The headquarters of University Bank, in the building known as the Hoover Mansion on Washtenaw Avenue. A request to increase parking on the site was postponed by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its Oct. 19 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

One of those projects – related to an expansion of Arbor Dog Daycare – has already appeared before the commission multiple times. Most recently, the proposal was rejected by commissioners in September, primarily due to concerns about noise generated by dogs using the outdoor dog run. Owners Jon and Margaret Svoboda had asked that their request be reconsidered, and commissioners agreed to the reconsideration. But after an hour of discussion on Tuesday evening, commissioners voted to postpone again, asking staff to explore possible conditions – such as an annual review or written policy requirement – that could be added to the special exception use to address the problem of continuously barking dogs.

Also postponed was a request to add more parking to the site of the University Bank headquarters in the building known as the Hoover Mansion on Washtenaw Avenue, and to allow up to 10 additional employees to work at that location. The planning staff had recommended denial of the request, stating that the project impacts natural features and doesn’t offer an overall benefit to the city. However, commissioners asked planning staff to work with bank officials to come up with an alternative proposal for locating new parking.

During a public hearing on the project, bank president Stephen Ranzini told commissioners that if the bank can’t get the additional parking, it could trigger a decision to leave that location and expand elsewhere. He noted that the building, which he said sat vacant for nearly three years before being acquired by the bank, is extremely expensive to maintain, and described himself as a good steward for the property.

A third proposal considered by the planning commission on Oct. 19 – adding parking spots to the Briar Cove Apartments complex on the city’s southwest side – was approved unanimously.

University Bank Request Postponed

University Bank 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.

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.

University Bank: Public Hearing

Seven people spoke during the public hearing – four residents of the neighborhood, and three people affiliated with the bank project.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, began by describing various awards and recognitions that the bank has received. He said they’re trying to be as good a custodian for this landmark building as they possibly can. The major asset of the site is its beautiful front lawn, he said, and putting cars on the driveway in front would destroy the aesthetics. The small woods behind the building that they’ve proposed to remove hasn’t been there very long, he said. They have photos of when the mansion was built in 1917, and it shows a field there with sheep grazing. Most of the proposed parking would be put in what’s now a grassy area.

In working with planning staff over the past 20 months, they’ve made three major revisions to the plan, he said, and have held three meetings with neighbors, plus phone conversations and email exchanges. They compromised on the number of spaces they wanted, and had expected to get staff approval, he said. As far as he knows, the only remaining issue is about a few trees located in the area of a proposed driveway, leading to the parking in back.

Ranzini said that if the site weren’t zoned as a PUD, they’d be entitled to more parking than they’re asking for. Parking is critical to the long-term sustainability of that building. He noted that the building had sat vacant for almost three years, and that the cost of maintaining it is extremely high. By expanding the amount of parking, they would increase the size and type of businesses that could ultimately operate there in the future, he said. But if they don’t get approval, it might trigger a decision to leave the site and expand the bank elsewhere. They are currently at capacity, with 50 employees and 35 parking spaces. Ranzini concluded by saying that it would be hard to find a better steward for the building than the bank and himself, but “everyone’s mortal.”

Gerald and Sheryl Serwer, a couple who live next to the bank on Washtenaw Avenue, both spoke during the public hearing. Gerald Serwer discussed two primary concerns: aesthetics and drainage. The property line of their house would abut the access drive to the new parking lot, and several trees and shrubs would be removed, eliminating a natural screen for their home. He also reported that the sump pump in their home’s basement recently broke, and they had standing water in their basement within 12 hours. A proposed drainage basin on the bank property that’s part of the project would be at a higher elevation than their house, he said, potentially adding to their drainage problems.

Sheryl Serwer also raised concerns about eliminating the natural buffer of trees in her side yard, noting that it would eliminate screening to an area that’s used by employees to take smoking breaks and to talk on their cell phones. She said she works at home and notices that existing parking spots are rarely all filled.

Michael Sarosi said he lives on Tuomy Road, directly behind the Hoover Mansion. The bank’s parking lot would essentially be in his back yard, he said. He reported that he recently walked around to houses that are adjacent to the bank property, and asked people who were home whether they wanted a parking lot in their back yard. Everyone he talked to signed a petition against it. He said he was no zoning expert, but he looked at the city’s zoning codes recently for the first time in his life. He said that the parking lot – which comes within 15 feet of their back yards – doesn’t seem to fit with the goals of the zoning in that area. A parking lot isn’t in keeping with anyone’s neighborhood, he said.

Tom Johengen, who also lives on Tuomy, told commissioners that the proposal would essentially put a parking lot in his back yard. He’s concerned about the change to aesthetics of the neighborhood. He was also concerned about drainage issues, noting that the soil in that area is 100% clay, and they’ve already had problems with it.

Matt Kuehn of KEM-TEC Engineering, the contract engineering firm that’s handling the project, briefly described some of the work they’d do, such as installing a European paver system and an underground drainage system, which would bring the entire site up to stormwater compliance, he said. It will actually improve drainage in the surrounding area, he said.

Ken Sprinkles told commissioners that he takes care of the building and facilities for the bank, and that they’ve held numerous public meetings with neighbors about the project. He said the bank is opened limited hours, and headlights from cars wouldn’t be a problem. Their new drainage system would better contain the water on the site, he said, improving drainage in the area. They’ve also offered neighbors to the south some monetary assistance and help with landscaping.

University Bank: Commission Deliberations

Jean Carlberg began by saying she wanted to decrease the impact of parking on the back yard. She asked Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff whether the extra parking is necessary for the additional employees that the bank wants to bring onto the site.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, urged planning commissioners to approve the additional parking at the bank's headquarters, located in the Hoover Mansion.

Cheng said he’d been out to the site twice, and that both times he saw parking spaces that weren’t being used. He said they’ve been having a debate with the bank about whether the current use is more of a bank branch or an office. If it were more like a traditional bank, with a drive-thru and ATM, then it would definitely need more parking, he said – there are only four customer spaces. But planning staff believes it’s more like an office use, and that additional parking spaces can be added without building a new lot in the back of the building, he said. For example, Cheng said they could add at least 10 new spots along the existing 30-foot-wide driveway. The staff thinks it’s possible to create the parking without taking out the woodland area, he said.

