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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The analysis offered by the handbook is the following:

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

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

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

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

The 27-page proposal for 413 E. Huron calls for 213 apartments, about 3,000-square-feet of street-level retail space, and 163 on-site underground parking spaces. [.pdf of 413 E. Huron proposal to the design review board] The complex would consist of two main towers and an “inset upper level garden and pool courtyard,” according to the proposal. [.pdf of site rendering] The project would target young professionals, graduate students and upper classmen, with apartment sizes ranging from one to four bedrooms. The building is designed to conform with D1 zoning, the city’s densest zoning district. No variances are required. The site’s owner is listed as Ann Arbor Green Property Owner LLC out of Norwalk, Connecticut, with Carter USA of Atlanta, Georgia listed as the developer. [.jpg of proposed 413 E. Huron project ]

Another 14-story project that was filed for design review is located at 624 Church Street, next to Pizza House. Dennis Tice, owner of Pizza House, is listed as one of the developers, along with 624 Partners LLC and Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota. [.pdf of 624 Church Street proposal] When the Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building to eventually be constructed. The new project would demolish an existing two-story house located south of the restaurant, replacing it with a 14-story building over the southern portion of the Pizza House restaurant and above the former house and loading zone area. The design by local architect Brad Moore would include a rooftop plaza and garden. [.jpg of proposed 624 Church Street project]

All of the required parking for the 624 Church Street project – about 40 spaces – is proposed to be provided offsite through the “contribution in lieu” of parking program, which the city council authorized on April 2, 2012. That program allows essentially two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space.

The city’s public parking system is managed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

At the Sept. 26 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, the development team for 624 Church Street pitched the parking proposal to the committee. Given the added capacity in the public parking system resulting from the construction of the new underground parking garage – Library Lane, which offers over 700 spaces – committee members were generally positively inclined to making an arrangement for 40 permits somewhere in the parking system. But they were not willing to commit at this point to offering spaces in the Forest parking structure, which is the closest parking facility to the project.

The design review board is a relatively new entity, formed in mid-2011 to evaluate and give input to developers about the city’s design guidelines, which were adopted in early 2011. The group meets on the third Wednesday of each month, as needed, which would make the next possible meeting Oct. 17. The city’s Legistar calendar system does not yet indicate that any additional meetings are scheduled this year.

Stephen Ranzini looks up at the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl, during a public reception and dedication for the piece at city hall on Tuesday evening. Ranzini, president of University Bank, later attended a planning commission meeting inside city hall, where he told commissioners that No Parking signs are ugly. It's not clear what he thought about the sculpture.

Changes to a University Bank site plan for property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion, were approved unanimously, despite some concerns voiced by neighbors during a public hearing on the proposal. The changes – which primarily relate to creation of a new parking lot – required amending the supplemental regulations of the site’s planned unit development (PUD) zoning district originally approved in 1978.

Also back for review was The Varsity, a proposed “planned project” consisting of a 13-story apartment building with 181 units at 425 E. Washington, between 411 Lofts and the First Baptist Church. Intended for students, it’s the first project to go through the city’s new design review process. Only minor changes had been made since the proposal was first considered at the planning commission’s Sept. 20 meeting.

Fourteen people spoke during a public hearing on The Varsity, including several residents of the nearby Sloan Plaza who raised concerns about traffic at the Huron Street entrance, as well as aesthetic issues with the building’s facade facing Huron. The project was supported by a paster pastor at the First Baptist Church and the head of the State Street merchant association.

In addition to public hearings held on these two projects, one person spoke during public commentary at the start of the meeting. Rick Stepanovic told commissioners that he’s a University of Michigan student, and that Wendy Rampson – head of the city’s planning staff – had spoken to one of his classes last year. Among other things, she’d mentioned the city’s need for more student input, he said. Since then he’s been elected to the Michigan Student Assembly, and was offering to provide that input, either as a resident – he lives in the neighborhood near Packard and Hill – or by taking an issue back to MSA for broader student feedback.

Stepanovic indicated his intent to attend future planning commission meetings, but noted that MSA meetings are held at the same time – on Tuesday evenings.

University Bank PUD

The planning commission first reviewed University Bank’s proposal at its Oct. 19, 2010 meeting. Bank officials had requested approval to revise a planned unit development (PUD), allowing an increase in the total number of employees and parking spaces permitted at the bank’s headquarters at 2015 Washtenaw Ave. – the site known as the Hoover Mansion. The proposal included a request to build 14 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 53 spaces on the site. At the time, planning staff recommended denial, stating that the project impacts natural features and doesn’t offer an overall benefit to the city, as required by a PUD.

Rather than denying the proposal, planning commissioners voted to postpone it and asked staff to work with the bank in finding an alternative parking option.

Nearly a year later, a revised proposal was on the agenda for the commission’s Sept. 8 meeting, reflecting a consensus that had been reached among planning staff, neighbors and bank officials. However, commissioners ended up postponing a recommendation again, because the final site plan had not yet been submitted by the bank.

By the Oct. 4 meeting, all pieces were in place. The proposal would increase the number of allowable employees from 50 to 59 at the bank’s headquarters and add a new parking lot on the site, with a setback of 24 feet from the eastern property line. That’s an additional nine feet away from the property line than originally proposed.

A continuous six-foot-high wall is proposed along the eastern and southeastern property lines, to screen the parking lot from 2021 Washtenaw Ave. and 2107-2109 Tuomy. Two landmark trees and 19 woodland trees totaling 186 caliper inches will be removed as part of the project, but the bank has proposed planting trees throughout the site totaling 223 caliper inches – more than is required.

The changes require amending the supplemental regulations of the site’s planned unit development (PUD) zoning district, which was originally approved in 1978.

University Bank: Public Hearing

Five people spoke during a public hearing on the proposal, including two representatives from the bank.

Dan Dever introduced himself as an attorney representing the Serwers, a couple who own a home that’s the closest residential property to the bank. He thanked planning staff for their work, but noted that there are two issues that are of serious concern to the Serwers. Nowhere in the supplemental regulations does it state that bank employees “shall not park on the driveway.” [The driveway into the Serwers' property is accessed via the bank's driveway.] He noted that for the past year, bank employees have been parking along the driveway leading to the bank building. Dever then read an excerpt from a letter that Ranzini had sent to the planning commission on Oct. 21, 2010, following the Oct. 20 planning commission meeting. From Ranzini’s letter:

We HATE the alternative proposal of building up berms that encroach into the lawn and parking spots alongside the driveway. This was foisted on us by the planning staff and at the suggestion of Kem-Tech, since it is the second least worst alternative to the proposed 13 unit parking lot. To illustrate to you and the neighbors how impractical the planning staff’s suggestion of parking alongside the driveway is and how this will damage the view shed, we will conduct the following experiment until the parking lot is approved: While previously we had taken a variety of measures to actively discourage our employees, visitors and bank examiners from parking in the driveway, we will remove those restrictions and encourage them to park there. I hope you have the opportunity to drive by over the next few weeks and take a look and how unsightly the cars in the front lawn area are.” [.pdf of Ranzini's letter]

Dever asked commissioners to add stronger language in the supplemental regulations: (1) adding that vehicles can’t be parked on either side of that driveway, and (2) requiring more than just one No Parking sign along that stretch. It’s important, he said, because bank officials “do not historically observe the written word.”

Ken Sprinkles of University Bank said he’s been working on this project for three years. The reason that cars are parked along the driveway is that there’s insufficient parking, he said. If the city approves additional parking, the bank would enforce a no-parking requirement along the driveway. The bank also plans to start issuing parking permit stickers for employee vehicles – that’s something they don’t currently do, Sprinkles said.

Gerald Serwer, who owns the home with a driveway that’s accessed via the bank’s driveway, told commissioners that changes to the bank’s site plan would affect the financial value of his home, as well as his ability to enjoy living there. If the bank has no intention of parking along the main driveway, he said, then it didn’t seem like bank officials should object to adding more No Parking signs. He also wanted to ensure that there’d be no parking along that driveway during construction of the new parking lot. Serwer also noted that he’s asked the bank to use stone veneer on the side of the 6-foot-high wall that faces their house, to match the house’s exterior. But the main issue is parking, he concluded.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, began by noting that the bank began this process 36 months ago. Since September, the bank has hired 30 people, he said, but only one of those is working in Ann Arbor. University Bank is the 11th largest employer of any bank in Michigan, he said, but job growth is happening at the bank’s offices in Farmington Hills and Clinton Township, instead of Ann Arbor, in part because of delays with this project.

Regarding No Parking signs, Ranzini said his preference is for one sign, because signs are ugly and affect the viewshed. In reference to the removal of trees, he noted that 100 years ago, the site was a sheep farm – every tree on the property is less than 100 years old. Regarding parking on the driveway, the bank started its “experiment” in having employees park along the driveway after the city requested alternatives to a new parking lot, he said. He wanted everyone to see what that would look like. And because the process to get approval has been so slow, he said, the experiment has lasted a year.

Ranzini urged the commission to approve the project, so that it can be considered by the city council. He hoped commissioners would do their part to help preserve an historic building, which he said is expensive to maintain. One of the biggest problems since the building was converted to offices in 1978 has been inadequate parking, he concluded.

Sheryl Serwer noted that it’s also been three years that she and her husband have been dealing with this issue – she first heard about it on her birthday three years ago. “Now I’m three years older and still worrying about it.” She said she’s come to accept the loss of trees on the site. But she’s still concerned about the parking – she’d like to get out of her driveway safely. In the winter, if it’s icy and there are cars parked on both sides of the entrance to her driveway, she said she’s afraid her car might slide into the parked vehicles. No Parking signs should be posted, she said, and parking shouldn’t be allowed there. She concluded by congratulating Ranzini for the growth of his business, and the recent birth of his child.

University Bank: Commission Discussion

Tony Derezinski began by asking planning staff to respond to the questions raised during public commentary, related to parking. How would the supplemental regulations be enforced? He said he thought the parties had reached an agreement – was this a new item?

Alexis DiLeo noted that this isn’t a public street – it’s not even a private street. It’s a driveway. The number of signs is discretional, she said, and the bank’s preference is for one sign.

If it meant that the project wouldn’t otherwise be approved, would the bank be willing to add another sign? Derezinski wondered. Ranzini said he wanted to make clear that bank employees didn’t start parking along the driveway until the planning staff suggested there might be a more viable alternative to the new parking lot. Parking in the driveway is ugly, he said. The experiment is done, so there won’t be parking there any longer. The bank might reluctantly put up another sign, he added, but signs are ugly.

Derezinski asked whether it would be possible to add the requirement of an additional sign in the supplemental regulations. “A beautiful one,” he quipped.

DiLeo suggested a possible place within the supplemental regulations to insert a sign requirement, and Derezinski made a motion to do that. Kirk Westphal clarified with DiLeo that previously, there was no mention of a sign at all. When asked about enforcement, DiLeo said a violation would be handled just like any other zoning violation – for example, if the bank removed a tree that had been stipulated to be preserved by the PUD’s supplemental regulations.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said the city wouldn’t ticket or tow cars parked on private property. If someone complained about a violation, the city could fine the property owner. She indicated that adding something like the sign requirement was highly unusual.

Derezinski then expressed frustration, saying ”it’s too bad we’re getting formal.” This shouldn’t be a problem, he said, but there’s been a lot of history regarding this project. He thought the parties had moved past that, but now they’re quibbling over a small thing.

Derezinski said he’d made a motion to amend the supplemental regulations so that everyone could reach resolution. But now he felt there’s a clear understanding of expectations, so he was withdrawing the motion to amend.

Evan Pratt hoped that people felt all of the issues were being addressed. When changes to a PUD are requested, it requires give and take, he observed. He applauded the bank’s parking experiment. The original thinking was that it would be good to avoid adding more pavement, he said, and the experiment tested whether other parking options were viable. It’s taken a year, but it sounds like they now have a good outcome, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of changes to the bank’s site plan and supplemental regulations. The project will now be forwarded to the city council.

The Varsity at Ann Arbor

At their Sept. 20, 2011 meeting, the planning commission had made an initial review of The Varsity, a 13-story building at 425 E. Washington, stretching from East Washington to East Huron in the block between South State and South Division. The proposed development is located east of the 411 Lofts building and west of the First Baptist Church, and is currently the site of a two-story office building that formerly housed the Prescription Shop. Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff told commissioners that the design hasn’t altered significantly since that meeting.

Minor modifications include narrowing the walkway on the building’s east side, mounting lights on the building instead of poles along the east side of the path, and removing decorative pillars at both ends of the walkway, previously proposed on the east side of the path and on the First Baptist Church property. Because the church is located in an historic district, any changes on its property would have required approval by the city’s historic district commission.

