY project moving forward.

Land Purchase: Burton Commons

Appearing on the July 21 agenda is a resolution for the city to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether the land is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

Animated .gif of the Burton Commons property showing the demolition of single-family homes on the parcels – from aerial images in the Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system.

The land is immediately adjacent to US-23 to the east and Sylvan Park to the north. A residential neighborhood lies to the west of the land.

The resolution is sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who had told his council colleagues at their June 2, 2014 meeting that he’d be bringing forward such a resolution. The idea would be to use open space millage money to purchase the land. The resolution states that the estimated fair market value, according to the city assessor, is $628,800.

One-third of the open space millage proceeds are supposed to be allocated to acquisition of land within the city limits. At the June 2 meeting, Kunselman argued for the purchase based on the positive impact on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north.

The purchase of the land would also be consistent with a sentiment Kunselman expressed at a recent mayoral candidate forum – that there was resistance in Ward 3, which he represents, to “dumping and piling on” affordable housing in that ward.

Kunselman is a candidate for mayor in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, along with three other councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The July 21 council meeting is the last one before the Aug. 5 election. That week the meeting is shifted to Thursday from Monday, due to the Tuesday election.

Land Purchase: 3401 Platt Road

On the July 21 agenda is an item that would authorize the city to purchase the parcel at 3401 Platt Road.

Purchase of the blue-highlighted parcel could be authorized by the city council at its July 21 meeting.

The parcel is adjacent to Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) properties that AAHC is planning to reconstruct.

Four units currently stand at the location, but AAHC has previously announced plans to demolish those structures and replace them with 32 units of housing – a net gain of 28 units.

Now, however, the AAHC is interested in expanding that project, using the additional adjacent property. At the planning commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that because the AAHC has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. This is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing.

Earlier this year, at its April 21, 2014 meeting, council gave several approvals  in connection with the AAHC renovations. The acquisition of the additional parcel will help the AAHC with its plans for the property.

Three of the existing four houses are in the floodway, and the water table is higher than the basements. When it rains, the properties flood. So the plan is to tear down the existing buildings, and construct new housing further north on the same site, on land that’s currently vacant.

The AAHC will be reimbursing the city for the $195,00 cost of the 1.17-acre property.

But it is the city that must execute the transaction, under Ann Arbor City Code, Chapter 8, Section 1:209(3):

All deeds, mortgages, contracts, leases, purchases, or other agreements regarding real property which is or may be put under the control of the housing commission, including agreements to acquire or dispose of real property, shall be approved and executed in the name of the City of Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor City Council may, by resolution, decide to convey or assign to the housing commission any rights of the city to a particular property owned by the City of Ann Arbor which is under the control of the housing commission and such resolution shall authorize the City Administrator, Mayor and Clerk to take all action necessary to effect such conveyance or assignment.

Development

On the council’s July 21 agenda are several items related to development.

Development: Jackson Drive-Thru

The council will consider approval of a site plan for a new drive-thru restaurant on Jackson Avenue – near the I-94 interchange. The planning commission recommended approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of 2625 Jackson Ave.

The site is located at 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center. The gas pump islands and canopy will be removed. The total project would cost an estimated $400,000. [.pdf of staff memo]

The restaurant’s single lane drive-thru would primarily be accessed from a proposed curbcut on Jackson Ave., with an exit through the Westgate Shopping Center Jackson Ave. entrance. An existing curbcut off Jackson to the east would be closed. The new curbcut has been approved by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and would prevent left turns onto Jackson. The drive-thru lane provides stacking for up to four vehicles and would be screened to the north by the proposed building.

In a separate vote at their June 17 meeting, commissioners granted a special exception use for this project, which does not require additional city council approval. This was the first drive-thru proposal that has come through the city’s approval process since the city council approved changes to the Chapter 55 zoning ordinance that regulates drive-thrus. That approval came at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

Development: Dusty’s Collision

The council will consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett.

Aerial view of Dusty Collision site.

The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. A previous building at that location was torn down in 2013. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage. The project is estimated to cost $2 million.

The site will include 106 spaces of exterior parking, including 24 spaces that will be deferred until needed, according to the staff memo. One bicycle hoop – for 2 bike parking spaces – will be located near the front of the building.

The planning commission’s recommendation for approval, made at its June 3, 2014 meeting, was contingent on the owner – Whitney’s Collision West of Ann Arbor – providing one footing drain disconnect before the city issues a certificate of occupancy. [.pdf of staff memo]

Development: State Street Village

For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council will consider giving initial approval at its July 21 meeting to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district).

A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of a site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project. It’s a $10 million project put forward by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. at 2221-2223 S. State St. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

The front part of the site is currently a surface parking lot, and is zoned O (office). The rear parcel – 4.5 acres – is vacant, and zoned M1 (limited industrial). Residential developments are permitted in office-zoned areas. [.pdf of staff report]

The development will include 114 parking spaces in the rear of the site and 13 spaces for the front. Another 22 spaces in the surface parking lot will be shared by the existing office building just south of the site.

In addition, 44 covered bicycle spaces and 8 enclosed bicycle spaces will be provided near the entrances of the apartment buildings and 2 hoops will be placed near the entrance of the rental office building.

Instead of making a $48,360 requested donation to the city for parks, McKinley has proposed two 8×10-foot grilling patios with picnic tables and grills.

According to the staff memo, the footing drains of 18 homes, or flow equivalent to 71.91 gallons per minute, will need to be disconnected from the city’s sanitary sewer system to mitigate flow from this proposed development.

Only the initial consideration of the rezoning issue will be before the council on July 21. The site plan approval will be considered at a future meeting, likely at the same meeting when the council gives final consideration to the rezoning.

Development: Downtown Zoning

The council will consider giving final approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Initial approval was given to rezoning from D1 to D2, with an amended height limit – of 60 feet. The original height limit in the ordinance revision considered by the council was 100 feet.

Initial approval by the council came at its June 16, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

The council’s initial approval came only after two votes on each of the parts of the zoning, as councilmembers had first decided to refer the height limit issue back to the planning commission, but ultimately decided to amend the height limit to 60 feet. A summary of the deliberations is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting.

By way of background, currently a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Considered separately by the council on July 21 will be final votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to specify the height limit at 60 feet, not the 100 feet that the planning commission had recommended. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

Upper-story setbacks, specified in the character district overlay along with the height limits, were specified based on the 100-foot limit. So the planning staff will likely present the council with some revised language on the setbacks, in order to be consistent with the amended 60-foot limit.

The planning commission recommended both the zoning changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development.

The item affecting 425 S. Main is just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

The current D1 zoning for 425 S. Main allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Board and Commissions

Two commissions are the topic of separate council agenda items: the environmental commission; and the commission on disability issues.

Boards and Commission: Environmental

The council will give final consideration to an amendment to the city ordinance establishing the environmental commission (EC). Initial approval was given at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting.

The ordinance change relates in part to the way that nominations to the EC are made. The EC is one of the few boards or commissions in the city for which the mayor does not make nominations. The more familiar procedure – for most boards and commissions – includes a mayoral nomination at one council meeting, followed by the confirmation vote of the council at a subsequent meeting.

In the past, the council has mimicked this procedure for the EC by having some councilmember put a resolution on the agenda appointing a member to the EC, and then postponing the resolution until the next meeting. The ordinance revisions include clarification that the nominations put forward by the council as a body to the EC are to be made by the two councilmembers who serve as the council’s representatives to the EC.

Besides two slots for council representatives, the EC includes positions for members of the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission. The ordinance revision to be given final consideration on July 21 makes clear that those groups make their appointments to the EC without further city council approval. This specific revision comes after the planning commission had selected Kirk Westphal from its membership to serve on the EC earlier this year. Some councilmembers voted against his confirmation, when the council was asked to confirm his selection two months ago. For background on that vote, see “Hutton, Westphal Reappointed to EC.”

The staff memo summarizes the changes to the ordinance regulating appointments to boards and commissions as follows:

• clarifies that the councilmembers currently serving on the environmental commission nominate persons for “at-large” appointments, which are then approved by council resolution;
• clarifies that the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission each designate a representative to the environmental commission without council approval and for a one-year term;
• clarifies that the 3-year terms should be equally staggered;
• removes references to the Leslie Science Center Advisory Board, which no longer exists;
• requires the city administrator or the designated support staff of the environmental commission to notify council of vacancies – previously this was delegated to the clerk’s office, which does not always have immediate knowledge of vacancies;
• contains a few minor, non-substantive corrections and clarifications.

Mark Clevey’s name had been scheduled to be put before the council on July 7 to be confirmed as a member of the EC, but was withdrawn – because he is the selection by the energy commission to represent the energy commission on the EC. Once enacted, the energy commission appointment to EC (like that of other boards and commissions to the EC) will be for one year and will not need city council approval.

Boards and Commission: Disabilities

The council will consider a resolution that clarifies the membership on the city’s commission on disabilities. The clarification concerns the city council representative, who will be appointed for a one-year term annually. Currently the council’s representative is Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

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

This graphic was poached from a column written for The Chronicle last year by former city attorney Bruce Laidlaw – advocating for non-partisan elections. Laidlaw’s argument was based in part on the idea that it reduces the potential for lame ducks. It might also encourage more competition and participation. (Image links to Laidlaw’s column.)

How bad is it? The August 2012 Democratic primary featured contested races in four of the city’s five wards – with voter turnout ranging from a high of 13.9% in Ward 5 to a low of 8.2% in Ward 1.

In Wards 1 and 4, the winner received less than 1,000 votes. That compared to a citywide turnout of 56.2% in the November 2012 mayor’s race.

What about the Republican primary? If you’re not familiar with Ann Arbor politics, that’s a punch line.

Only in Ward 5 did voters have a choice of city council candidates in November 2012 – Republican Stuart Berry or Democrat Chuck Warpehoski. And 62% of the ward’s voters turned out to choose Warpehoski – by a wide margin. In the other wards, the decision had already been made – in August, by fewer than 10% of registered voters in those wards. In Ward 3, no candidate stepped forward as an alternative to incumbent Democrat Christopher Taylor, in either the primary or the general election.

While Anglin recently lamented the lack of participation in the Democratic primary, I don’t think that exhorting residents to vote on Aug. 6 is likely to bump participation to anywhere near the level we might see in November. So the decisions about who represents Ann Arbor residents on the city council will likely again this year be made when less of the electorate will head to the polls – in August, not November.

But Ward 2 will be a definite exception. That’s because voters will choose between two formidable candidates in November: Democrat Kirk Westphal (unopposed in the primary) and incumbent Jane Lumm, who’s indicated she’ll again be campaigning as an independent. They might be joined by independent Conrad Brown, if he submits enough signatures by the August deadline.  Still, in Ward 2, there’s no question the choice will be made in November, not August.