However, the bank contends that putting parking spaces along the driveway, which winds around to the front of the property, would impact the aesthetics of the historic building, Cheng said. Bank officials believe that not having parking in front is a public benefit, he said.

Carlberg said she could live with having cars parked along the front during the day. She said she doesn’t feel strongly about the “urban woodland,” noting that much of it is buckthorn, an invasive species. It’s the bank’s responsibility to screen the business from the neighboring residences, she said, and it’s not clear that they’ve adequately addressed that issue. They do appear to have addressed the drainage issue, she added.

Carlberg noted that this particular building is a challenge – it’s difficult for businesses to operate in, and the city needs to plan carefully for its future. She said it’s important for businesses to expand, and in particular she’d love the local bank to stay in this community.

Erica Briggs said she was concerned that the discussion had become focused on the bank not being able to expand without additional parking. She noted that it was located along a strong transit corridor, and if the bank – in this economic climate – couldn’t find employees who’d be willing to take a short bus ride to get to their job, that’s surprising, she said. Briggs also said she shared the kind of concerns that the neighbors had expressed during public commentary.

Tony Derezinski noted that the property is located in his ward – he serves on the city council representing Ward 2, and is the council’s representative to the planning commission. He said he has walked the property with Ranzini, and also talked with neighbors. He had two questions for staff: 1) Had other alternatives been explored to locate parking? and 2) Could additional public meetings be held? The most recent neighborhood meeting held by the bank was in May of 2009, he noted, citing concern about the extent of public involvement.

Cheng said he had strongly encouraged bank officials to hold another neighborhood meeting about the project. He also had suggested alternative places to put the parking, but said he believed the bank was only interested in putting the parking behind the building.

Bonnie Bona echoed Carlberg’s comments, saying the site historically has been difficult to occupy and own, and that she appreciates the struggle. Regarding parking on the curving driveway, she said she’d be more comfortable putting parking there if the drive were straight – it’s hard to park on a curve. She also agreed with Carlberg about the trees, saying that the city’s mitigation requirements are strong when trees are removed.

However, Bona didn’t see any public benefits in the project – the benefits listed by the bank are actually things that are required, she said. The building, which she characterized as underutilized, does need more parking, but the project needed to include benefits. Bona suggested adding a sidewalk and additional landscaping.

Evan Pratt began his comments by saying that the good news is that PUD zoning is discretionary. He also wants the business to grow, but doesn’t want the neighbors to be upset. Referring to the width of the driveway, he noted that 30 feet is a tremendous amount of space. To demonstrate, Pratt got out of his seat and strode across the front of the council chambers, noting that it was roughly 30 feet between the two brick columns there. If you parked a car on one side, there was still plenty of room to pass.

Pratt agreed with his colleagues that having cars parked in front of the property wouldn’t affect the aesthetics, and he said he felt that Carlberg had proposed some reasonable alternatives for parking that didn’t require putting spaces behind the building.

Kirk Westphal clarified the type of business that the bank does at that location – staff considers it to be more like an office use than a retail operation, though it does function as a bank branch. He was concerned that it would become more retail-oriented – “more branchy than officey,” he quipped. He added that the “viewshed” of the mansion is important, but that cars won’t block that view. It’s worth exploring the option of putting parking in front.

Wendy Woods agreed with her colleagues, with the exception that she wanted to say something positive about urban forests. She said she’d be in favor of putting parking somewhere so that natural features aren’t removed.

Derezinski said it seemed like more work needed to be done on the project. “There’s still room for some compromise here,” he said. He loved that the historic building was being used, and noted that “you really worry about something that beautiful going to hell.” Moving to postpone, he urged staff and the bank to come up with some creative alternatives.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone the proposal from University Bank, and asked planning staff to work with bank officials to come up with an alternative proposal for locating new parking spaces.

Arbor Dog Daycare Expansion Postponed Again

The owners of Arbor Dog Daycare, Jon and Margaret Svoboda, have come before the planning commission several times, hoping to get approval for an amendment to their existing special exception use that would allow the business to expand. The business – located at 2856 S. Main St., near the corner of Eisenhower – is surrounded by residential areas. The request was initial considered by the commission at their Dec. 5, 2009 meeting, when they postponed action to allow the owners to address several concerns, including noise issues associated with barking dogs.

The project came before the commission most recently at its Sept. 21 meeting, when commissioners ultimately rejected the request by a 5-4 vote due to concerns about noise generated by dogs using the outdoor dog run. Then at the commission’s Oct. 5 meeting, the Svobodas returned to ask that their request be reconsidered, and commissioners voted unanimously to take up the proposal again at the Oct. 19 meeting.

The major change between the original request and the reconsideration is that the Svobodas offered to keep only 15 dogs outside at any one time, a decrease from the 25 dogs that are allowed currently. They also offered to cut the number of hours that dogs would be permitted outside – on weekdays, for example, it would be limited to 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Arbor Dog Daycare: Public Hearing

Jon Svoboda said he wanted to address some misconceptions about their project. They’ve been in business at that location for four years. They aren’t a kennel, he said. They have staff on site 24/7, and it’s a cage-free environment, which eliminates the vast majority of separation issues that dogs experience, he said. Their staff is trained in canine CPR, and they’ve been recognized by the American Red Cross, the Humane Society of Huron Valley, and Michigan Tails magazine. He said his wife has gone door-to-door at the neighboring Balmoral Park condo complex, handing out her business card with her cell phone number and trying to address residents’ concerns. He noted that the latest issue raised by one neighbor was a concern that the business might lower property values – he said he didn’t know how to address that issue.

He reported that following the Sept. 21 commission meeting – when commissioner Jean Carlberg had stated that she went out to the area and heard continuous barking over an extended period – the dog daycare had held an emergency staff meeting to review their policies. The policy for a dog that’s barking outside is to bring the dog back indoors, he said. They’ve received a lot of support from the community, Svoboda said, and they’re in this business because they love dogs. They adopted their daughter three months ago, he said, but that hasn’t reduced the importance of dogs in their lives. He urged commissioners to approve their request.

Greg Urda spoke briefly, saying he supported Arbor Dog Daycare’s petition. Linda Coon, who has spoken at previous meetings in support of the project, read aloud a letter from the president of the Balmoral Park condo association, who also supported the business.

