The Ann Arbor Chronicle » City Place

Municipal Math: How Tall Is the Schoolhouse?

Dave Askins — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 11:13:45 +0000

Today marks the first day of classes for students in the Ann Arbor Public Schools and many other local districts.

Figure 1. How tall is the schoolhouse? Note that the drawing is intentionally not to scale. Also note that the definition of “height” in Ann Arbor’s zoning code requires not just performing a sum of two numbers, but also a division.

So I’m taking advantage of the occasion to launch an occasional series that is meant to present math puzzles I’ve stumbled over “in the wild,” in the course of covering local government. It will appear only as time allows, so this could very well be the only installment of the series.

The puzzles are meant to be accessible to kids in high school, junior high, or elementary school – so for many Chronicle readers, they will be trivial.

But these puzzles might offer readers’ children a chance to apply what they’ve learned in math class to an actual, authentic real-life example – drawn from the municipal workings of the city in which they live.

Today’s puzzle has a geometric flavor. The basic question: How tall is the schoolhouse in Figure 1?

First, let’s please agree not to argue about the quality of the drawing. I admit that it may look more like a church than a schoolhouse. I took as my starting point a photograph included in a recent piece by local history columnist Laura Bien.

The drawing is not Laura’s fault, of course. The drawing differs from that photo in many ways. For example, the drawing lacks a belfry and an American flag on the roof. I left them out, because they make the math puzzle more complicated than necessary.

Another reason I left them out: The real-world example – on which the puzzle is based – was not a schoolhouse. I chose a schoolhouse for the drawing just to honor today as the first day of school. The real world-example is a two-building apartment complex called City Place, located on South Fifth Avenue, just south of William Street.

Puzzle One: How Tall?

Puzzle One: How tall is the schoolhouse in Figure 1?

A good response to this puzzle is: What do you mean by tall?

We could argue for years about what the definition of “tall” should be. Here’s what the definition of “tall” is, according to the official rules used by the city of Ann Arbor:

Building height: The vertical distance of a building measured from the average elevation of the finished grade within 20 feet of the building to the highest point of the roof for a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the midpoint elevation between eaves and ridge for a gable, hip or gambrel roof of a building.

That’s a lot of words. Many of them don’t apply to our puzzle. So let’s focus on the words in bold italics:

Building height: The vertical distance of a building measured from the average elevation of the finished grade within 20 feet of the building to the highest point of the roof for a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the midpoint elevation between eaves and ridge for a gable, hip or gambrel roof of a building.

The phrase “finished grade” has a special meaning in that sentence. It doesn’t mean a grade in school you completed. It basically just means the ground. And “midpoint elevation” is just a fancy way of saying “the halfway point.” So let’s summarize the parts of the definition we need:

Building height: The vertical distance measured from the ground to the half-way point between the eaves and ridge.

In Figure 1, the height between the eaves and the ridge is given as 25.0 feet.

That’s everything you need to figure out the height of the schoolhouse. If you’re so inclined, leave your solution in the comment section. Please show your work.

City Place

The dimensions given in the puzzle are the same as the dimensions of the City Place apartment buildings. That project has a long, complicated history.

Here’s one little part of that history – even though it still glosses over many details.

As the City Place project was going through the city’s approval process, people who lived in that neighborhood disagreed with the way the city calculated the height. That’s because the apartment building isn’t as simple as the schoolhouse drawing shown in the puzzle.

The apartment building actually includes a large dormer. And according to some neighbors of the City Place project, the large dormer changed the true location of the “eave” of the building. So they said that the building was actually over 35 feet tall, according to the city’s definition.

Thirty-five feet is taller than the number you should have calculated in Puzzle One. And it’s taller than what’s allowed in that area of the city.

The city didn’t change its mind about the way the height should be calculated for the building. And the two apartment buildings were constructed this past summer.

Puzzle Two: What Shape Should the Dirt Be?

There’s now a new disagreement – between the neighbor just to the north of the project and the builder of the apartments.

Figure 2. How can you add dirt to keep the official height calculation the same as it was before?

The disagreement stems from a change in a planned height. We’ve already solved a puzzle about building height. But as the City Place project was going through the approval process, a different kind of height changed in the project’s plans. The height that changed was not the height of the building itself, but rather the height of the building above sea level.

The earlier drawings showed the north building at an altitude of 857 feet above sea level. But some later drawings showed the north building at an altitude of 858.5 feet above sea level. That’s 1.5 feet higher.

Figure 2 shows that same kind of situation for the schoolhouse in our puzzle. In Figure 2, the schoolhouse is raised 1.5 higher, compared to sea level.

That sea-level height change has an impact for the building height calculation. Remember the part in the definition of height that says you measure from the ground? If the entire building is raised by 1.5 feet relative to sea level, as shown in Figure 2, that will increase the official height of the building according to the definition … unless we change the height of the ground around the building, too.

According to the definition, it’s not all the ground everywhere that has to be changed – just the ground within 20 feet of the building. The definition states that we have to look at the “average elevation of the finished grade within 20 feet of the building.”

So one way to do that is to pile a squared-off block of dirt 20 feet wide and 1.5 feet deep all around the building. But that would leave a 1.5-foot tall miniature “wall” 20 feet away from the building. Let’s think about other ways to add ground, that don’t have this vertical wall of dirt 20 feet away from the building.

Puzzle Two: Describe an exact shape for added ground (and its dimensions) around the schoolhouse that will keep the “height” of the schoolhouse identical to the original “height.” The shape of the added ground cannot have a vertical edge 20 feet away from the building.

If you solved Puzzle Two, then you probably came up with something similar to what the builder of the apartment complex did. Your solution likely involved a nice gentle smooth slope from the building to a point 20 feet from the building.

So what happens when rain hits a sloped surface? It runs down that surface, of course. And the neighbor to the north of City Place contends that the water is now draining onto his property – because of the added dirt. That’s now the subject of a lawsuit – because it’s not legal to cause the rainwater from your property to drain onto your neighbor’s land.

If you are so inclined (pun intended), describe your solution to Puzzle Two in the comments.

Regular voluntary subscriptions from Chronicle readers add up to help support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. 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!

ZBA Turns Down City Place Appeal

Chronicle Staff — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 03:28:48 +0000

At a hearing before Ann Arbor’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), the board voted to reject an appeal made by nearby neighbors of the City Place project. The residential project would construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot, offering a total of 24 units and 144 bedrooms.

The three-point appeal challenged two decisions made by the city council and one made by the city planning manager in connection with the City Place project. The council decisions that were challenged in the appeal were made at the Oct. 17, 2011 meeting and were subsequently reconsidered with the same outcome at the Oct. 24, 2011 meeting.

One council decision involved the waiver of a landscaping buffer requirement. The other decision involved approval of revised site-plan elevation drawings. The decision by the planning manager that was appealed involved the consideration of certain changes to the City Place proposal as administrative instead of sending the changes back to the city planning commission for review.

The ZBA dismissed the appeal on the planning manager’s decision as premature – the developer’s amendment is still awaiting a decision by the staff. The other two points of appeal failed, but did achieve three votes in favor of granting relief.

The site of City Place on Fifth Avenue south of William Street has a long and contentious history. An alternative project called Heritage Row had been proposed – but twice rejected – by the city council in the summer of 2010. Heritage Row would have retained the seven houses in some form and constructed three apartment buildings behind them.

The city council also rejected a recommendation from a historic district study committee that a historic district be established for the area. A recent attempt to revive a version of the Heritage Row project failed, when the new owner of the City Place project concluded it was not financially viable. The seven houses on the site have now been demolished.

The nine-member body of the ZBA consists of Candice Briere, Wendy Carman, David Gregorka, Carol A. Kuhnke, Sabra Briere, Erica Briggs, Alex Milshteyn, Jason Boggs and Perry Zielak.

Sabra Briere could not deliberate or vote on the City Place appeal, because she participated in the decisions (as a city councilmember representing Ward 1) being appealed. From the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act of 2006: “A member of the zoning board of appeals who is also a member of the zoning commission, the planning commission, or the legislative body shall not participate in a public hearing on or vote on the same matter that the member voted on as a member of the zoning commission, the planning commission, or the legislative body.”

Briggs, though also member of the city planning commission, had not voted as a commissioner on any issue being appealed and was allowed to vote on the appeal. The city council was poised at its Dec. 5 meeting to appoint Ben Carlisle to replace Gregorka on the ZBA, but delayed the appointment because Carlisle could not attend the Dec. 7 meeting. Gregorka had agreed to continue serving on the ZBA until a replacement could be found. Gregorka’s last meeting, which dealt only with the City Place appeal, lasted three hours and 45 minutes.

The ZBA is chaired by Kuhnke, an attorney with the firm Davis & Kuhke, P.C. Candice Briere (no relation to Sabra Briere) works for Atwell, a real estate consulting firm. Wendy Carman serves on a city committee that has been reviewing zoning regulations for the R4C districts. David Gregorka is vice president of operations at HealthMedia Inc. Sabra Briere is one of a maximum of two city councilmembers who can serve on the board. Erica Briggs also serves on the city planning commission. Alex Milshteyn is a real estate broker, as is Jason Boggs. Perry Zielak works at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy.

City Place: ZBA Appeal Filed

Chronicle Staff — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 23:00:52 +0000

This past week, the block of Fifth Avenue south of William Street received renewed attention from city of Ann Arbor planning and development officials.

On Friday, Nov. 4, the developer of the City Place residential project filed demolition permit applications for seven addresses: 407, 411, 415, 419, 427, 433 and 437 S. Fifth Ave. The demolition permit applications will undergo flood plain review, grading review, historic review, plan review, and zoning review.

Submission of those seven demolition permit applications came after a filing with the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals earlier in the week (on Nov. 1) by owners of nearby properties. The three-point appeal challenges two decisions made by the city council and one made by the city planning manager in connection with the City Place project. The residential project would construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot, offering a total of 24 units and 144 bedrooms.

The council decisions challenged in the appeal were made at the Oct. 17, 2011 meeting and were subsequently reconsidered with the same outcome at the Oct. 24, 2011 meeting. One council decision involved the waiver of a landscaping buffer requirement. The other decision involved approval of revised site-plan elevation drawings.

Also the subject of the appeal is a decision by the city planning manager to consider revisions of the City Place site plan as “minor revisions,” which can be handled administratively.

The site of City Place has a long and contentious history. An alternative project called Heritage Row had been proposed – but twice rejected – by the city council in the summer of 2010. Heritage Row would have retained the seven houses in some form and constructed three apartment buildings behind them. The city council also rejected a recommendation from a historic district study committee that a historic district be established for the area. A recent attempt to revive a version of the Heritage Row project failed, when the new owner of the City Place project concluded it was not financially viable.

The zoning board of appeals (ZBA) is provided with broad powers by state statute. From the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act 110 of 2006: “It [the ZBA] shall hear and decide appeals from and review any administrative order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official or body charged with enforcement of a zoning ordinance adopted under this act.”

Under the rules of the ZBA, the most likely date on which the appeal would be heard is Dec. 14. (The next regular meeting of the ZBA is scheduled for Nov. 16, 2011.) The nine-member body consists of Candice Briere, Wendy Carman, David Gregorka, Carol A. Kuhnke, Sabra Briere, Erica Briggs, Alex Milshteyn, Jason Boggs and Perry Zielak.

The ZBA is chaired by Kuhnke, an attorney with the firm Davis & Kuhke, P.C.

Candice Briere (no relation to Sabra Briere) works for ~~Atwell-Hicks~~ Atwell, a real estate consulting firm. Wendy Carman serves on a city committee that has been reviewing zoning regulations for the R4C districts. David Gregorka is vice president of operations at HealthMedia Inc. Sabra Briere is one of a maximum of two city councilmembers who can serve on the board. Erica Briggs also serves on the city planning commission. Alex Milshteyn is a real estate broker, as is Jason Boggs. Perry Zielak works at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy.

Column: City Council as a Historic Body

Dave Askins — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:28:57 +0000

By now, most Chronicle readers are likely weary of reading about the controversy involving Heritage Row versus City Place – two proposed developments for Fifth Avenue south of William Street. For my part, I am certainly weary of writing about it. [timeline]

By way of brief recap, Heritage Row was a planned unit development for the site, which would have preserved a row of seven houses to historic district standards (in the version presented to the city council in summer 2010) and constructed three apartment buildings behind them. City Place is a “matter-of-right” project that will likely start construction in the next few weeks. [Most recent Chronicle coverage: "Chapter Added to Fifth Ave. Historic Saga"]

Why will we likely see the demolition of those seven houses instead of their preservation in some form? At the city council’s Oct. 24 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) called it a failure by the city council to reach a compromise – on something that was less than ideal, but still reasonable.