In Wards 1, 3 and 4, other independent candidates affiliated with a University of Michigan student group calling itself the Mixed Use Party have taken out petitions. None have yet filed the required signatures. But to the extent they prove to be serious candidates, voters in those wards might also feel they were offered a legitimate choice in November.

But when three legitimate candidates take out petitions, why are we forcing a selection between just two of them – precisely at a time of year when few voters turn up at the polls to make that selection?

Take Ward 3 as an example. Julie Grand, current chair of the city’s park advisory commission, and incumbent Democrat Stephen Kunselman are solid choices. They’ll be offered to voters in August. Only one will advance to the November general election. And as voters get to know him, independent Sam DeVarti – if he files his nominating petitions – could also prove to be another solid choice in November.

If they’re all three credible candidates, I think a more rational approach to an August primary would be to use that initial election to winnow the field of all three (or more) candidates down to two. That way the important choice, between the two finalists, would come in November, when more voters participate. Or all the candidates could be offered to voters in November, with no primary election at all.

It’s fairly common now for a city council election to draw only two candidates, both Democrats, who compete in August. If there’s no other candidate in the race at all, it would be more rational to offer those same two candidates to voters in November, when many more voters participate.

That kind of rational approach to candidate choice would be possible if Ann Arbor city council elections were non-partisan.

But under the city charter, Ann Arbor city council elections are conducted on a partisan basis.

Last year around this time, former city attorney Bruce Laidlaw wrote two op-eds for The Chronicle, the first explaining the historical background for Ann Arbor’s partisan system, and the second making a case for changing the city charter to provide for non-partisan elections.

There seems to be at least some interest this year in moving the idea forward. One indication came in a response to a recent Ward 2 resident satisfaction survey. An open-ended question asked respondents to identify the one issue that councilmembers should focus on in the next six months. Among the question’s many responses was this one: “Implement a non-partisan election process for city council and mayor.”

A question about non-partisan elections also was posed this week to Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje, who spoke at a Rotary Club lunch.

At the June 12 Ann Arbor Rotary Club meeting – held at the Michigan Union – Steve Dobson asked Hieftje for his thoughts on non-partisan elections. Dobson, who served as treasurer of councilmember Jane Lumm’s 2011 campaign, noted that Ann Arbor is one of only three cities in the state that hold partisan city council elections. [The other two cities are Ypsilanti and Ionia.]

Most Michigan cities either originally adopted a non-partisan system or have chosen to convert, Dobson said. He asked Hieftje why non-partisan elections haven’t gotten any traction in Ann Arbor, and he wondered what Hieftje personally felt is the case for and against that approach.

Hieftje’s response:

A few [cities] have switched from partisan to non-partisan, but most of that was put into their charters. It was in Ann Arbor’s charter from the very beginning, and it is an interesting issue and one that doesn’t get discussed a whole lot.

I can give you one side that I heard at a dinner party a few weeks ago. Of course, these were mostly Democrats and one of them had to say, ‘Well, they never worried about that for the hundred years before the mid-1990s when it was totally governed by Republicans.’ But it’s an interesting issue.

It would require a change of the charter, and a vote of the people. That would have to get on the ballot and that could require close to 10,000 signatures – or it’s something the city council could put on the ballot. I don’t know that that’ll happen. I’m not sure it would pass in the city, what the electorate would have to say about that. So those are only guesses. It’s certainly a conversation that can continue.

I would not mind at all running for office in a non-partisan environment. I think the other side of the argument that you asked me to talk about is some people really respect those labels. If they’re not following issues closely, they can tell something about that candidate from their party label – although sometimes you wonder that the party label doesn’t work anymore. So it’s hard to tell. It’s an issue with some different sides and a robust conversation perhaps could be had.

In resuscitating the issue this year, I’m mindful that there’s only about a two-month window of opportunity for the city council to act to place a ballot question before voters in November. By late August, a council decision will need to be made on that.

As other issues compete for the time and attention of councilmembers, it’s important to give them a nudge – if you think we’d benefit from a chance to decide for ourselves to switch to non-partisan elections. Contact information for city councilmembers is on the city’s website.

Chronicle publisher Mary Morgan contributed to this column. 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’ve already elected to support us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too! 

The resolution received four votes of support – from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who had co-sponsored the original resolution, did not vote for it. So the vote on the 11-member body was 4-7.

The version of the charter amendment considered by the council on July 16 was [added language in italics]: “The city shall not sell, lease, or contract for any non-park or non-recreational long-term use, without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park, or land in the city acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof. For purposes of this subsection long-term shall be defined as a period greater than 5 years.”

Part of the argument for the postponement by the council at that July 16 meeting was a desire by some councilmembers to receive input from the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) on the proposed charter amendment, before taking a vote. And on Aug. 8, 2012 PAC met to deliberate on the resolution, but ultimately voted unanimously not to support placing the charter amendment before voters.

Concerns cited by PAC members in declining to recommend their support of the resolution included the idea that the language of the proposed amendment introduced a “gray area,” and possible unintended consequences. They also had questions about who the arbiter would be for the meaning of “non-park” and “non-recreational.” Some commissioners also had concerns about the public process that had been used thus far to evaluate the proposed charter amendment.

At the council’s Aug. 9 meeting, an alternate version was also discussed, which was put forward by one of the three sponsors of the original resolution, Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Briere’s version departs from the syntactic pattern of the existing charter section, which separates the verb “sell” from its direct object “park” with a 23-word clause. The other two co-sponsors were Lumm and Anglin.

Briere’s proposed amendment took the approach of enumerating the actions that trigger a popular referendum: “The city shall not, without the approval by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, do any or all of the following with any city park or land in the city acquired for a park or cemetery or with any part thereof: (1) sell any such land; (2) lease, license or contract for any non-park or non-recreational use any such land for a period longer than 5 years; (3) contract for the operation of any such land for non-park or non-recreational use for a period longer than 5 years; (4) contract for the construction of any building on any such land, except as is customarily incidental to the principal use and enjoyment of such land.”

Briere’s amendment failed with support from only one other councilmember – Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Councilmembers voting against the main resolution cited the same concerns that had been mentioned at the PAC meeting, as well as the function of a representative democracy and a desire not to tie the hands of future councils. Kunselman, who voted for the resolution, called the charter amendment a way to guard against representative democracy “gone awry” that would “protect our parks from ourselves.”

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

The charter amendment would require that certain long-term leasing arrangements on city parkland for non-park and non-recreational use be subject to a voter referendum. In 2008, voters had already approved a charter amendment that subjects any sale of parkland to a popular vote. The resolution will be considered on Aug. 9 by the city council at a rare Thursday council meeting, due to the primary election that fell on Tuesday, the day following the council’s scheduled regular meeting. The council had postponed the proposed charter amendment item from its July 16, 2012 meeting.

The vote by the park advisory commission (PAC) came after extensive public commentary – some for and some against – and remarks delivered to PAC by councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Five councilmembers were thus present at the PAC meeting – including the two city council ex officio non-voting members of PAC, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), as well as Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who sat in the audience but did not address PAC.

Concerns cited by PAC members in declining to recommend their support of the resolution to place the question on the ballot included the idea that the language of the proposed amendment introduced a “gray area,” and possible unintended consequences. They also had questions about who the arbiter would be for the meaning of “non-park” and “non-recreational.” Some commissioners also had concerns about the public process that had been used thus far to evaluate the proposed charter amendment.

The Thursday meeting custom for election-day weeks appears to be traceable to the city charter and the council’s own rules – but a close reading of those documents indicates that the council should probably be convening a regular meeting on Monday, not Thursday.

And that’s ironic – because the importance of close reading, with attention to details of possible new charter language, could actually be a theme of Thursday’s meeting agenda.

Most prominently, the council’s deliberations could include a discussion of the exact language for a proposed charter amendment on parkland protections, which the council might choose to place on the Nov. 6 ballot. As considered at the council’s previous meeting, on July 16, 2012, the possible charter amendment would require that certain long-term leasing arrangements on city parkland be subject to a voter referendum. In 2008, voters had already approved a charter amendment that subjects any sale of parkland to a popular vote.

On July 16, the council had postponed action on the proposed ballot resolution until its Aug. 9 meeting. In arguing for postponement, some councilmembers cited a desire to have the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) weigh in on the proposed amendment. PAC will convene a meeting on Aug. 8 to consider the matter, and to make a recommendation to the city council.

Another reason given for postponement was the need to examine more closely the meaning and practical significance of the charter amendment language. And in the interim, councilmembers and staff have been mulling additional contractual arrangements on parkland – which could be explicitly added to the charter amendment’s text. Among those arrangements would be any contracts for construction of buildings on parkland that are not “customarily incidental to the principal use and enjoyment of such land.”

If the council chooses to postpone the resolution again, it could vote at its Aug. 20 meeting to place the parks charter amendment on the Nov. 6 ballot, and still meet the statutory deadline for certifying ballot language to the county clerk.

I’ll predict that the council postpones the resolution again, until Aug. 20. And I don’t think that would be an unreasonable outcome for the Aug. 9 meeting. Compared to the annual scheduling of regular city council meetings, the parkland charter amendment deals with topics that are far more complex. And it’s just a way bigger deal.

If the language in the council rules for scheduling meetings can be muddled – enough so that the council has not been interpreting the rule as written – then it’s easy to imagine that the parkland charter amendment could easily be muddled, too. So I think the wording of a charter amendment on parkland deserves the kind of discussion by councilmembers and vetting by the public that would result from robust deliberations on Aug. 9, followed by a vote on Aug. 20.

Spoiler alert: If you don’t want to know the result of the city council’s deliberations on Aug. 9, don’t tune in to CTN Channel 16 and don’t watch it stream live over the Internet on Thursday, starting at 7 p.m. Just watch the Olympics on NBC instead. If you do choose to view the live council proceedings, or attend in person, please note that no medals will be awarded – despite the intense all-around competition in verbal gymnastics.

After the jump, I lay out what the city charter and the council rules have to say about city council regular meeting times. 

Meeting Calendar

Toward the end of each year, the city council votes on a resolution that establishes its regular meeting schedule for the next calendar year. Last year that vote took place at the council’s Dec. 5, 2011 meeting.

That schedule provided for meetings on Aug. 9 and Nov. 8, instead of the Aug. 6 and Nov. 5 dates that would be expected, given the regular pattern – that council meetings are held on the first (and third) Monday of the month.

City Charter Requirements

The city charter does not prescribe that the meetings be held on Monday or any other day. But it does require at least two meetings a month, and it sets forth a remedy, in case a regular meeting happens to fall on a holiday. That remedy is this: Hold the meeting on the next “secular day,” unless the holiday is an election day. If the holiday – on which the regular meeting date falls – is an election day, then the charter prescribes that the council’s meeting would be held on the following Thursday.