Margaret Svoboda, co-owner of Arbor Dog Daycare, spoke to commissioners at their Oct. 19 meeting.

Margaret Svoboda told commissioners that on three different occasions, she’s gone door-to-door at Balmoral Park, talking to residents and giving out her personal cell phone number. “We don’t want to be bad neighbors,” she said, and leaving barking dogs outside is unacceptable. Svoboda also read a letter from another supporter of the project, who wasn’t able to attend the Oct. 19 meeting.

The final speaker during the public hearing was Tim Thieme, who lives in the Balmoral Park condo complex at the edge of the property nearest to the outdoor dog run. It bothered him to talk against a good business, Thieme said, especially in this economy. But he had two major concerns: 1) the effect of the business on property values, and 2) the noise factor of barking dogs. He said he applauds the business for trying to come up with a solution – lowering the number of dogs that would be outside at any given time – but noise will still be a factor. He wondered if they could move the dog run, or add some more sound barriers. He also wondered why the business had been granted a special exception use in the first place, given that it is located so near a residential area. Thieme said he’d love to see the business expand and be successful, but it would be more appropriate to do that in a rural area.

Arbor Dog Daycare: Commission Deliberations

Diane Giannola began by saying she had been willing to reconsider the proposal because she thought that there’d be new information presented – the owners had said they’d made a video showing that the noise from the dogs wasn’t a problem. [link to video on YouTube] But on the video, she noted, you could only see six dogs outside, not the 20 dogs that are currently allowed. In addition, in the video you could hear dogs barking inside the building – if that’s the case, why would they stop barking when brought outside, she wondered. The third issue for Giannola is that the video made it clear that the dog run is closer to the condos than it seemed on the map. And since there’s really no recourse for residents if the noise ordinance is violated, Giannola said she would still vote against the project.

Kirk Westphal said he had similar concerns. Though he went over to Balmoral Park during his lunch hour and couldn’t hear dogs barking, he noted that commissioner Jean Carlberg had a different experience, when she heard incessant barking. The owners have tried to address this, but his charge is to look at the standards for special exception uses. One of the standards, he said, is that it “will not be detrimental to the use, peaceful enjoyment, economic value or development of neighboring property, or the neighborhood area in general.” [link to full description of special exceptions in Chapter 5 of the Ann Arbor city code] This request doesn’t satisfy that standard, he said.

Evan Pratt asked what would happen if the business changed ownership – would the special exception use still apply? Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff explained that unless the type of business changes, it would still be valid for new owners. Wendy Rampson, head of the planning staff, said that the commission could put conditions on the special exception use – for example, they would state that a change in ownership would require the new owners to reapply.

Erica Briggs expressed her support for the request. The owners are working hard to address all the concerns, she said, adding that many of the concerns seemed to be fear-based, anticipating things that might happen, but that weren’t necessarily a problem now.

Tony Derezinski agreed with Briggs, and said the only other business that had worked so hard to accommodate its neighbors was Zingerman’s Deli. [See Chronicle coverage: "Zingerman's Expansion Moves Ahead"] It’s also a question of who you decide to listen to, he said – the many supporters, or the few people who have complaints.

Bonnie Bona agreed with Giannola and Westphal. The neighbor at Balmoral Park could hear the dogs now, she said – it wasn’t a speculative concern. She said it was a wonderful business and the owners are clearly doing everything they can, but what if the ownership changes? If there were fewer than 125 dogs, she might feel differently about it, Bona said.

Carlberg said it is indisputable that if there are dogs barking, the people at Balmoral Park will be able to hear them. It’s a nuisance, and it doesn’t matter if it’s one person or five who are bothered. It’s not a situation in which the majority rules, she said. Regarding the policy to remove dogs from the outside dog run if they are barking, Carlberg said it was impossible for employees on the inside – where dogs are also barking – to hear what’s happening outside. It’s an unenforceable policy, she said. She proposed tabling action for another month, to see if the business could operate without complaints from neighbors.

Briggs asked the owners to clarify that there would be two employees outside with the dogs at all times, and that there’d been a change in policy to give any employee the authority to remove a dog from the outside if it were barking.

In response to additional questions from Briggs, Jon Svoboda said he could try to add additional soundproofing to the fence surrounding the dog run, but he was somewhat reluctant to invest because he wasn’t sure it would solve the problem. He said he’d be willing to limit the number of dogs that would go outside at any one time to 11. If he went lower than that, there wouldn’t be enough time for all of the dogs to go outside to use the bathroom, he said. Svoboda also volunteered to lower the total number of dogs in the business from 125 to 100, if that would help gain approval.

Wendy Woods said she appreciated the efforts of the owners, and certainly understood the importance of taking the rights of the minority into consideration. But in this case, as long as there’s one person who says they can hear barking, the business can’t move forward. She was concerned that whatever profit they hoped to gain by expanding was slowly evaporating, because of this delay. And after a while, applying additional conditions becomes onerous. She was in favor of allowing them to proceed.

Several commissioners discussed the difference between the decibel level and the continuous nature of the barking. Woods wondered whether they’d have the same concerns if they were talking about kids crying at a daycare center. The noise ordinance addresses decibel level, but not the continuous nature of the barking – that’s considered a nuisance. Carlberg noted that a nuisance isn’t well-defined,  but contended that a dog barking continuously for an hour would fit anyone’s definition.

Tony Derezinski said the discussion was beginning to sound like Heritage Row, referring to the much-discussed residential project proposed by developer Alex de Parry that was ultimately rejected by city council. You can conjure up a lot of reasons to vote against something, he said, if you don’t want to approve it.

The planning staff has recommended approval of the Arbor Dog Daycare request, Derezinski noted. They probably had discussed it 10 times longer than the commission, he said – at some point, that means something. The owners have shown great goodwill, he said, and the fact that one person complaining is enough to bring the project down gives him pause.

Eric Mahler said he’d been in favor of the project before, and he was in favor of it now. The commission is not in the business of property valuation, he said, and they can’t ignore the fact that the vast number of people who’ve responded to the project have supported it. He said he thought they’d talked themselves into an impossible standard for the Svobodas to meet.