The main features of the project are unchanged. The 177,180-square-foot apartment building is to include 181 apartments with a total of 415 bedrooms, to be marketed to university students. The plan also calls for 70 parking spaces, both underground and on the street level, with entrances off of East Huron and East Washington. In addition, two spaces would be provided on adjacent property (owned by the same developer) to use for a car-sharing service like Zipcar. A total of 121 bike spaces are also proposed for the project.

The Varsity at Ann Arbor: Public Commentary

Fourteen people spoke during a public hearing on The Varsity.

Hugh Sonk spoke on behalf of the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association, and restated many of the concerns that he raised at the commission’s Sept. 20 meeting. Sloan Plaza is located at 505 E. Huron, just east and across the street from The Varsity site, and residents are concerned about the development’s impact on their quality of life. Specifically, they are concerned about increased traffic congestion as vehicles turn into the building’s Huron Street entrance.

People who currently have monthly parking permits at the existing site will be displaced, Sonk said, potentially causing parking problems in the area. Sonk’s final concern related to the Huron Street facade, which he described as bland. It doesn’t reflect the character of the adjacent historical buildings, he said, and it needs to be treated as an important front to one of the city’s major thoroughfares. The current design doesn’t do that, he said.

Ethel Potts, a former planning commissioner, described the public hearing as an important one, since it’s a new major building downtown and the first one that’s gone through the city’s new design review process. She noted that city officials have said the recent downtown zoning changes and design review process will be reviewed next spring, to see if it’s delivering what residents want.

This building and its review show some flaws in the process and in the city’s ordinances, she said. For one thing, the design review doesn’t deal with height and mass, Potts noted – and The Varsity isn’t compatible with the scale and character of surrounding buildings. How will the small, elegant, historic church live with a tall, broad wall along its lot line? Potts also pointed to a lack of green space in the design. “Weren’t we seeking downtown livability?” she asked.

Christine Crockett introduced herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and a member of the committee that helped write the city’s design guidelines. The design review board, neighbors and people who’ve spoken during public commentary have all been emphatic that design of The Varsity’s north facade is unacceptable, Crockett said. It’s been tweaked a little, but is essentially 13 stories of yellow brick that’s unrelieved by pattern, texture or sympathy with the surrounding character district, she said.

The building will be there for decades, Crockett noted, so it’s important to make it as attractive as possible, adding that the architect should be ashamed. The Varsity developer and design team have the chance to make that block of Huron Street better and more pedestrian friendly, she said. “There are ways they can do it, but they won’t.”

Another issue is the walkway on the building’s east side, Crockett said. The design review board had indicated this summer that the walkway is too narrow, but now the developer has narrowed it even more, she said. It’s going to be like a tunnel – unattractive and dangerous, she said.

Stephan Trendov, an urban planner, said he’s in favor of the project. This summer he had attended a 2.5-hour meeting about The Varsity at the Michigan Union, and the group there had spent time talking about the building facade and pedestrian walkway. The vision is to move pedestrians from Huron all the way to East Liberty, he said, but this walkway doesn’t do that. There are opportunities for improvements, like adding a pergola or landscaping. The community is watching, he said, and so far, the reaction to what’s been discussed hasn’t been impressive. There haven’t been enough changes.

Donnie Gross, the project’s developer, told commissioners that he’s proud of the project. He could have designed a box-like by-right project, he said, but they’ve done more than that. Despite what people during the public hearing have indicated, Gross said, he and the design team have listened to input and changed the design 20-30 times. Turning to some of the previous speakers, Gross told them that just because they didn’t get everything they want doesn’t mean he hasn’t listened and made changes.

One of the first things his team did was to meet with the neighboring church, Gross said. It’s important to get the church’s approval, because they’ll be neighbors for the next 100 years. They’ll also be asking the church for an easement, so that the walkway on the east side of The Varsity can be widened, he said.

Gross said he’s not opposed to retail in the building, but he’s seen the difficulty that the neighboring 411 Lofts has had in finding tenants. “I’m opposed to retail that’s empty.” Instead, The Varsity is designed so that residents of the building will be like a “3-D billboard,” using a fitness area and lounge in the lower levels. The building would look naked and drab if the first floor were dark, but as long as there is light and activity, it doesn’t matter if the activity is someone getting a pizza or using a computer. The Varsity will add life to East Washington, he said. He noted that the plaza area on East Washington will include a green roof.

Noting that he owns the historic house next to The Varsity site, Gross told commissioners that even the soil beneath the house is declared historic, so he’s unable to excavate it. If he could excavate, he could add more underground parking and have only one entrance – but that’s not possible. He concluded by noting that citizens can say anything to make developers look bad, but there are reasons behind these decisions.

Maurice Binkow, another Sloan Plaza resident, said he joined others in objecting to the unsightly design of The Varsity’s Huron facade, along a road with so many distinguished buildings. He also expressed concern about the Huron entrance into the parking garage, noting that cars would likely be backed up onto Huron as they wait to enter. It would also be a problem for cars coming out onto Huron, if they were making a lefthand turn. He asked that the developer put a lease restriction in place that would prevent left turns onto Huron.

Noting that she is Maurice Binkow’s wife, Linda Binkow said that some of the city’s greatest assets are the properties along Huron Street– they are an exceptionally attractive and valuable part of the city. The city collects tax revenues from those properties, she added. Putting a building like The Varsity on Huron will cause traffic problems and greatly decrease the value of property in that area, she said. It’s not in the city’s interest to do that. She suggested that the building could be designed with a setback, and additional stories.

Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, observed that The Varsity could be built by-right, and that although the design review is mandatory, compliance is voluntary. He said he respected the views of neighbors in the area and residents of Sloan Plaza, but noted that the association’s board has reviewed the building plans and had voted unanimously in support of it. The association has been told that parking spaces will be freed up in Tally Hall [Liberty Square] as soon as the underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue is completed. That should help the parking situation.

The plaza on the East Washington side is an essential buffer for the church, Heywood said. And while the association would prefer retail on the first floor, that can’t be mandated – and the association doesn’t want to see empty space there, like it’s been for 411 Lofts. He noted that the space could be easily convertible into retail or commercial use, if a good proposal comes forward in the future. The association board respectfully requests approval of The Varsity, he concluded.

Ray Detter of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) told commissioners that he appreciated the building’s green roof – this was the first time he’d heard about it. This whole design review process is new, he said, and it’s an educational process too. Everyone’s had a chance to discuss the design, even though changes aren’t compulsory. He noted that CAC supports the plaza setback on East Washington, and the mews on the east side. The developer didn’t have to do those those things. The CAC would like to see the first-floor parking moved underground, and wants the mews walkway expanded even more, Detter said. That walkway, leading to a crosswalk across Washington and into the alley next to Tally Hall, would result in improving the alley, he said, so that it’s ”not the dump it is now.”

Stacey Simpson Duke, co-pastor of the First Baptist Church, handed out a letter she’d written in support of the project. [.pdf of Simpson Duke's letter] She said she never wanted a high-rise building next to the church – she liked seeing the sun set from the church – and she had spoken against the A2D2 zoning changes for downtown that were ultimately approved.

However, the people involved with The Varsity have been the best neighbors they could possibly be, Duke said. The design team has met with church representatives monthly, have listened to input and have explicitly incorporated design elements to address the church’s concerns. Simpson Duke said she’s especially excited about the walkway and the plaza next to the church. She’s also excited about the 400 students who’ll be living there, and the increased foot traffic in that area. She thanked the developer and his team for being good neighbors.

Joan French, a resident of Sloan Plaza, urged commissioners not to allow the Huron Street facade to be a back door. People along Huron can see the beautiful buildings like Campus Inn and the University of Michigan’s new North Quad. She supported the project, but wanted to see details on the Huron entrance that will make people say “wow.”

Brad Moore, an architect on The Varsity project, brought up a panel with samples of the materials that would be used on the building. The renderings of the building that were projected on-screen during the meeting showed a color of brick that was more yellow than it actually would be, he said. The brick evokes the exterior of UM’s original chemistry building, and is intended to be distinctive from the bright red brick of 411 Lofts.

There will be architectural detail, Moore said. Regarding the walkway, there’s no objection to widening it, Moore said, but The Varsity developer can’t do a site plan on the church’s property. Moore said he was certain that in the future the walk would be widened – that action might be handled administratively by city staff, or with the help of the church working through the historic district commission process.

Moore also reported that there will be a lease condition that specifies “right in, right out” only turns for the entrance off of Huron Street. There will be video surveillance cameras to monitor compliance, and if there are complaints, the building’s owner can impose sanctions against tenants who violate that condition, Moore said.

Bob Keane, a principal with WDG Architects in Washington D.C. who also spoke at the Sept. 20 meeting on behalf of the developer, addressed design concerns of the Huron facade. He described several ways in which the design has been changed. For example, the former metal garage door now will have frosted glass panels and look very elegant, he said, evocative of a storefront. There’s also a pedestrian entrance on the Huron side. People will drive by and think it’s the front entrance, Keane said, describing it as an “elegant urban facade.”

The final speaker was Rita Gelman, a resident of Sloan Plaza. (Her husband, Chuck Gelman, attended the meeting but did not speak during the public hearing.) She handed out a letter to commissioners, and said her main concerns are parking, green space and traffic. It’s important to keep the quality of the Huron Street corridor, but the proposed building looks humongous and commercial, she said. In contrast, Sloan Plaza is a building that looks residential, she said.

The Varsity at Ann Arbor: Commission Discussion

Kirk Westphal noted that the city had received a letter from Laura Houk, chairperson of the Ann Arbor Cooperative Preschool, a tenant at the First Baptist Church. [.pdf of Houk's letter] Houk had expressed concern about possible hazardous materials, noise and traffic during the demolition and construction phases of the project, and the impact on the preschool, which uses an outdoor playground year-round. She wanted the city to ensure that the developer mitigate the effects of the demolition and construction.

Westphal asked how those concerns would be addressed. Alexis DiLeo said she planned to meet with the preschool director, and go over the basic process for projects like this. The developer has had at least one meeting with the preschool too, she said. Regarding hazardous materials, if there are any on that site, there are state and federal regulations that govern the handling of those materials. She said she trusted that the developer would take steps to minimize the impact.

Erica Briggs noted that the developer’s ultimate intent is eventually to widen the walkway – that’s great, she said. In response to a query from Briggs about lighting, Brad Moore said there’s not currently room for pedestal lighting along the walkway – lights will be mounted on the building. But the intent is to include pedestal lighting in the future, and the developer would pay for it.

Briggs expressed concern that the sidewalk in front of the East Washington entrance isn’t clearly defined – that might be a safety issue, she said. She encouraged the design team to give more thought about how to make the pedestrian experience as safe as possible, especially in the driveway area leading to the parking garage.

Briggs also asked whether the developer planned to add any amenities for bicyclists – she had broached this subject at the Sept. 20 meeting, suggesting that things like a free air pump would be a public amenity. Donnie Gross, the developer, said he couldn’t make a commitment about that, but said they would explore that possibility.

Diane Giannola said her only concern is parking. She realized that the project includes the minimum number of parking spaces required by the city, and noted that the intent is to encourage people not to use cars. But she’s more of a realist, she said, and worries that there’ll be an even bigger parking problem in that area than there is now. [This issue was also addressed in an email sent to the planning staff by Jerry Weaver, manager for the Firestone shop at the corner of Division and Huron. He stated that because of parking needs at 411 Lofts, people are parking at other lots in the area and more cars have been impounded this fall than the prior 10 years combined. .pdf of Weaver's letter]

Giannola said that the way The Varsity selects its tenants will determine whether the development is a good neighbor. She asked that the owner find ways to discourage people from bringing cars. Eric Mahler, chair of the planning commission, quickly added that the city doesn’t advocate for discrimination based on anything.

For his part, Mahler pointed to the development agreement for The Varsity, citing the section stipulating that plazas on the site are intended to serve in lieu of a financial contribution to city parks:

(P-8) For the benefit of the residents of the PROPRIETOR’S development, in lieu of a contribution of $112,000 to the CITY Parks and Recreation Services Unit prior to the issuance of building permits, to construct and maintain as an integral part of the development the proposed amenities in the north and south plazas and the walkway along the east side of the site as generally illustrated and described in the exhibits to this Agreement. [.pdf of draft development agreement]

Mahler wondered whether the city can seek an injunction against the developer, if the plazas aren’t built as envisioned. DiLeo said the city won’t issue a certificate of occupancy unless the project passes a site inspection and meets all the requirements outlined in the development agreement.