Meetings of the Council
SECTION 4.4.
(a) The Council shall fix the time and place of its regular meetings and shall hold at least two regular meetings in each month. If any day prescribed for a regular meeting of the Council is a holiday, such regular meeting shall be held at the same time and place on the next secular day, except that when such holiday is an election day, the meeting shall be held on the following Thursday. [Ann Arbor City Charter]

Just to illustrate, based on the Ann Arbor city charter it would be possible for a city council to set a schedule of regular meetings where the pattern is this: Hold city council meetings on the first and third Tuesday of the month. If that were the pattern, then the charter prescribes two different ways of dealing with regular Tuesday meetings scheduled for holidays. If July 4 falls on a Tuesday, then the Tuesday meeting should be held one day later, on Wednesday, July 5. But for a regular meeting that fell on election day, the charter would  prescribe that the meeting be held two days later, on a Thursday.

There’s no charter requirement that has the impact of moving a regular Monday meeting to a Thursday during the week of an election. Nor is there a charter provision allowing for such a change after the regular meeting times have been fixed.

Council Rule Requirements

So what does the set of formal city council rules have to say about meeting times? It’s the council rules (not the city charter) that prescribe first and third Mondays as the regular meeting time. And the rule appears intended to mimic exactly the wording of the city charter – because it includes a provision about what to do in the event that an election day is involved [emphasis added]:

RULE 1 – Time of Council Meetings.
Regular meetings of the Ann Arbor city council shall be held on the first and third Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m., in the council chamber at city hall. When the date for a regular council meeting falls on a holiday the meeting shall be held the next secular day (Tuesday), except during an election day, when it will be held on Thursday of that week. [Council Rules]

The wording that I highlighted is, I think, an attempt to make the council rule parallel to the city charter – without due attention to the practical effect and likely intent of the charter requirement. Further, as its written the council rule cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean what the council has for several years taken it to mean – that during an election-day week, a regular Monday meeting will move to the following Thursday.

So what is the practical effect of the charter requirement? It ensures that when a regular council meeting falls on an election day, then that meeting gets moved two days later, to a Thursday. So for the framers of the city charter, two factors were apparently important: (1) meetings shouldn’t be held on election day; and (2) meetings shouldn’t be held the day immediately following election day. It’s (2) that distinguishes election days from other holidays, which can have meetings immediately following them. The framers of the charter did not appear to mind if a meeting was held the day immediately before an election.

But a regular Monday meeting regime, as stated in the council rule, would never result in a regular meeting falling on election day – because election day is always on a Tuesday. So the charter itself doesn’t allow or require shifting a regular Monday meeting to a Thursday when it is followed by an election day.

What about the council’s rule – does it require or allow shifting a regular Monday meeting to a Thursday, if it’s followed by a Tuesday election day? Well, no.

That’s because the logical condition set forth in the rule – which must be met before applying any of the changes in regular meeting scheduling – is not, in fact, met. Take Aug. 6 as an example. That’s the date of the regular meeting that would result from the first-and-third-Monday pattern in the first part of the rule. The condition is this: “When the date for a regular council meeting falls on a holiday…” But Aug. 6 is not a holiday. So for evaluating  the regular Monday meeting date of Aug. 6, we can safely ignore everything that follows that unmet condition.

When would the italicized portion of the council rule apply? Theoretically, it would apply whenever there is a Monday holiday immediately preceding a Tuesday election day. Then, the “when” condition would be met, and the meeting would, by rights, be shifted to the next day, Tuesday – but the “except” clause would push that meeting to Thursday.

Language Reflecting Actual Practice

It’s possible that what the council rule’s authors were really trying to achieve was a prescription for what’s become the actual custom and practice – a provision that for election-day weeks, the meeting would always be shifted from Monday to Thursday. The somewhat odd phrasing “during an election day” is a clue that perhaps the work of authorship was left in an unfinished state. Here’s some wording that would reflect the current custom and practice:

RULE 1 – Time of Council Meetings.
Regular meetings of the Ann Arbor city council shall be held on the first and third Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m., in the council chamber at city hall. When the date for a regular council meeting falls on a holiday the meeting shall be held the next secular day. When the date for a regular council meeting falls during an election-day week, the council meeting will be held on Thursday of that week.

Why did I just invest 2,000 words in the arcana of the city council meeting schedule?

My point is this: If it’s a challenge to craft clear language for setting regular meeting dates, then for crying out loud, it’s an even greater challenge to craft clear language that accurately captures citizens’ expectations for public participation in decisions about parkland.

So I will not mind if the council takes the Aug. 9 meeting just to thrash through alternatives to conditions and wording of the proposed parkland charter amendment – and establishes as a goal for that meeting to settle on draft language that citizens can study between then and Aug. 20.

That’s time enough for citizens to read it, understand it, and weigh in with their elected representatives for or against placing the question on the ballot.

By Aug. 20, it’s reasonable to expect a council vote on the resolution.

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!

Councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asks to be called on during the July 16 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The council considered a resolution that would have placed a question on the Nov. 6 ballot about a charter amendment affecting city parkland. The amendment would require a voter referendum not just for the sale of parkland, but also for leases or other contracts that have a practical effect similar to a sale.

The majority of the council wanted to allow time for the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) to weigh in before taking council action. To facilitate that timeline, PAC is convening a special meeting on Aug. 8 to consider the matter. The council’s postponement was until Aug. 9 – its next regularly scheduled meeting. That’s a Thursday instead of the usual Monday, pushed back because of the Aug. 7 primary election.

Some supporters of the possible amendment had hoped to bring the matter to a council vote before the August primary, because they wanted incumbent council candidates to be judged by the electorate based on their vote on the parkland ballot question. That led Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who is not seeking re-election to a third term, to call the resolution on the ballot question a “poorly disguised political stunt.”

Other park-related items on the agenda included approval of a $89,560 contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the design and construction oversight of a skatepark to be built in the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The council also gave initial approval to the rezoning of two parcels recently acquired by the city for expansion of the Bluffs Nature Area at 1099 N. Main St., north of Sunset Road. On final approval, both parcels will receive the PL (public land) zoning designation. The city expects the additional land to make the entrance to the nature area more accessible.

The Leslie Science and Nature Center will get $115,309 worth of improvements to create accessible pathways at the city-owned site – the council approved a contract with JB Contractors Inc. for that work. The center is operated by a separate independent nonprofit on land and buildings that are owned and maintained by the city of Ann Arbor.

The possibility of a mixed-use park and art center at the city-owned 415 W. Washington property was given a chance to move forward, with the council’s authorization of $50,000 in general fund money to pay for physical surveys of the building on the property. The building, which would potentially house a space for working artists, would need environmental, hazardous materials and topographic surveys done, even if a decision were ultimately made to demolish the building.

Open space outside the city got a boost from the council’s acceptance of $396,900 in federal funds for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on properties in Webster and Superior townships. The federal funds will be matched with city funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage, which supports the city’s greenbelt program.

The wetlands at Plymouth Parkway Park that were impacted by last year’s railroad embankment washout along Plymouth Road will be restored through a $97,687 contract with Fonson Inc. authorized by the council. The funds will come from the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Only tangentially related to parks was the council’s approval of the site plan for the Maple Cove development. Located on 2.96 acres at 1649 N. Maple, north of Miller Road between North Maple and Calvin Street on the city’s west side, the plan calls for combining two sites – 1649 N. Maple and 1718 Calvin – and demolishing an existing single-family home and detached garages there. Two 3-story apartment buildings would be built with a 64-space parking lot. The project also includes building a private street to serve seven new single-family houses near Calvin Street.

The parks connection to Maple Cove is that the city requested a $26,660 contribution from the developer to support the city’s parks – a voluntary contribution, with the amount determined by formula. The developer has declined to make that contribution.

The council also voted to appoint John Seto as chief of police and head of safety services – he’s now permanently in charge of policing the city, including city parkland. Seto has served since April as interim in the wake of Barnett Jones’ retirement.

In other action, councilmembers voted to suspend the use of construction unity board (CUB) agreements in construction contracts – after voting to restore their use earlier this summer. On the CUB issue, the council has been responding to a changing landscape of law, as state legislation is passed and court decisions are handed down.

Park Lease Ballot Question

The council considered a possible ballot question on a charter amendment affecting city parkland. It would require a voter referendum not just for the sale of parkland, but also for leases or other contracts that have a practical effect similar to a sale.

Ultimately, the council voted to refer the issue to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC).

Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confer after the meeting.

The chair of that commission, Julie Grand, had written in an email to mayor John Hieftje on July 12 that she felt “… it is critical for PAC to provide a formal resolution prior to any council vote. I therefore propose to find an alternative time for PAC to hold an open work session with councilmembers [Jane] Lumm, [Mike] Anglin and [Sabra] Briere [co-sponsors of the resolution] in accordance with the deadlines imposed on ballot initiatives prior to council’s vote on this matter.”

In the last two months, the nine-member PAC has seen the departure of three long-time members, because of term limitations: Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen and David Barrett. Nystuen and Offen were replaced by Ingrid Ault and Alan Jackson. Nominated at the council’s July 2 meeting and confirmed on July 16 was Barrett’s replacement – Bob Galardi, a former Ann Arbor Public Schools administrator.  The two city council representatives to PAC – Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – are non-voting ex officio positions.

The special meeting by PAC is scheduled for Aug. 8 at 3 p.m. at city hall. The Ann Arbor city council has until its second meeting in August to put various questions before voters on the Nov. 6, 2012 ballot. A resolution placing a question on the ballot requires a seven-member (2/3) majority on the 11-member council.

The draft language before the council on July 16 was: “Shall Section 14.3(b) of the Ann Arbor City Charter be amended to require voter approval for long-term (greater than 5 yrs) non-park or non-recreational uses of parkland within the city while retaining the section’s current requirement for voter approval of the sale of any city park, or land acquired by the city for a park or cemetery?”

If approved by voters, the charter would be changed to read [added language in italics]: The city shall not sell, lease, or contract for any non-park or non-recreational long-term use, without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park, or land in the city acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof. For purposes of this subsection long-term shall be defined as a period greater than 5 years.”

The existing charter provision, which deals only with the sale of parkland, had been approved in November 2008 by a 81%-19% margin of voters (42,969 to 9,944).

Michigan’s Home Rule City Act already lists among a city’s prohibited powers: “… to sell a park, cemetery, or any part of a park or cemetery, except where the park is not required under an official master plan of the city …”  The council voted to place the question before voters in 2008 over dissent from councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and former councilmember Leigh Greden.

That year, the council had consciously settled on wording that included just selling, as opposed to leasing. In an Oct. 31, 2008 Ann Arbor News article, mayor John Hieftje was quoted as follows: “From time to time, we’ve thought about how nice it might be to have a restaurant near the river. I think it’s something people would really enjoy … That would be impossible if the ballot measure was expanded to include leasing.”