Westhphal wondered whether the planning staff would know if neighbors had registered complaints in the past – would community standards officers relay that information? Not necessarily, Cheng said. Westphal then asked whether they could require that the owners renew this request every year. That way, the situation could be monitored – if people complained, they’d have recourse. Cheng wondered what the trigger would be to indicate that the business was out of compliance. Westphal said that was his point – there’s no mechanism for tracking complaints. And for every person who shows up to complain, Westphal said he could guarantee there were others that they just didn’t know about.

Regarding the question of an annual renewal, Rampson said she’d need to check with the city attorney’s office to see if that were appropriate.

Bona said she was more concerned with the issue of a change in ownership. She moved to postpone, to allow planning staff to see how to address that. Carlberg seconded the motion.

Woods said she wasn’t in favor of postponing, but Bona countered that she wouldn’t support the proposal if they voted that night. She asked the Svobodas if they preferred for the commission to vote now, or to wait a month while the city’s planning staff looks at these other issues. Jon Svoboda said they’d waited 13 months already – one more month wouldn’t matter. Margaret Svoboda pointed out that their hands appeared to be tied. If they said they wanted a vote that night, then their proposal would be rejected.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to postpone again, asking staff to explore possible conditions – such as an annual review or written policy requirement – that could be added to the special exception use to address the problem of continuously barking dogs.

Parking at Briar Cove Apartments Approved

The commission approved a request by Briar Cove Apartments to add 23 parking spaces throughout the existing apartment complex, to address resident demand for more parking. The complex of 272 apartments in 18 buildings is located on 20 acres at 650 Waymarket Drive, near the Colonade Shopping Center off of Eisenhower Parkway.

The parking would be added in phases, as needed – though the site plan approval covers all phases. The first phase would add on-street parking on Waymarket Drive, and would add another 14 new spaces in a parking area in the northeastern part of the site, including 10 spots that will be covered by a carport. In addition, 28 bike lockers will be installed throughout the complex. The owner will also make landscape improvements, adding 29 oak and maple trees and 33 shrubs.

If later phases are completed, the complex eventually would have a total of 436 parking spaces, including 243 in carports. Planning staff recommended approval of the project.

Briar Cove: Public Hearing

Only one person spoke during the project’s public hearing. Mark Highlen said he represented the apartment complex’s owner, Bella Costa Associates of Farmington Hills. Because of the economy, he said, a lot of people are being pushed into apartment living. The complex is at 96% occupancy, he said. In addition to more units being rented, more people are living in each apartment, he said. The staff gets four to five calls each day related to parking issues – that’s the impetus behind the petition. He said they realized they might not always have such high occupancy, but they needed to address the issue.

Briar Cove: Commission Deliberations

Bonnie Bona said that the request seemed reasonable. She asked where the nearest AATA bus stop was located. Highlen told her that there’s not a bus stop on Waymarket, but there’s one nearby on Eisenhower.

Kirk Westphal clarified that the only assigned parking spots are those under carports. Highlen said that license plate numbers are on file for all tenants, but they don’t check cars unless there’s a problem.

Eric Mahler asked if there wouldn’t be economies of scale to do all the phases at once. Highlen acknowledged that there would be, but noted that they’re trying to balance issues of stormwater management, and also hoping not to disrupt the complex with more construction than is necessary. He said he wouldn’t want to be the one fielding calls from angry tenants, if there was too much disruption.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to approve the site plan, subject to additional approval by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. The plan does not require approval by the city council.

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

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Wednesday, Nov. 3 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Jill Thacher, left, of the city of Ann Arbor's planning staff, has been the point person in drafting a zoning ordinance to address medical marijuana businesses. She outlined changes to the draft ordinance at the Oct. 5 planning commission meeting. Next to Thacher is planning commissioner Bonnie Bona. (Photos by the writer.)

The draft ordinance that was ultimately approved unanimously, and forwarded to the city council, contained several changes from the version that the commission considered at its Sept. 21 meeting. During the Oct. 5 deliberations, commissioners also approved three out of four proposed amendments, some of them in response to input from the public.

In a separate vote, the commission approved a motion to recommend that the city council institute a medical marijuana business license. Eric Mahler cast the lone vote of dissent. There was little discussion and no details about what the license would entail, aside from a general intent “to address issues that fall outside the scope of the zoning ordinance, such as building security and code compliance for electrical use, fire suppression, and ingress/egress.”

Commissioner Jean Carlberg questioned Kristen Larcom of the city attorney’s office about whether the license would only apply to dispensaries, or if it would be required of cultivation facilities and “home occupation” businesses as well. In reply, Larcom said she didn’t know – they hadn’t yet drafted it. Commissioner Kirk Westphal asked if the license might include a cap on the number of dispensaries in the city – Larcom said that it might.

In their final item of business, planning commissioners unanimously agreed to reconsider a petition they had rejected at their Sept. 21 meeting – to a special exception use that would allow for the expansion of Arbor Dog Daycare, a business located at 2856 S. Main St., near the corner of Eisenhower. They then immediately tabled action on the item until their Oct. 19 meeting. The owners spoke during public commentary urging commissioners to reconsider, but later in the meeting commissioner Jean Carlberg said she’d spent more than an hour in the neighborhood near the business, and was disturbed by the level of noise coming from barking dogs there.

Medical Marijuana Zoning, Licensing

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff has been researching the medical marijuana issue, and gave the staff report on the proposed zoning ordinance. She reviewed the substantive changes made since the previous version, which had been presented to the commission at their Sept. 21 meeting. [Some of these changes were amended by the commission later in the meeting.]