The functioning of the city council as a body is an issue that has emerged as part of the Ward 2 city council race this year, which is being contested between independent Jane Lumm and Democratic incumbent Stephen Rapundalo. Lumm served on the council in the mid-1990s and has faced criticism from Rapundalo for being part of a group that he contends was characterized by brinksmanship and an inability to work constructively despite disagreements.

The functioning of the city council as a body is one of the themes of a email message written earlier today to members of the city council by Larry Kestenbaum. As far as I’m aware, Kestenbaum is not involved in the campaign of either Ward 2 candidate – that’s not his home ward, and he is not listed as a supporter on either of the candidates’ websites. In any case, the specific point of his email message was about the demolition of the seven houses on Fifth Avenue.

Kestenbaum is known to many in the community as the Washtenaw County clerk, an elected position. But he was not writing to the council as the clerk. He’s also an attorney who has a degree in land use and historic preservation from Cornell University. He served on Ann Arbor’s historic district commission in the 1990s. Also in that decade, he taught a course in historic preservation law at Eastern Michigan University. He lives in Ann Arbor.

Though his message to the council comes now, after the decisions on the South Fifth Avenue development seem to have finally been made, Kestenbaum did not exactly come late to the party as far as expressing his views on that area of the city. Writing on the now defunct ArborUpdate in August 2008, Kestenbaum stated: “I’d redesignate all of the former individual historic properties that were left unprotected after that bad court decision on 9/11/2001. And I think the area immediately south of William Street, along Fifth and Hamilton for example, should be a [historic] district.”

I think Kestenbaum’s recent email is unlikely to persuade any member of the council to take the action he suggests. But in my view, it’s a particularly well-written exposition of the idea that a city council is fairly judged by what it accomplishes as a body, not by the individual actions of its members. I think it’s important to preserve that exposition in The Chronicle’s archives.

It’s also important to preserve in the archives if it turns out that Kestenbaum’s message does manage to convince the council to set a process in motion to establish a historic district for the area.

And that’s why we’re sharing it with readers. Kestenbaum’s message begins after the jump.

Kestenbaum’s Email

The following email was sent to all councilmembers on Oct. 27, 2011 and forwarded to The Chronicle.

I write, not as County Clerk, but as a citizen of Ann Arbor.

My daughter is a student at Herbert M. Slauson Middle School.

Herbert M. Slauson (1853-1936), the namesake of that school, was Ann Arbor’s superintendent of schools for many years. It was under his leadership that our schools moved into the 20th century, taking on an enormously larger and more discerning population along the way.

Mr. Slauson lived for many years and died at 433 S. Fifth Avenue, one of the houses in the City Place/Heritage Row controversy. Samuel Beakes, the congressman for whom Beakes Street is named, also lived in one of those houses.

I spoke with some of the staff, students, and teachers at Slauson Middle School. They were shocked to hear that the City Council had passed up the opportunity to preserve the Slauson house for future generations.

What has happened, as I wrote in a previous email, is that the council has, by default, chosen the worst possible alternative for this site. By your action and inaction, you are leaving a scar in the middle of Ann Arbor.

I know that each of you want to take me aside to say, “Larry, I voted …” or “I did my best to …” But that is not enough.

A city council is not judged by the good intentions of its members. It is judged by what it accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, as a body.

Each one of you is well qualified to sit where you do, and most of you are my friends.

But your group process has completely failed. All I hear is mutual blame, and no investment in the group’s endeavor. Your total is much less than the sum of the parts.

I have been a defender and apologist for this council since long before any of you were members of it. I spoke up for you when your deliberations looked messy, or your priorities seemed odd. I spoke up for you when you were embarrassed about emails you exchanged. I have supported most of you in your individual campaigns.

But even I can see that difficulty with group process has gotten this body into trouble again and again. If you are worried about the council’s image, you should think back on all those events and hang your heads in shame.

Now, I understand that at a recent meeting, a proposal was made to revive the Germantown historic district, in a last-ditch effort to undo the damage you have done. I read with incredulity that some of you were angry that this was brought forward, and attempted to stop it from even being discussed.

Given that the current developer chose to enter into this project which already had a long and contentious history, I don’t see that he is owed “finality” on previous bad decisions. This is not someone who has owned the property for years and finds unexpected hurdles to development. It is entirely predictable that the city council would be interested in other development options.

Let me remind you that the city has vast powers to control development, and all kinds of tools that you’re not using here.

Here’s a very modest suggestion.

First, set out a territory that includes only the front portion of the seven properties, where the houses themselves stand. Reappoint your Germantown study committee and charge them with studying only that limited area. Since studies of the neighborhood have already been completed, it should not take long to create a recommendation. Give them a very short deadline, like 30 or 45 days, and limit the demolition moratorium to that time.

Second, while that is pending, rezone those properties to the higher density that is justified by close proximity to the transit center and the new underground parking facility.

You have ample legal justification to support both of those actions.

Under these different constraints, any reasonably creative developer ought to be able to come up with a profitable project, closely similar to the Heritage Row project, perhaps even without a PUD. And this combination of action would limit historic district protection and restriction to a specific ensemble of well-documented historic and architectural resources.

It’s time for the Ann Arbor City Council to redeem itself, to work together instead of separately, to show some creativity and compromise. Please don’t be so dug in to your past mistakes that you disdain positive outcomes in favor of scorched earth.

Larry Kestenbaum

Note: Dave Askins is editor of The Ann Arbor Chronicle. 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!

Chapter Added to Fifth Ave. Historic Saga

Dave Askins — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:53:05 +0000

Ann Arbor city council meeting (Oct. 24, 2011): Monday’s meeting was added to the council’s calendar specifically for the purpose of taking a second and final vote on the Heritage Row planned unit development (PUD). The project would have rehabbed or reconstructed a row of seven existing houses on Fifth Avenue, south of William Street, and built three new apartment buildings behind them.

In the foreground is Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) as his council colleague Mike Anglin (Ward 5) explained the reasons why he wanted to appoint a historic district study committee for the area south of William Street along Fourth and Fifth avenues.

Heritage Row had been considered and rejected more than once before by the council, with a history in front of Ann Arbor’s legislative body dating back well over a year. The project had been brought back for reconsideration because the demolition of the seven houses was apparently imminent – as part of the construction of City Place. City Place is a different, already-approved project on the same Fifth Avenue site by the same developer.

But by the Friday before Monday’s meeting, all four agenda items related to Heritage Row (site plan, zoning ordinance and their respective public hearings) had been deleted from the agenda. The developer had withdrawn the Heritage Row project.

With the construction of City Place a virtual certainty – along with demolition of the houses – on Monday afternoon Mike Anglin (Ward 5) placed a proposal on the agenda that would have started a procedure to establish a historic district in the area. The related moratorium on demolition in the study area would have, at least temporarily, blocked the City Place development.

But in the end, the council was in no mood to repeat the same exercise it had gone through two years ago. At that time, the council had appointed a historic district study committee, then subsequently rejected the committee’s recommendation that a historic district be established in the neighborhood. Arguing against the establishment of a historic district study committee this time around, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he didn’t want the council to become a joke. Later during deliberations Margie Teall (Ward 4) ventured that already, “We’ve become a bit of a joke.”

Also on Monday afternoon, two other items – which asked the council to reconsider votes it had taken at the Oct. 17 meeting about the City Place project – were placed on the agenda by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Kunselman was not interested in getting the votes reversed, but had questions he wanted answered. While other councilmembers agreed to reconsider the items, the council then dispatched them with unanimous votes after Kunselman’s questions.

That left one item on the agenda – added on Friday after the agenda’s Wednesday publication – that actually resulted in a vote that might change the course of events in the city. The resolution directed city staff to make recommendations on improvements to crosswalks throughout the city. Councilmembers expressed some interest in tweaking a new pedestrian ordinance that it approved on July 19, 2010.

Also at the meeting, the council went into closed session to discuss the city attorney’s performance evaluation. It resulted in no change to city attorney Stephen Postema’s salary, but allowed him to cash out 250 hours of accrued time before Dec. 31, 2011.

Fifth Ave. Historic District

On the council’s agenda was a proposal to reappoint a historic district study committee for an area along Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor. The council also had on its agenda a separate but related proposal to enact an emergency moratorium on demolition in the proposed study area.

The scope of the study would have included an area roughly from William south to Madison along Fourth and Fifth avenues, as well as some addresses on Packard Street. Members of the committee were proposed to be Ellen Ramsburgh, Tom Luczak, Ethel Potts and Susan Wineberg.

It was Mike Anglin (Ward 5) who pushed the historic district proposals forward.

Historic District: Background

The site where City Place and Heritage Row have been proposed, and the area further south near Madison Street, have a long history [timeline]. An area in the same vicinity had previously been studied by a committee, which resulted in a recommendation to establish a historic district south of William and north of Packard on Fourth and Fifth avenues. However, on July 6, 2010, the city council rejected the historic district on a 4-6 vote. Voting for the district on that occasion were Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje. Anglin was absent that evening, but his yes vote would not have been enough to achieve the majority needed to pass the resolution.

The original recommendation to establish a historic district had been made by a committee established by the city council on Aug. 6, 2009, along with a moratorium on demolition in the area to be studied. [For additional background, see: "S. Fifth Ave: Historic District Development"]

The council had established that 2009 study committee (in conjunction with a moratorium) in an attempt to block the City Place matter-of-right project that had been considered by the council, but postponed until January 2010 – under an arrangement with then-developer Alex de Parry. [De Parry recently sold his interest in the project.]

When the historic district committee was established in August 2009, the City Place project was then brought forward and ultimately approved on Sept. 21, 2009, about a month after the historic district study committee and moratorium had been established. This was a key difference between then and now: Two years ago, the historic district study committee was appointed before there was an approved project on the site.

The same night in July 2010 when councilmembers rejected the Fourth/Fifth Avenue historic district, now nearly 15 months ago, they reconsidered a vote on the Heritage Row planned unit development for the same site as City Place. In the version before the council at that time, Heritage Row would have constructed three new apartment buildings behind seven existing houses and preserved the houses to historic district standards. The July 6, 2010 vote on Heritage Row was 7-3 in favor, leaving it one vote short of the 8-vote majority the project needed for approval. The council had initially considered the Heritage Row project on June 21, 2010 and rejected it on a 7-4 vote.

With Heritage Row and a historic district both rejected, and the City Place project approved, a number of efforts have been made since the summer of 2010 to avoid the construction of City Place. Those efforts culminated most recently in a council decision reached on Oct. 3, 2011 to reconsider Heritage Row another time. That came shortly after the ownership of the City Place and Heritage Row projects changed. The Oct. 3 decision to reconsider Heritage Row was hoped by many to culminate in a final vote at an extra council meeting scheduled for Oct. 24. However, on Oct. 21 news emerged that the developer had pulled the item from the Oct. 24 agenda.

City Place, Historic District: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for all those who can’t attend the meeting, seniors and disabled people. He called on the council to show the courage to withdraw the City Place items from their agenda. No other university city with the prestige of Ann Arbor has allowed itself to be bullied by land developers, he said. Other communities have turned aside businesses – like Walmart.

Partridge said the increasing power of corporations is a prime reason why Occupy Wall Street is gaining strength every day. Occupy Wall Street is about people taking themselves away from the comfort of their homes and families to demonstrate. Heritage Row is illustrative of corrupt business practices, he said. Alluding to the crosswalk items on the agenda, Partridge also called for safe access to all forms of transportation.

Rita Mitchell asked the council to take advantage of a chance to reset the process. She talked about the mutliple dimensions of benefit to doing that. The houses, she said, can’t be replaced. They’re valuable to residents, who live there. They provide unique living spaces. They provide for an interesting and unique landscape near downtown. The city of Ann Arbor’s website notes the 1824 founding of Ann Arbor and highlights the city’s historic districts. If we allow houses like these to be removed, she said, it would contribute to the erosion of a sense of time and place and neighborhood.

Mitchell stressed the importance of what Fifth Avenue means to the neighborhood. She urged reconsideration of the votes on City Place. She asked the council to support the appointment of the historic district committee and asked for the council to support the moratorium. She suggested that councilmembers could all be remembered for making a decision for the benefit of the community.

Ethel Potts noted that Ann Arbor is getting press about how great it is due to its walkability, great neighborhoods and charm. But she said that not everything built new in the city enhances its charm – there are some “clunkers” built, she said. The particular block on Fifth Avenue has historic houses and are well worth keeping for all of us, she said. She asked that the council support appointment of a historic district study committee and moratorium. After all the confusion the council has been through, she said, it’s worth taking a step back to consider the livability of the city. She also asked that they reconsider the amendments to City Place – the developer wanted those revisions for his own reasons, she said.