Park Ballot Question: Public Commentary

Several people spoke in favor of the resolution that would place a ballot question before voters, including two candidates for city council who are competing for seats in the Democratic primary. One person spoke against the resolution.

James D’Amour spoke on behalf of the Sierra Club Huron Valley Group. A fundamental value of the Sierra Club is protection of parks, he said. The Sierra Club stands fully behind the effort of councilmembers Jane Lumm and Mike Anglin to “close a loophole” in the charter amendment passed by voters in 2008. [The council resolution was also co-sponsored by Sabra Briere, but she was not mentioned by D'Amour.]

He called the parks a trust meant for future generations. D’Amour described city actions in connection with Huron Hills golf course and Fuller Park since 2008 as demonstrating a fundamental betrayal of that trust, he contended. It could be argued that the events that occurred were within the letter of the law, he said, but the long-term arrangements that were contemplated were a violation of the intent of the voters in 2008. He asked councilmembers to support the resolution.

Rita Mitchell also encouraged the council to vote for the resolution, because it provides support for parkland – which is jointly owned by all Ann Arbor taxpayers, she said, and is enjoyed by residents and visitors. She pointed to the significant environmental benefit that parkland provides to the city as a whole. She said the 2008 charter vote shows that citizens do want a voice in how the city uses parkland. Subsequent actions have challenged the spirit, if not the letter of the charter language. As an example she gave the plan for a large parking structure and train station at Fuller Park. If a good case can be made for land transfer or different use of a park, then that case can be made to the “real owners of the land,” she said.

Lawrence Baird described the proud history of natural area preservation and parkland protection in Ann Arbor going all the way back to 1920 when Huey Eli Gallup was the city’s first parks superintendent and created the first parks development plan. Since then Ann Arborites have placed a high priority on protecting open space and parkland. Baird reminded the council of Washtenaw County’s natural area preservation millage which Ann Arbor citizens had helped pass and renew. He reminded the council of the city’s 2003 open space and parkland preservation millage passed by Ann Arbor voters. [That millage funds the greenbelt program to preserve natural areas and farmland outside the city, as well as park acquisition within the city.]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talks to Lawrence Baird before the meeting.

He reminded councilmembers of the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage that voters had approved and will likely renew this year. There’s a loophole in the 2008 charter amendment, he said, and recent events show that if the city chooses to do so, it can enter into long-term leases for non-park purposes. That violates the spirit of the 2008 charter amendment, he said. It also violates the spirit of the various millage votes Ann Arbor voters have made, he said. He contended that greenbelt properties enjoy more protection than city parkland. He described Ann Arbor voters as a “smart, informed, passionate bunch,” and they should be entrusted with the bigger decisions now and then.

Jack Eaton, who is challenging incumbent Margie Teall for a seat on the council representing Ward 4, told the council he was there to support the resolution. He was opposed to putting off the vote on the resolution until a meeting after the primary election. He felt it’s important to consider what’s not involved in passing the resolution. The council’s resolution does not amend the charter, he stressed, but merely allows voters to express their opinion on amending the charter. If the council opposes the resolution because of a fear that voters might approve the amendment, then the council is trying to circumvent the will of the people, he contended. But even if voters approve the charter amendment, the new protections don’t prevent putting the train station at Fuller Park – but rather requires that voters approve it. If the council fears that voters won’t approve the train station, he said, then they’re trying to circumvent the will of the voters.

As he talks to voters, Eaton said, he hears that the community holds parkland in special esteem. He asked the council to pass the resolution and to move it to the ballot immediately before the primary so that voters can know who supported the amendment and who opposed it, before residents cast their votes in the Aug. 7 primary. If the council expects voters to trust them with another park maintenance and capital improvements millage, the council needs to trust voters to weigh in on decisions about parkland, he concluded.

Sally Petersen, who is challenging incumbent Tony Derezinski for a seat on the council representing Ward 2, urged the city council to approve the resolution, because not doing so is not consistent with the city’s open space and parkland preservation, the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan and the city’s 2008 charter amendment. The additional clarifying language would close a loophole, she said. She reported the results of an informal poll she’d sent to 160 people measuring their support for the resolution: by 6 p.m. she’d received 70 yes votes, compared to 7 no votes.

Gwen Nystuen, who served on the city’s park advisory commission until recently, told the council that until a few years ago she thought the city’s parks were permanently protected. But she contended that it’s not true – and much of the city’s parkland would be commercially valuable. She then enumerated some of the ways that parks are protected. One way is through deed restrictions, and conservation easements. Another way, she ventured, is if parkland has been purchased with millage money voted by the people. She’d contacted the head of county parks, and found that the county’s parks are considered protected because they’ve been purchased with millage money. Another way parks are protected, she said, is through tradition. Ann Arbor has been acquiring parkland for over a century – and most of our leaders say they’d never ever sell parkland. Beyond that, she said, she can’t find any real protection. The proposed resolution doesn’t prevent the sale or alternate use, but it does require a consensus by the voters, she said.

Elizabeth Colvin told the council she lives on Maiden Lane near the University of Michigan medical center. She urged the council not to support the resolution. She spoke as a supporter of parks and as a supporter of some of the projects that have been proposed for some parkland that don’t involve parks and recreation. The current process of handling projects involving non-park uses provides the public with sufficient opportunity to make their wishes known, she said.

Colvin perceives the current process as consisting of professionals with expertise in their fields – whether running a golf business or planning a train station – studying options, comparing alternatives, making recommendations, drawing up plans, submitting ideas for review and input. During that process, she said, people like her who are interested in a particular process can make their preferences known – by speaking during public commentary at meetings or emailing councilmembers. She felt that requiring a public referendum on top of that process adds unnecessary steps and adds delays to projects that should be completed with all due speed. For her, she said, it hits home with the train station that was initially proposed for parkland at Fuller Road. That project means the most to her, she said, because she feels strongly that improved public transit is absolutely key to the long-term economic health of the community. A new and improved train station in the right location is a critical component of a long-term mass-transit plan for our community, she said. Because that’s important to her, she said, she’d follow those discussions closely and she’d provide input on it. For those projects she doesn’t feel strongly about, she wouldn’t follow them closely and she wouldn’t care if there were a public vote.

Summarizing, Colvin said she thinks the current process works and it gives the public opportunity for input. She was addressing the council on behalf of herself, she said, but knew that several of her neighbors shared her view. She encouraged the council to vote no or at least postpone the issue to get input from the city’s park advisory commission.

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Intro

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off deliberations by noting the resolution had been co-sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). She thanked assistant city attorney Mary Fales for her help in drafting the language of the resolution. Councilmembers had been given the draft a week ago, she said, and it is unchanged from that version. The language has received a preliminary approval from the state attorney general’s office.

Lumm reviewed the purpose of the resolution – to close a “loophole” left when the 2008 charter amendment was approved. That amendment only specifically referenced the sale of parkland. As a result, the city could retain ownership and not sell it, but could still change the use of that parkland to a non-recreational or non-park use. The resolution is not about Huron Hills golf course or Fuller Road Station or about any specific site, she said. Those situations demonstrated the existence of the loophole. It also does not establish a principle that voters have a say in the long-term use of parkland – because that principle was already established with the charter vote in 2008. It’s simply tightening up the language, she said.

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Postponement

Briere said she cheerfully co-sponsored the resolution when it showed up – because she’d heard the same discussion over the last four years as everybody else on the council. However, she looked for unintended consequences. When the ballot measure was placed before voters in 2008, the council anticipated that a problem was being solved. But an unintended consequence was that the city could engage in long-term leases, she said, and indeed had flirted with that idea. The city had not followed through on that – but had talked about it. And that’s what the city is supposed to do, she said – look at its options. It’s that “opening” that the current proposal is intended to close.

From left: assistant city attorney Mary Fales, councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

But there are also unintended consequences for the current proposal, Briere said, which she’d learned of that day. If the current version appears on the ballot, here’s what could occur without a public vote, she said: The city could contract with a company that manages water parks to run Fuller pool – because it would be the same recreational use. The city could contract with a golf-course operator to operate Huron Hills – because it’s the same recreational use. Or the city could build and own a fire station, a homeless shelter, a train station or a parking structure on a park without voter approval – because the city wouldn’t be selling land or engaging in a long-term lease or contract.

She knew that these were not things the framers of the resolution had intended. So she indicated a desire to postpone the resolution to try to work out the details and at the same time refer the topic to the park advisory commission (PAC), to look at any implications she might have missed.

Briere noted that they needed to specify a date to which the resolution would be postponed. Mayor John Hieftje noted that the chair of PAC, Julie Grand, had written to the council, and the PAC meeting for the following day, July 17, had been cancelled. But the intent was to use the first Tuesday in August, which is the scheduled time for PAC’s land acquisition committee meeting, as a time to hold a full PAC meeting to discuss the park ballot question. [Because that day, Aug. 7, coincides with the primary election, it was abandoned as the time for PAC to meet. Currently, PAC is scheduled to meet on Aug. 8 at 3 p.m.]

The council’s first meeting in August is Aug. 9 – due to the primary election. So Briere made her motion for postponement specifically to the council’s second meeting in August – Aug. 20.

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Postponement to When?

Lumm moved to amend the postponement to the first meeting in August.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) responded to Lumm’s proposal to postpone just to Aug. 9 by saying, “I’m not sure why we’re rushing this.” It could be voted on at either meeting in August, Smith said, and that would be soon enough to place it on the Nov. 6 ballot. The only reason that the item was on that night’s agenda [the last council meeting before the Aug. 7 primary], she said, is that “it’s a really poorly-disguised political stunt.” The remark from Smith, who is not seeking re-election to her Ward 1 seat, generated a discontented murmur among some in the audience.

In support of her contention that the timing of the resolution was political, Smith noted that the council had heard from a city council candidate during public commentary [Jack Eaton], which had indicated to her that it was a political stunt. It’s not about parks, she contended. Smith said the council does not as a habit rush things, noting that they had postponed the four-party transit agreement three times. The council didn’t vote on something that significant for three meetings, she said.

What was before the council that night affected the city charter: “This is our constitution! This is what we operate our city on. I cannot see the rush.” Smith noted there’s no memo or cover letter on the agenda, and councilmembers have had very little information delivered to them. The council should slow the whole process down, she concluded.

Responding to Smith, Lumm told her she had the draft of the resolution on June 26. Subsequent to that, she was trying to answer questions, she said, and she had been told [by Smith] that by answering questions she was potentially violating the Open Meetings Act (OMA). She had been trying to be helpful, Lumm said: “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, I guess.”