Highlights of the changes include:

• The definition of drug paraphernalia was removed.
• The definition of a medical marijuana cultivation facility was changed from three or more caregivers growing plants to anyone growing more than 72 plants. This reflects changes to the home occupation language, which has been capped at 72 plants per single-family dwelling.
• The definition of dispensary was changed to include all caregiver transfers of medical marijuana that are not home occupations.
• The requirement of a 200-foot buffer between dispensaries and residential properties was removed.
• C1 (local commercial) zoning districts were added to the list of permitted districts for dispensaries.
• The 500-foot spacing requirement was removed. Previously, no dispensary or cultivation facility could be located within 500 feet of another dispensary or cultivation facility.
• The requirement that operators of a dispensary or cultivation facility be caregivers was removed.
• The restriction on sales of drug paraphernalia has been removed – state law allows such transfers to medical marijuana patients from caregivers, and it was deemed unnecessary.
• Previously, only two caregivers were allowed per single-family home. That was changed to a maximum of 72 plants, regardless of the number of caregivers living there.
• The number of trips allowed was changed to be the same as for all home occupations: 10 trips per day, or 5 round trips. A restriction on picking up medical marijuana – forcing caregivers to deliver the product – was removed. This change acknowledged the fact that some patients prefer to pick up their medical marijuana, in order to keep their addresses confidential. [Commissioners later voted to put that restriction back in place.]
• The section on medical marijuana in dwellings other than single-family homes was clarified to say that patients in any zoning district may grow their own 12 plants in their dwelling unit, with the same restrictions on odor, etc., as dispensaries, cultivation facilities, and home occupations.

In addition, Thacher noted several other items in the draft ordinance. They include:

• Cultivation facilities are defined as anyone growing more than 72 plants, and a dispensary is defined as any number of caregivers that are not operating as a home occupation.
• All dispensaries and cultivation facilities in C (commercial) districts must meet minimum parking requirements, without exception.
• Dispensaries and cultivation facilities are excluded from O (office) districts. The rationale given in the staff report is the retail and agricultural nature of dispensaries and cultivation facilities, and the large number of more appropriate zoning districts in which these uses would be allowed.
• The requirement that medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities be located outside of 1,000-foot drug-free school zones remains in place.
• Smoking, inhalation, and consumption of medical marijuana is prohibited at dispensaries and cultivation facilities to minimize conflicts with neighbors.
• Written permission of the property owner was proposed to be required, so that landowners know up front before the lease is signed that the proposed use is one that is deemed legal by the state, but not by the federal government. [Commissioners later deleted this requirement.]
• Zoning compliance permits are required annually for dispensaries, cultivation facilities, and home occupations. This is to insure compliance with zoning ordinances, and involves filling out an application and submitting a fee (currently $50). There is no inspection of the premises associated with a zoning compliance permit.
• The staff report stated that outdoor growing and dispensing of medical marijuana is undesirable as a land use because of the controls required to secure the area.
• The language on noise, odor, and other restrictions for dispensaries, cultivation facilities, and home occupations is taken directly from the language for general home occupations.

Staff recommended approval of the zoning ordinance. [.pdf of draft ordinance, with revisions noted]

Medical Marijuana Zoning: Public Hearing

Six people spoke during a public hearing on the topic, including several who had spoken at the Sept. 21 meeting. Before they began, commissioner Erica Briggs asked whether it was possible that they not state their address – typically, speakers are asked to give their street address. At the public hearing on Sept. 21, Eric VanDussen of Traverse City told commissioners it was asinine for speakers to be required to state their home address – the meeting was broadcast on live TV, and many of the speakers grow medical marijuana in their homes.

At the Oct. 5 meeting, Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, said the point of stating an address was to indicate whether the speaker has a stake in the community. Though it’s not required by law or by the commission’s bylaws, it’s been the commission’s practice, she said. Ultimately, she added, it was up to the speaker as to whether they wanted to comply.

Mark Curtis of Spring Arbor, Michigan, said he had emailed commissioners and wanted to reiterate some points in his letter. He thanked commissioners and staff for doing their research by visiting some local dispensaries. He’d heard on NPR recently that California is considering legalizing recreational marijuana, and that it could bring in more than $17 billion in tax revenue. That’s something that Michigan should think about, he said. The state is losing other industries, but “this is a bird in the hand,” he said. Curtis noted that such funding could help pay for projects like Fuller Road Station, which the planning commission had approved at its Sept. 21 meeting. [At that meeting, Fuller Road Station was on the agenda prior to consideration of the medical marijuana zoning, so marijuana activists sat through lengthy deliberations on that project.]

Chuck Ream, reviewing a draft zoning ordinance for medical marijuana businesses at the Oct. 5 planning commission meeting. Ream spoke during a public hearing on the topic, representing the Ann Arbor Coalition for Compassionate Care.

Chuck Ream said he was speaking on behalf of the Ann Arbor Coalition for Compassionate Care, and wanted to thank the compassionate and intelligent voters of Ann Arbor who voted to make the “ancient cannabis herb” available to patients. He also thanked city council and the planning commission, saying they’d shown extraordinary intelligence, common sense and a willingness to listen. However, he still had several concerns. The parking requirements for cultivation facilities makes no sense, he said. He objected to requiring that dispensaries or cultivation facilities get written permission from their landlords, saying that by doing so, landlords would be violating federal drug laws and incriminating themselves. He suggested instead saying that the lease was for “uses that are safe, clean and legal under Michigan law.”

Ream objected to the entirety of section 5, which covers zoning of home occupations. This is already covered by state law, he said. Further, city council didn’t ask for input regarding licenses or new regulations on home occupations, Ream said. The regulation requiring a zoning compliance permit would be immediately litigated, he contended – no other home occupation requires this kind of permit, so it’s clearly discriminatory against medical marijuana providers. He also argued that requiring caregivers to divulge their locations would be terrifying to them, and illegal as well.

Michael Meade cited several objections to the draft. He argued that the city had created a new definition of “home occupation,” with rules tied to that. But growing medical marijuana is an activity for caregivers and patients – it’s not a business activity, and is no different than having a sewing room or a home gym, he said. Meade contended that the section laying out a rationale for restricting the number of plants to 72 per dwelling, regardless of how many caregivers live there, is not based on evidence or science. Finally, requiring patients and caregivers to file an annual zoning compliance permit violates their privacy, he said – it’s not required by state law. Meade urged commissioners to postpone action until these issues could be addressed – the ordinance is too important to rush though without careful consideration.

Michael McLeod said he represented the Ann Arbor Medical Marijuana Patients Collective and the Green Planet Patient Collective – representing 2,000 medical marijuana patients. In addition to the zoning districts that are recommended for dispensaries, planned unit developments (PUDs) need to be included, he said. The Green Planet Patient Collective is located in a PUD at 700 Tappan, in an area that’s been approved for other retail uses. He also argued that office districts should not be excluded, since dispensaries do not serve the general public and are ideal for meeting patients in private settings like offices. Nor should cultivation be prohibited from office districts, McLeod said, since it’s a private activity that involves only a few people. McLeod also objected to the requirement that landlords give prior express written permission to use their property for a dispensary or cultivation facility, saying that if landlords are forced to incriminate themselves – medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law – it will have the effect of excluding all rental property for use by medical marijuana businesses.