Kathy Boris supported the resolutions proposed by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) to establish a study committee and the moratorium on demolition. It was her understanding, she said, that the moratorium would apply to City Place. If no action were taken, the project would bulldoze away seven houses and replace them with apartment buildings. It would be a shame to dismantle the block. She urged the mayor and the council to protect historic houses and Ann Arbor’s heritage.

Historic District: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) led off deliberations by thanking everyone for their continued interest. He said the strong minority vote on the historic district in July of 2010 (which was 4-6 in favor, and would have been 5-6 had Anglin been present) indicates uncertainty on the part of the council. He thanked the community members who were willing to step up now and serve on another study committee. He described a process that would include establishing a historic district study committee, appointing its members that night, and asking them to meet that night and consider the recommendation made by the previous committee.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald (standing) confered with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) before the Oct. 24 meeting started.

Anglin then spoke about other historic districts in Ann Arbor and historic districts in general. He described how Ann Arbor’s Old West Side historic district was established in a crisis situation. [Google Map of Ann Arbor's historic districts] Buildings were torn down and cinder block buildings were put up. A historic district study committee, he said, alerts the town to what is going on. He said we’re lucky to have a strong historic district statute in Michigan. The area proposed for study, because of its location near downtown, plays a unique role in the community. There’s an affinity for this area, he continued.

The council had allowed a great deal of student housing to be put in, he said, without opposition, because those projects are suitable for their locations, Anglin said. [Anglin was likely referring to Zaragon West, being built at Thompson and William.] But in areas where there’s a legacy of some kind, it’s different.

Anglin said he enjoys living in an area where things are clearly defined. [Anglin lives in the Old West Side historic district.] There are things he can do and things he can’t – he likes that. He said his neighborhood has lots of graduate students, so historic districts don’t stop diversity, but rather encourage it. Most of the homes are privately owned and well-maintained, he said. They provide lower and affordable rents.

Coming back to the question of the procedure that night, Anglin said the process would be to appoint the committee. The council would recommend that the committee meet that evening. The mandate would be to act as a committee to determine if the intended study area is threatened. He said it was his understanding that this part of the procedure was “pretty foolproof.” He said that councilmembers, as “guardians of the city,” have the right to do their own planning. He believed the council should do everything possible to try to help the proposed study area achieve some kind of historic designation.

Anglin returned to the issue of the strong minority view, saying that back on July 6, 2010, the vote had been 6-4 vote against establishing the historic district. He wasn’t at the meeting, he said, but would have voted for the historic district. By establishing a historic district, he said, the council would be leaving the city a beautiful statement about their terms in office.

Anglin allowed that the timeline would be shorter, but that is because one study has already been done. The citizens who were asked to serve on the new committee, Anglin said, had stepped right forward.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that it’s the third time the issue of establishing a historic district study committee for the area has appeared before the council. The first time [on Dec. 15, 2008] the council did not support it. The second time [on Aug. 6, 2009] it was brought as a surprise to many, she said, but it passed. Many people felt it was warranted at that time. When the committee’s report came out, some councilmembers felt the case the committee had made was not strong enough to support establishment of the district.

Briere alluded to the city’s past experience with the establishment of historic districts where they’d initially been rejected by the council, but had eventually won approval in some form. Briere said she’d support establishing a study committee, because she thinks the area would benefit from historic district protection.

Other options, she said, have not materialized as strong protections for existing neighborhoods. For example, prevention of the accumulation of separate parcels for use to construct a single building was something that had not yet been brought forward.

She noted she had a problem with one of the “whereas” clauses:

Whereas, This proposed historic district is threatened by immediate development pressure and demolition or modifications not in keeping with the intent of the proposed district;

She said she was personally opposed to using every possible tool to prevent something [City Place] that the council had already approved. She proposed amending out that “whereas” clause. Anglin ventured he could live without it. Briere clarified that she interpreted that clause as direction to the committee. Anglin’s statement that the committee would meet that night, she said, belies the 12-month timeframe normally given for a historic district study committee to do its work. Anglin agreed to strike the clause as a “friendly” amendment and the change was made to the resolution without a vote.

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d voted to establish a study committee in the past and had voted in favor of the district. But the council had been wrestling around with it for a long time. The council as a body had voted no on the previous study committee’s recommendation, he said. Establishing a study committee creates expectations. It also puts a burden on the city staff. It re-does something the council has already spent a lot of time talking about. Hieftje said he had no expectation it would pass the second time around. He concluded that he didn’t think the council needed to go down the same road again.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) before the council meeting.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) allowed that she’d voted for formation of committee previously, but the data that had come back didn’t support the creation of the district. She saw no advantage in going through the same exercise again.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he appreciated Anglin’s efforts. Anglin had articulated the historic value in that area of the community, Hohnke said. Hohnke’s view was that those historic assets are worth preserving. He’d supported the historic district the first time around. But Hohnke said that if it moved forward, it would be with the expectation that the moratorium would be attached to it. Incorporating the clear view from the city attorney, Hohnke said, led him to conclude that it wouldn’t be in the best interest of the city to establish the study committee. [Before the council began deliberations, they held a closed session to discuss written communication from the city attorney that lasted around 25 minutes.]

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that earlier in the meeting, someone had said they were concerned about the tone the city sends out. [It was Anglin, who during his communications had relayed a complaint from a constituent about the tone of warning letters sent out by the city in connection with rental property inspections.] By reconsidering and reconsidering and reconsidering something to which the council had apparently already brought finality to, it sends out the wrong tone, Derezinski said. He thought predictability and finality is an important aspect to the character of the city council. You have to accommodate the future as well as the past, he said. We don’t want to become a joke, Derezinski said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the University of Michigan continues to buy land in the general vicinity of the proposed area of study (next to the Institute for Social Research, which has been expanding). He asked assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald if a historic district influences what the university does. McDonald, who specializes in land use issues for the city, answered in one word: No.

Anglin took on the perception that the council couldn’t make up its mind. “It’s not that we can’t make our minds up,” he contended. It’s that you tend to waver when you have important decisions. Indecision is often a good thing, he said. Indecision had allowed everyone to look at this area for a long time and to look at the scope of the neighborhood. Anglin reasserted his belief the procedure for establishing a study committee is foolproof and would not be contested.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she could appreciate the desire to maintain the row of charming houses. They present a certain rhythm as you stroll past. And they’ve been around for a long time. In an apparent allusion to a deal she’d helped work out in December 2010, but for which expected support at the council table from Carsten Hohnke had not been forthcoming, Smith said there had been opportunities to come to different conclusions along the way. She said she did not think it was now in the city’s best interest to establish a study committee and she could not support it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that this area of town and the issues surrounding it had been a part of the community conversation at least since 2008 when he was first elected to the council. It has presented moments of difficulty and reflection. He felt the reason the council was in the place it was that night was its “failure to achieve reasonable compromise.” There’d been a failure to accept something that was less than ideal. He had thought long and hard about whether the area is suitable for a historic district.

Nothing Taylor had heard had changed his conclusion. However, he said that if the council is in this situation because of a failure to compromise, then he felt he had to listen again, even if he felt there was no reason to think he would come to a different conclusion. There are people who are interested in devoting their time to the project and there’s an existing knowledge base. If the demolition is not attached to the resolution, he said he’d be open to listening and to learning.

Kunselman noted the issue certainly has a long history. He said he’d recently visited Chicago, where he’d seen a neighborhood that had some zoning in place that prevented the accumulation of parcels. He asked if it were possible to pass a zoning ordinance that specified a maximum lot size. The answer from assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald was: Yes, it’s possible.

Kunselman said he had no problem having a historic district study committee, but he was also looking to the existing R4C/R2A zoning district study committee. If that committee doesn’t take action, then he’d initiate a change in the zoning code to establish a maximum lot size. He said he’d hate to have something like City Place on Hamilton Place [the next street to the east from Fifth Avenue, where City Place is likely to be built]. In the Chicago neighborhood, he said, it was possible to have modern single-family homes right next to the old ones. The city has to allow for rebuilding, he said. He was open to learning and listening like Taylor, but concluded by saying that the council needed to move in some way.

Derezinski offered as a point of information on the R4C process – which he had kicked off with his first resolution made at the council table after winning election – that the committee had held a number of meetings, then doubled its size. He contended that the committee has been meeting consistently, and has added more meetings. The 10th and last meeting is scheduled for Nov. 9, he said. Everyone is welcome to come to add comments. It’s been a long and hard process, he said. He hoped to have a report from the committee in November, and then it’ll be up to council to decide what to do.

Hohnke said that since some councilmembers had expressed a desire to separate the resolution on establishing a study committee from the moratorium against demolition, he thought it would be worth considering establishing a study committee. But he had not had a chance to look at the staff input – it had come late to the agenda. If the council was going to consider the issue of a study committee independently, then a postponement would not have a negative effect, he said. So Hohnke moved to postpone the issue until the council’s next meeting.

On the postponement, Hieftje said the council had already done this, and had considered it over a long period of time. He did not expect he’d change his mind. Derezinski said it had been a long discussion for years and nothing has changed. It would be kicking the can down the road a little further, he concluded.

Outcome on postponement: The council rejected postponement, with only Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) supporting it.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she could not support establishing a study committee. Thinking about what Derezinski had said about kicking the can down the road, she said that as the council continued to do this, “We’ve become a bit of a joke.” The council continues to bring up the same issue and vote the same way, she said.

Briere finished off the deliberations by saying there’s a difference between a historic district and a designation in the register of historic places. She said that for the seven houses, the council had essential made a decision one and a half years ago. Her fear now is for the rest of the neighborhood – the other side of Fifth Avenue, Hamilton Place, and Packard Street. The rest of the neighborhood is worth protecting, she said, so the issue will come back to the council eventually.

Outcome on establishing the historic district study committee: The council rejected it, with support only from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

When the resolution to establish the historic district committee failed, the related resolution on the moratorium was withdrawn.

City Place Votes Reconsidered

The council was asked to reconsider two votes taken at its previous meeting on Oct. 17 about the City Place matter-of-right project on Fifth Avenue south of William Street.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) looks on as Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) moves for reconsideration of a vote on the City Place project.

It’s worth distinguishing between the parliamentary notion of reconsideration and the common understanding of “to reconsider” as meaning something like “to contemplate again and reach a different conclusion.” When the council votes to reconsider a previous vote, it’s only settling the question of whether the vote will be taken again. If a vote to reconsider succeeds, then the council must vote again on the same question it considered previously.

The two votes on Oct. 17 had related to requests from the City Place developer. One request was to waive a landscape buffer requirement that was introduced through an ordinance change made after the project was initially approved in 2009. The second request was for approval of changes to the buildings that included a new window on the upper floors of the north and south-facing sides, and a change from horizontal siding to simulated shingle siding on the dormer.

Both re-votes were prompted by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who had posed questions at the Oct. 17 meeting to which he did not feel he’d received adequate answers. One question related to fire exits for the upper floors of the development, which calls for demolition of seven existing houses to be replaced by two apartment buildings, separated by a parking lot.

City Place: Landscaping

Kunselman led off by saying that he did not have the same experience that his colleagues did with City Place. [He was not on the council when the project had been approved.] He just wanted to ask some questions, he said, and he asked for their indulgence. He assured his colleagues that he would move it along promptly, but noted that the City Place developer did not seem to have answers to his questions at the Oct. 17 meeting, so he wanted to try to get those answers that evening.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he appreciated the need to study issues carefully. But he said that this particular resolution had not been a surprise. He then stated that the council’s decisions need to have some finality. If the council keeps reconsidering decisions, the council is not well-served – because people need to have confidence in the finality of the council’s decisions. He said he was against the motion to reconsider the previous vote.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she appreciated Derezinski’s remarks. However, the one time the council’s rules say that councilmembers can reconsider a vote is at the very next meeting. “That’s tonight,” she said. She concluded that Kunselman was following the rules exactly, and she thanked him for that. Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked Kunselman if there was information that he needed from the building inspector. Kunselman turned the question aside, saying that the motion before the council was to reconsider the previous decision. Mayor John Hieftje said that when the council had previously voted, he had all information he needed, but he was happy to reconsider the vote if Kunselman didn’t have the information he needed.

Outcome on reconsideration: The council voted to reconsider the previous vote on City Place landscaping requirements. Voting against the reconsideration were Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

The specific issue Kunselman wanted to ask about stemmed from a recent change to the city’s landscaping ordinance that requires a conflicting land use buffer of 15 feet between a building and any adjacent land zoned or used for residential purposes. In the case of the City Place project, this comes into play on the south side of the property, where there is not enough room for the required 15-foot buffer. The proposed City Place building is set back 16 feet from the property line, but an existing driveway for the immediately adjacent residential parcel is located on the City Place property where the buffer would be. There is an easement on the driveway.