By way of background on the OMA issue, Smith had emailed questions about the resolution to the city administrator and the city attorney, CC-ing the message to all councilmembers. Lumm responded to everyone with her answers to Smith’s questions and what Smith perceived as possible advocacy of a point of view on the questions. That was the source of Smith’s caution about OMA issues. If more than a quorum of councilmembers engage in back-and-forth via email it could establish a “meeting” that has not been properly noticed to the public and not open to the public.

The strongest rationale for postponement, Lumm felt, had to do with the definition of potential uses of parkland that might not have been addressed. She felt that assistant city attorney Mary Fales was “Thomas Jeffersonian” in her efforts to craft the language. Fales addressed concerns about the things the city wants to continue to do. It’s a matter of not being able to legislate everything and anticipate every eventuality, she said. Lumm stated that it’s not political. She felt it should not be postponed, but if it were to be postponed, it should be just to the first meeting in August.

Councilmembers Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) before the July 16 meeting.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that back in 2008, the moment had been right, even though some members of council at the time didn’t want it to move forward. But the moment was right then, and it moved forward – with its limitations. He believed the moment was right now. It had been addressed at PAC several times, he contended. Mayor John Hieftje cautioned Anglin that the issue under discussion was to postpone to the first or the second meeting in August.

Anglin felt that the historical context was important. He felt that the council had not rushed – that it had been very deliberate and it had been going on for some time. As policymakers, that’s the council’s role. The city would have a continual rehashing of the issue – or it could be settled, by saying that those who own the parks have the right to say what happens to them. So he was not in favor of any kind of postponement. He had not been able during that night’s deliberations to speak to the main issue, because the postponement had been brought up before he’d had a chance do that. Postponement will send a chilling statement to those who support parks, he contended.

Briere appreciated the comments by Lumm and Anglin, and indicated that her discovery of loopholes in the current proposal was also a problem for her. If everyone were to move “extraordinarily expeditiously,” the issue could be resolved by the first meeting in August. If not, then the council still has another meeting in August. It’s important that it go to the public, she said, so it’s important that it be the best legislation that the city could have. She said she was content to bring it back on Aug. 9, knowing there’s another meeting in August.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed with city clerk Jackie Beaudry that the last date for certifying ballot language with the county clerk is Aug. 28. Kunselman ventured that even a special meeting could be possible. He called it the “common practice” to postpone it initially and then postpone it again if necessary. He’d support postponement to the first meeting in August.

Hieftje expressed concern about the timing, but didn’t have a problem postponing to the first meeting in August. But he was not enthusiastic about the kind of special meeting that Kunselman had described.

Smith took exception to something that Anglin had said about a “thorough and deliberate process.” Speaking to Anglin, Smith told him: “You serve on PAC and you didn’t feel this was appropriate to bring it to the commission you serve on.” Smith stated that the council is delaying in part because PAC hasn’t weighed in. PAC consists of citizen volunteers, she said. It disrespects PAC not to include that body in the process, so she questioned if it had really been a careful and deliberate process. The only appropriate way to go forward, Smith continued, is to have PAC weigh in on it. A Thursday council meeting [on Aug. 9] catches the public off guard, she said. It’s not always the best time to do something – because it’s harder to get the word out. Because of the need for PAC to weigh in appropriately, and because of the Thursday council meeting, she couldn’t support a postponement any earlier than the second meeting in August.

Kunselman sought confirmation that PAC would have time to weigh in on the proposal before Aug. 9. Hieftje told him that was the plan that PAC chair Julie Grand had proposed.

Outcome on postponement timing: The council settled on the timing of the postponement as Aug. 9 – over dissent from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Park Ballot Question: Council Talk – Postponement or Not

At that point, the question before the council was to postpone to Aug. 9 or not.

Lumm felt the resolution is very straightforward. She indicated that the concerns people had expressed about the language had already been addressed by the city attorney. She felt the language offered a good framework. And she reiterated that it could not anticipate every eventuality. She reviewed the basic arguments for the resolution. Lumm did not understand the need to postpone or the need for PAC to review it. The charter was not being changed, she said, but rather the issue was being put before the voters. She didn’t have a problem with PAC providing comment. She had a problem with the timing, she said. She said she didn’t receive a response from a question she’d posed to PAC chair Julie Grand about the scheduling of the meeting.

Responding to Smith’s criticism of Anglin for not moving the proposed charter amendment through PAC, Lumm said Smith had taken an unfair “potshot” at Anglin. PAC cancelled its meeting scheduled for July 17, when Anglin had been “poised to speak to this.” Apparently, Lumm said, PAC didn’t have very much on the agenda and had cancelled its meeting.

Smith picked up on the timeline issue that was part of Lumm’s argument. Smith said she was not sure how PAC could inform the council that night if the commission had been scheduled to talk about it the following day.

Smith then recalled the discussions the council had earlier in the year on the four-party transit agreement. She found some parallels that she found ironic. She then cited coverage in The Chronicle from deliberations conducted at the Jan. 9, 2012 meeting. The complete passage reads as follows:

Lumm reiterated many of her concerns, saying she felt the timeline is “backwards.” She said she doesn’t understand how the council could go forward without having critical documents. Lumm said the issue is not about whether regional transit is good. It’s about seeing information about the specific benefits. She described the process as a “rush” and as putting the cart before the horse.

Smith ventured that “parks” could be swapped in for “regional transit” in that quote. In February 2012, Smith continued, Lumm was quoted by The Chronicle during the four-party transit deliberations as saying “If it’s a good concept today, it’ll be a good concept tomorrow.”

If the park proposal is not on the Nov. 6 ballot, Smith said, it can be on a different ballot. She didn’t necessarily care if it was on this November’s ballot, she said, because she didn’t think there was an impending issue that would change things. She didn’t feel that the city council would be taking a vote on a long-term lease anytime in the next year – though she allowed she could be wrong about that. She did not see the need to rush. It’s important that the council have some robust input from citizens, and that night was the first opportunity she knew of that citizens had a chance to come to the podium to talk to the council about it. So it had to be postponed at least until the first meeting in August, she said.

Anglin said he was fearful the proposal would disappear and then never appear again. He felt the presidential election year, with its larger turnout, would yield a resounding yes or no answer. Over the last few years, the issue has been very contentious, he said, costing time and effort by staff and the council. He described most of the work as having been done by the Sierra Club – writing and re-writing language.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Anglin  contended that he’d raised these issues at PAC, but they were dismissed – because PAC members didn’t see them as significant enough to discuss. For his part, if the council goes back to PAC, “We’ll just get an opinion.” He noted that PAC has three new members. So the “real skilled PAC members” who served for multiple years, are now out in the community willing to work. [He was referring to Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen and David Barrett, whose terms recently ended on PAC.] The council does itself a disservice not to see this as a public process, he said. “Just ask the voters – it’s so simple,” he said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward) said he felt that there were good reasons to consider the proposal and to look at the language – but he hadn’t heard any reason not to postpone. Getting input from PAC makes perfect sense, he said. Having PAC’s input can only help, he said. While Anglin might feel PAC’s input doesn’t add value, Hohnke didn’t think it would hurt. In the interest of furthering the dialogue on a thoughtful effort to change the charter, he’d support postponement.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he felt it was important to have PAC weigh in. He lamented the fact that back on Nov. 5, 2009, when the council had approved an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station, the council didn’t get advice prior to voting. But two wrongs don’t make a right, he said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) weighed in supporting the postponement to the first meeting in August. A problem with the volume adjustment on Higgins’ microphone prompted Thomas Partridge to chime in from the audience with a request that Hieftje make certain to ensure that microphone levels are loud enough for people to hear. Hieftje retorted with, “Could you make certain to keep quiet?”

Hieftje said the worst thing the council could do is put a flawed proposal on the ballot – a proposal that doesn’t do what voters think it will. So he’d support postponement.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the proposal until Aug. 9, over dissent by Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Skatepark Design Contract

The Ann Arbor city council was asked to authorize a $89,560 contract with Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the design and construction oversight of a skatepark to be built in the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The city’s park advisory commission had recommended approval of the contract on June 19.

City council action on the skatepark at that location dates back to a Dec. 1, 2008 approval of a memorandum of intent. [.pdf of memorandum of intent]

The roughly $1 million project – including an anticipated $100,000 endowment for ongoing maintenance – will be financed through a combination of funds. Those include private donations – primarily solicited through the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – as well as a $300,000 state grant, and up to $400,000 in matching funds from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission. The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation is acting as fiduciary.

Selection of Wally Hollyday Skateparks for the work came after a selection committee reviewed six responses to a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the city of Ann Arbor in April. The committee selected two California firms – Wally Hollyday Skateparks and Wormhoudt Inc. – as finalists. Additional review and interviews resulted in the choice of Wally Hollyday Skateparks as the recommended designer. Wally Hollyday had already been involved in the project to some extent, leading design workshops for the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark in 2009 and 2010.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the skatepark design contract as a part of its consent agenda.

Initial Rezoning for Bluffs

The council considered giving initial approval to the rezoning of two parcels that were recently acquired by the city for expansion of the Bluffs Nature Area at 1099 N. Main St., north of Sunset Road. The city planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 5, 2012 meeting.

A 1.12-acre parcel to the north of the Bluffs – connecting the existing parkland to Huron View Boulevard – is currently zoned O (office), and had been donated to the city by a nursing home near that site. A 0.57-acre addition to the south connects the existing parkland to Sunset Road and is currently zoned R4C (multiple-family dwelling). It had been purchased by the city from the Elks lodge, using funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. Both parcels were recommended to be rezoned as PL (public land).

City planner Alexis DiLeo told planning commissioners at their June 5 meeting that the parcels make the nature area more accessible. Though there is frontage onto North Main, there’s no easy access there for pedestrians or cyclists.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the rezoning of the parcels.

Accessible Path Work at Leslie Science Center

The council considered approval of a $115,309 contract with JB Contractors Inc. to construct barrier-free pathways at the Leslie Science and Nature Center. The recommendation includes a 10% contingency, for a total project cost of $126,840.

The city’s park advisory commission had recommended approval of the contract at its June 19, 2012 meeting.

JB Contractors provided the lowest of two bids. Fonson Inc. had submitted a much higher bid of $197,459. Funding is available from the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Francie Krawcke, raptor program director with the Leslie Science & Nature Center, brought a snowy owl to the June 19, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The owl did not fly around council chambers, but did enjoy a few snacks at the meeting.

PAC had been initially briefed on this project – the first phase of a larger renovation – at its Feb. 28, 2012 meeting. The center, located at 1831 Traver Road, was previously part of the city’s parks system, but since 2007 has operated as an independent nonprofit. However, the city still owns and maintains the buildings and property.