Gersh Avery of Dexter raised the confidentiality issue. When he brings it up, he said, typically people think he’s talking about HIPAA laws and regulations, but he’s not. The state licensing records are subject to rules of confidentiality written into the Michigan medical marijuana act, he said. That law states that if someone divulges information about patients or caregivers, they’ll be guilty of a criminal offense that they could go to jail for. This is not something that’s being made clear by groups like the Michigan Municipal League, he said. So government employees who handle this information – divulging it by putting it into a computer system, for example, where other could access it – could go to jail for six months and get fined up to $1,000. Whatever licensing or registration is required by the city, they’re opening up employees to this risk. The law hasn’t been tested yet, he said, adding that it will be tested eventually by arresting a government employee who handles this confidential information. He urged Ann Arbor not to put something into place that would make local government employees one of those test cases.

Dennis Hayes said he represented the Ann Arbor Medical Marijuana Patients Collective, and joked that they should be on a first name basis by now, since he’d spoken to commissioners so frequently. He thanked commissioners and staff for their work, and especially for taking a tour of some of the city’s dispensaries. Regarding the proposed ordinance, he objected to the exclusion of office districts from allowable zoning for dispensaries, arguing that it would be a low intensity use and not out of place there. He said it would be useful for patients to have as much access as possible, and the city ought to encourage the use of locations to facilitate that goal. He also said he agreed with Chuck Ream regarding the parking requirements – it was hard to wrap their heads around why cultivation facilities needed to meet the minimum parking requirements for a retail use, he said – traffic to those facilities would be minimal. But overall, “we’re almost there,” Hayes said, referring to a final version they could support.

Medical Marijuana Zoning: Commissioner Amendments

Commissioners had a wide-ranging discussion about the proposed ordinance, and ultimately considered four amendments.

Amendment: Restore the 500-foot spacing requirement between dispensaries or cultivation facilities

Kirk Westphal asked what drove the change to eliminate that requirement from the original draft. Jean Carlberg responded, saying that at their Sept. 21 meeting, the planning commission had approved a request for Lake Trust Credit Union to be located at an intersection with two other banks. That didn’t seem like too much saturation, she said. And after visiting some dispensaries and seeing no impact on the neighborhood, it was hard to justify putting the restriction on medical marijuana businesses when other businesses didn’t have that requirement. Westphal clarified that they had considered the potential security risk.

Westphal noted that the medical marijuana sector is in flux, with new businesses opening and price levels fluctuating. It seemed to him that the 500-foot space requirement was one way of stabilizing it.

Evan Pratt said he didn’t feel the 500-foot requirement was onerous – you could still have plenty of medical marijuana businesses in the city, he said.

Erica Briggs said she wasn’t inherently opposed to the requirement, but it seemed like they were trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist, and creating hurdles that they don’t need. She said she’d feel comfortable revising the ordinance later to include the requirement, if it became necessary.

Diane Giannola said the spacing requirement seemed like a good intermediate step – it would be hard to undo later, she said. Eric Mahler disagreed, saying it would be easier to leave out, then revise if they needed to. He couldn’t find a rationale for the 500-foot measurement – why not 400 feet, or 600? He thought the market would sort itself out.

Pratt sketched out a scenario in which several dispensaries opened on the same block. If some of them failed, other businesses might be leary of opening there. Sprinkling the medical marijuana businesses throughout the city seemed like a better approach. He also said he wasn’t a big fan of having three banks on the same street corner, either.

Westphal noted that they’d received a letter from a proponent of medical marijuana, who argued in favor of having a few well-regulated dispensaries rather than several that might not be in business very long. He proposed an amendment to restore the requirement.

Outcome: The proposed amendment to reinstate a 500-foot distance between dispensaries or cultivation facilities failed on a 4-4 vote. Voting for the amendment were Giannola, Mahler, Pratt and Westphal. Voting against it were Bona, Briggs, Carlberg and Derezinski. Wendy Woods was absent.

Amendment: Remove the requirement that property owners give their prior express written permission to lease to a dispensary or cultivation facility.

Erica Briggs proposed this amendment. Jean Carlberg made a friendly amendment to the amendment, which Briggs accepted, to simply remove the words “prior express written” – that would eliminate the concern of self-incrimination, but signal a desire for the landlord and tenant to communicate about the nature of the business.

Bonnie Bona said she’d just prefer to remove the whole requirement – they don’t have responsibility to manage the landlord/tenant relationship. Carlberg withdrew her amendment.

Kirk Westphal said he was fine with removing this requirement, but he hoped that the city would do some kind of outreach to landlords on this issue, as a community service.

Outcome: The amendment passed, with dissent from Derezinski. Wendy Woods was absent.

Amendment: Add planned unit development (PUD) as a permitted zoning district, where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations.

When Bonnie Bona proposed this amendment, Erica Briggs noted that they hadn’t discussed allowing dispensaries in a residential area. Bona noted that dispensaries are allowed in C1 districts, which are adjacent to residential. They’re also allowed downtown, which has a mix of retail and residential uses, she said.

Outcome: The amendment adding PUDs as a permitted zoning district – where retail is permitted in the PUD’s supplemental regulations – passed, with dissent from Pratt and Briggs. Wendy Woods was absent.

Amendment: Restore a home occupations provision that stated: “No transfer of medical marijuana to patients other than those residing on the parcel shall occur on the parcel.”

Kirk Westphal said that under the previous draft, which required that people growing medical marijuana as a home occupation deliver their product to patients, there wouldn’t have been a problem with traffic. But without that provision, he was concerned that traffic would be an issue in residential areas.

Westphal said he understood the patients’ concerns with confidentiality – wanting to keep their addresses private, and preferring to pick it up rather than have it delivered. But in that case, he observed, they could go to a dispensary instead. Especially since there had been complaints about people smoking in cars outside of the home occupation residences, it seemed better to be more conservative – there’s too much potential to burden neighbors, he said.