In response to a question from Kunselman, city planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that when the landscape ordinance changed, it required a buffer between the building itself and the other property. There’s a driveway where the trees would need to be planted, she said. Kunselman asked if there was any possibility to install some vegetation.

Rampson allowed that there might be room for some kind of vegetation, but not trees. Conflicting land use buffers usually contemplate something more substantial, like a berm, she said. Kunselman asked if it were possible to add screening of some kind. The interaction concluded with Kunselman expressing his hope that the building and its occupants will be screened by the developer from ins and outs of traffic from the adjoining driveway.

Outcome on City Place landscape requirements on revote: The council voted unanimously to approve the flexible application of the landscape ordinance.

City Place: Elevations

During an earlier communications slot on the agenda, Kunselman inquired about asbestos abatement associated with the seven houses to be demolished for City Place. The city’s chief development official, Ralph Welton, attended the meeting to answer Kunselman’s questions.

Kunselman said he was concerned because a house demolished in his neighborhood cost quite a lot to have the work done, due to asbestos that was present on the site. He asked Welton to describe the asbestos situation for the seven houses on Fifth Avenue. Welton explained that a survey was done and that the survey did find some asbestos – it would need to be abated. But he said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) handles that. He said he really could not speak to the pricing, but he did note that it drops the cost to have several houses in one spot.

Kunselman led off the short deliberations on the reconsideration by saying he was not that familiar with the “area wells” [aka window wells] on the ground level. He’d also not received answers about questions he’d had on the windows for the mezzanine level.

Outcome on reconsideration: The council voted to reconsider the previous vote on City Place elevation changes. Voting against the reconsideration were Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Kunselman said that the guardrails around the window wells were not part of the original site plans and now they’re included. What’s their purpose? he asked.

Excerpt from City Place site plan drawings showing the metal guard rail at the area (window) wells.

Responding to Kunselman’s question, Welton said he had seen the first set of plans – he could only talk about the code. He ventured that the reason for for the guardrails is to prevent people from falling into the window wells. Welton allowed that he’d heard that the developer was interested in reconfiguring the interior of the buildings with respect to the bedrooms, but that he had not discussed that with them. Welton said he’d had a conversation about the city code on how egress and sprinkling would work in bedrooms and mezzanine levels.

Kunselman asked if an egress window from the fourth floor would require a fire escape – no, replied Welton. Kunselman came back to the area well issue, asking why they now had guard rails. Rampson indicated that at the site plan stage, planning staff don’t typically get into that level of detail. However, when construction drawings are put together, that’s when elements like guard rails are shown. That’s why they’re shown now, but not before. They’re to ensure that people don’t fall in, Rampson said.

Kunselman asked for confirmation that the guard rails are not a site plan issue. Rampson described them as an appurtenance in a site like a light pole – it’s part of the site, but not the site plan. On an elevation drawing, she said, the city wouldn’t require somebody to show the light poles.

Outcome on City Place elevation drawings on revote: The council voted unanimously to approve the elevation drawings.

Crosswalk Improvements

Before the council was a resolution that called on city staff to make recommendations on improvements to crosswalks throughout the city, identifying locations where technologies like High-intensity Activated crossWalK beacons (HAWK), and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) would be appropriate. The resolution directed city staff to focus on Washtenaw Avenue near Tappan Middle School and Plymouth Road near the intersection of Beal Avenue. According to the resolution, the staff is supposed to present recommendations for the Plymouth & Beal intersection sometime in December 2011.

Crosswalks: Public Commentary

At the time set aside for public commentary at the end of the council meeting, Kathy Griswold said she’d met with the mayor and with city staff to get a clearer understanding of what the sight-distance requirements are at intersections. She reminded the council that she’s advocated in the past for moving a crosswalk at King Elementary School, which is located midblock, to a four-way-stop intersection. The requirements for sight distance, she said, involved two drivers being able to make eye contact. She asked about bike lanes and pedestrians. How can the city have an ordinance that says the pedestrian has the right of way, if you can’t see the pedestrians?

Crosswalks: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off deliberations by thanking mayor John Hieftje for bringing the resolution forward. There’s always an opportunity to review engineering of pedestrian safety as part of the “three Es” – education, enforcement, and engineering. Hohnke called it a useful request to ask staff to explore alternatives. Although they had thought that a HAWK was the best thing out there, now it appears there could be something even better.

Seated is Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). He's kidding around with Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) before the meeting.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) also thanked the mayor for bringing the resolution forward. Rapundalo said he’d heard from many constituents about their experiences with this issue on Plymouth Road and he had some of his own experiences. He described the dangerous situations that arise from the city’s ordinance [cars stopping in a moving stream of rapidly moving traffic, in order to comply with the ordinance]. So as an aside, he said, the council might want to take another look at the language on “approaching” a crosswalk. Does that mean someone who is ready to step into the crosswalk, or someone who is two or three feet away? He ventured that maybe the council could add some clarity to the ordinance.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted the focus in the resolution on the part of Washtenaw Avenue near Tappan Middle School. He pointed out that it’s near the new Arbor Hills Crossing development. There’ll be a bus stop there, and it’s also near the Washtenaw Recreation Center.

Building on remarks by Rapundalo and Derezinski, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted it’s difficult to anticipate that a pedestrian is attempting to cross, when the crosswalk location is in the vicinity of a bus stop: Is the person trying to cross or are they waiting for the bus? In some other communities, Briere said, pedestrians are expected to signal that they’re intending to cross. The council should look at the language that’s been used, she said. Maybe the ordinance needs another level of tweaking.

Briere wondered if the issue could be postponed until the council’s first meeting in November. Hieftje wasn’t amenable to a postponement, saying he wanted to “get this out the door.” Briere was not insistent about the postponement, and stated the everyone had learned that the language is too vague.

Hohnke responded to some of the sentiment that seemed to be emerging that a further revision to the ordinance might be in order. [Hohnke was one of the architects of the initial ordinance revision.] With respect to the ambiguity that exists for bus stops located near crosswalks, he noted that many traffic regulations incorporate some ambiguity and require judgment. As an example he gave yellow lights. He paraphrased the law as requiring motorists to stop for a yellow light “if you can do so safely,” but what is “safely”? By way of background, the Michigan Vehicle Code states:

257.612 Traffic control signals …
Sec. 612.
(1) When traffic is controlled by traffic control signals …
(b) If the signal exhibits a steady yellow indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection or at a limit line when marked, but if the stop cannot be made in safety, a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection.

Hohnke noted that the city’s old pedestrian ordinance required the same analysis of what “approach” meant. It simply required that analysis under slightly different circumstances, namely if a pedestrian was approaching their side of the roadway. [More detail on the differences between the old and the new pedestrian ordinance is included in the July 19, 2010 Chronicle council report, when it was enacted.]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated moving the resolution forward that night and wanted to bring back another resolution addressing the ordinance. In the last couple of weeks, she said, she’d seen motorists stop on one side of the street, with motorists behind the stopped car honking their horns and shooting around them. This kind of issue exists in several locations, she said, where cars are traveling quickly and pedestrians don’t want to jump out into a crosswalk.

Hieftje mentioned how some residents had made a video of someone trying to cross the street and having to leap back to the curb to save their life. The question, he said, is how to provide some assurance to pedestrians that the motorist will stop – that was the puzzle to be solved. If the city had just decided to enforce the old state law, they’d have the same issues, he said. The existing state law was being violated routinely. He said his concern was that 4-5 lane roads would begin to divide the city.

Higgins replied to the mayor by saying it was not a 4-5 lane road where she’d observed the phenomenon she’d described – it was at Crest and Liberty. One motorist had stopped and motioned the pedestrians to cross, Higgins said, but the pedestrians could see traffic coming the other way and didn’t want to cross.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he appreciated the mayor bringing the resolution forward. He said he was also interested in looking at the standard on “approaching.” The previous evening, he said, he’d sent out a constituent communication on the issue and his inbox has lit up. He said it was important to weigh the burden on the driver and the burden placed on the pedestrian.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also thanked the mayor for bringing the resolution forward. He wondered why the council was limiting things to Washtenaw Avenue and Plymouth Road. What about Packard? Hieftje appeared irritated at the question and cited the first “resolved” clause, which speaks generally to crosswalks in the city. Hieftje told Kunselman that if he wanted the city staff to look at a particular crosswalk, he should send them an email.

Briere noted that one of the big problems that drivers have is that they’re adjusting to pedestrians crossing on streets where they’d never noticed pedestrians before. The idea that people are having to get used to is that they have to be alert to pedestrians, she said. It’s fortunate there’s only been “one rear-ender” so far, she said – both drivers were not from Ann Arbor.

Rapundalo followed up by saying that Briere’s comment had reminded him about the need for signage. He noted that many of the crosswalks are not equipped with signs. For crosswalks that do have signs, he said, they say that local law requires motorists to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, but the ordinance specifies “approaching” a crosswalk. That’s where some of the confusion is coming in, Rapundalo said. Hieftje said he was thinking about signs addressing pedestrians, warning them that even though it’s the law, the motorists might not stop.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution calling on staff to study crosswalk locations in the city.

City Attorney’s Personnel Evaluation

The council held a closed session at the end of their meeting based on the part of the Open Meetings Act that reads:

15.268 Closed sessions; permissible purposes.
Sec. 8. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:
(a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions.
…

The personnel evaluation was for city attorney Stephen Postema. The city attorney and the city administrator are the two positions hired by the city council.

At the meeting, the council did not publicly address the issue of whether Postema had fulfilled the statutory requirement for a closed session by requesting that his personnel evaluation be closed. However, Postema’s contract contains a clause specifying that: “The results of the evaluation shall be in writing and shall be discussed with the Employee in closed session.”

When the council emerged from its closed session, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) moved a resolution to amend Postema’s contract by allowing him to cash in 250 hours of accrued banked time before the end of the calendar year, but did not change his base salary. The award of the cash-equivalent of roughly 12% of his annual salary was based only on Postema’s performance in 2009-10. Postema’s base salary as reflected in city records for FY 2010 stood at $141,540.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize Postema to cash in 250 hours of accrued time.

After the vote, Postema volunteered that it was a pleasure to serve the city and that he and the council shared a common concern.

Postema started working for the city in 2003. After awarding percentage increases in Postema’s base salary in the early part of his career with the city, the council has more recently opted to award one-time lump sums, extra vacation days, or the ability to cash in accrued days, as it did this year.

An overview of Postema’s compensation history:

Oct. 24, 2011: can cash in 250 hours before Dec. 31, 2011
Nov. 5, 2009: can cash in 120 hours before June 30, 2010
Oct. 20, 2008: paid lump sum of 2.75% annual salary ($142,000); cash in 150 hours before June 30, 2009; allowed to engage in outside legal work
Nov. 5, 2007: base salary increased by 2.75% for “merit increase” and 1.25% “market increase;” vacation days increased to 25 days per year.
March 20, 2006: can cash in 80 hours of unused vacation time before June 30, 2006.
Oct. 5, 2005: base salary increased at Postema’s discretion up to 3%; awarded 80 hours of vacation time.
Sept. 13, 2004: base salary increased by 3% to $130,810; annual vacation days increased to 22 days;
April 3, 2003: started work at base salary of $127,000 (20 vacation days in addition to legal holidays)

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: Open Door Thank You

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) offered thanks to city administrator Steve Powers, who’d greeted her at the front door of city hall the previous evening to let her and residents into the building. She noted that the previous night was not a normal caucus night based on the council’s calendar set at the beginning of the year. But because the council had added a “regular” meeting to its calendar, the associated caucus, which is held the Sunday evening before all regular council meetings, was also due to be held.

Before the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) chatted with William Hampton, president of the Ann Arbor chapter of the NAACP.

Briere said it was delightful to have someone waiting with a key – three residents had showed up for the event.

[No other councilmembers attended the caucus on Oct. 23, 2011. The majority of councilmembers, including the mayor, have a record of perfect non-attendance at caucus for the calendar year 2011. The meetings are, according to the city's website, meant to provide a chance for councilmembers "to discuss and gather information on issues that are or will be coming before them for consideration." The meetings are also described on the website as "optional."]

Comm/Comm: NCCAP Freedom Fund Dinner

William Hampton, president of the Ann Arbor branch of the NAACP, thanked the council for the chance to speak. He called their attention to the annual Freedom Fund dinner on Nov. 5 at 6:30 p.m. He said that several councilmembers were planning to come and he appreciated that. Although the mayor won’t be there, he said, mayor pro tem Marcia Higgins would be. This year, the speaker would be someone who many people have not heard of, he said. However, it was someone who was a sit-in demonstrator, who had been arrested and put in jail.