Westphal weighed in again with several observations. He said he can see how the plazas benefit the church, but it gets tricky when zoning is bent to fit one neighbor.

By way of background, The Varsity is a “planned project,” which allows some limited flexibility in design. The setback to accommodate the plaza on East Washington, for example, is greater than would otherwise be allowed for a by-right project on that site. It differs from a planned unit development (PUD) in granting far less flexibility. From Chapter 55 of the city code [emphasis added]:

Planned Projects. 5:68. The intent of this section is to provide an added degree of flexibility in the placement and interrelationship of the buildings within the planned project and to provide for permanent open space preservation within planned projects. Modifications of the area, height, placement requirements, and lot sizes, where used for permanent open space preservation, of this Chapter may be permitted if the planned project would result in the preservation of natural features, additional open space, greater building or parking setback, energy conserving design, preservation of historic or architectural features, expansion of the supply of affordable housing for lower income households or a beneficial arrangement of buildings. A planned project shall maintain the permitted uses and requirements for maximum density, maximum floor area and minimum usable open space specified in this Chapter for the zoning district(s) in which the proposed planned project is located.

Westphal praised the plans to eventually widen the walkway, and said he appreciated the bike parking. Regarding vehicle parking, he said things won’t change until the message gets out that the city doesn’t want to see large portions of land used for car storage. He doesn’t have a problem with limited parking on that site.

He also commended the design review board, saying that they didn’t suggest changes that are too burdensome. He hoped that people would stay tuned for a review of the design process next year.

Noting that he hadn’t attended the Sept. 20 meeting, Evan Pratt asked whether the design of the Huron facade had changed since then. No, DiLeo replied, but the design had changed since the developer’s team met with the design review board in the summer.

Tony Derezinski said the planned project approach is a creative way to work with The Varsity’s neighbor and create an attractive plaza, even though it’s larger than what would otherwise be allowed by code. He indicated that some people wouldn’t be satisfied with any design, and at some point it’s the commission’s responsibility to say enough is enough. The developer has shown willingness to make some changes, he said, and if retail eventually becomes viable, the developer will include that. Derezinski concluded by saying The Varsity will add to the area and improve the city’s tax base.

Giannola asked whether it would be possible to require a No Left Turn sign – could that be added to the development agreement? Gross said he’d welcome that. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said the city can’t require that a sign be added to the public right-of-way – that’s the purview of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, since Huron is a trunkline. Rampson said the developer could certainly put a sign on his property, but she didn’t recommend altering the development agreement to address traffic engineering issues like this. No amendment was made.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the site plan for The Varsity at Ann Arbor. It will be considered next by city council.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal.

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Oct. 18 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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

Since the Sept. 20 meeting, some minor modifications have been made on the proposal for the 13-story apartment building at 425 E. Washington St., east of the 411 Lofts building and west of the First Baptist Church. (Currently on the site is a two-story office building that formerly housed the Prescription Shop.) Changes include narrowing the walkway on the building’s east side, mounting lights on the building instead of poles along the east side of the path, and removing decorative pillars at both ends of the walkway, previously proposed on the east side of the path and on the First Baptist Church property. Because the church is located in an historic district, any changes on its property would have required approval by the city’s historic district commission.

The main features of the project are unchanged. The 177,180-square foot apartment building is to include 181 apartments with a total of 415 bedrooms, to be marketed to university students. The plan also calls for 70 parking spaces, both underground and on the street level, with entrances off of East Huron and East Washington. In addition, two spaces would be provided on adjacent property (owned by the same developer) to use for a car-sharing service like Zipcar. A total of 121 bike spaces are also proposed for the project.

Fourteen people spoke during a public hearing on the project, including several residents of Sloan Plaza, which is located on Huron Street across from the proposed project. Concerns were raised primarily about the aesthetics of the Huron Street facade and traffic issues associated with the Huron entrance.

But the developer and members of the design team defended the building, saying they’ve listened to residents and the design review board, and have made changes as a result of that input. Stacey Simpson Duke, co-pastor of First Baptist Church, praised the developer’s team for working with the church to be a good neighbor. Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, also spoke in support of the project.

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

Site of proposed 13-story The Varsity Ann Arbor, at 425 E. Washington, where a two-story office building is now located. To the left is 411 Lofts. To the right is the entrance to the First Baptist Church parking lot. (Photos by the writer.)

The Varsity is a 13-story apartment building proposed for 425 E. Washington St., east of the 411 Lofts building and west of the First Baptist Church. Currently on the site is a two-story office building that formerly housed the Prescription Shop. The proposed 177,180-square-foot apartment building would include 181 apartments with a total of 415 bedrooms, to be marketed to university students.

Four residents spoke during a public hearing on the project, and were generally supportive. However, they cited concerns over the attractiveness of the facade facing Huron Street and traffic issues that might arise from that entrance. Some commissioners also raised issues about parking and design, and wondered about the possibility of retail space on the first floor. The developer’s representatives felt retail wasn’t feasible at this time.

City planning staff recommended that site plan approval be postponed, so that some relatively minor issues could be resolved. Commissioners followed that advice, and postponed action on the project. It’s expected to be on the agenda again for the commission’s Oct. 4 meeting.

In addition to The Varsity, Tuesday’s meeting included several communications from staff and commissioners. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, reported that a Sept. 21 meeting of the R4C/R2A advisory committee had been postponed and will be rescheduled. City planning staff had heard from several committee members who felt they needed more information before reconvening. The advisory group is developing recommendations for zoning changes in Ann Arbor’s near-downtown residential neighborhoods.

Tony Derezinski, a commissioner who also serves on city council, reported on planning-related items that emerged at the council’s Sept. 19 meeting. He noted that although it wasn’t on the council’s agenda or discussed publicly, the issue of the City Place apartment complex, which is poised to break ground in the coming weeks, was “quietly being discussed” among councilmembers, he said. While it looks like the project will move forward and that an alternative project on that site called Heritage Row won’t be realized, Derezinski said – somewhat cryptically – there’s “many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.” 

The Varsity

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff gave a report on The Varsity project. The 13-story building, with 181 apartments, also calls for 70 parking spaces – 45 in an underground level, with an entrance off of East Huron Street, and 25 on the street level, with an entrance off of East Washington. In addition, two spaces would be provided on adjacent property (owned by the same developer) for use by a car-sharing service like Zipcar – the city counts each of those shared-car spaces as four parking spots. A total of 121 bike spaces are also proposed for the project.

Rendering of an aerial view of the proposed Varsity apartments, located on the left, between Washington and Huron streets. In the lower right is the First Baptist Church. In the upper right, across Huron, is Sloan Plaza.

The building is set back 15 feet from Huron Street. The side facing East Washington has zero setback for about half the frontage, then about a 25-foot setback for the remaining area, creating an entry plaza next to the First Baptist Church.

A public walkway – which the developer describes as a “mews” – will run along the east side of the building, from Huron to Washington. A mid-block pedestrian crosswalk is proposed across Washington, leading to the walkway/alley across the street next to McKinley Towne Centre. That alley extends to East Liberty. [.pdf of staff report]

By way of background, the alley between Washington and Liberty has been the subject of recent complaint voiced at a recent meeting of Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority, because of the placement of dumpsters there.  Maintaining the alley as publicly accessible has been the focus of conversations involving the Downton Citizens Advisory Council dating back at least to late 2009.

The Varsity was the first project evaluated by the city’s new design review board, which discussed the proposal at a meeting in June. According to a memo prepared by city staff, the board reported that the building’s design was generally in line with the city’s design guidelines. Issues cited by the memo as weaker design elements included a significant area devoted to vehicle circulation, front facades disconnected from the base, and an underutilized plaza, among other things. [.pdf of report from the design review board, and the developer's response]

The city’s planning staff had recommended postponement to give the developer – Potomac Holdings of Bethesda, Maryland – more time to address several outstanding issues. Those issues were listed as an inadequate drive approach on East Washington to access the service alley; changes to the landscape plan and grading plan, as requested by city staff; and revisions to the site’s solid waste plan, which city staff had deemed unacceptable. A representative for the developer described these as minor, and city staff expects they’ll be resolved by the commission’s Oct. 4 meeting.

The Varsity: Public Commentary

Seven people spoke during a public hearing on the project, including four residents and three representatives from the developer.

Hugh Sonk spoke on behalf of the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association – Sloan Plaza is located at 505 E. Huron, just east and across the street from The Varsity site. He said he’d been deeply involved in developing the city’s design guidelines and design review board, and he had several concerns about the proposed project and its impact on residents in the neighborhood. He wasn’t opposed to the project, but wanted to address those concerns: (1) traffic on Huron; and (2) the design of the facade facing Huron. Regarding traffic, Sonk said that having an entrance off Huron into the building’s underground parking will exacerbate an already congested corridor – a major traffic artery that will be even more crowded when the University of Michigan’s new children’s hospital opens in November. There’s not adequate space on the site to queue cars, he said, which will result in backups on Huron.

Sonk’s other concern was the design of the facade facing Huron. The idea behind the design guidelines is that new buildings should complement existing structures, he said. In this case, The Varsity is adjacent to historic buildings, which that are located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. The current design, he said, doesn’t look like it’s a street facade – it looks like the entrance to an alley. He likened it to the large AT&T building, located further west on Huron.

Bob Keane, a principal with WDG Architects in Washington D.C., introduced himself as representing The Varsity’s ownership group. He described the process so far as collaborative, working with city staff and input from the neighbors, including the adjacent First Baptist Church. A lot of good comments came out of the design review process, he said, and they’re working to keep the project feasible while trying to beautify it as well.

Keane told commissioners it’s important to take a step back and look at the entire neighborhood, city and UM campus, when considering the building’s design. He showed several slides of other buildings in Ann Arbor and on campus, that were meant to provide context to The Varsity. Keane also described several elements of The Varsity’s design, including the mews along the building’s east side, and the courtyard on the East Washington site that opens onto the gardens of the First Baptist Church.

Architect's rendering of The Varsity – the view from Huron Street. The dark brick building on the right is 411 Lofts, at the corner of Washington and Division.

Christine Crockett introduced herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and a member of the committee that helped write the city’s design guidelines. She didn’t object to the project – it’s appropriate for the D1 zoning, and more student housing near campus is needed. But her principal objection is the design of the Huron Street facade, saying it looked like a back door garage. For years, the city has been talking about ways to make the Huron Street corridor more attractive, she said. The building should incorporate elements of the historic district character overlay, she said.

There didn’t seem to be any design changes made since the design review board meeting, Crockett contended, and she felt the architects could do a better job. Comparing the building to other structures that were several blocks away (as the developer’s architect had done) wasn’t germane. She suggested removing the garage entrance from Huron completely, saying that it would help alleviate a lot of problems, including traffic concerns. Crockett concluding by saying that “a garage door is simply not acceptable. This is not the back door to anything.”

Ray Detter spoke on behalf of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council. He called The Varsity a significant project. Over the years, planning commissioners have noted that they didn’t have purview over the design of a project – but now, they do, he said, because of the city’s design guidelines and review process. The developers of The Varsity did a good job, Detter said, and also responded to input by improving the project. However, “our position is it can be even better yet,” he said.

Detter suggested making all parking underground, for example, and getting rid of the first floor parking that’s adjacent to the mews. The building could have a deeper setback in exchange for adding a couple of floors to its height – no one would object to that, he said. Perhaps the mews could be wider, too. Detter said that everyone knows this project will be approved. It’s just a matter of how good it will be, and of how good the process will be. Every time he sees it, as the project moves forward, he hopes to see improvement.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting, who’s working on the project, addressed some of the outstanding issues that had been cited by staff as the reason for postponement. He noted that the solid waste plan, which city staff deemed unacceptable, is similar to plans that the city already approved for the apartment buildings Zaragon I and Zaragon II [now known as Zaragon West]. The staff also indicated that the entrance to the service alley off of East Washington is inadequate, but Ophoff said the driveway was narrowed on the west side because a dumpster is not planned for that location.

The staff requested corrections to the project’s landscaping plan sheet, which Ophoff described as housekeeping details. His final point related to a staff request for corrections to the grading plan sheet, as noted by the city’s development inspector. Ophoff said he’s at a loss to know who the development inspector is – this was the first he’d heard about such a person, and he’d previously received no staff comments about the site’s grading plan.

Brad Moore and Bob Keane, architects for The Varsity.