Diane Giannola wondered what recourse there’d be if neighbors had a problem. Wendy Rampson, head of the planning staff, said the city would prefer if the person with a complaint dealt directly with their neighbor. Otherwise, they could complain to the planning staff and it would be handled like any other zoning ordinance complaint. The staff would investigate, and if they found that the home occupation was out of compliance, they’d send warning letters and meet with the subject of the complaint. It’s a civil infraction, and the violator could be ticketed each day they’re out of compliance, with a fine of up to $500.

Outcome: The amendment passed, with dissent from Carlberg, Derezinski and Mahler. Wendy Woods was absent.

Commissioners then voted on the ordinance as amended.

Outcome: The medical marijuana zoning ordinance was unanimously recommended by the planning commission for subsequent approval by the city council. Wendy Woods was absent.

Medical Marijuana Licensing

The commission considered a second motion related to medical marijuana:

The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Mayor and City Council institute a medical marijuana business license to address issues important to the health, safety, and welfare of residents but outside of the scope of the zoning ordinance, such as security, building safety, and other code compliance.

There were no additional details in the planning staff report about a possible license. Although it had been mentioned at previous meetings that the city attorney’s office was developing a proposal about licensing medical marijuana businesses, planning commissioners had not previously discussed the topic in depth.

Deliberations were brief. Jean Carlberg asked whether a license would only apply to dispensaries, or if it would be required of cultivation facilities and “home occupation” businesses as well. Kristen Larcom of the city attorney’s office said she didn’t know, because they hadn’t yet drafted a proposal for the license. Kirk Westphal asked if the license might include a cap on the number of dispensaries in the city, or require that there be building security. Larcom said that it might.

Outcome: In a 7-1 vote, the planning commission approved a motion to recommend that city council institute a medical marijuana business license. Eric Mahler dissented, and Wendy Woods was absent from the meeting.

Mahler did not comment during the public meeting on this issue. When asked by The Chronicle following the meeting about his reason for voting against it, Mahler indicated that they didn’t know what the license would entail at this point, and it was difficult to support something without that information.

Arbor Dog Daycare Expansion

At its Sept. 21 meeting, the planning commission rejected a petition from the owners of Arbor Dog Daycare to expand their facility, which is located at 2856 S. Main St., near the corner of Eisenhower. The primary concern from some commissioners had been noise complaints from neighbors, who objected to the amount of barking from dogs in an outdoor dog run.

Jon and Margaret Svoboda, owners of Arbor Dog Daycare, at the Oct. 5 planning commission meeting.

The request had been for an amendment to the firm’s existing special exception use, which would have increased the firm’s square footage within an existing building from 3,200 square feet to a maximum of 8,800 square feet, extended the hours of operation and allowed a maximum of 125 dogs on site, with no more than 25 dogs outside at any one time.

At the Oct. 5 meeting, owners Jon and Margaret Svoboda returned to the commission to ask for reconsideration of their petition.

Arbor Dog Daycare: Public Commentary

Margaret Svoboda, one of the owners, asked commissioners to reopen the firm’s petition, saying she believed there was a misunderstanding at the last meeting about what the commissioners were voting on. She said she made a video that was taken outside in various areas near the business, to demonstrate that the barking wasn’t a problem. She said she thought they could work with the commission to address any remaining concerns, and that they had received an outcry of support after their petition had been rejected in September.

Jon Svoboda also addressed the commission, referring them to a letter he’d sent to commissioners following last month’s meeting. [.pdf of letter] He said he understood that to reopen their petition, they’d need to get a unanimous vote from commissioners, and he asked them to allow the petition to be reconsidered. After meeting with representatives from the neighborhood condo associations and getting their buy-in, Svoboda said, he had thought they had addressed the neighbors’ concerns. He noted that they had planned to have the same number of dogs outside at any one time – 25 – but now were proposing to reduce that number to 20. “I’m really putting myself at your mercy,” he said.

Two women spoke in support of the firm’s expansion, including Linda Coon, who made the same economic development argument that she’d stated during public commentary at the Sept. 21 meeting. The expansion would bring more jobs to this area, she said, which is a win-win.

Arbor Dog Daycare: Commissioner Deliberations

Diane Giannola moved that the commission reconsider the Arbor Dog Daycare petition – a motion to reconsider must be made by someone on the prevailing side of the vote, and Giannola had voted against it.

Outcome: Planning commissioners voted unanimously to reconsider the Arbor Dog Daycare petition.

Bonnie Bona said she’d like additional time to view the video that the Svobodas made, as well as to review previous documents related to the petition.

Kirk Westphal said it would make him feel more comfortable if people in the neighborhood could be notified again that the expansion was being reconsidered. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning department, said they would notify everyone within 300 feet of the business, as well as members of the neighboring condo associations.

Jean Carlberg then told her colleagues that she’d spent about 90 minutes near the business earlier in the day, to hear for herself what the noise levels were like. Unfortunately, she said, what she heard was almost continuous barking. It was very clear from the nearby Balmoral Park condominium complex, she said, which is north of the business. “And I don’t have sensitive ears,” she added. None of the barking dogs were taken back inside, she noted, and that’s way too long to have to listen to barking dogs. She said she doesn’t have a problem with keeping the dogs inside.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to table action on the item until their Oct. 19 meeting.

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

Absent: Wendy Woods

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Oct. 19 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers of city hall, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Rita Mitchell and Peter Zetlin talk during a break at the Sept. 21 Ann Arbor planning commission meeting. Both spoke against the proposed Fuller Road Station during a public hearing on the site plan. (Photos by the writer.)

City council chambers were packed with people wanting to address the commission on those two issues, which were the final two items on the night’s agenda.

Before getting to those, commissioners dealt with several lower-profile items. One was a request by the owners of Arbor Dog Daycare asking for permission to expand their business. A neighbor came to oppose it, saying “to expand the operation means more barking.” The commission voted on it twice – an initial vote, then a reconsideration at the end of the meeting at the request of commissioner Evan Pratt, who arrived late and missed the first vote. In both cases, the project failed to get the necessary six votes for approval.

The commission also approved the site plan for a Lake Trust Credit Union branch at the southeast corner of West Stadium and Liberty, despite some concerns about tearing down the existing building.