Comm/Comm: Civil Rights

Thomas Partridge said he has consistently urged the council to take civil rights into consideration and to provide access for the most vulnerable residents to voting booths that are properly maintained. But the council has ducked every opportunity to do that, he contended.

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

Next council meeting: Thursday, Nov. 10, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [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!

Fifth Ave. Historic District Re-Floated, Sinks

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:40:56 +0000

At its Oct. 24, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered but rejected a proposal to reappoint a historic district study committee for an area along Fourth and Fifth avenues near downtown Ann Arbor. Subsequently, a separate proposal to enact an emergency moratorium on demolition in the proposed study area was withdrawn. It would have included an area roughly from William south to Madison along Fourth and Fifth avenues, as well as some addresses on Packard Street.

It was another chapter in a years-long saga about the future of the area involving two proposed projects for the same site with the same owner – City Place and Heritage Row. [timeline] Now appearing imminent is construction of City Place, which would demolish seven existing houses and construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot. It was Mike Anglin (Ward 5) who pushed the historic district proposals forward.

An area in the same vicinity had previously been studied by a committee, which resulted in a recommendation to establish a historic district north of Packard on Fourth and Fifth avenues. However, on July 6, 2010, the city council rejected the historic district on a 4-6 vote. Voting for the district on that occasion were Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje. Anglin was absent that evening, but his yes vote would not have been enough to achieve the majority it needed.

The council had established that study committee and a moratorium in an attempt to block the City Place matter-of-right project that had been considered by the council, but postponed until January 2010 under an arrangement with the developer, Alex de Parry.

When the historic district committee was established, the City Place project was then brought forward and ultimately approved on Sept. 21, 2009, about a month after the historic district study committee and moratorium had been established. At their Oct. 24, 2011 meeting, councilmembers cited a key difference between then and now: Two years ago, the historic district study committee was appointed before there was an approved project on the site.

The same night that councilmembers rejected the Fourth/Fifth Avenue historic district, now nearly 15 months ago, they reconsidered a vote on the Heritage Row planned unit development. In the version before the council at that time, Heritage Row would have constructed three new apartment buildings behind seven existing houses and preserved the houses to historic district standards. The July 6, 2010 vote on Heritage Row was 7-3 in favor, leaving it one vote short of the 8-vote majority the project needed for approval. The council had initially considered the Heritage Row project on June 21, 2010 and rejected it on a 7-4 vote.

Voting for the establishment of a historic district study committee on Oct. 24 were Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Members of the committee would have been Ellen Ramsburgh, Tom Luczak, Eppie Potts and Susan Wineberg.

The proposed moratorium on demolition was withdrawn on failure of the establishment of the historic district committee.

City Place Votes Retaken, Outcome Same

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:37:54 +0000

At its Oct. 24, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council reconsidered two votes taken at its previous meeting on Oct. 17 about the City Place matter-of-right project on Fifth Avenue south of William Street. The outcome of both votes was the same: approval.

One request from the developer was to waive a landscape buffer requirement that was introduced through an ordinance change made after the project was initially approved in 2009. The second request was for approval of changes to the buildings that included a new window on the upper floors of the north and south-facing sides, and a change from horizontal siding to simulated shingle siding on the dormer.

The Oct. 24 meeting was scheduled initially by the council solely for the purpose of taking a second and final vote on a planned unit development, Heritage Row, for the same site as City Place. Heritage Row would have rehabilitated or reconstructed the existing seven houses and built three additional apartment buildings behind the houses. However, Heritage Row was pulled from the agenda on Oct. 21.

The site where City Place and Heritage Row have been proposed and the area further south near Madison Street have a long history. [timeline]

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.

Council Moves on Future of Fifth Avenue

Dave Askins — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:50:53 +0000

Ann Arbor city council meeting (Oct. 17, 2011): At its meeting last Monday, the Ann Arbor city council acted on two different residential development projects for the block of Fifth Avenue just south of William Street. Both projects are owned by the same developer.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) with Heritage Row and City Place developer Jeff Helminski. (Photos by the writer.)

At the time of their votes – on the matter-of-right City Place and the planned unit development Heritage Row – councilmembers knew that one set of actions would become moot. Only one of the projects, located on the same site, would be built. A few days after the meeting, news emerged that Heritage Row is now off the table and that City Place will move forward, with construction planned to start sometime this fall.

That meant that the council’s action last Monday, to give initial approval to the Heritage Row project, will ultimately have no effect. Developer Jeff Helminski requested that the item be pulled from the council’s Oct. 24 meeting – a meeting that had been added to the council’s calendar specifically to take a second and final vote on the Heritage Row project.

At their Oct. 17 meeting, the council took two actions on the already-approved City Place project – one to allow flexible application of the city’s new landscape ordinance, and a second to approve additional windows on the upper stories and to change the siding. That added to an Oct. 3 decision by the council to allow greater flexibility in the sequencing of City Place construction.

Also on Monday, the council confirmed two appointments to the city’s zoning board of appeals. The ZBA is a body that has purview to hear any challenges to city decisions about the correct application of city ordinances and the appropriateness of administrative decisions, including those associated with matter-of-right projects like City Place.

In other real estate development news out of Monday’s meeting, the council approved changes to the elevations for City Apartments, a residential project at First and Washington scheduled to start construction yet this season. The council is expected to authorize the sale of the city-owned parcel at its Nov. 10 meeting.

The council approved the annexation into the city of a township parcel where Biercamp Artisan Sausage & Jerky has set up shop. A tax abatement for Arbor Networks, a computer network security firm, was also approved by the council.

Another significant item on the council’s agenda was the appropriation of $25,000 from the city’s general fund reserve to keep the warming center open this year, which is operated by the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County in the Delonis Center on Huron Street.

The council also approved a resolution of intent on the use of sidewalk and street millage funds, which voters will be asked to approve at the polls on Nov. 8. The resolution was amended to clarify how funding will work for sidewalk repair adjacent to commercial properties inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district.

City Place, Heritage Row

On Monday’s agenda were three items related to two different proposed developments at the same site on South Fifth Avenue just south of William Street: City Place and Heritage Row.

The council was asked to give initial approval for the Heritage Row proposal, which was to receive a second and final vote at a council meeting scheduled for Oct. 24. Later in the week, however, the developer withdrew the item from the agenda for Oct. 24.

The plan for the matter-of-right project called City Place would demolish seven houses and construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot. The two City Place buildings would comprise 144 bedrooms in 24 6-bedroom units.

As revised from an earlier proposal rejected by the council 14 months ago, the planned unit development (PUD) Heritage Row project would provide for some manner of reconstruction of the seven existing houses, and construct three additional buildings behind the houses. The project, as revised, would not be required to provide any on-site parking for a total of 85 dwelling units containing up to 180 bedrooms on the 1.23-acre property. The previous proposal would have constructed underground parking, for a total of 60 spaces on site.

For City Place, at their Oct. 17 meeting, the council was asked to approve a request from the developer to waive a landscape buffer requirement that was introduced through an ordinance change made after the project was initially approved in 2009. Also for City Place, the council was asked to approve a request for changes to the buildings that included a new window on the upper floors of the north and south-facing sides, and a change from horizontal siding to simulated shingle siding on the dormer.

The Heritage Row project has a long and controversial history dating back four years. The city council voted at its Oct. 3 meeting to reconsider the project, which it had previously rejected around 14 months ago. The council then voted to postpone a decision on the project so that negotiations could take place between the developer, city staff and councilmembers about possible revisions. By offering concessions that could make the project more financially viable, the council hoped to induce the developer to divert from his imminent intent to construct City Place. City Place is regarded by most observers as an inferior project to Heritage Row.

At the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, a letter was discussed which councilmembers had received from the developer, Jeff Helminski. That letter outlined his requirements for concessions that he would need in order to build Heritage Row instead of City Place. At the Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers expressed clear dissatisfaction with elements of Helminski’s letter. However, the key points from the letter appeared to have been incorporated into the revised proposal.

[.pdf of marked up Heritage Row supplemental regulations as presented on Oct. 17][.pdf of comparison chart between original Heritage Row and revised proposal as presented on Oct. 17] [.pdf of Oct. 3 letter from developer]

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off deliberations by acknowledging the accelerated timeline and the unusual action. He reminded the council that the last version of the Heritage Row project (which the council rejected) was not felt by the current developer to be financially viable. [The project ownership changed hands.] So the council was continuing to look for alternatives to the matter-of-right City Place project. Appealing to a baseball analogy, Hohnke said they hadn’t seen the last out – that’s a positive and they were still on the field.

From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) during a recess in the Oct. 17 meeting.

Hohnke said the proposal before the council was not a perfect solution to the problem. He’d like to see less density, stronger commitment to rehabilitation of the existing seven houses, and a unit mix that doesn’t have as many 4-5 bedroom units. It’s worth noting, he said, that the physical characteristics of the project have changed changed very little – the setback, height and streetscape is proposed to be maintained.

Hohnke described the affordable housing component as a significant public benefit. He said that was a serious point of negotiation and a tough negotiating point. [Compared to the June 2010 version of Heritage Row, the Oct. 17, 2011 version offered percentage-wise less affordable housing benefit. The June 2010 version required 18% of 82 units (14.76) while the Oct. 17 version required 17% of 85 units (14.45). An earlier, Oct. 3 version would have required just 15% of 85 units (12.75).]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked the city attorney if the initial vote needed eight votes or if only the second and final vote needed eight. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald indicated it was the second vote that required the eight-vote majority.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered how it was possible for the council to be considering issues involving two different projects on the same parcel – is that legal? McDonald allowed that the city does not usually entertain multiple petitions for approval on the same parcel. But he said that City Place is an already-approved project. So the items on the council’s agenda for City Place are for an already-approved project. What was right then in front of the council was the Heritage Row PUD. If the City Place items were approved and Heritage Row is approved later, the City Place items would be moot, McDonald said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know if there was a reason why the City Place amendment was not put on the agenda for the following week, given that the council had added an extra meeting for Oct. 24. McDonald deferred to planning manager Wendy Rampson, who said that the timing was requested by the developer. He’s working on parallel tracks to prepare for construction planning, and putting it off to Oct. 24 would mean a delay of one week.

Higgins wanted to know how much movement there’d been on the part of the developer since the Oct. 3 letter. Was the version before the council the final offer, or was there room for negotiation? Rampson said the developer was still evaluating the costs and this was the closest he could come. By Friday, Rampson said, the developer was hoping to have it costed out to make sure it’s feasible.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, left, and chief financial officer Tom Crawford.

Higgins asked Helminski if there were changes from the Oct. 3 proposal. Helminski said there were changes – some had to do with affordable housing. He asked for Rampson’s help in enumerating other changes. [Substantive changes included the ability to place solar panels on the new construction and the incremental increase in affordable housing units.] Higgins said she wanted to see a third column in the chart of comparisons, so that she could see the June 2010 proposal compared against the Oct. 3 and the Oct. 17, 2011 proposals.

Higgins asked when the council would know the final offer the developer was making that he felt was feasible. Helminski said he had a call scheduled on Friday with the whole team. Helminski said the mutual commitment he’s made to the council and the staff was that if at any point there’s a deal killer, both sides would communicate that immediately.

[At the Oct. 3 council meeting, it was indicated that the final best offer would be on the table at the Oct. 17 meeting. The fact that it apparently was not ready by then ~~and the fact that an attorney for the development team, Scott Munzel, did not appear for the slot he'd reserved during public commentary on Oct. 17,~~ may have foreshadowed the announcement later in the week that the project would be withdrawn. Scott Munzel, an attorney for the former owner of the Fifth Avenue property where one of the two projects will be built, did not arrive at the meeting in time for the slot he'd reserved for his public commentary on his own behalf on Oct. 17.]

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked about the Society of Environmentally Responsible Facilities. That organization is specified as providing the environmental standards that the new construction would meet – the previous proposal would have met the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard. Helminski described SERF as a relatively new organization. With LEED, he contended that the certification process has become more important than the building components. Administratively, he said, SERF is a better experience. Smith asked if there was a SERF rating system of levels similar to LEED. Helminski said no, it’s either SERF-certified or not.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked Helminski for negotiating again with the city on the project. He described the project as unique because of its location. He wanted to know how Helminski wanted to receive additional suggestions. Helminski suggested the usual communication channels: over coffee, texting, email or phone calls.

Kunselman noted that the revised proposal has no off-street on-site parking requirement – would the developer be seeking to create an agreement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to obtain parking permits at city parking structures? Helminski described the conversations with DDA executive director Susan Pollay as going well, but no agreement had yet been reached.