Brad Moore, an architect on the project, spoke about the Huron Street facade, which he said had changed significantly from the original design. The original design called for a solid, opaque garage door facing Huron, he said. Now, the door will be designed to look more like windows. The design uses hues from nearby buildings, Moore said, including Campus Inn. A small plaza has been added, with benches and an area for plantings. All of these things are intended to make it more like a front facade, he said.

By having entrances off of both Huron and Washington, Moore said, the traffic situation will actually be better – the cars won’t be coming in and out of just one place. They’re trying to minimize the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, he said, noting that there are fewer pedestrians on Huron than on Washington.

Steve Kaplan said he’ll be a neighbor of the future building, and appealed to developers to put more of the parking underground. He urged them to keep the ground-level space available for future retail or commercial use. In conversations he’s had, Kaplan said the sense is that there’s not demand for retail there. But the area is changing rapidly, he noted, with this project, the nearby 411 Lofts and North Quad (a UM dorm). The opportunities are just starting to grow, and it would be a waste if that ground floor were squandered on parking. The developers have said they’re constrained by the site’s topography, but since they’ll need to build a foundation for the structure, Kaplan said that would negate issues with the existing topography.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners asked a range of questions, focusing primarily on traffic, parking and the design of the building and surrounding site. For this report, their discussion is organized by topic.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Traffic

Tony Derezinki was one of several commissioners who asked about traffic in relation to the entrances, especially off of Huron. He noted that in addition to public commentary, the commission had received a letter from Maurice Binkow, a resident of Sloan Plaza, who was concerned about traffic. [.pdf of Binkow's letter] Derezinski asked if any traffic studies had been done.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting said the traffic study they’d done was based on the existing structure, which was an office building. There were peak hours in the morning and evening, but students don’t have those same peaks, he said – they operate on different schedules.

Facing south across Huron Street – the site of the proposed Varsity apartments. In the background to the right is 411 Lofts. To the left is the top of the Liberty Square (Tally Hall) parking structure.

Kirk Westphal said the additional curbcuts make it more difficult for pedestrians. He wondered what the heaviest trips per hour are expected to be, compared to what’s there now. Alexis DiLeo said she could get that information from the traffic study, but that in general, residences tend to have lower traffic volume per unit than office buildings. And students – The Varsity’s target market – won’t likely be going to 9-5 jobs, she said, so the traffic volume would be significantly different than it is now.

Eleanore Adenekan wanted to know whether there are more pedestrians than vehicles on Huron. DiLeo said she didn’t have counts, but her sense is that there are significantly more vehicles than pedestrians, given that Huron is a four-lane road and one of the city’s main thoroughfares.

Westphal said it was inexcusable to have two curbcuts out of the building, leading out onto two busy streets. He didn’t buy the argument that it diffused traffic – most students use their cars infrequently. Regarding the aesthetics, it’s not possible to dress up the garage, he said, adding that it’s “dangerous and not a pedestrian-oriented use.”

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Parking

Diane Giannola said her main concern was with parking. There are 78 spaces in the structure for 415 bedrooms – is that enough? Brad Moore responded, saying that the parking ratio conforms with the city’s zoning ordinance, and is similar to the parking provided at 411 Lofts, Zaragon and 601 S. Forest – other downtown apartment buildings designed for students. He said it’s the experience of the owner, in other projects, that students living in apartments this close to campus don’t need cars on site.

Responding to Giannola’s query about how the spots will be assigned, Moore said residents can lease the spots. He noted that it’s a separate lease from the apartment leases.

Giannola wondered if there’d been problems with residents of 411 Lofts parking in the neighborhoods. Moore said he wasn’t aware of any problems. He said he’d been told by someone at the State Street Merchants Association that a significant number of permits for spaces at Tally Hall [the parking structure that's now called Liberty Square] will be rotated out of that structure into other city parking garages, including the new underground structure being built on South Fifth Avenue. When that happens, it will free up more spots at Tally Hall, he said.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, told commissioners that there’s a waiting list to get parking permits, but that about 700 new spaces will be coming on line in about a year at the underground structure. When that happens, there’ll be a lot of shifting of permits among the city’s parking structures, she said.

Moore noted that the underground structure will be opening before The Varsity does.

Even so, Giannola said she worried about the impact on neighborhoods if students end up parking their cars on neighborhood streets, rather than in city structures or The Varsity.

[Later in the meeting, during the final opportunity for public commentary, Ray Detter said he wanted to clarify the situation regarding parking in the State Street area, which he believed had been misrepresented. The intent is to free up space in the State Street area to use for short-term parking, he said, as part of a demand management system being developed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA manages the public parking system for the city. By moving long-term permit parking to the underground structure on South Fifth, the idea is not to fill the freed-up spaces elsewhere with more long-term parking, he said.]

Planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Erica Briggs.

Erica Briggs asked about a possible Zipcar partnership. Moore indicated that two spaces are planned for a car-sharing service like Zipcar.

Briggs also wondered why all the parking isn’t underground. Bob Keane, one of the project’s architects, noted that the design uses the underground parking that’s in the existing building, with an entrance off of Huron. It’s cost effective to do that, he said. They they’ll build a separate entrance off Washington leading into parking on a level above that underground area. There will be a screen of vines and other greenery to shield the cars from the mews, he said, so it will feel like you’re walking through a garden.

Briggs wanted to know more about the bike storage, too. A total of 121 bike parking spaces are proposed, including 6 hoops in the entry plaza on the south side of the building, 6 hoops on the north side of the building, 37 covered hoops in the parking levels, and 72 spaces in a secure bike storage room on the ground level of the building. Briggs asked whether there will be amenities like a free air pump provided in the storage room or in the plaza, as a community benefit. The developer’s representatives said they could explore that possibility.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Building Design

Kirk Westphal asked Alexis DiLeo to clarify the commission’s ability to talk about design, in the context of the city’s new design guidelines and review board. DiLeo replied that with the council’s adoption of the design guidelines, the topic of design is “fair game” for commissioners now. She reminded them that while the design review process is mandatory, compliance is voluntary.

Tony Derezinski asked for more information about design of the north facade, facing Huron. Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting replied that they were treating it more like a plaza than a garage. Bob Keane added that both entrances – on Huron and Washington – were being treated the same, using the same materials and configuration. On the Huron side, they’ve added windows above the garage door, and tried to make it look more like a storefront, with a large metal canopy overhang above the garage door. The design also attempts to mirror the context of the two-story houses that are on either side of the building, he said. He felt the facade contributed greatly to the streetfront.

Derezinski replied that it seems like the objection is to having any entrance at all on that side. Given that there is an entrance, this design is probably as good as it can get, he said.

Westphal clarified with DiLeo that the cutout – the plaza in front of the building on the East Washington side – was the result of discussions with neighbors, particularly the First Baptist Church to the east of the site. DiLeo said the plaza had always been part of the design – she was unsure what the original inspiration was for it. She said it has the effect of making a nicer transition between 411 Lofts to the west, which has a 10-foot setback, and the church to the east.

Erica Briggs asked the developer to discuss the plaza in more detail. She also noted that a lot of the design influence came from the church.

Ophoff described attributes of the plaza and mews. Multi-colored pavers will be used to create a design in the walkway, he said, that will lead pedestrians through the space. Other features include ornamental fencing and gates, and plantings – both annuals and perennials. Ophoff also described a “green screen” – a wire matrix on the building over which Virginia creeper vines and flowering hydrangeas will grow, to mask the first-floor parking area. There will be lots of opportunity for artistic details and richness in this area, he said.

Briggs encouraged the developer to widen the walkway as much as possible. It’s generally 5 feet, but widens up to 10 feet in some places. She also urged the developer to add even more details to the design, noting that it would be one of the longest pedestrian connections downtown, running from Huron to Liberty. It should be an area that people want to use and explore. Milwaukee does a good job of putting in touches of public art throughout the city, she said. One possibility might be to ask Ann Arbor’s public art commission for funding, she said.

Westphal praised the report of the design review board, saying that it sounds like the process led to some positive changes. He applauded the developer for including things like the walkway and bike spaces above the minimum required. However, his sticking point is the cutout – the plaza area in front of the building facing East Washington. The city can’t require that the building include retail, but it looks like the plaza is going to be underutilized, Westphal said, “and goodness knows we have enough of them around town – we don’t need more.”

Westphal also urged the developer to take another look at the building’s east facade, facing campus – it could be improved.

Brad Moore responded to Westphal’s criticism of the plaza, saying that the planning staff thought a larger plaza would be better, but the developer would be willing to reduce it in size so that it simply complies with code. Westphal asked whether they’d be willing to compromise on the design of the plaza, to make it more pedestrian friendly. Moore indicated that his client wouldn’t be willing to do that.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Retail

Westphal wondered if there’d been any discussion about adding retail to the first floor. The planning staff did suggest it, DiLeo said, and it would be possible to renovate the building later and add it. Currently a lounge for residents in planned in the first floor area, with another lounge – and an outdoor patio – on the top level.

Eleanore Adenekan asked for additional explanation about why the developer wasn’t putting in retail. Moore noted that the first floor facing Washington includes a lounge area, and in the floor above that there’ll be a fitness room. Those areas are designed to engage the plaza and streetscape, he said. There’s also a top floor lounge, so if the first floor lounge is converted into a coffeeshop or other retail in the future, residents will still have a lounge area.

But in talking with other landlords in the area and doing market research, Moore said, it didn’t seem like the time is right for retail. He noted that the leasing office at 411 Lofts is being relocated from one of the upper levels down to the first floor, because the owner couldn’t find a tenant for the first floor retail space. The former leasing office is being converted into another apartment.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone the project.

Misc. Communications

Every meeting includes points on the agenda for communications from commissioners and staff. Several topics were mentioned at Tuesday’s meeting.

Misc. Communications: City Place, Heritage Row

In addition to serving on planning commission, Tony Derezinski is a city councilmember representing Ward 2. He gives regular updates to the commission about city council actions, and on Tuesday reported a variety of items from the council’s Sept. 19 meeting. In addition to council action related to the city’s public art ordinance – which he characterized as leading to a “pretty husky debate” – Derezinski mentioned that the council postponed action on rezoning a property on South State, which houses a medical marijuana dispensary. The planning commission had recommended denial of that request from the Treecity Health Collective.

Other council action related to the planning commission included passing revisions to the commission’s bylaws and authorizing staff to move ahead with systematic annexation of township islands within the city.

Derezinski also noted that although it wasn’t on the council’s agenda or discussed publicly, the issue of the City Place apartment complex, which is poised to break ground in the coming weeks, was “quietly being discussed” among councilmembers, he said. If nothing changes, then the City Place project will be built and some houses along South Fifth will be demolished. [An alternative proposal, called Heritage Row, would have preserved those houses, in addition to building new apartment buildings. That proposal failed to achieve the eight votes it needed on the 11-member council.]

Derezinski said a lot of the focus has been on those councilmembers who voted against Heritage Row. [Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).] Derezinski concluded by saying you never know what might happen, adding that there’s “many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.” [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "City Place Project Moves Forward"]

Eric Mahler, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Misc. Communications: Public Hearing on 2333 S. State

Eric Mahler, chair of the planning commission, announced that the planning staff is reviewing a request to divide a 4.13-acre parcel at 2333 S. State into two separate lots for commercial use. According to a staff memo, this is an administrative process – assuming that the request conforms to the state Land Division Act, it will be approved. The planning commission does not have authority to act on this request.

Misc. Communications: R4C/R2A Committee

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, reported that a Sept. 21 meeting of the R4C/R2A advisory committee had been postponed. City planning staff had heard from several committee members who felt they needed more information before reconvening. Rampson reminded commissioners that they’d received a preliminary report at a working session in June. The advisory group is developing recommendations for zoning changes in Ann Arbor’s near-downtown residential neighborhoods. Rampson said committee members feel that they might be able to reach consensus, or at least form a majority opinion – that’s what the next meeting is intended to do. It will likely be rescheduled in 2-3 weeks.

Misc. Communications – Sustainability Joint Session

Rampson reminded commissioners of a joint session on Tuesday, Sept. 27 with the city’s energy commission, environmental commission and park advisory commission. The meeting, which will focus on the city’s sustainability efforts, starts at 6 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road. A previous joint session on this topic was held in April 2010.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal.

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Evan Pratt, Wendy Woods

Next special meeting: On Tuesday, Sept. 27, the planning commission will be meeting in a joint session with members of the city’s energy commission, environmental commission, and park advisory commission. The focus of the meeting will be on the city’s sustainability efforts. The session starts at 6 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Oct. 4 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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

The 177,180-square foot apartment building would include 181 apartments with a total of 415 bedrooms, to be marketed to university students. The plan also calls for 70 parking spaces, both underground and on the street level, with entrances off of East Huron and East Washington. In addition, two spaces would be provided on adjacent property (owned by the same developer) to use for a car-sharing service like Zipcar. A total of 121 bike spaces are also proposed for the project.