Parks planner Amy Kuras told commissioners at PAC’s June 19 meeting that the goal of the changes to the pathways is to make the center compliant with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and to make the pathways and overall organization of the site less confusing. The project includes replacing the paths that connect various buildings on the site, and constructing new paths to connect the center’s raptor enclosures.

At the council’s July 16 meeting, mayor John Hieftje expressed general support for Leslie Science and Nature Center, mentioning the Mayfly annual fundraiser. [Hieftje is a former board member for the center.] Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) added that representatives of the LSNC attended the July 16 Townie Party and brought the center’s raptors.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with JB Contractors Inc. for work at the Leslie Science & Nature Center.

Physical Testing of 415 W. Washington

The Ann Arbor city council considered a resolution approving $50,000 of general fund reserve money to be used for various physical surveys on the city-owned 415 W. Washington property. The property, with its three buildings, was previously used by the city as a vehicle maintenance facility, before the construction of the Wheeler Service Center south of town on Stone School Road.

From left: Carl Goins, executive director of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios, and architect Chuck Bultman before the city council’s July 16 meeting.

The council received a presentation at its May 7, 2012 meeting from representatives of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios on the physical survey work. The 555 group has assumed responsibility for the art community’s component of an initiative established by the city council on Feb. 1, 2010 to explore a collaboration between the greenway and art communities for adaptive reuse of the property. The 555 group stepped in when the Arts Alliance could no longer devote staff time to the project. Prior to that initiative, the city had gone through an RFP (request for proposals) process for the property that did not lead to the selection of any of the three proposals submitted.

Chuck Bultman, an architect who is working with the 555 group, had attended the Sunday night city council caucus on July 15. He had compared the physical surveys to be done on the 415 W. Washington property to a through medical workup for a patient. It would be more than taking blood pressure, and would include “drawing blood samples.” For the buildings, the work will include taking core samples to evaluate the structural integrity of the concrete and steel.

Besides the structural testing, other work to be done includes: an environmental survey; hazardous materials assessment; a topographic and boundary survey; a site survey; and architectural drawings of the existing buildings.

Bultman, along with several other professionals, have thus far volunteered their time to move the project forward. Others include: Paul Dannels (a structural engineer with Structural Design Inc.), Shannan Gibb-Randall (a landscape architect with Insite Design Studio Inc.), and Matt Grocoff (an energy performance consultant with Thrive).

Much of the survey work – in particular, the environmental, hazardous materials and topographic surveys – would be required regardless of the parcel’s future use.

415 W. Washington: Public Comment

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Carl Goins – executive director of 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios – told the council that a team of local professional had been working with the city’s task force. He noted the 555 group’s experience in transforming underused spaces into facilities that provided resources to hundreds of artists. The 415 W. Washington building’s size, location and historic character make it an ideal candidate for that kind of re-use, he said. The project could be a model for public, private and nonprofit collaboration. The physical surveys could put things on track for the building to become a regional hub for the arts.

415 W. Washington: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led off deliberations by saying that the funding would move the process along. The city had been working with the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy and the Arts Alliance for the last couple of years, on the idea of developing a greenway park and art center. He alluded to an “outshoot” of the North Main corridor task force that was focusing on the greenway. The first greenway park, he said, would be the 721 N. Main city-owned parcel. The effort on 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main need to be coordinated and connected, he said. He mentioned hooking up the greenway to the county’s Border-to-Border trail. Even if you don’t agree that the dream of an art center will come to pass, the surveys would need to be done, he concluded.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) agreed that it was an important and judicious investment in preserving options for the building. Absent a clear understanding of the potential for re-use, he said, the move would be toward seeing the building demolished. [The city's historic district commission would need to grant the city a notice to proceed with that demolition, which is not a foregone conclusion.] Hohnke noted there are a number of people now involved with the effort, who have experience with this type of repurposing. The expenditure increases the likelihood that something exciting happens at the site, he said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called it pretty exciting that the city is going forward with the work. She made a note that the terminology used in the resolution refers to the future “conveyance” of the land. The council’s deliberations on the ballot question then spilled into the 415 W. Washington item, when Smith said she’d love to have a legal opinion on what the city would need to do in order to “convey” the property. It was an excellent example, she said, of a situation where a special election might have to be called in order to enter into an eventual long-term lease. She wanted to know what the impact would be of the proposed city charter amendment on the 415 W. Washington project – not that night, but eventually.

Responding to Smith, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) ventured that the 415 W. Washington project would not be affected at all – because the proposed charter amendment speaks to parkland and cemetery use. The 415 W. Washington site is public land, not parkland. So it has nothing at all to do with the 415 W. Washington site. Responding to Lumm, Smith said, “Thank you very much, councilmember Lumm. I’d love to have a discussion with the attorneys at a later time.” Lumm wrapped up the exchange with “Sorry, I was just trying to help.”

Lumm continued with her remarks by thanking Chuck Bultman, the architect who’s been working with the 555 group. Bultman had given her and others a tour of the site last week. Bultman really has a vision for the future of the building, she said. She understands that what’s contemplated is finding a positive use for the city-owned site. She asked city administrator Steve Powers to outline what the resolution does. Powers reviewed the physical surveys of the building that would need to be done – regardless of its future re-use. To provide more detail on what’s been done to date, Powers told Lumm he’d need to prepare that information and provide it at a later time.

Lumm wanted more information about what the phase 2/3 environmental surveys would tell us. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy was called on to address that question. Hupy described a phase 1 environmental assessment as an analysis of past use. The site does have a history of past uses that causes a suspicion of contamination. A phase 2 study looks at the ground more in depth to see if pollution exists, and if so, to what level.

Lumm asked why the funding was not included in the FY 2013 budget. Powers characterized it as an oversight and nothing more. He was not aware of the momentum of the project at the time the budget proposal was put together, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported to her colleagues that the previous night at the council caucus, she heard from people who are working with the 555 group [Bultman and Trevor Stone] and had heard quite a bit about what could be learned from an environmental assessment – from taking core samples of concrete, looking at groundwater, studying what part of the flooding is caused by the water table and what part is caused by grading of the site and the additional gravel that’s been added to create the parking lot. At the caucus meeting, she’d also learned there is a section of the site that is inaccessible.

Responding to Lumm’s concern about the failure to include this item in the FY 2013 budget, from Briere’s perspective, she was not surprised to see the item come forward until after the budget was approved. Frequently, she said, an item is not “ripe” until after the budget has been approved. It’s a one-time expense, she continued, and she indicated that it’s typical for such items to be approved outside the regular budget cycle.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated all the words of support from other councilmembers. She’s excited about this project, she said, which she contended she’d been working on for a decade – a public space for the arts and the performing arts. She characterized it as a first step. The surveys will tell us whether the building is usable, she said, and she hopes the answer is affirmative.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he supported the resolution and viewed 415 W. Washington as a roadmap for how to deal with 721 N. Main. He noted there’s a lot of community interest in how to use the 721 N. Main property for community needs – whether it’s a day-use center or not. [The council has heard frequent public commentary at its meetings since the fall of 2011 on the idea of a day shelter and warming center. And 721 N. Main has been a property that organizers asked the city to turn over for such use.] How the city handles 415 W. Washington sets up a framework for other city-owned properties, and he’s excited to hear what information the city gets from the work, Kunselman concluded.

Hieftje responded to the 721 N. Main thread that Kunselman had picked up. Hieftje indicated that 721 N. Main is moving forward as part of a state Natural Resources Trust Fund application by the city – because 721 N. Main already has its environmental “clearance.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the $50,000 expenditure for physical surveys on the 415 W. Washington building.

Federal Money for Greenbelt

The council considered approval of the acceptance of $396,900 in federal funds from the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on properties in Webster and Superior townships owned by the Robbin Alexander Trust (90 acres) and Robert Schultz (136 acres). The grant amount represents 49% of the purchase price.

Ann Arbor greenbelt as of June 2012 (not including the properties the council voted on at their July 16, 2012 meeting). The large square-ish area is the greenbelt boundary area – the land eligible for protection with Ann Arbor greenbelt millage funds. Darker green areas indicate protected property. (Image links to dynamic map.)

The council had approved the application for the federal funds at its Feb. 21, 2012 meeting. The local share will be provided through the city’s parkland and open space preservation (greenbelt) millage.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council representative to the greenbelt commission, noted that the applications for federal grant money had been approved by the council in February 2012. He highlighted the fact that the federal grants covered 49% of the purchase price, which is the maximum amount that the FRPP will approve. Hohnke said that 49% reflects the quality of the applications that the city staff are submitting. He characterized it as great leverage for the millage funds that Ann Arbor voters have approved.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she certainly supported accepting the funds but contended that it could be better – if other sources of local funding (from the townships) besides the city’s greenbelt millage had factored into the local match component. She ventured that this was not the funding proportion that had been anticipated when the millage was approved.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the receipt of the FRPP funds.

Wetland Restoration at Plymouth

The council considered approval of a $97,687 contract with Fonson Inc. for restoration of a wetland in Plymouth Parkway Park that was filled in as a result of a railroad embankment collapse caused by heavy rains in July 2011. The funds will be taken from the park maintenance and capital improvements millage.

Immediately after the collapse, about half of the soil from the embankment washout was removed from the site, and the rest was removed last month, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution. The staff memo also states that  Ann Arbor Railroad worked with the city to restore and improve drainage systems in and around the railroad embankment.

The work covered by the contract with Fonson is to repair underground drainage systems in the park, complete final site grading and replanting the wetland with appropriate species.

Council deliberations consisted of a remark by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) that she is delighted the restoration will go forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with Fonson Inc.

Maple Cove Site Plan

The council considered the site plan for the Maple Cove development located on 2.96 acres at 1649 N. Maple, north of Miller Road between North Maple and Calvin Street on the city’s west side.

The plan calls for combining two sites – 1649 N. Maple and 1718 Calvin – and demolishing an existing single-family home and detached garages there. Two 3-story apartment buildings would be built with a 64-space parking lot and eight bike spaces. The project also includes building a private street to serve seven new single-family houses near Calvin Street, but with an entrance off of North Maple. According to a staff memo, there will be no access to Calvin Street, which “is a private street with a checkered history regarding access rights.” The apartment complex would have a separate entrance, also off of North Maple.

Each apartment building would contain a total of 18 one-and two-bedroom apartments ranging from 745 to 1,057 square feet. The plan calls for each apartment building to have a rooftop patio for use by residents, with the possibility of a vegetated cover (green roof) for the remainder of the roof surface. The staff memo noted that the city has requested a $26,660 parks contribution, but the developer has declined to make that contribution.

The project has a somewhat unusual history. Planning commissioners originally approved it at their March 20, 2012 meeting. But that vote was rescinded because Scio Township residents on Calvin Street had not been included in an original public notice mailed out for the commission’s March meeting.