Kunselman asked if the spaces would be provided for free. Helminski quipped that he did not think that’s the way it’ll shake out in the end – tenants would pay market rate. Kunselman told Helminski that he was getting a significant break and would realize a significant savings by not having to construct underground parking.

Kunselman then addressed the issue of affordable housing. Affordable housing had not actually been built in the city as part of a PUD since Ashley Mews, a development located at Main & Packard. Since that time developers had made payments in lieu, he said. Kunselman contended that it would be primarily students who lived in Heritage Row and that a payment in lieu was the most likely scenario – that puts the burden on the city to construct the affordable housing. Helminski replied that he wouldn’t expect Heritage Row tenants to be primarily students. He said he was meeting with the county/city office of community development housing manager Jennifer L. Hall to discuss whether it’s better to build affordable housing on site or do payments in lieu. Sometimes the city prefers payments in lieu, he said.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he appreciated the fact that the issue of parking had been brought up – that had been a concern of his. He was worried about the overall capacity of the parking system. He’d assumed that Helminski would primarily be pursuing parking in the new underground garage for his residents, but it sounded like that might not be absolute. Rapundalo said he’d be interested to see the impact of Heritage Row tenant parking on availability of public parking.

Hohnke responded to some of his colleagues’ comments by saying that parking spaces will be a part of the development agreement. He also pointed out that the revised version of the proposal sets a date certain for reconstruction of the houses on Fifth Avenue. [The revised proposal allowed the project to be constructed in two phases, which essentially meant that the new construction of the three buildings could receive certificates of occupancy, before the seven existing houses were reconstructed.]

Hohnke then asked Jennifer L. Hall to the podium to discuss Kunselman’s question about the benefit to the city of payments in lieu versus construction of affordable units as a part of a development. Hall traced the history from the early 2000s when the city’s policy view was that including affordable units on site was the best option. Over time, she said, she and others have come to believe that inclusion of affordable units as part of a development that includes market rate units doesn’t necessarily result in the kind of units the city is looking for. [Hall was recently selected to head the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.]

As an example, Hall gave Corner House Lofts – three affordable units were constructed there. The building is occupied completely with students. The city can’t guarantee that the student occupants of the affordable units are from historically low-income households. But Hall said that 90% of students are eligible to rent the affordable units and they can’t be excluded. Hall described how money that’s paid in lieu of construction of affordable housing can then be leveraged as matching funds for federal and state grants. Hohnke was satisfied that a payment in lieu for affordable housing would provide a public benefit.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to the revised Heritage Row proposal, with dissent from Briere, Kunselman and Higgins. The expected second and final vote would have taken place on Oct. 24. However, on Oct. 21 the developer pulled the project from that meeting’s agenda.

City Place: Landscape Buffer – Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain the issue before the council. After the new area, height and placement (AHP) revisions were put in place, Rampson explained, the planning commission had been asked to look at additional buffering requirements between multiple-family buildings. That resulted in a change to the landscape ordinance. And that had an unintended consequence in areas zoned R4C (multi-family residential). It’s problematic to apply the ordinance, she said, because often the setback is smaller than the buffer requirement – R4C areas are also largely already developed, she said. Rampson supported the modification to City Place and is working on it with the planning commission’s ordinance revision committee to revise the ordinance to accommodate existing conditions in R4C areas.

In the meantime, the landscape ordinance provides for flexible application. [The planning commission handled three such cases of flexible application of that ordinance at its Oct. 18 meeting.]

Chapter 62
5:608 Modifications
(2) Flexibility in the application of the landscaping or screening requirements of Sections 5:602, 5:603, 5:604 or 5:606 may be allowed if each of the following conditions are met:
(a) The modifications are consistent with the intent of this chapter (Section 5:600(1)); and
(b) The modifications are included on a site plan and in a motion approved by City Planning Commission or City Council; and
(c) The modifications are associated with 1 or more of the following site conditions:
…
(vii)
Landscape elements which are a part of a previously approved site plan may be maintained and continued as nonconforming provided no alterations of the existing landscape elements are proposed.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that City Place was approved before the area, height and placement work was done – before the landscape ordinance was revised. She wanted to know if the council normally went back and applied a revised ordinance to a project that had already been approved. Rampson confirmed that because the developer is making minor administrative changes, that triggers the application of the new code. Higgins wondered if the request could go before the zoning board of appeals. Rampson confirmed it could.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) questioned why the change was not postponed until the council’s Oct. 24 meeting. She said she recognized the parallel tracks on which the developer was proceeding – the developer would like to break ground at a specific time. But neither of the City Place requests before the council that night required a change to be made before groundbreaking, she contended. Either the landscaping requirements or the revised elevations could be dealt with after Heritage Row is defeated, she said, if it’s in fact defeated. Briere then moved to postpone the measure.

Developer Jeff Helminski.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked developer Jeff Helminski to speak to the issue. Helminski said there was a tremendous amount of effort going into both City Place and Heritage Row simultaneously. If Heritage Row doesn’t work out, he said, his team needs all elements of City Place in place. It’s not an easy task to move Heritage Row forward, he said. His continued desire to do that is based on seeing good faith efforts by the city. If the City Place requests were postponed, he said, it would send a clear message to his team and it would impact the future of Heritage Row. Based on Helminski’s remarks, Teall said she wouldn’t support postponement.

Higgins said that before the council had started its conversation about Heritage Row, she was very concerned. However, she could understand the developer’s viewpoint. Next week, she continued, the council will make a decision one way or another. Even though she’d heard the city attorney’s office say that actions related to City Place would be moot, if Heritage Row were approved, Higgins still wanted to see City Place resolutions rescinded. She said she wouldn’t support postponement.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) agreed with Higgins’ unwillingness to postpone. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he supported postponement. Approving the resolution would send the wrong message about the city council. The City Place project has been approved for two years, he said. He did not know why the developer couldn’t wait a week.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was opposed to postponement, because the council needed to match the good faith effort of the developer. However he shared his colleagues’ view that it makes more logical sense to look at City Place after voting up or down on Heritage Row.

Teall said she was having a tough time with Kunselman’s description of “bending over backwards” for the developer. It was the council that had gone back to the development team and asked them to look at Heritage Row again.

Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone the landscaping issue for City Place failed, with only Briere and Kunselman voting for it.

Outcome on City Place landscaping: The council approved the resolution over dissent from Briere.

City Place: Revised Elevations – Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) introduced the resolution by saying that it was the second of the pair of resolutions that had been requested by the developer. Planning manager Wendy Rampson described how the changes included additional windows on gable ends and new materials on upper parts of the building. She said that planning staff recommended approval, because the changes are relatively minor and provide additional architectural interest.

Noting the additional windows are on the fourth floor, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if that floor was for tenant occupancy. Rampson explained that it would be a common area or loft area for third-floor units. Kunselman wanted to know how fire escape is being addressed. Developer Jeff Helminski said that the architect Brad Moore had addressed those issues appropriately.

Back-and-forth between Kunselman and Helminski revealed that the intent is to treat the third-level units in parallel fashion with the other units of the building, which are two-level units. Namely, they’d all have two different, separated common areas. With six people sharing a unit, Helminski said, two common areas would allow residents to engage in different activities – say, watching TV and playing games.

Responding to a request from Briere for additional clarity about the internal configuration of the units, Helminski described a spiral staircase and a vaulted ceiling configured in a townhome style.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the changes to the City Place elevations.

Zoning Board of Appeals Appointments

The council was asked to consider confirmation of the reappointments of Wendy Carman and David Gregorka for three-year terms to the city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The nine-member ZBA enjoys fairly broad authority, including the power [from the city code]: “To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Building Official or any other administrative official in enforcing any provision of this Chapter.”

Outcome: The council voted to confirm the reappointments to the ZBA.

Stopgap Funding to Warming Center

On the agenda was a resolution to authorize $25,000 to support the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County‘s warming center. The money will come from the city’s general fund reserve balance. It will make up the gap between the roughly $56,000 in private donations that SAWC has been able to raise for the warming center and its $81,000 annual operating budget.

Of that operating budget, $600 is spent on utilities for laundry, and the rest compensates shift workers paid $12.57 per hour, and a half-time case worker, who is paid $15.96 per hour.

The warming center, located in the Delonis Center on Huron Street on the western edge of downtown Ann Arbor, can accommodate up to 50 individuals. It is open December through April, or any time the temperature (or wind chill) falls below 35 F degrees.

Closure of the warming center was part of the Shelter Association’s strategy to remain financially solvent in the face of funding cuts from Washtenaw County, the state and federal government.

A number of specific negative impacts have been cited by Shelter Association staff that would result from a closure of the warming center: more police calls; increasing frustration among business owners; increased vandalism; backlash against homeless people; increased crime by desperate people; untreated mental health problems; increased use of emergency rooms for non-emergency care; and overcrowding of jails and the court system.

The $25,000 allocated this year could be analyzed as follow-through on recent previous investments made by the Ann Arbor city council in the specific mission of the warming center.

For example, at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting, the council passed a resolution that awarded a $30,500 contract with the Shelter Association and a $129,000 contract with Interfaith Hospitality Network, which operates a family shelter. The money was to provide case management and staff support for 25 additional beds at the Delonis Center and 25 additional beds in the rotating shelter program, as well as housing vouchers for eight families.

The council had received a presentation on the homelessness crisis at its Oct. 19, 2009 meeting from Mary Jo Callan, head of the county/city office of community development. She had alerted them to the likelihood that a funding request would be coming to them at a subsequent meeting.

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, at its Nov. 4, 2009 meeting, had authorized $20,000 to cover the “hard costs” – i.e., the actual beds – in connection with the initiative, which was seen as a short-term solution in the face of approaching winter weather.

Although it was not earmarked specifically for the warming center, on Oct. 6, 2010 the DDA authorized a $218,050 grant from its housing fund to the Shelter Association for improvements at the Delonis Center. The money paid for new washers and dryers, lockers and chairs, an emergency generator, energy conservation measures, medical equipment and software.

Warming Center: Update

At the beginning of the Oct. 17 meeting, Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, and Washtenaw Housing Alliance executive director Julie Steiner gave the council an update on the funding situation.

Schulmeister thanked the council for current and past support. The shelter and the city had been partners for a long time, she said. Now is a very hard time – both for people who need help and those organizations who support them.

The shelter had lost $400,000 in funding while costs continue go up, she said.

The shelter has had to cut staffing to two vital programs: the warming center and the rotating shelter. The shelter had tried to use volunteers for the warming center, but was unable to get volunteers who could be awake all night. The Washtenaw Housing Alliance asked the Shelter Association to operate the warming center one more year, so later in the evening, the council would be asked to provide some support so that the warming center can continue through the winter of 2011-12. She said that over the next year the Shelter Association would work diligently to identify longer-term solutions.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance Julie Steiner get on the same page before the meeting.

Steiner told the council that the shelter’s warming center and rotating shelter are doing the community a huge favor. In Washtenaw County, she said, they work hard to make sure that shelters are not just mission shelters – “three hots and a cot.” The goal has been to provide case managers and services too.

As the Shelter Association looks at how to address the funding problems over the next couple of months, Steiner hoped councilmembers would help. She told them they’d been leaders around this issue. She noted that a copy of the Blueprint to End Homelessness Progress Report had been distributed to councilmembers. [.pdf of progress report] It traces progress from the creation of the blueprint in 2004. Steiner noted that the world is different from the way it was in 2004. She said the Washtenaw Housing Alliance will sponsor a series of community conversations to address the situation – as a whole, not just the warming center – in a world of shrinking resources.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted to know if Washtenaw County was matching any of the $25,000 that the city was being asked to contribute. Schulmeister told Smith that no funding for the warming center’s current need was coming from the county general fund. The other private funding – from an unnamed organization that Schulmeister expected would provide it – has not yet been approved by that organization’s board, she said. It’s an organization that involves the county but is not the county.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that Washtenaw County is proposing deep cuts in human services funding as part of its proposed 2012-2013 budget. Hieftje said the city looks at the Delonis Center as a partnership with the county. The city has been holding up its end of the partnership and the city is asking the county to hold up their end, he said. [Chronicle coverage: "Proposed County Budget Brings Cuts." The proposed county budget, if unchanged, would cut funding to the Shelter Association from $160,000 in 2011 to $25,000 in 2012 and 2013. On Oct. 19, the county board voted to reallocate another $26,230 to the Shelter Association in both 2012 and 2013, though it was not earmarked for the warming center.]

Hieftje invited councilmembers to ask any questions immediately following the remarks by Schulmeister and Steiner at the beginning of the meeting, so that they did not have to stay until the council reached the item on the agenda. Schulmeister told the mayor she was planning to stay anyway.