The Varsity was the first project evaluated by the city’s new design review board, which discussed the proposal at a meeting in June. According to a memo prepared by city staff, the board reported that the building’s design was generally in line with the city’s design guidelines. Issues cited by the memo as weaker design elements included a significant area devoted to vehicle circulation, front facades disconnected from the base, and an underutilized plaza, among other things. [.pdf of report from the design review board, and the developer's response]

The city’s planning staff had recommended postponement to give the developer – Potomac Holdings of Bethesda, Maryland – more time to address several outstanding issues. Those issues include an inadequate drive approach on East Washington to access the service alley; changes to the landscape plan and grading plan, as requested by city staff; and revisions to the site’s solid waste plan, which city staff had deemed unacceptable. A representative for the developer described these as minor, and city staff expects they’ll be resolved by the commission’s Oct. 4 meeting.

Seven people spoke during public commentary, including four residents and three representatives from the developer. Though residents were generally supportive of the project, they cited concerns over the attractiveness of the facade facing Huron Street and traffic issues that might arise from that entrance. Some commissioners also raised issues about parking and design, and wondered about the possibility of retail space on the first floor. The developer’s representatives felt retail wasn’t feasible at this time.

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

When you drop the ball, even if it's shaped more like a rugby ball than a football, you still have a chance to recover the fumble.

To me, the highlight of that meeting had nothing to do with the site plan or the building design – which has evolved somewhat since The Varsity’s review on June 22 by the city’s newly created design review board.

Instead, I think the most exciting play of the citizen participation game was a kind of Hail Mary forward pass flung down the field by John Floyd, a former candidate for city council. The ball was snagged out of the air, just before it hit the turf, by Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association.

I don’t think Floyd and Heywood play for the same team – nobody was wearing numbered jerseys at the meeting – so that might count as an interception, not a completed forward pass.

Floyd’s Hail Mary was this question: What is the benefit to Ann Arbor’s bottom line, if the new taxable value from The Varsity is subject to “capture” through the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF district?

Heywood then provided a description of how the TIF (tax increment finance) works: the DDA capture is only on the initial increment – the difference between the property’s initial value, and the value after a site is developed – not on its later appreciation. What made it highlight reel material was the run-after-the-catch: Heywood went on to describe how a recently-discovered stipulation in the city’s DDA ordinance (Chapter 7) actually limits the amount of taxes the DDA captures.

Heywood’s explanation of how the limit works was accurate, based on the interpretation of Chapter 7 that has been used by the DDA and accepted by the city of Ann Arbor. That interpretation – a year-to-year calculation of excess tax capture – resulted in a repayment earlier this year of roughly $473,000 from the DDA to the Ann Arbor District Library, the Washtenaw Community College, and Washtenaw County for excess taxes that the DDA had collected. The city of Ann Arbor chose to waive its $712,000 share of the calculated excess.

On the year-to-year interpretation of excess, Heywood was correct when he said that the DDA’s capture depends in part on which projects are added to the tax rolls in a given year. If new projects are spread over multiple years, the Chapter 7 limit does not have as great an impact as it would if they are all completed in a given year.

The tax capture issue, of course, is not within the control of The Varsity’s developer. Its discussion at the citizen participation meeting might be fairly characterized as playing football on a baseball field. I think the response of The Varsity’s development team to the tax issue was the right call: They said they’ll pay the tax bill, and if you’re not happy with the way that taxes are captured and distributed, then you should take it up with your local elected officials.

So after writing a column over a month ago, before that meeting – “Taxing Math Needs a Closer Look” – I’m taking it up, again, with Chronicle readers and my elected officials.

The year-to-year approach to the calculations is, I think, simply not defensible as correct, based on the language of the Chapter 7 ordinance. I think the correct way to calculate excess is based on comparing the total valuation in the district against the forecasted valuation – a cumulative method.

It turns out that I think I dropped the ball on one of the calculations in that previous column. But even factoring in a revised formula, the amount of excess taxes captured in the DDA district since 2003 appears to be around $2 million, instead of the roughly $1.2 million that the DDA and the city of Ann Arbor calculated as the excess.

In this column, I want to discuss briefly the corrected formula. It’s a way to remind elected officials of other taxing authorities – the library board, the county’s board of commissioners, and the community college’s board of trustees – that a significant number of tax dollars are in play for them, not just now, but into the future.

Hurry-Up Offense Style Review

For more detail and historical background, I’d invite readers to begin with the column from early June: “Taxing Math Needs a Closer Look.” Here, I just want to provide enough of an overview to make a revised formula from that column understandable.

Review: Chapter 7

Chapter 7 of Ann Arbor’s city code lays out how the tax capture of the Ann Arbor DDA is limited, or capped. The mechanism used to cap the amount of captured tax is the projected value of the increment in the TIF district, as laid out in the DDA TIF plan. The TIF plan is a required document under the state enabling legislation for DDAs (Act 197 of 1975). From Chapter 7 [emphasis and extra emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed. [.pdf of Ann Arbor city ordinance establishing the DDA]

Historically, the Chapter 7 provision has not been applied. But it was noticed this year by city of Ann Arbor financial staff and brought to the DDA’s attention. The result was a repayment of roughly $473,000 from the DDA to the Ann Arbor District Library, the Washtenaw Community College and Washtenaw County. The city of Ann Arbor chose to waive its $712,000 share of the calculated excess.

One major issue is how to understand “growth” as specified in Chapter 7. The city of Ann Arbor and the DDA have used a year-to-year method of defining excess. I think that’s not correct. Instead, I think that the correct way is to use a cumulative method.

Review: Year-to-Year versus Cumulative Approach

In Chart C, the blue bars represent the forecasted valuation of the tax increment on which the DDA tax capture will be based. (The forecasted valuation is included in the DDA TIF plan.) The red line reflects the actual valuation of the tax increment in the district. For future years, the red line reflects the DDA’s current 10-year budget planning document.

Chart C. Blue bars are the forecast valuation in the Ann Arbor DDA's TIF plan. The red line is the actual valuation. For years 2013 and 2014, the DDA's 10-year plan is used. (Links to larger image.)

The easiest way to see the difference between the year-to-year method and the cumulative method is in year 2012. The actual valuation (red line) in 2012 drops compared to 2011. So on the year-to-year method, there can be no excess for that year – no matter what the forecast (blue bars) is. That outcome arises because the year-to-year method incorrectly re-sets the benchmark for calculating the growth rate to the immediately previous year.

The cumulative method, on the other hand, would determine that there is an excess for 2012. Even though the valuation dips from 2011 to 2012, the red line is still clearly higher than the blue bars.

This also highlights the fact that the year-to-year method does not impose an actual cap on the total TIF capture by the DDA for the period of the DDA’s existence. It only imposes a cap on the capture in any given year – which is defined relative to just the preceding year.

If the valuation of the increment spikes in the district, then in the first year of the spike, the year-to-year method calculates an excess valuation due to that spike. But after that spike levels off, the year-to-year method determines there is no excess. And even if an upward growth trend continues, the year-to-year method does not carry forward the excess from previous years in the same way that the cumulative method does.

So Tom Heywood’s comments at the citizen participation meeting for The Varsity were an accurate depiction of the way the city and the DDA have chosen to interpret Chapter 7 – on that interpretation, the timing of new development is significant.

Doubling the Score

If the cumulative interpretation of the Chapter 7 language is correct – and I think it is – then we still have to make a specific interpretation of the part of the ordinance that reads: “If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, …”

It’s especially important because if the condition set forth in the if-statement is satisfied, the consequence is that all of that excess – not just 50% of it – must be divided among the other taxing authorities instead of being captured by the DDA.

I think if we adopt the cumulative interpretation of the ordinance, then the “twice that” clause can be paraphrased as follows: “If the actual valuation in the district is more than twice what the valuation was forecast by the TIF plan to be …”

In Chart C, that means: “If the red line is twice as high as the blue bars.” In spreadsheet terms (link are below), that’s “If Column C is more than twice as much as G …”

The point is, the condition has not yet been met that would trigger the “twice that” clause in the ordinance. But on the formula I used in the previous column to calculate excess, the “twice that” clause was triggered, and had an impact on the calculations. Replacing the formula with the correct one shows a less dire, but still significant impact.

On the original calculations in the previous column, the total amount of excess taxes that had been captured since 2003 worked out to roughly $3 million – as contrasted with the roughly $1.2 that the city and the DDA calculated. The revised calculation, with a correct implementation of the “twice that” clause, works out to $2.05 million. Even if the city of Ann Arbor were to waive its share, that would still work out to an additional $400,000 to be returned to other taxing authorities in the short term: Google spreadsheet: Cumulative Realistic (Revised)

More significant than the short-term picture is the roughly $600,000 a year that would in the future be divided among other taxing authorities instead of being captured in the DDA district. The city of Ann Arbor’s share of that is roughly 60%, or $360,000. Measured in numbers of city staff – whether they’re police officers or planning specialists or field services employees – that works out to almost four full-time employees.

Playing on the Varsity Squad

So what’s the actual answer to John Floyd’s question about possible benefit to the average citizen from The Varsity at Ann Arbor? Well, the current total valuation of the increment in the DDA district is far greater than the forecast in the DDA TIF plan. So a correctly interpreted Chapter 7 would ensure that future projects would effectively add at least half their valuation to the city’s tax base. That means at least half of the taxable value added by The Varsity to the city’s base would effectively be taxed by the city of Ann Arbor – just as properties outside the DDA district are taxed.

A correctly interpreted Chapter 7 would mean that Floyd’s standard critique of new downtown development – that it doesn’t add directly to the city’s general fund – is only half right. A correctly interpreted Chapter 7 would help make a case for increased development in the downtown area – half the added value of that development would go to the taxing authorities that levy taxes, instead of to the DDA.

In the nearly three years that I’ve covered the DDA for The Chronicle, I’ve developed some expectations of how its board and staff might handle certain situations based on past performance. When the Chapter 7 issue was raised by the city of Ann Arbor’s financial staff earlier this year, the DDA handled the calculation of excess in a way that was counter to my expectation, based on past observation.

It was like watching former Michigan football QB Tom Brady taking a snap from center and then tripping over his own feet as he dropped back to pass, then fumbling the ball. But Tom Brady wouldn’t just lie there on the ground and cry like some kind of scrimmage-squad Rudy. He’d scramble after that ball. And that’s what I think the DDA will do now.

It’s certainly what the DDA and the city of Ann Arbor need to do now – recover their own fumble. It’s the difference between playing for the scrimmage squad and playing for the varsity. It means acknowledging the correct way to calculate past excess TIF capture, making other taxing authorities whole, and making clear that the excess will be calculated correctly in the future.

If they don’t do that, a loose ball will still be bouncing around on the field. It could become a political football – and someone else might pick it up and run for a touchdown.

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

At its June 20 meeting, the council also confirmed the nominations for the initial membership of the design review board: Tamara Burns, Paul Fontaine, Chester B. Hill, Mary Jukari, Bill Kinley, Richard Mitchell, and Geoffrey M. Perkins.

That board will meet to review its first project on June 22, 2011, at 3 p.m. in the sixth floor conference room of city hall. The project to be reviewed is The Varsity at Ann Arbor, a residential project planned for 425 E. Washington St., next to the 411 Lofts building. The site is currently the site of an office building which formerly housed the Prescription Shop. The Varsity is planned to be a 13-story apartment building with 173 units that would house 418 people. It would include 77 parking spaces. [.pdf of The Varsity at Ann Arbor project presentation]

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]

Mayor John Hieftje (standing) and interim city administrator Tom Crawford before the start of the city council's June 6 meeting.

For road users who head to the polls on Nov. 8, possibly the most important issue on the agenda was a brief presentation from the city’s project management manager, Homayoon Pirooz, on the city’s street repair tax, which would reach the end of its current five-year life this year, if not renewed by voters. The city council will convene a working session on June 13 to look at the issue in more detail.

Also related to infrastructure was the council’s initial action on setting rates for utilities (water, sewer, stormwater), voting unanimously to send the rate increases on to a second and final vote with a public hearing. The rate increases range from 3-4% more than customers are currently paying. All new and amended city ordinances require two votes by the council at separate meetings.

The council also approved an $800,000 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for the initial, right-of-way portion of the East Stadium bridges replacement project. Construction on that public project is due to start later this fall.