There were no changes to the plan in the interim period, but at their May 1, 2012 meeting, planning commissioners voted to postpone action to get more information from the traffic engineer about whether the proposed two separate entrances to the property created a health, safety and welfare hazard. According to city planning staff, the city’s traffic engineer raised some concerns, but he subsequently confirmed that the site plan – with two entrances off of North Maple – does conform with city code.

Planning commissioners ultimately approved the project at their June 5 meeting on a unanimous vote, but three of the nine commissioners – Bonnie Bona, Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal – were absent. Bona and Eric Mahler had dissented on the commission’s March 20 original approval. Part of their objection stemmed from concern that no sidewalks were planned for the private street.

At the Sunday night city council caucus held on July 15, the project’s developer indicated the possibility that the private street portion of the project might be sold to another developer – and that developer would have the option to submit a revised site plan that includes sidewalks.

Maple Cove: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge spoke, describing himself as an advocate for the most vulnerable residents of the city. He contended that amendments should be made to the proposal that would require a percentage of the units to include affordable housing.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, mayor John Hieftje responded to Partridge’s mention of an affordable housing requirement by saying that with a planned unit development (PUD), the city could require affordable units; but for a “by right” development like Maple Cove, something like that couldn’t be required.

Maple Cove: Council Deliberations

Project area for Maple Cove is shown outlined in black. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf file)

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began by saying that there are some positive aspects to the proposal, including the fact that it will help fill in Maple Road. He noted there had been a healthy discussion by the planning commission on the site plan. The developer had been asked to consider some minor improvements – not required by code, but that would have improved the experience for future residents of the project and for the public at large. The developer had not undertaken the suggested changes. He was disappointed, Hohnke said, but did not feel it rose to the level of concern that would cause him to vote against the project.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wouldn’t support the project. As city councilmembers, he said, they have a right to do everything they can to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Because the developer did not want to include some things that affect safety – like sidewalks on the private street – he would not support the project. He characterized that as “cutting corners,” saying the developer should be held to the same standards as everybody else.

Mayor John Hieftje then asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to the podium to ask her a single question to which everyone already knew the answer: “Is this a by-right development?” Rampson told Hieftje that yes, Maple Cove meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance.

Hieftje then ventured that if Kunselman requested it, the council could have a closed session to discuss the ramification of voting no. [Assistant city attorney Mary Fales whispered to Hieftje words to the effect that Hieftje's idea for a closed session wouldn't work, because the council would need a written memorandum from the attorney's office to discuss in order to justify the closed session. That had been part of the point of a lawsuit filed by The Chronicle in September 2010. Since that time, closed sessions held by the Ann Arbor based on the attorney-client privilege have become rare events, when previously they were regular occurrences. Hieftje subsequently relayed Fales' comments at the table.]

Because Maple Cove is a by-right development, Hieftje said, a vote against it would be a “protest vote” but he felt the course was clear. There are many by-right developments where the developer doesn’t cooperated to the utmost, but the council has to follow the law.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that many councilmembers would like to see sidewalks included in all new neighborhoods, but that’s not a code requirement. While the council could change the city’s ordinance to require sidewalks in the future, it was not an option that night. She indicated she would cheerfully tell the developer that, as she did the previous night at the council’s caucus.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that it’s a complicated project that has generated a lot of discussion by staff and the neighbors. She concurred with Hohnke in his conclusion that the developer had not been very flexible – with respect to the possibility of eliminating one of the driveway entrances (curbcuts) and the voluntary parks contribution. But she concluded that the project met the code requirements. She felt that the project reflected an improvement.

Responding to a question from Lumm about the city staff’s recommendation for approving the project, Rampson said that “as near as we can tell” the project complies with city code.

Rampson noted that city code requires a sidewalk for a private street with eight lots or more, but the private street for Maple Cove includes seven lots, so there’s no requirement for sidewalks. She noted that the project had been reviewed twice by the planning commission, because the township neighbors weren’t notified the first time around. Neighbors from the township had concerns about the different lot sizes in the Maple Cove project compared to those on Calvin Street – and they felt the project reflected an increase in density. However, Rampson pointed out that the property was already zoned, and the proposed lots are consistent with zoning.

On the traffic issue, related to the two driveways, a city traffic engineer took a look at the placement of the two driveways. The conclusion, Rampson allowed, was that the two driveways were “not ideal” – in that they don’t have the desired spacing between each other or the desired distance from the intersection. But the city does not have anything about access management in the code. According to the traffic engineer, Rampson said, if the driveway configuration becomes a hazard, one of the drives can be removed under the city code.

About the parks contribution, she noted that it’s a suggestion based on a formula, but it’s not a code requirement. She noted that there are some amenities included in the project that might actually count toward the park contribution.

Hohnke asked Rampson to share some views of the expected benefit for the development, compared to the existing situation. Rampson told Hohnke that the planning commission had pointed to the fact that the current site is not very well maintained. The project would bring additional housing to the area – both rental and homeowner opportunities. It would also provide a sidewalk link on the public frontage along North Maple, so it’s consistent with the city’s master plan, she said.

Maple Cove driveway configuration. Magenta arrows show the two driveways.

Hohnke said he shared Kunselman’s concerns, but indicated surprise that Kunselman was considering voting against the project. He felt it’s hard to make a reasonable argument that it’s a detriment to health, safety and welfare. He ventured that it could be considered irresponsible [of Kunselman] to put people of Ann Arbor at [legal] risk by denying a site plan that meets code and provides some benefit. He encouraged people to understand the weightiness of denying a by-right proposal.

Kunselman responded by noting that Rampson had said the driveway curbcuts don’t meet the desired standard, but that the city doesn’t have a mechanism in the city code to do anything about that. If it were determined that there was a hazard being caused, he said, and the driveway entrance to the private street had to be closed, then the only access to the private street would be through the other driveway entrance – and that would lead past the additional lot for the multi-family housing in the project, for a total of eight lots. If that’s what happens, Kunselman ventured, the developer will have been able to circumvent the requirement of having sidewalks for the private street.

Kunselman restated his view that it’s an issue of public safety. There are no sidewalks in his neighborhood, he said, and walking down the street last year with the mayor of Tübingen [Ann Arbor's sister city in Germany], they almost got run over. He rejected Hohnke’s suggestion that Kunselman’s would be a protest vote. Kunselman noted that he grew up in that part of town. He wanted to make sure that sidewalks are added.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the city planning commission, contended all these questions were raised and answered. He restated the fact that it’s a by-right development. “When it meets the code, that’s it!” he said. He characterized the application of the rubric of health, safety and welfare as a very “slippery slope.” He felt the council should vote for the project.

Hieftje indicated he would support the project because he did not think there’s any latitude, citing the potential of a lawsuit, and saying the council would be on extremely thin ice to deny it.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Maple Cove project, with dissent from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Ann Arbor Police Chief: John Seto

The council considered a resolution appointing John Seto as permanent police chief and head of safety services.

John Seto at the March 30, 2012 farewell for former chief Barnett Jones.

Seto has served as interim in both roles since the resignation of former police chief Barnett Jones effective March 31.

At his farewell sendoff on March 30, Jones was emphatic about his view that Seto should be hired as permanent chief, describing Seto as “the right person to follow me.”

Seto was hired in 1990 as a patrol officer in the AAPD and achieved the rank of deputy chief in 2008.

Seto’s college degree is from Eastern Michigan University, and his subsequent professional development has included training from the FBI. He also holds certification as a firefighter.

As head of safety services, Seto oversees the fire chief. The administrative position of safety services administrator is appointed by the city administrator. But the city charter requires that the council approve the appointment of police chief.

Police Chief Appointment: Public Commentary

During public commentary, Ann Arbor resident Blair Shelton reprised sentiments he’d expressed at the council’s March 19, 2012 meeting, alleging racism on the part of the Ann Arbor police department and Seto specifically. [By way of brief background, Shelton won a lawsuit against the city of Ann Arbor in the mid-1990s in a case involving racial-profiling in the AAPD's approach to collection of blood samples.] At the July 16 meeting, Shelton told the council that in 1995 when Channel 7 came to his home to interview him about winning his lawsuit, Channel 7′s Bill Proctor told him that on the way there, the AAPD had pulled over the Channel 7 news truck on suspicion of having stolen the vehicle. He invited people to ask Proctor about the ethnicity of the AAPD officer.

[Shelton was implying that the officer was Seto. In a phone conversation with The Chronicle, Proctor could not confirm the episode that Shelton described. Proctor noted that he did not recall interviewing Shelton, noting that the incident in question took place in 1995. Proctor indicated he did not recall ever being pulled over in the news truck because an officer questioned his legal right to be behind the wheel.]

Shelton contended that the “vestiges of racism have been enshrined in the department” since its inception. He pointed to the hiring of the first African American officer in the early 1900s, an officer Thomas Blackburn. He contended that Blackburn had been accused of raping a white university student and that the courthouse had been surrounded by people screaming: “Lynch the ‘n-word’ kill the ‘n-word.’”

In connection with his court case, he said, through the discovery process, they’d learned that the AAPD had wanted to perform DNA testing on the University of Michigan football team, but coach Bo Schembechler had said, “Hell, no.” Shelton told the council, “I am a human being!” with the right to move freely through the community. On the hiring of Seto as permanent chief, he told them, “Good luck.”

By way of additional background on the history of the Ann Arbor police department and racial issues, from former AAPD police officer Michael Logghe’s “True Crimes and the History of the Ann Arbor Police Department“:

Officer Clayton Collins was thought to be the first black Ann Arbor Officer when he was hired in 1950. However, according to Officer Camp’s report, a black officer named Thomas Blackburn, was hired in 1907. I discovered a photo of Officer Blackburn and it does not appear that he was black. Officer Blackburn was with the department for ten years and it is open for debate if he or Officer Collins was the first black officer. …

Officer Collins told me he was asked to apply to the department by Albert Wheeler (Wheeler would later become mayor). He stated Wheeler was always trying to get blacks to apply for positions which they had historically been barred. Officer Collins thought about it and finally applied. The department hired him and thus he became the first black officer in the city’s history. (I should note that in Officer Camp’s report, he stated a black man named Thomas Blackburn was an officer with the department at the turn of the century. Officer Collins had heard about Blackburn and thought he was half-Indian. In any event Officer Collins was the first black officer in the modern era.)

I was surprised to find that Officer Collins encountered very little racism, not only within the department, but within the city. Almost all of the officers were very accepting of him and none made a negative comment to him. At worst, some of the officers were distant to him. He stated his experience as an Ann Arbor Officer was very positive and enjoyable. He said Ann Arbor was a wonderful place in the 1950′s.

Jonathan Marwil’s “A History of Ann Arbor” gives an account of the hiring of Blackburn that’s consistent with Logghe’s. The Chronicle was not able to confirm in those two sources Shelton’s account of the rape accusation against officer Blackburn.