Warming Center: Public Comment

Lily Au expressed concern about the amount of administrative costs for the office of community development and the United Way. She noted the county’s proposed reduction in support for the Delonis Center from $160,000 to $25,000. She told the council that if they approve the money that’s asked of them, next month people will come again, saying the homeless are cold and hungry. The whole community needs to wake up and donate directly to organizations they want to help, she said.

Warming Center: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off council deliberations by giving some context for the request being made to the council for the $25,000. She’d heard news earlier in the year about the impact that reduced funds from the federal, state and county level would have on the Delonis Center’s ability to perform services.

Of the reduced services, Briere said she was particularly concerned that the warming center would be closed, because of the potential impact on the city of its closing. She cited the various expenses that would accrue across various parts of the community – from law enforcement to medical care providers – if people had no place to stay warm. The city would be wiser to spend money on prevention than reaction, Briere said. She said she’d spoken with the mayor and then the mayor had spoken with Schulmeister. In their conversations, the city had said they would not provide 100% of support and that the Shelter Association would need to find other support to match the city’s contribution. She encouraged her council colleagues to support the contribution.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the program the city was providing money for is something that the city had asked the Shelter Association to provide, citing a contract from 2009. It’s important that the warming center continue, she said, and the need is even greater now. Hiefjte then described how back in the 1970s there were people living on the street. This is this generation’s depression, he said.

Hieftje reiterated remarks he’d made immediately following Schulmeister’s comments at the start of the meeting, saying that Washtenaw County is a partner in the Delonis Center. However, the county has proposed a budget that dramatically decreases funding to the center. The city needs to watch that closely, Hiefjte said. The county has some tough budget hurdles and the county board will have to make some tough decisions, he said. Those decisions will impact Ann Arbor, Hieftje concluded.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize funding for the warming center.

City Apartments Elevation Revisions

The council was asked to approved modifications to Village Green’s already-approved City Apartments planned unit development (PUD) at First and Washington. [This should not be confused with the similarly named City Place matter-of-right proposal by a different developer on South Fifth Avenue].

The changes include increasing the height of the structure from 94 to 104 feet (to lift the base of the building out of the water table), adding an entrance on First Street, modifying the window type and size on the residential portion of the building, and adding ventilation screens on the east side (alley) of the building.

The City Apartments project was given PUD zoning and site plan approval by the council on Nov. 6, 2008. The nine-story building will include 156 dwelling units and 244 parking spaces on the first two floors. The site is currently a city-owned property functioning as a surface parking lot with 64 spaces, after the parking structure there had to be demolished due to its poor structural condition. The new parking deck, which will offer spaces to the general public as well as to residents, is being financed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The sale of the property, for a little over $3 million, is part of the city of Ann Arbor’s financing plan for construction of the new municipal center, which houses the police department and the 15th District Court. The council has extended the purchase option on the First and Washington property several times, most recently on Aug. 4, 2011.

At one of the DDA board’s late August committee meetings, news of a pending deal and imminent construction was relayed to committee members. The council is expected to authorize the closing on the deal at its Nov. 10, 2011 meeting. Signs at the First and Washington parking lot warn patrons of the lot’s imminent closure.

During his communications to the council, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reminded his colleagues that he’d brought up the issue up a few months ago of environmental studies in connection with the First and Washington site. The foundation had been elevated another 10 feet, he said, which is an accomplishment. But there were other environmental engineering studies that could be of value.

So Anglin has requested in an open letter to staff that any studies related to this property be made available. When a different parcel (at First and William) was being considered as the site of a parking structure, there were studies done and soil samples taken, he said. So he requested that if there is information out there, that it be made available to the council.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the change in elevations for City Apartments.

Biercamp Parcel Annexation

On the council’s agenda was an item regarding the annexation 1643 and 1645 S. State St. into the city of Ann Arbor from Ann Arbor Township. A new business, Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky, is located on one of the parcels.

During the public hearing on annexation, Thomas Partridge complained that the resolution has no language about a requirement for affordable housing. The council should table the resolution and consider it in detail, he said. The council should consider the impact on the township and the loss of taxes to the township.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the annexation of the 1643-45 S. State St. parcels.

Now that the annexation has been approved, action by the city council on a rezoning request will be scheduled. The owners of Biercamp would like for the city to approve the parcel for C3 (fringe commercial district) zoning. It would allow the business to sell a greater variety of products beyond those that it produces on the premises.

The planning commission voted unanimously to deny C3 zoning for the parcels at its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting. The rezoning request will be the second one considered recently in the general area of State Street and Stimson. On Oct. 3, 2011 the council rejected a request to rezone the parcel where Treecity Health Collective is located – from O (office) to C1 (local business).

The two rezoning requests have prompted discussion by the planning commission and the city council about the need for a study of the South State Street corridor, so that the parcels in question can be considered in a larger context. At an Oct. 11 working session, the planning commission was updated on city planning staff’s in-house effort to conduct a study of the State Street corridor. Previously, the intent was to hire a consultant to do that work.

Arbor Networks Tax Abatement

Before the council for its consideration was a tax abatement for Arbor Networks, a computer network security company. The abatement is on $883,527 of real property improvements and $7,790,454 of new personal property and equipment.

Lon Lowen of Arbor Networks.

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, Arbor Networks was granted a tax abatement in 2008. The abatement agreement in 2008 required Arbor Networks to move 74 jobs to their Ann Arbor facility and add at least eight jobs. However, as of December of 2010 there were only 74 jobs at this location.

The staff memo on the current request for a tax abatement states that the digital information business is continually changing with new and faster technology. Arbor Networks needs new test equipment and digital equipment, and according to the memo, anticipates adding 20 new employees to the Ann Arbor facility.

During the public hearing, Lon Lowen, quality assurance director with Arbor Networks, introduced the council to the company, which was founded in 2000 and has maintained a research and development facility in this area since its founding. The company makes software to fend off threats to computer network security, he said. The equipment on which the tax abatement is requested, he explained, is needed to expand the research and development facility. It reflects an investment of over $8 million by December 2012. As a result of that investment, the company expects to add 20 new jobs by December 2013, he said.

Thomas Partridge also spoke at the public hearing, and called on the council to fully inform the public on the resolution as to the details and rationale for placing the item on the agenda. He complained that these questions are decided in advance and usually passed unanimously by voice vote without discussion of the reasoning. He questioned the need for this resolution without requirements of equal opportunity employment. He questioned whether the company had exhausted other financing options.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously, without discussion, to approve the tax abatement.

Local Development Finance Authority

The council was asked to appoint Ned Staebler to fill an open four-year term on the local development finance authority (LDFA) board. The term will end June 30, 2015. The position previously was held by Michael Korybalski. That term expired on June 30, 2011 but had not yet been filled.

The LDFA is funded through TIF (tax increment financing) capture in a geographic district comprising the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts. However, TIF revenue for the LDFA is generated only in the Ann Arbor DDA district. The principal activity of the LDFA is a business accelerator. The LDFA contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to manage the accelerator.

Staebler took a position starting in the summer of 2011 as vice president of economic development for Wayne State University, after previously serving with the Michigan Economic Development Corp.

Staebler currently serves on the city’s Housing and Human Services Advisory Board, which was established in 2007 to replace two other bodies: the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) executive committee and the city’s housing policy board. The function of the HHSAB is to make recommendations on policies and programs to address the needs of low-income residents, to monitor the implementation of Ann Arbor’s housing policy and the creation of a city housing coordinator.

Staebler lost a close Democratic primary race for District 53 state representative against Jeff Irwin, who was elected to that position in November 2010.

During the brief city council deliberations, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who serves as the city council’s representative to the LDFA board, noted that Staebler is known to the council and has familiarity with economic development. He had also held an ex officio position on the board when he worked for the Michigan Economic Development Corp. Staebler is a perfect fit for the LDFA board, Rapundalo concluded.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Staebler’s appointment to the LDFA board.

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax Use

At the Oct. 17 meeting, the council considered a resolution of intent for the use of proceeds from a street/sidewalk repair millage that will be on the Nov. 8 ballot. The council had considered the resolution of intent at its Oct. 3 meeting and before that at its Sept. 19 meeting.

Voters will be asked to approve two separate proposals: (1) a 5-year renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to support street repair projects; and (2) a 0.125 mill tax to pay for sidewalk repair.

The resolution of intent specifies that the street repair millage will pay for the following activities: resurfacing or reconstruction of existing paved city streets and bridges, including on-street bicycle lanes and street intersections; construction of pedestrian refuge islands; reconstruction and construction of accessible street crossings and corner ramps; and preventive pavement maintenance (PPM) measures, including pavement crack sealing. [.pdf of unamended Oct 3, 2011 version of resolution of intent]

At its Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers had questions about the need to have any resolution of intent, as well as the status of millage revenue use inside the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The resolution of intent had originally stipulated that sidewalk repairs inside the Ann Arbor DDA district would not be funded by the sidewalk repair millage, except when the sidewalks are adjacent to single- and two-family houses. A recent meeting of the DDA’s operations committee revealed a measure of discontent on the DDA’s part about the intended restriction inside the DDA district and the lack of communication from the city of Ann Arbor to the DDA about that issue.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) have stated in the course of their re-election campaigns that they only reluctantly support the sidewalk repair millage. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) has characterized the sidewalk millage as simply offering voters a choice. Though not up for re-election this year, mayor John Hieftje stated at the DDA’s Oct. 5 board meeting that he did not think councilmembers are out in the community saying that the city absolutely needs the sidewalk millage or that it’s essential. Like Rapundalo, the mayor characterizes the sidewalk millage as offering residents a choice of having the city take over the responsibility for sidewalk repair.

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax Use: Public Commentary

Karen Sidney stated that the resolution has many unanswered questions. There’s $30 million currently in the street millage fund, she said. [This appears to be based on the FY 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the city, which gives a snapshot of the fund balance on June 30, 2010.] Of that, $7 million is needed for the East Stadium bridge project, Sidney said. [Although the city has received federal and state funding for a large part of the project, the city still has a local share.] What streets will be fixed with the remaining $23 million? she asked.

What streets will be fixed with the $45-50 million the millage will generate over its 5-year lifetime? So far, Sidney said, she’s seen only five streets named – surely there would be more? [The fact sheet prepared by the city specifies these five projects for 2012 constructions: Packard (Platt to US-23), Hill St. (Forest to Washtenaw), E. Stadium (Packard to Washtenaw), Pontiac Trail (Skydale to M-14), and Dexter Road (Maple to Huron)] Sidney also wanted to know if priority would be given to roads that serve new building projects, like the proposed Fuller Road Station.

With respect to the $500,000 that the sidewalk repair millage is expected to generate, Sidney wanted to know how much will be consumed through administration costs. The city has estimated that those administration costs will be $160,000. That’s 27% of the additional tax, she noted. She also wanted to know why the city is saying it can repair sidewalks cheaper than residents can, when five years ago the city said that residents could have the work performed for 40% less than it would cost the city.

Residents along her street, Sidney said, had paid to fix their sidewalks, but now those same slabs are being replaced as a part of a street resurfacing project. She wanted to know what steps will be taken to improve coordination. She noted that the city is taking over the cost of sidewalk repair now, “when there’s nothing left to do,” after administering a sidewalk replacement program for five years. What happens after five more years, she wondered. Will residents be asked to pay again?

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax Use: Council Deliberations

Council deliberations were led off by an amendment offered by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) concerning how the millage would be used in the DDA district. He said the amendment would address an inequity identified by commercial property owners under the original language – they’d be included in the repair millage but excluded from the benefits. Rapundalo’s amendment added the following language

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph II.2, if the City and the Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”) execute an agreement whereby (i) the DDA agrees to perform sidewalk repair within the Downtown Development District (“DDD”) adjacent to all properties against which the City levies property taxes; and (ii) the City agrees to transmit to the DDA annually 1/8th mill for parcels located within the DDD and not otherwise captured by the DDA; then the 2012 Street and Bridge Resurfacing and Reconstruction and Sidewalk Repair millage may be used for sidewalk repair within the Downtown Development District adjacent to all properties against which the City levies property taxes. The 1/8th mill shall be subject to the Headlee rollback. [.pdf of complete resolution of intent as amended on Oct. 17, 2011]

The original version of the resolution of intent had assumed that the DDA would repair the sidewalks within the district that are adjacent to commercial properties, based on the incremental tax capture in the DDA district for the millage. The impact of the amendment is to provide the entire millage amount to the DDA (not just the captured increment), but only if the DDA agrees to take responsibility for sidewalk repair inside the DDA district.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) questioned the inclusion of the phrase “shall be subject to the Headlee rollback.” He wondered if that is a restatement of the law. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that assistant city attorney Abigail Elias had prepared the language, and that he assumed it’s a restatement.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) confirmed with Postema that the entire millage is subject to the Headlee rollback. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she absolutely supported the amendment. She was glad the council took the time to pause and come up with a healthy solution.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said it’s a fair and fine balancing of two competing interests.

Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management for the city, was asked to respond to comments made by Karen Sidney during public commentary about the amount of money in the fund balance for street repair. The fund balance does not distinguish committed funds for contracts on projects that were previously done, he said. As an example, he gave a West Liberty Street construction project from 10 years ago. As another example, for the West Stadium Boulevard project, he said, the city also still owes money to the state, that will need to be paid when the city is invoiced.

The fund balance also does not distinguish money that is earmarked for all the projects the city is planning to do, like Dexter-Ann Arbor Road and Packard Road next year – those projects will need a large sum of local dollars that are not labeled in the fund balance. Once you subtract the committed dollars and planned-for dollars, he said, the amount in the fund balance is much smaller. Without the new millage, he said, the funds will be used up by the end of 2012.

Discussion related to the sidewalk repair millage also arose earlier in the meeting as a part of the consent agenda, when the council approved moving delinquent water utility, board up, clean up, vacant property and housing inspection fees to the December 2011 city tax roll.

The current sidewalk repair program was supposed to result in residents being charged a fee for replacing sidewalk slabs, if they are cited by the city and decline to have the work performed themselves. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that in two years nothing has come through as delinquent charges. City treasurer Matt Horning confirmed for Kunselman that in this current tax roll there aren’t any delinquent sidewalk repair charges.

Kunselman wanted an explanation – in the past he’d seen those charges come through. Sue McCormick, public services area administrator, indicated that this year the city has been working with a contractor completing outstanding sidewalk repairs. Those bills will go out and the council would see them in the next round, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution of intent on use of the sidewalk/street millage.

Stadium Bridges Project

The council was asked to authorize the execution of a standard contract between the city and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the East Stadium Boulevard bridges reconstruction project. The project will result in the closure of East Stadium Boulevard in both directions for about a year, starting around Nov. 28, just after the University of Michigan’s last home football game of the year.

Dan’s Excavating Inc. was awarded the bid – at $13,910,334.77, it was the lowest qualified construction bid. The staff memo accompanying the council resolution put the current estimate for the total project cost – including all prior expenses, but excluding contingencies for the future construction – at $22,776,700. The city received a total of $13.9 million in TIGER II federal grant funding to pay for the project, as well as $2.87 million in state funds.

The project website, which includes detour maps and timelines, is annarborbridges.org.

During council deliberations, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) elicited from city staff some of the planned architectural details related to the stairways from Stadium Boulevard down to South State Street. They’ll have bicycle grooves to allow cyclists to walk their bicycles up and down the stairs more easily. And snow clearance will be achieved through radiant heating built into the steps, powered by the same circuit as streetlights, which in this case are owned by the city, not DTE.

Outcome: The council voted to authorize execution of the MDOT contract.

Labor Union Benefits

The council was asked to give initial approval to revisions to the ordinances that govern the retirement and health care plans for two of its unions: the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association (AAPOA) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

The revisions to the ordinances resulted from a collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME and a binding arbitration under Act 312 with AAPOA. The changes are similar to ordinance changes already enacted for non-union city workers.

The pension contribution for AAPOA and AFSCME workers will rise from 5% on a post-tax basis to 6% on a pre-tax basis. The vesting period for new hires will increase from 5 years to 10 years. Also for new hires, the final average compensation (FAC) calculation will be increased to a five-year period. The previous FAC was based on a three-year period.

On the health care side, the AFSCME and AAPOA employees would have the same access-only retiree health plan as non-union employees have. Like all ordinance changes, the city council will need to give these revisions a second and final approval no sooner than its next regular meeting.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the union labor pension and retirement health benefits.

Taxicab Law

Before the council for its consideration was initial approval of changes in the taxicab ordinance. The changes make explicit how long a taxicab company license is valid (10 years) and spell out some additional conditions on revocation or suspension of the company license.

The revisions also add reasons that can be used for suspending an individual taxicab driver’s license, which include a city administrator’s view that a driver “has acted in an unprofessional, harassing or threatening manner to passengers, or others.”

Like all ordinance revisions, the taxicab licensing revision will need a second and final approval from the council in order to take effect.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told the council that as the council’s representative to the taxicab board, ordinance amendments are needed. He asked chief financial officer Tom Crawford, who also sits on the taxicab board, to explain the changes and the concerns that are addressed by the changes.

Crawford characterized the changes as falling in three areas. In the first area, related to licensing, Crawford said that in the past the city had seasonal operators who would want to come in and work the football season and then disappear. The ordinance is being changed so that if a company ceases operation for 45 days, the city can revoke the license. Crawford explained that a healthy taxicab industry needs stability and this is a mechanism to help guard against companies frequently coming in and out of the market.

Another area of change has to do with solicitations and how the companies represent themselves. Several companies advertise themselves as taxis, but they’re in fact limousines. Crawford characterized it as a safety issue for someone who believes a vehicle is a taxi, but it’s in fact a limo. [A taxi is per code "... accepting passengers for hire within the boundaries of the city as directed by the passenger." A limousine is pre-booked.] If a company they hold itself out as a taxi, they have to be licensed as a taxicab, Crawford said. [The city's taxicab code already prohibits advertising in the reverse direction – it prohibits taxicabs from holding themselves out as limousines.]

Outcome: The council voted to give the taxicab ordinance initial approval.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Crime

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that he’d attended a neighborhood meeting recently where many people had expressed a perception that there’s a crime problem in Ann Arbor. He said it was perhaps fueled by increased access to information about crime data that a perception had resulted that crime was on the uptick. He asked deputy chief Greg Bazick how the police see things.

City clerk Jackie Beaudry and deputy chief of police Greg Bazick before the start of the Oct. 17, 2011 city council meeting.

Bazick said they’re not seeing an upswing in reported crime. He noted that crimmapping.com allows for real-time access to what’s reported on a daily basis. There have certainly been incidents that have raised concern in the community [including a series of sexual assaults]. But there’s nothing to indicate an upswing or a crime wave, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje said he gets the stats on crime every week before he meets with the police chief and that this year crime has shown a double-digit decrease.

Among the points Bazick made was the size of a law enforcement agency is never the sole indicator of crime. He also cautioned that the crimes categorized as “Part 1″ by the FBI are the kind of crimes that are almost always reported by victims and are not typically identified as a result of police-initiated enforcement activity. On the other hand, “Part 2″ crimes might show an increase based just on a police-initiated enforcement effort.

Comm/Comm: Police Hiring

Hieftje reminded the council that on the last day of May, when the council had approved the budget, he’d said the goal should be that there would be no further cuts in the police department. He said he’d been working with staff and with councilmember Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) on that issue. Hieftje said the department will see some retirements, and the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association also has new contract. Cuts are projected to be necessary at part of the FY 2013 forecast, but he felt that some replacements could be hired starting on Jan. 1, 2013.

Rapundalo commented that all along the council has repeatedly talked about its commitment to public safety. The council had to make a difficult decision last year [to lay off some police officers], but now that the city has an agreement with AAPOA, he said, there are opportunities to sustain and increase the police officer ranks.

[Rapundalo is facing a strong re-election challenge in Ward 2 from independent Jane Lumm, whose campaign includes criticism of the reduced numbers of police officers employed by the city of Ann Arbor.]

Comm/Comm: Energy Farms

Kermit Schlansker described the potential benefits of energy farms, which can include gasifiers that turn hard biomass into fuel. He also described solar arrays that could be used to concentrate the sun’s energy to create solar steam.

Alan Haber (left) and councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Comm/Comm: Library Lot

Alan Haber said he was glad to hear about Schlansker’s energy farm. He told the council he was there again to talk about the space above the underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. He noted there’s a process going on to invite as much of the public as possible to figure out what to do there. He contended the land can be used maximally as a public gathering space. Citizens would adopt the library green without the use of city funds, he said, and they could program the space. Citizens need the opportunity to do that.

Is the city going to pave the surface, or will the council give citizens the opportunity to develop the surface? Haber wondered. It’s counterintuitive to have a surface lot above the underground lot, Haber said, if you want to encourage people to use the underground parking lot. Ann Arbor needs a heart in the center of town, and the space above the underground parking garage could serve that function, he said. It could be combined with a building as a practical solution, he said.

Stefan Trendov told the council he’d done some drawings to illustrate what Haber was describing – the building would be light and see-through and inviting. He said he’d recently designed a project for the Sultan of Oman. He wanted cranes to come in and start building in Ann Arbor – we need to see more cranes, he said.

Comm/Comm: End Discrimination

Thomas Partridge told the council he was there to address them about the importance of ending discrimination of all forms and working to stop government corruption of all forms, including corrupt acts by Ann Arbor government employees, police officers and businesses in the entire region. They need to bring about a true democratic party, attitudes, mindset and practices, he said, and he called on voters to recall regressive Republicans.

At the public comment period at the end of the meeting, Partridge also spoke. He described himself as an advocate for those who can’t attend public meetings, and those who are the most worthy of services. He called for public access to polling places through public transportation and transportation for the disabled, polling stations that actually work for handicapped people, and better-trained poll workers.

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

Next council meeting: Oct. 24, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [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!

Heritage Row Proposal Withdrawn

Chronicle Staff — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:52:07 +0000

According to a city council source, developer Jeff Helminski has withdrawn the revised proposal for Heritage Row, a planned unit development on South Fifth Avenue. A different project, City Place, is now expected to be built on the same site by the same developer, though some possibility exists to contest the City Place project via the city’s zoning board of appeals.

The plan for the matter-of-right City Place would demolish seven houses and construct two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot. The two City Place buildings would comprise 144 bedrooms in 24 6-bedroom units. By contrast, Heritage Row would have constructed three buildings behind the row of seven houses and either rehabilitated or reconstructed the seven houses. That project would have included up to 85 units with 180 bedrooms.

At its Oct. 17 meeting, the city council gave initial approval to a version of the Heritage Row PUD that was considerably revised from a version it had rejected in June 2010. The second and final vote on the revised Heritage Row project would have been taken place at an extra meeting scheduled for Oct. 24. That meeting is still scheduled to take place. The vote on Oct. 17 was 8-3. Voting against the proposal were Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The project has a long and controversial history dating back four years. The city council voted at its Oct. 3 meeting to reconsider the Heritage Row, which it had previously rejected about 14 months ago. The council then voted to postpone a decision on the project so that negotiations could take place between the developer, city staff and councilmembers about possible revisions. By offering concessions that could make the project more financially viable, the council hoped to induce the developer to divert from his imminent intention to construct City Place.

At the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, a letter was discussed which councilmembers had received from the developer, Jeff Helminski. That letter outlined his requirements for concessions that he would need in order to build Heritage Row instead of City Place. At the Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers expressed clear dissatisfaction with elements of Helminski’s letter. However, all the key points from the letter, including the elimination of any on-site parking requirement, appeared to have been incorporated into the revised proposal considered at the council’s Oct. 17 meeting.

City Place, Heritage Row Both Get Action

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:05:19 +0000

At its Oct. 17, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council considered three items related to two different proposed developments at the same site on South Fifth Avenue just south of William Street: City Place and Heritage Row.

It’s still an open question as to which of the two projects, owned by the same developer, will be built. The council approved two requests related to alterations to the City Place project. The council also gave initial approval for the Heritage Row proposal, which will receive a second and final vote at a council meeting scheduled for Oct. 24.

Two of the council’s agenda items concerned City Place; the third concerned Heritage Row.

For City Place, the council approved a request from the developer to waive a landscape buffer requirement that was introduced through an ordinance change made after the project was initially approved. Also for City Place, the council approved a request for changes to the buildings that included a new window on the upper floors of the north and south-facing sides and a change from horizontal siding to simulated shingle siding on the dormer.

For Heritage Row, the council advanced a revised proposal of the PUD to a second reading, which will be held at an extra meeting scheduled on Oct. 24. The vote was 8-3. Voting against the proposal were Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The project has a long and controversial history dating back four years. The city council voted at its Oct. 3 meeting to reconsider the project, which it had previously rejected around 14 months ago. The council then voted to postpone a decision on the project so that negotiations could take place between the developer, city staff and councilmembers about possible revisions. By offering concessions that could make the project more financially viable, the council hopes to induce the developer to divert from his imminent intention to construct City Place.

At the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, a letter was discussed which councilmembers had received from the developer, Jeff Helminski. That letter outlined his requirements for concessions that he would need in order to build Heritage Row instead of City Place. At the Oct. 3 meeting, councilmembers expressed clear dissatisfaction with elements of Helminski’s letter. However, all the key points from the letter appear to have been incorporated into the revised proposal.

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]