For another public project, the council voted to add a previously budgeted $1.09 million to the construction manager contract for the new municipal center at Fifth and Huron.

In an action designed eventually to reduce employee benefits costs, the council passed a resolution – brought forward by its budget committee – that directs the city administrator to craft an ordinance revision that would alter the way non-union employee benefits are structured. What’s planned is a change from three to five years for the final average compensation (FAC) calculation, and a change from five to 10 years for vesting. In addition, retirees would receive an access-only health care benefit.

The city’s newest non-union employee is Chuck Hubbard, whose appointment as the new fire chief was approved by the city council on Monday night. Hubbard was previously assistant chief, which, unlike the chief’s job, is a union position. Hubbard has 25 years of fire protection experience, all of it in Ann Arbor.

Expected to begin construction this year – in late summer – is a private development on the First and Washington lot currently owned by the city. On that lot, Village Green is planning to build a 9-story, 99-foot-tall building featuring 156 dwelling units and a 244-space parking deck on the first two stories. After much discussion, the council approved a $100,000 reduction in the purchase price – from $3.3 million to $3.2 million – that Village Green will pay for the First and Washington parcel. The price break came in the context of water management and a decision to use a full “bathtub”-type design for the foundation. The unanimous vote came after two councilmembers had already left the meeting (which pushed nearly to midnight), but it seemed at one point to hang in the balance, with two of the remaining nine councilmembers expressing reservations. Because the resolution involved land purchase, it needed eight votes to pass.

Village Green’s project, a planned unit development (PUD) approved over two years ago, was not required to undergo the mandatory process of design review that is now part of the city’s code. The council gave final approval to that design review process on Monday night. The new ordinance sets up a seven-member design review board (DRB) to provide developers with feedback on their projects’ conformance to the design guidelines. While the DRB process is required, conformance with the recommendations of that body is voluntary.

Also receiving approval at first reading was a revision to the landscaping ordinance. Fuller Road Station also drew comment from the public and the council.

Final action on medical marijuana zoning and licensing is not expected until the council’s June 20 meeting. Council deliberations on medical marijuana will be covered in Part 2 of The Chronicle’s meeting report.

Ann Arbor Street Millage Renewal Planned

The council received a brief presentation setting out a timeline for renewing the city’s street repair millage, which is currently authorized through 2011 at a level of 2 mills, but is levied at 1.9944 due to the Headlee cap. One mill equals $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s state equalized value, or SEV. Renewal of the millage would need voter approval on Nov. 8, 2011.

As part of the council’s budget retreat discussion in January 2011, councilmembers briefly discussed the idea of folding the city’s sidewalk replacement program – for which property owners now pay directly – into the activities funded by the street repair millage.

And at a budget work session in late February, public services area administrator Sue McCormick outlined how funds received through the METRO Act, which are currently used for administration of the sidewalk replacement program, could be used to close out the 5-year cycle for the current program. Then in future years, the METRO funds could be used for other work in the right-of-way. METRO funds are paid to the city under state statute for use of the right-of-way by telecommunications companies.

The street reconstruction millage is listed as CITY STREETS on tax bills.

The short briefing that the council received on Monday was given by Homayoon Pirooz, who heads up the city’s project management department. He described how the millage actually has 27 years of history, dating back to 1984, when it was first approved. Over the years, the funds collected under the local street millage have generated an additional $67 million in matching grants.

The street repair millage has criteria attached to the use of funds, Pirooz explained: The street repair millage is for resurfacing and reconstruction of streets – it’s not for filling potholes. [The city has two other funds it uses for that kind of maintenance work, including snow removal – the Major Street and Local Street funds, which receive money from the state of Michigan through vehicle weight and gas taxes.]

One of the new ideas for the street repair millage when it’s put before the voters again, Pirooz said, is to include sidewalk repairs as part of the criteria. If the public is in favor of that, he said, the city would like to apply the same approach as it does to roads. Namely, the millage would not be used for winter maintenance, but rather for replacing existing sidewalks.

Pirooz sketched a timeline for the public discussion on the street repair millage – including the possibility of increasing it to 2.125 mills to accommodate the sidewalk replacement program. That timeline would include two public meetings in June, a city council work session on June 13, and an online survey. At the council’s July 18 meeting, they’d hear a report on the public engagement, and the city council would give direction on how to proceed. At the council’s Aug. 4 meeting, it could then approve the ballot language, which needs to be submitted to the city clerk’s office by Aug. 16.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that there’s now an opportunity to release money in the street repair fund that the city thought it might have to use to replace the East Stadium bridges. With receipt of a $13.9 million TIGER II federal grant, the city can spend more of the balance in the street repair fund on road repair.

Utility Rate Increases Get Initial OK

On the council’s agenda was a resolution to approve changes in rates for drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater facilities. In terms of revenue generated to the city, the rate increases are expected to generate 3.36% more for drinking water ($664,993), 4% more for the sanitary sewer ($829,481), and 3.35% more for stormwater ($176,915).

Because the rates are part of a city ordinance, the changes must receive a second approval from the city council, after a public hearing.

According to the city, the rate increases are needed to maintain debt service coverage and to maintain funding for required capital improvements.

The city’s drinking water charges are based on a “unit” of 100 cubic feet – 748 gallons. Charges for residential customers are divided into tiers, based on usage. For example, the first seven units of water for residential customers are charged $1.23 per unit. The new residential rate for the first seven units would be $1.27.

The city’s stormwater rates are based on the amount of impervious area on a parcel, and are billed quarterly. For example, the lowest tier – for impervious area less than 2,187 square feet – is currently charged $12.84 per quarter. Under the new rate structure, that would increase to $13.24. [.pdf of complete utility rate changes as proposed]

At the council’s Monday meeting, mayor John Hieftje asked public services area administrator Sue McCormick to comment on a study last year showing that Ann Arbor had some of the lowest rates in the state. Ann Arbor’s average increase of 3.2% compares favorably with the regional average of 9% increase this year, McCormick reported.

Councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) questioned McCormick’s numbers, saying it looked like McCormick was relying on comparative data taken exclusively from communities served by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD). He asked that, when the council votes on the rate increases at its next meeting, councilmembers be provided with additional comparative data.

McCormick said she’d bring comparative data on other communities to the next meeting, before the final vote. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked that McCormick bring the actual rates together with percentage increases.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the utilities rate increases.

East Stadium Bridges

In front of the council for its consideration was authorization of an $800,000 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the right-of-way acquisition phase of the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project. Previously, at its April 4 meeting, the council had accepted easements from the University of Michigan for the right-of-way phase.

To be reimbursed for those easements – from federal TIGER funds that the city has been awarded for the project – the council needed to authorize the agreement with MDOT. MDOT acts as the conduit through which the city receives federal funds.

In August, the city council will be presented with a similar city-state agreement – for the construction phase of the project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the agreement with MDOT.

Retiree Benefits Change

On Monday, the council considered a resolution directing its city administrator and city attorney to begin work on an amendment to the city’s retirement benefits package for new non-union employee hires.

Under the amendment, for new hires after July 1, 2011, the final average contribution (FAC) for the pension system would be based on the last five years of service, instead of the last three. Further, employees would be vested after 10 years instead of five, and all new non-union hires would be provided with an access-only style health care plan, with the opportunity to buy into whatever plan active employees enjoy.

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the resolution to his council colleagues, saying it came through the council’s budget committee that met earlier that day. It has resulted from the hard work of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), he said. After reviewing the content of the resolution, he stated that the city’s potential financial exposure due to retireee health care is significant, and the resolution was a beginning of the reform.

Taylor asked interim city administrator Tom Crawford if an estimate had been calculated for the savings that would be realized. Crawford told him that no estimate had been generated yet – staff would need to do additional research. Crawford said it’d be 5-7 years before the city sees savings. The nature of the change is long-term, he said, so it’s unlikly to save money in short term.

Taylor asked Crawford to explain what an “access-only” benefit plan is.

[As the phrase suggests, what the retiree gets is access to health care coverage (and only that). Here, "access" means the ability to purchase health coverage as part of the same group to which active city employees belong. The access to insurance as a part of that group allows retirees to purchase health care more economically than they could as individuals.] In his remarks Crawford emphasized that retirees would be able to use money the city sets aside, as well as their own money, to purchase that health care.

Mayor John Hieftje appeared interested in heading off criticism that this kind of reform should have been done years ago, by noting that the city has not hired that many people in the last few years. Given that so few people have been hired, he concluded, the council was acting in a timely fashion.

Stephen Kunselman noted that the city would be hiring at least one person soon – a city administrator. Kunselman wondered whether the benefits policy is intended to be in place before the administrator is hired. Crawford noted that the ordinance would require two readings before the council.

Kunselman wondered about the change in the vesting period from 5 to 10 years. He asked what the vesting period was back in the Neal Berlin days – 10 years seems extreme. [Neal Berlin is a former city administrator, who preceded Roger Fraser.] What about seven years? Kunselman said he wouldn’t necessarily expect a new city administrator to last 10 years. He wouldn’t want to hinder the city’s ability to make a hire.

Crawford told Kunselman that the last major change was when Neal Berlin was city administrator – the vesting period was changed from 10 to 5 years. So the resolution would direct the preparation of an ordinance to restore what was in place previously. City staff could take direction from the council’s labor committee on preparation of the ordinance, Crawford said.

Hieftje said there was a myth that Neal Berlin had received an extraordinarily generous severance deal. In fact, Hieftje said, Berlin had paid $140,000 in order to receive a $26,000-per-year pension. That meant he had to wait six years before getting a return on that, Hieftje said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct staff to begin drafting an ordinance to change the benefits program for non-union employees. The resolution also indicated a goal to include union employees in a similar benefits program.

Ann Arbor Fire Chief

In front of the council for its consideration was authorization to appoint a new fire chief: Chuck Hubbard. Hubbard is an internal hire, who previously served as an assistant chief. His 25 years of experience in fire protection, coming up through the ranks, has all been in Ann Arbor.

Barnett Jones, head of public safety and chief of police, introduced Hubbard to the council with his recommendation. Jones has been serving as interim fire chief since the resignation of Dominick Lanza from that position earlier this year, after a bit less than a year on the job. Lanza had been an external hire.

Hubbard made some brief remarks by way of introducing himself.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the appointment.

Police Promotional Assessments

Items included on the consent agenda, which are normally moved together and voted on as a group, can be pulled out for separate consideration by any councilmember. It’s not uncommon for at least one item to be pulled out for that kind of separate consideration. On Monday, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked that an item be pulled out that approved a $35,830 contract with Industrial Organizational Solutions Inc. to conduct promotional assessment of Ann Arbor police department officers for ranks of sergeant and lieutenant.

Chief of police Barnett Jones explained that the item is related to layoffs and retirements – it helps create a clear path for promotions. It’s been a long time since sergeants and lieutents have taken exams, he said. While the department is faced with layoffs now, it will also be experiencing some retirements in the future – around 16-17 by 2013, he said. Some of those who are retiring will be sergeants and lieutenants. The department will need supervisors at those ranks to replace the retirees. He could not simply promote people as he passed people walking down the hall, Jones said. This will be one of the most imporatnt promotional teams in the history of the city. The assessment will contain a written part and and oral interview.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract for promotional assessment of police officers.

Landscaping Ordinance Gets Initial OK

On Monday the council was asked to consider initial approval to a revision of the city’s landscaping ordinance. The revision is intended to: (1) improve the appearance of vehicular use areas; (2) revise buffer requirements between conflicting land uses; (3) reduce negative impacts of stormwater runoff; (4) improve pedestrian movement within a development site; and (5) preserve existing significant vegetation.

Those benefits are meant to be achieved through several text amendments to the ordinance, which include: adding definitions for “bioretention” and “native or prairie plantings”; allowing the width of landscape buffers to vary; modifying requirements for interior landscape islands; prohibiting use of invasive species for required landscaping; and increasing fines for violation.

The city’s planning commision had given the ordinance change a unanimous recommendation at its March 1, 2011 meeting.

All city ordinances require a first and a second reading in front of the city council, after a public hearing, before final enactment. The landscape ordinance will need a second vote before its approval is final.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to give the landscape ordinance change an initial approval.

Downtown Design Guidelines

In front of the council for its consideration was final approval to an amendment of its land use control ordinance that will establish design guidelines for new projects in downtown Ann Arbor, and set up a seven-member design review board (DRB) to provide developers with feedback on their projects’ conformance to the design guidelines. It’s the final piece of the A2D2 rezoning initiative.

Review by the DRB will come before a developer’s meeting with nearby residents for each project – which is already required as part of the citizen participation ordinance. While the DRB process is required, conformance with the recommendations of that body is voluntary.