More recently, the AAPD was reviewed for possible racial profiling in a 2004 study of traffic stops, conducted by Lamberth Consulting. The AAPD scored well in the study, according to a Feb. 12, 2004 Ann Arbor News article. [.pdf of the Lamberth Consulting study on AAPD traffic stops]

Police Chief Appointment: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d had an opportunity to work with a few police chiefs in his time as mayor – Dan Oates and then Barnett Jones. Hieftje felt like he knows what it takes to be a good police chief – and whatever it is, John Seto has it. Seto has proven himself in this interim period, he said.

John Seto received a round of applause on his appointment as chief of Ann Arbor police. From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) praised Seto in the context of her work with him over the years. She was pleased to see promotion from within. She said that former chief Barnett Jones did a great job of succession planning. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she wholeheartedly supported the appointment. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked Seto to come to the podium so that the public could see him.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) congratulated Seto for his work on sensitive issues. He was impressed with his professionalism and sensitivity. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) hoped that Seto recognized the unanimous support from the council reflected full faith and trust on the part of the council for his ability to lead. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) offered a single word: “Amen!” Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) called Seto’s appointment a recognition of the quality of the department as a whole, saying that it was the department that helped create Seto as he moved up the ranks.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint John Seto as chief of police and head of safety services. He was given an enthusiastic round of applause.

Seto thanked city administrator Steve Powers for the confidence to make the recommendation to appoint him. For the last 22 years, Seto said, it has been a privilege to work with the men and women of the police and fire departments. He’s witnessed first-hand the hard work, dedication and the sacrifices they’ve made to serve and protect the community. More than the honor of being appointed chief, he said, it’s his honor to be a part of this organization. Throughout his entire career, he said, he’d worked very hard to represent the city in the most professional manner and to treat everyone he meets with great respect – and he’d continue to do that, he concluded.

CUB Agreements

The council considered a resolution to reverse at least temporarily an earlier action on restoring the use of CUB agreements. Construction unity board (CUB) agreements are negotiated between local trade unions and contractors, and require that contractors who sign the agreement abide by terms of collective bargaining agreements for the duration of the construction project. In return, the trade unions agree that they will not strike, engage in work slow-downs, set up separate work entrances at the job site or take any other adverse action against the contractor.

The resolution considered by the council at its July 16 meeting suspended the use of CUB agreements for contracts over $25,000. The resolution appeared on the agenda after Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed Public Act 238 of 2012 into law on June 29. The law amends the Michigan Fair and Open Competition Act.

The council’s previous action was taken about a month earlier on June 4, 2012, and had restored the use of such CUB agreements. The July 16 suspension allows for the resolution using the CUB agreements to be restored administratively, pending possible court rulings.

An alternating series of positions by the city of Ann Arbor began with the adoption by the city council of the use of CUB agreements at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting. The resolution required that contractors and subcontractors execute such agreement with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for all city construction contracts.

But last year, the Michigan legislature passed Act 98 of 2011, which prohibited municipalities from signing construction contracts in which contractors were required to make an agreement with a collective bargaining organization.

So on Aug. 15, 2011, in response to the state law, the city council rescinded that requirement. However, the U.S. District Court subsequently found Act 98 to be unenforceable, based on the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act. So at its June 4, 2012 meeting, the city council restored the use of CUB agreements. The lone voice of dissent at that meeting was Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who opposed the resolution on philosophical and practical grounds. She pointed to similar pending legislation (Act 238) that might be enacted.

And the pending legislation was, in fact, passed and signed into law, which led to the city council’s action on July 16 again to suspend the use of CUB agreements.

The staff memo accompanying the resolution states that the suspension of CUB agreements does not affect the city’s living wage ordinance. Not discussed in the memo is how a Michigan Supreme Court order from April 7, 2010 might affect the city’s living wage ordinance. The order affirmed an unpublished court of appeals opinion that found a Detroit living wage law to be unenforceable.

During the brief council deliberations, Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that the way the resolution is intended to work is that the use of CUB agreements will be suspended – but on the outcome of court decisions, the use of the agreements could be restored administratively.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution suspending the use of CUB agreements.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Library Lane Parking Structure

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) reported on the grand opening of the new underground parking garage at South Fifth Avenue, called the Library Lane parking structure. [As of July 20, the parking facility was open with temporary occupancy permits, according to Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Remaining issues to be finalized include one elevator (which has a wall that's damp to the touch) and the water pressure in the fire suppression system.]

Smith invited mayor John Hieftje to reprise his remarks made on the occasion of the grand opening. He held forth at length. Highlights included the fact that the parking structure did not use any city general fund money, but rather money dedicated through the DDA. The parking structure revenue is supposed to pay for the bonds. [The DDA will be drawing on tax increment finance (TIF) capture for some initial capital costs and debt service.]

Later Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would pick up on the bond payment topic, noting that it was Build American Bonds that were used to pay for the structure. He wanted some communication directly from the city’s bond counsel on any restrictions to the possible uses for the parking spaces. By way of background, in April 2010 the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center had sent the council a letter outlining its view of the applicable restrictions. The concern in the letter is that dedicated use of spaces in the structure by private, non-governmental entities could jeopardize the federal subsidy provided to the city through this type of bond. [.pdf of GLELC bonding analysis]

Kunselman’s view is that any problem caused by a private entity undertaking a development on the site could be solved if the Ann Arbor District Library were to build its new building on top of the structure, just to the north of its current location. That same night, the AADL board voted to place a $65 million bond proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot for construction of a new library on its current site. It appears unlikely that the library would follow Kunselman’s suggestion.

Comm/Comm: Non-Partisan Elections, Public Speaking

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Michael Benson noted that of the eight candidates for four city council seats that are contested in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary, the vast majority have responded positively to the idea of converting Ann Arbor’s local city elections to a non-partisan format. Regardless of whether non-partisan elections are a good idea or bad idea, Benson said, he thought it might be good for the council to form a task force to study the issue and report back on it.

Benson also pointed out to the council that for that night’s agenda, more than 10 people had signed up to speak for public commentary at the start of the meeting. So some people who wanted to address the council on an action item had been assigned only an alternate slot and had not been able to address the councilmembers. Benson alluded to the fact that some speakers will meet the condition of speaking on an “agenda item” by referencing attachments of communications on the agenda, like minutes from various boards and commissions. He suggested that the council look at its priorities on allotting public speaking time. [Benson has previously suggested that the time per speaker be reduced from the current three minutes to two minutes, while adding 10 minutes to the current 30-minute time block. That would result in a doubling of the number of possible speakers from 10 to 20.]

Comm/Comm: AATA

Tim Hull related to the council how he had needed to travel to Canton and had discovered there is no way to ride on the Canton Express from Ann Arbor to Canton. [The service is configured for commuters from Canton to Ann Arbor, not the other way around. The issue has been raised by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) when the council has been addressed by Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.] Hull was critical of the AATA’s plan for countywide expansion – it amounts to an effort to get people from the county into Ann Arbor, and running empty buses out to Chelsea and Canton to start the service. AATA remains “woefully inadequate,” he said. He pointed to the New Year’s Day Winter Classic hockey game, a day when there’d be no regular bus service scheduled.

Comm/Comm: Better Services

Thomas Partridge told the council he was there as he has been for over a decade to lobby for increased services, attention and priorities for residents needing and deserving services the most. He told the council he was there as a candidate in the Democratic primary for the state house of representatives 53rd District, which covers most of Ann Arbor. [He's running against incumbent Jeff Irwin.] He called on the council and the public at large to adopt a progressive agenda. He called for expansion of affordable transportation and housing in a way that is balanced and that is backed by adequate appropriations. He contended that the expansion of employment in the city is being neglected.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Partridge repeated his call for expanded services, including an expanded competent public transportation system. He lamented the lack of a public hearing on John Seto’s appointment as permanent police chief. He said the public deserves open, transparent government. It’s not good public policy to approve large contracts without due deliberations on them or to approve site plans that would require little children to walk in the streets, he concluded. [Partridge was alluding in his last comment to the Maple Cove site plan approved by the council that night. The site plan does not include sidewalks for a private street leading to single-family homes.]

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

Absent: Christopher Taylor.

Next council meeting: Thursday, Aug. 9, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Ultimately, the council voted to refer the issue to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC), postponing its own vote until Aug. 9.

The chair of that commission, Julie Grand, had written in an email to mayor John Hieftje on July 12 that she felt “… it is critical for PAC to provide a formal resolution prior to any council vote. I therefore propose to find an alternative time for PAC to hold an open work session with councilmembers [Jane] Lumm, [Mike] Anglin and [Sabra] Briere [co-sponsors of the resolution] in accordance with the deadlines imposed on ballot initiatives prior to council’s vote on this matter.”

In the last two months, the nine-member PAC has seen the departure of three long-time members, because of term limitations: Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen and David Barrett. Nystuen and Offen were replaced by Ingrid Ault and Alan Jackson. Barrett’s replacement was nominated at the council’s July 2 meeting – Bob Galardi, a former Ann Arbor Public Schools administrator. The two city council representatives to PAC – Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – are non-voting ex officio positions.

The special meeting by PAC has not yet been scheduled. In an email to The Chronicle, Grand indicated that it might be scheduled for the first week in August. The Ann Arbor city council has until its second meeting in August to put various questions before voters on the Nov. 6, 2012 ballot. A resolution placing a question on the ballot requires a seven-member (2/3) majority on the 11-member council.

The draft language before the council on July 16 was: “Shall Section 14.3(b) of the Ann Arbor City Charter be amended to require voter approval for long-term (greater than 5 yrs) non-park or non-recreational uses of parkland within the city while retaining the section’s current requirement for voter approval of the sale of any city park, or land acquired by the city for a park or cemetery?”

If approved by voters, the charter would be changed to read [added language in italics]: The city shall not sell, lease, or contract for any non-park or non-recreational long-term use, without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park, or land in the city acquired for park, cemetery, or any part thereof. For purposes of this subsection long-term shall be defined as a period greater than 5 years.”

The existing charter provision, which deals only with the sale of parkland, had been approved in November 2008 by a 81%-19% margin of voters (42,969 to 9,944).

Michigan’s Home Rule City Act already lists among a city’s prohibited powers: “… to sell a park, cemetery, or any part of a park or cemetery, except where the park is not required under an official master plan of the city …” The council voted to place the question before voters in 2008 over dissent from councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and former councilmember Leigh Greden.

That year, the council had consciously settled on wording that included just selling, as opposed to leasing. In an Oct. 31, 2008 Ann Arbor News article, mayor John Hieftje was quoted as follows: “From time to time, we’ve thought about how nice it might be to have a restaurant near the river. I think it’s something people would really enjoy … That would be impossible if the ballot measure was expanded to include leasing.”

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