The city council had previously approved the design guideline review program at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting. The city planning commission unanimously recommended the change to the city’s ordinance at its April 5, 2011 meeting. [Previous Chronicle coverage, which includes a detailed timeline of the design guidelines work, dating back to a work group formed in 2006: "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

Downtown Design Guidelines: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council they should use the word “democratic” with a big and a small “D” when considering these items. Too often, he said, an anti-democratic viewpoint is taken. He called on the council to advance the cause of using undeveloped land for mixed-use, including affordable housing. He noted there’d been no new housing cooperatives in the last 30-40 years.

Ray Detter thanked the council for their previous support of the A2D2 rezoning process and urged their support of the design guidelines. He told them he was speaking both as chair of the downtown citizens advisory council and as a member of the design guideline review committee. He reviewed some of the more recent history of the review committee. A group of citizens had formed in late 2009. In February 2010 the council had supported the formation of a design guidelines task force. Then in January 2011, members of task force had presented the outcome of their 34 weekly meetings at a city council working session.

James D’Amour told the council it was exciting to be present when the design guidelines are finally going to be approved. He’d served on the planning commission five years ago when talk about this started, he said. He urged councilmembers to support the proposal.

Downtown Design Guidelines: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she thought Detter had summed it up well, and urged her council colleagues to pass it. Mayor  John Hieftje thanked the people who did the work, including Higgins, for seeing it through.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the new downtown design guidelines. The council also received nominations from the mayor for the membership of the design review board, which the council can confirm at its next meeting, on June 20: Tamara Burns, Paul Fontaine, Chester B. Hill, Mary Jukari, Bill Kinley, Richard Mitchell, Geoffrey M. Perkins.

First & Washington Purchase Price

Councilmembers were asked at Monday’s meeting to approve a revision to the purchase option agreement with Village Green on the city-owned First and Washington site, where the developer plans to build a 9-story, 99-foot-tall building with 156 dwelling units. That revision reduces the price from $3.3 million to $3.2 million.

The break on the price is related to the “bathtub” design for the foundation of a 244-space parking deck, which makes up the first two stories of the development. The site of the development is near Allen Creek, and some kind of design strategy is required in order to deal with the possibility of water entering the parking structure. Rather than use a hybrid design that would entail pumping water out of the structure and into the city’s stormwater system on an ongoing basis, Village Green wants to use a complete bathtub-type design that will cost around $250,000. The city’s price break is a portion of that cost.

The parking deck is being developed in cooperation with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which has pledged to make payments on around $9 million worth of bonds, after the structure is completed and has been issued a permit for occupancy.

The timeline put in place on Aug. 5, 2010 – when the city council most recently approved an extension of Village Green’s option to purchase the First and Washington city-owned parcel – called for Village Green to purchase the land by June 1, 2011. However, that deadline was subject to an extension of 90 days by the city administrator – an option which interim administrator Tom Crawford exercised. That sets a new deadline of Aug. 30, 2011 for purchase of the parcel. Proceeds from the sale of the land are part of the city’s financing plan for the new municipal center at Fifth and Huron, which is currently in the final stages of construction.

First & Washington Purchase Price: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off council deliberations by saying that it appeared the council was being asked to reduce the purchase price by $100,000 due to construction issues related to high water. Alluding to the arrangement the DDA has to support the project, he asked why the DDA would not increase that support, instead of having the city reduce the purchase price.

Kunselman then said he wanted to take the opportunity to talk about the DDA. That organization’s 2009-2010 annual report included some telling numbers, he said. The report indicates over $18 million in annual revenue against expenditures of $22 million. Of those expenditures, $5 million is for debt service. The outstanding bond debt is $140 million – of that, $81 million is principle and $59 million interest. The report shows zero dollars in bond reserve. Kunselman noted that the number of jobs created is recorded as “n/a.”

Kunselman asked why the city is “bailing the DDA out for $100,000.” The issue that’s been identified (the bathtub design) is not a property issue, he continued, but rather a construction issue. Kunselman said he was having a difficult time voting for the resolution, but he did not want to see the resolution fail. But he noted that the resolution required eight votes for approval and two councilmembers had left the table.

[Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had left. It was after 11 p.m. Higgins' hoarse voice during the meeting indicated she was under the weather. Votes on real estate transactions are required by the city charter to be ratified by an eight-vote city council majority.]

Interim city administrator Tom Crawford told Kunselman that the logic used in not involving the DDA on the price agreement was that it’s a city-owned asset. He noted that it’s possible to design the foundation without the full bathtub deign. But Crawford noted that the city and Village Green have worked with the DDA to use lessons learned from the current construction on the South Fifth Avenue underground parking structure. It’s the city’s decision to mitigate the risk with respect to flooding, and it’s a city decision to move forward with the bathtub design. The full bathtub design guarantees as close as you can that in the future, no pumping of water into the city’s stormwater system would be required, he said.

The agreement to reduce the price could have been set up to include the DDA, Crawford said, but the city did not structure it that way. That approach would have made it a tri-party agreement. The approach the city took – to amend the agreement between the city and Village Green – seemed the most approprate way, Crawford concluded.

Kunselman then asked Crawford to explain how the $100,000 would be made up – proceeds from the parcel were supposed to go into the building fund for the new municipal center. Crawford clarified that the original purchase price was $3.3 million and the amount designated for the building fund was $3.0 million. There’d always been a $300,000 excess, he said, so the price break of $100,000 would not compromise the funding of the municipal center.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expressed some frustration at the length of time the Village Green project had been in the works, saying it had been going on about five years now. Didn’t we already know, he asked, that the location had water issues? Anglin wanted to know if the developer was willing to move forward. Crawford indicated that Village Green was in fact moving forward, actively spending money on design. Anglin questioned why the city was putting itself at risk with respect to the Pall Gelman dioxane plume – the plume was mentioned in a staff memo about the Village Green project.

Crawford explained that the plume is actually a far distance away, and the reason it’s discussed in the memo is that the city is looking at the very long term. By having a full-bathtub foundation design, there’ll be no requirement to do any pumping of water, so the risk is mitigated of pumping water that’s polluted with dioxane – that would require onsite treatment before pumping. The bathtub design is an attempt to protect the city from every possible eventuality, Crawford said.

Anglin questioned whether adequate hydrological studies had been done. Crawford addressed Anglin’s remark a bit later, noting that the city had relied on Carl Walker, the DDA’s engineering consultant on parking structures, for geotechnical analysis. There’d been a host of consultants, he said, and a substantial amount of work done. That work was what had triggered the need for a 90-day extension.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) drew out the fact that the bathtub design will cost $250,000, with Village Green picking up $150,000 of the cost and the city effectively picking up $100,000. She noted that a year ago, when the purchase option extension granted, nothing was getting built in the Midwest at all. The First and Washington project is a chance to get “another private crane in the air.” The council needs to support this, she concluded.

Mayor John Hieftje stated that using a pumping strategy would be much more of a problem. The full bathtub design offers the greatest amount of security.

Kunselman said he was still not convinced that selling the land should somehow result in an agreement about construction design. He came back to the point about DDA involvement. He felt the price reduction should be expressed in a three-way agreement.

Crawford responded to Kunselman by saying the city attorney’s office advised that this was a good way to proceed. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) weighed in by saying that Ann Arbor would own the parking deck for the next 75 years [the expected life of the deck]. The city has a chance now to guarantee that they don’t have a problem, at a cost of $100,000, he said. Taylor supported that.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) confirmed with Crawford that the developer currently has no obligation to pursue a full bathtub design. With Anglin and Kunselman having expressed their dissatisfaction, Hieftje recognized that if they both voted no, that would leave the agreement one vote short of the eight-vote majority it needed. Hieftje stated he would feel okay postponing it. Hieftje then filled some time with some general remarks about the structure, and Anglin followed up with an indication that what he wanted was to make sure the homework was done on it. Hieftje then called for the vote, which wound up being unanimous.

Outcome: The council voted 9-0 to approve the amendment to the purchase price from $3.3 million to $3.2 million.

Municipal Center

At Monday’s meeting, the council considered a $1,091,211 revision to the contract with Clark Construction Co., which is doing the construction on the new municipal center at Fifth and Huron, which houses the 15th District Court and the police department. Of that total, $693,327 is for security elements and $397,884 is for audio/visual.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said the revision brings the building’s total cost to $39 million. Interim city administrator Tom Crawford explained that the increase was for upgrades to the security of the building. He noted that the amount is not an increase to the budget of the entire project, but rather a recognition that implementation of the security measures is best done by the onsite construction manager.

Anglin wanted to know why the money is coming out of the city’s general fund. Crawford explained that the court is a general fund entity. Anglin asked why the funding for security was not part of the bonding process, saying he would rather have security outside the building [i.e, police officers on patrol] than inside the building. Crawford indicated that the expenditure is a one-time cost. The idea of how security in the building would be delivered was a conversation that had unfolded over time, Crawford said, and this was determined to be the most cost-effective. The fact remains that it’s coming from the general fund, Anglin grumbled.

Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, told the council that they’d previously decided they wanted to make these decisions about security later and had decided not to make decisions about installation of furniture and fixtures until later. It had been an early and deliberate discussion of the city council, she said.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract amendment, with dissent from Anglin.

Wireless for City Hall

Also pulled out of the consent agenda by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) was an item that authorized a $64,571 contract with Sentinel Technologies to equip the public areas and conference rooms of the city hall, the new municipal center and the Wheeler Service Center with wireless internet access – both secure and for public use.

Smith was curious about why the city used the middle bidder, instead of the lowest. She wanted to know why the city was using a non-Michigan bidder, who was not the lowest bid. Dan Rainey, head of IT for the city, explained that the low bid did not include the cost of recurring maintenance.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with Sentinel Technologies.

Fuller Road Station

The proposed Fuller Road Station – a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station that the city plans to build in partnership with the University of Michigan, near UM’s medical campus – drew considerable public and council commentary, although the council did not have any business to vote on that specifically referenced the project.

James D’Amour expressed various concerns. He responded to a contention of the mayor’s to the effect that Fuller Road Station would result in the city getting some open space back. What are we getting? he asked. D’Amour contended that current facilities for trains are adequate. If it’s so important, D’Amour said, we should come clean with the fact that it will be located on public parkland.

D’Amour also noted the public art commission’s annual plan, attached to the council’s agenda as a communication item, included proposed art for Fuller Road Station. He asked that the language be removed. He added that the city did not need murals on Huron Parkway, as described in the public art plan.

Barbara Bach told the council that the Fuller Road Station project is getting in the way of a discussion of rail transportation and about public park preservation. She then read aloud the sentiments of Tom Whitaker, who left a comment on an Ann Arbor Chronicle article about a recent meeting of the city’s park advisory commission.

As proposed, Bach said, Fuller Road Station is a huge warehouse for cars on parkland. She said that the city should work on getting cars out of the river valley and begin to talk about rail service.

Nancy Shiffler introduced herself as the current chair of the Huron Valley group of the Sierra Club. She said that the parcel where the Fuller Road Station is planned is used as parkland, appears on maps as parkland, and is included in the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan as parkland. The city’s designation of the parcel as public land is used in the applications to the federal government for grant funding, but there’s no mention of its park designation.

The U.S. Dept. of Transportation requires a more extenstive environmental study for parkland, she said. The redefinition of allowable uses for public land, approved by the council, allows public land to be used as a transportation center. As councilmembers, they should think about the use of parkland, as they anticipate putting the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage before the voters in 2012, Shiffler concluded.

George Gaston told the council he was there to speak in defense of Fuller Park. It’s been a city park for more than 50 years, he said. The 1993 accord struck with the university for use of the parcel as a parking lot was a temporary agreement – it was never intended to be a permanent lot, he said.

In a draft of environmental assessment for selection of the site, he said, 15 sites had been considered. Of those, three were eliminated because they’re city parks. The University of Michigan’s Mitchell Field was considered, but rejected because it’s a recreational area. Gaston said he could see why the university wants a project with free land and a prime location. But if the university is truly interested, he said, then let the university become a stakeholder. Mitchell Field would offer better access to Fuller Road. He contended that there are too many connections between town and gown for it to be an untainted vote. He contended that everything had been decided a year and a half ago. It’s taken too much effort to put together a ribbon of parks along the Huron River to lose that now, he said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called on his council colleagues to watch a recording of the May 17 park advisory commission meeting. Eli Cooper, transportation program manager for the city, had given a presentation on Fuller Road Station, Anglin said. Members of PAC were restrained but confused, Anglin said. [Anglin serves as one of two ex-officio representatives from the city council to PAC.] They thought they were going to have a train station, Anglin said. But now it’s looking like a parking structure more than anything else.

When the council voted to change the allowable uses for public land to include transportation facilities, that moved parks to another category, Anglin said. He said he did not think it sounds like the city’s share of the funding would be coming forward [roughly $10 million]. He stated that the city doesn’t need a large train station for a town this size – it just has one track.

At a time when the city is laying off police officers, $10 million for this project in unconscionable, he said. Anglin said he’s personally not excited by parking structures. The project has momentum behind it, but no funding, he said. There are no guarantees of a train coming to Ann Arbor, but there is a guarantee of a large structure. It’s such a pretty area, Anglin said, they should consider whether they should do that.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) anticipated mayor John Hieftje’s reaction to Anglin’s comments [Hieftje has pushed hard for the project] by telling the mayor that she knew he had a lot of thoughts about Fuller Road Station. But she thought the council should have a working session, so that councilmembers can become more knowledgable about the issue.

Hieftje indicated that he would look into adding something to the calendar. He then went on to describe how he and Briere had attended a press conference in Detroit recently when $196 million in federal rail funding had been awarded to projects in southeast Michigan. U.S. senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin were there, he said. Levin had called out Fuller Road Station as a good idea. Gov. Rick Snyder had also talked positively about rail transportation, he said.

Responding to Anglin’s contention that there is only one track, Hieftje noted that two tracks will be installed at Fuller Road Station. The design of the station has changed, he said, and will now put the train station inside the other building. But as far as the basic site selection, no other location is as ideal as the Fuller Road site – it has 24,000 people a day going to the university’s hospital. He then thanked Anglin for his previous vote in support of Fuller Road Station.

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: Volunteer of the Month

Karen Moore was recognized as volunteer of the month for her work in connection with downtown parks, in particular for Ann Arbor Downtown Blooms Day.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Housing

Forest Hills Housing Co-op received a mayoral proclamation for its role in providing affordable housing for the last 40 years.

Comm/Comm: Environmental Commission Nomination

Most nominations for the city’s various boards and commissions are made by the mayor. One of the exceptions is the environmental commission (EC), for which the council makes the nomination.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) announced that a nomination for a three-year EC term was being placed before the council that evening and that it would be before the council as a resolution at the following meeting. Margie Teall (Ward 4), who sits with Hohnke as the city council’s representatives to the EC, prompted Hohnke to name the nomination, which he did: Jamie Woolard.

Comm/Comm: Municipal Center

Margie Teal (Ward 4) reported that the building committee reviewed construction of the new building at Fifth and Huron, and the renovation of the existing city hall building. They concluded that the project is on time and under budget.

Comm/Comm: Argo Bypass Channel

Interim city administrator Tom Crawford gave an update on progress for the construction of the Argo bypass channel. An application for a permit has been submitted to the state. The city is waiting for that permit to be issued before earthwork can begin. There’s no way to know when the permit will be issued, he said, but city staff is estimating six weeks. The contractor will go ahead and begin to mobilize in preparation to start the earthwork.

Comm/Comm: Rain

Crawford reported that cleanup continues in the area of Plymouth Road, where the railroad embankment collapsed after heavy rains at the end of May. The city received 87 reports of sewer backups in basements in areas where the system was stressed. Some residents were given vouchers for cleanup, he said. The affected areas were the neighborhood Packard & Stadium, and Hill & Division. The city is considering creating two new areas for the city’s footing drain disconnect program – adding to the five existing areas – and accelerating the program.

Comm/Comm: Historic District Awards

At the start of the meeting, the city’s historic district commission presented its annual awards to property owners. A complete listing of the awards is available in the city’s press release.

Comm/Comm: Ward 5 City Council Race

Henry Herskovitz introduced himself as a Ward 5 resident, saying that it’s a matter of public record that Neal Elyakin is running for city council in that ward. Herskovitz told the council it’s his understanding that if elected, councilmembers must promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Elyakin, he said, had chosen to fly a national flag in front of his home that is not the U.S. flag, but rather one from a country that 44 years ago on Wednesday (June 8) had killed 34 Americans. [Hersovitz was referring to an attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.] Herskovitz said that he supported Elyakin’s right to fly the Israeli flag, and his right to run for a seat on the city council, but wondered to which country Elyakin owed his allegiance. Elyakin should state his loyalty and allegiances clearly, Herskovitz said.

Comm/Comm: JFK, Dems, Mackinac

Thomas Partridge reminded the council that it was the 50th anniversary of numerous historic events in the first year of John F. Kennedy’s administration, like the test ban treaty and the beginning of work on the civil rights act. He said he wanted to remind everyone of the progress made beginning in 1961, and the need to keep up the struggle. He opposed the attitude of those who left southeast Michigan and traveled to the recent Mackinac Policy Conference – that was nothing but a right-wing Republican convention, he said. He called on voters to recall Gov. Rick Snyder.

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: June 20, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city of Ann Arbor. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Kirk Westphal, an Ann Arbor planning commissioner, served on the city task force that helped developed design guidelines for downtown development. (Photo by the writer.)

One person, former planning commissioner Ethel Potts, spoke during a public hearing on the topic. Potts said she was glad the design review comes early in the project approval process, but she wondered how the review would be used – that could be a challenge. Commissioners discussed the issue only briefly before the vote.

In the city’s project approval process, the design review would take place before the mandatory citizen participation meeting, so that the design review board’s comments could be incorporated into the project’s design before it’s presented to citizens. However, developers aren’t required to act on the review board’s recommendations. Though the review process is mandatory, implementation of the board’s suggestions is voluntary.

Downtown Design Review Program

The city council had approved a program of design guidelines at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting, and also appointed a temporary design review committee. In addition, they asked the planning staff and planning commission to draft ordinances that would lay out details of a design review program in the city’s code. On Tuesday, planning commissioners got an update from staff on the code changes, held a public hearing on the proposal, and briefly discussed it before voting to recommend approval by the city council.

Downtown Design Review: Staff Report

Wendy Rampson, who leads the city’s planning staff, gave a brief history and overview of the design guidelines process, which is part of the broader A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) initiative. She noted that it’s an issue they’ve been talking about for many years, going back to the 1980s. More recently, in 2007, the city council identified five priorities that emerged from the Calthorpe study, which had been commissioned by the city to plan a strategy for future downtown development. Design guidelines were one of those priorities. [Other aspects of A2D2 include downtown zoning changes; historic preservation updates; changes to the development process; and parking and transportation strategies.]

An advisory committee was formed to work on developing design guidelines with city staff and a consultant, Winter & Co., who had been hired to lead workshops and community discussions. In 2009, a set of design guidelines was presented to the community. Feedback at the time, Rampson said, was that the guidelines were too difficult to understand – that they needed to be simplified, with examples to illustrate the different design concepts. It was also felt that a design guidelines process should be developed too.

In early 2010, the council dissolved the original advisory committee and formed a new design guidelines task force to review the guidelines and develop a review process. Members included city councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), planning commissioner Kirk Westphal, Tamara Burns, Bill Kinley, Dick Mitchell, Peter Pollack and Norm Tyler. That group met 34 times, and came up with recommendations that the city council approved at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting after holding a working session on the topic in January.

Also at that Feb. 7 meeting, council appointed a temporary design review committee, which will become the official design review board (DRB) after changes to the city code are approved. Its members are: Chet Hill (landscape architect); Mary Jukari (landscape architect); Dick Mitchell (architect); Tamara Burns (architect); Paul Fontaine (planner); Bill Kinley (developer); and Geoff Perkins (contractor). [For additional background on the process of developing design guidelines, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

To codify the design review process, two new sections were added to the city code: (1) Section 1:239 “Design Review Board” was added to Title 1, Chapter 8; and (2) Section 5:126 “Design Review Board review for certain downtown properties” was added to Title V, Chapter 57. [.pdf file of proposed city code changes – new additions to the code are underlined; strike-throughs indicate deletions.]

The design review will apply to certain downtown properties:

• projects on land that’s zoned D1 or D2, or rezoned to PUD (planned unit development) within the Downtown Development Authority district;
• projects that result in an increase in usable floor area;
• projects with a site plan that requires planning commission or city council approval, a PUD site plan; a planned project; or an administrative amendment that significantly alters the appearance of the building from the public right of way.

Projects located in a historic district will not go through this design review process, because those properties would be covered by the Historic District Commission design review.

As the first step in a project approval process, developers would submit preliminary project design plans to the DRB, along with an application and fee. The review process would occur before the mandatory citizen participation meeting.

At the DRB meeting, the developer will present the project to board members and discuss whether it meets the intent of the downtown design guidelines. No public commentary will be allowed at the meeting. The DRB will make a report of its finding, which will be forwarded to the planning commission and city council.

If a project goes through the design review process but later changes significantly, the project is allowed – but not required – to reapply to the DRB for another review.

Downtown Design Review: Public Hearing

Ethel “Eppie” Potts was the only speaker during the public hearing on Tuesday. “This has indeed been a long process,” she began, adding that it seems this is the end of the years-long A2D2 process. She said she wished that the different elements of A2D2 had been better coordinated, so that they could be more effective as a whole. Potts wondered what planning commissioners expected out of the design guidelines and review board. She said she asked some people she knew what they thought the design guidelines would accomplish. Their expectation is that the guidelines will result in a much better quality of architecture, suitability, scale, context of buildings downtown, she reported. But many of these results stem from zoning, not design guidelines, she observed.

Potts wondered what the legal force of the design guidelines would be. She thought the process was good, since the design review comes at the beginning of the approval process – even before the mandatory citizen participation meeting. The review board will provide a report on each project, but what will planning commissioners do with that feedback? It will be a challenge for them to decide how much weight to give the review board’s input, Potts said, and how that will fit in with all the legal requirements they have to consider. “We are all going to be learning to what degree we can make this all fit together,” she concluded.

Downtown Design Review: Commissioner Discussion

Bonnie Bona said it was exciting to see these design guidelines finally ready to be implemented. Responding to Potts’ comments, Bona said it’s important to have a document that tells developers what the community wants, rather than having to ask for changes later in the process. Giving developers a better idea of what the city wants to see in a building will make a significant improvement in the projects that are brought forward, she said. It was important to get this process started, she added – but they need to be willing to make changes to it in the future, if necessary.

Eric Mahler pointed to one of the review board’s duties as stated in the revised code:

1:239 (3) c: To report periodically to City Council regarding the effectiveness of the design review process and make recommendations for any changes to the Downtown Design Guidelines.

What’s meant by effectiveness, he asked, and how will it be measured?

Kirk Westphal, who served on the design guidelines task force, said his understanding is that for each project, the board will track what kind of information and feedback is most helpful to the developer. The hope is that there will be communication between the board and the city council, and that the process can be tweaked if needed. The language in the code is to ensure that there’s an expectation of feedback, he said.

Tony Derezinski, who serves on the planning commission as well as city council, said that if certain design guidelines prove particularly useful or popular, there’s the possibility that the council could enact them into the city’s zoning ordinances.

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of amendments to Ann Arbor’s city code that establish a design review board and design review procedures. The item needs city council approval before taking effect.

Communications from Staff

Wendy Rampson – head of the city’s planning staff – gave several updates during her report to the commission. She noted that the city’s budget for fiscal 2012 would be presented at the April 11 city council work session, followed by an April 13 town hall meeting, where city administrator Roger Fraser will answer questions from the public. [The meeting will be held from 7-9 p.m. at the studios of Community Television Network (CTN), 2805 S. Industrial Highway.] The council will formally receive the budget at its April 19 meeting, and is expected to give final approval in May.

Rampson reported that a farewell open house for Fraser – who’s leaving the city at the end of April to take a job as deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan – will be held from 1-4 p.m. on Friday, April 29 at city hall, 301 E. Huron St.

At the planning commission’s April 12 work session, they’ll be discussing details of their April 26 retreat, Rampson said. They’ll also talk about possibly moving ahead on a request for proposals (RFP) to seek a consultant for the State Street area corridor planning process.

Finally, Rampson noted that at their April 19 meeting, the city council is expected to take a final vote on both licensing and zoning regulations for medical marijuana facilities. City staff is preparing to implement these new regulations, in case they are in fact approved on April 19. Several different areas are involved in addition to planning staff, she said, including representatives from the city attorney’s office, the police department, and the clerk’s office. She said she’d keep the commission updated on that progress.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Jean Carlberg, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Erica Briggs.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission has canceled its April 21 meeting because no projects are ready to come forward. Its next regular meeting will be on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 N. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]