Later in the meeting – after three hours of staff presentations, a public hearing and commissioner deliberations – Fuller Road Station’s site plan did win approval, with two commissioners dissenting. The project will now move to city council for a vote.

And the final public hearing of the night – on zoning changes that would regulate dispensaries and “home occupations” for medical marijuana – drew 15 speakers. All of them, to varying degrees, urged commissioners not to restrict safe access to medical marijuana. The planning staff had recommended postponement, and commissioners followed that advice. They voted unanimously to postpone action on the proposal, allowing time to incorporate feedback heard during the meeting’s public hearing. The commission is expected to take up the issue again at its Oct. 5 meeting.

Fuller Road Station

The Fuller Road Station project has a history that dates back more than two years. It was first unveiled publicly as a concept at a January 2009 neighborhood meeting at Northside Grill, when city staff presented to Wall Street residents an early sketch of the possible transit station. The meeting was held in response to concerns that the University of Michigan was planning to build two parking structures on Wall Street, to accommodate demand from its nearby medical complex.

The Fuller Road Station site plan, filed in early August, calls for building a five-level, 977-space parking structure on city-owned property that’s part of Fuller Park, on the south side of Fuller Road and east of East Medical Center Drive. [The land where the proposed structure is to be built has been a surface parking lot since the mid-1990s, leased to UM.] The site would include a 44-space surface parking lot, 17 motorcycle spots and 103 spots for bicycle parking. There would be three entrances from Fuller Road, changes to the road to accommodate those entrances and traffic flow, and landscaping along the road and around the structure. Thirty trees will be planted, and five landmark trees are proposed to be removed – city planning staff has requested that the trees be relocated, rather than taken down.

This first phase of the project is expected to cost $32 million. The city hopes eventually to build a train station at that location as well, but that isn’t part of the current site plan. In addition, the parking structure could eventually be expanded to include up to 1,600 spaces.

The project has been discussed at several public meetings, with the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) in particular raising concerns about its location and financial agreement with UM. Chronicle coverage includes:

• “UM Helps Start Analysis Phase for Fuller Road Transit Station” – Aug. 17, 2009 city council meeting, at which councilmembers authorized the station’s conceptual design. The cost of $541,717 would be divided between UM and the city at a 75%/25% split.
• “City Seeks Feedback on Transit Center” – the first presentation about the project to PAC at its September 2009 meeting.
• “Fleshing Out Fuller Road Station” – Feb. 10, 2010 public forum on the project.
• “Transit Forum Critiques Fuller Road Station” – Feb. 15, 2010 forum on transit-oriented development, where experts gave feedback on projects in Howell, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, including Fuller Road Station.
• “Concerns Voiced over Fuller Road Station” – March 16, 2010 PAC meeting.
• “AATA Gets Its Fill of Fuller Road Station” – April 21, 2010 meeting of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is a key player in seeking funding for the project.
• “Better Deal Desired on Fuller Road Station” – May 4, 2010 meeting of PAC commissioners to develop a resolution asking council to call off the project, or to negotiate a better deal with UM. This article also includes a report of the city’s planning commission vote related to Fuller Road Station, when they amended the list of permitted principal uses of public land – specifically, changing a “municipal airports” use to “transportation facilities.”
• “Hieftje Urges Unity on Fuller Road Station” – May 18, 2010 PAC meeting, which mayor John Hieftje attended to lobby for support of the project.
• “PAC Softens Stance on Fuller Road Station” – June 1, 2010 working session to revise PAC’s draft of a resolution related to the project.
• “Park Commission Asks for Transparency” – June 15, 2010 PAC meeting, when a resolution was passed calling for city council to make available a complete plan of Fuller Road Station – including any significant proposed agreements, such as what the university will pay the city for use of the structure – allowing sufficient time for a presentation at a televised PAC meeting before council votes on the project. The resolution also asked that staff and city council ensure the project results in a net revenue gain for the parks system.
• “Park Commission Gets Update on Fuller Road Station” – July 20, 2010 PAC meeting, which included a presentation on the project.

Fuller Road Station: Staff Report

At Tuesday’s meeting, Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation programs manager, gave commissioners an overview of the project, covering much of the same ground he’s traced in other venues, including the July 20 PAC meeting. He said the project team had been working “feverishly” to bring the vision of a transit station to reality, and he reiterated the need to address the growing number of commuters coming into Ann Arbor. Progress on developing an east/west commuter rail hasn’t been as fast as they’d hoped, Cooper acknowledged, referring to a lack of federal funding for the project so far. But he said he remains hopeful that commuter rail is forthcoming, and cited as an initial step an excursion train from Ann Arbor to Detroit for the Thanksgiving Day parade.

Eli Cooper, Ann Arbor's transportation programs manager, gave planning commissioners an overview of the Fuller Road Station site plan at their Sept. 21 meeting.

Cooper pointed out that Jim Kosteva, UM’s director of community relations, was in attendance that night, which Cooper said reflected UM’s support for Fuller Road Station. The project doesn’t benefit one partner more than another, he said, and the relationship with UM is to be celebrated.

Cooper also took issue with frequent references to the station as a parking structure. Though it was true that levels two and above are dedicated to parking, the ground level is “absolutely intermodal,” he said. Plans call for five bus bays and a bike storage area that Cooper hopes will evolve into a more robust bike maintenance area. There’s also a bike plaza on the exterior of the structure that Cooper hopes the bicycling community will embrace as a gathering place.

Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff gave a report on the staff’s recommendations. He noted that from a planning perspective, the city’s land use master plan called for the site to be parks and open space. The Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan identifies the site as part of Fuller Park. The city’s transportation plan update of 2009 recommends that the site be used for a commuter rail station, while the FY2010-15 capital improvements plan gives the project – identified as the Amtrak station relocation – an “urgent” priority.

The staff report notes that the site plan identifies several non-motorized improvements – such as bike paths – but the plan calls for most of those to be added in “future phases.” Planning staff strongly recommends that at least the path to the Fuller bridge be part of this first phase, as it would provide an important link to the county’s Border-to-Border trail system, according to the report.

The staff report also mentions that pathways for bicycles and pedestrians had emerged in early discussions as a core part of the project, but are not included in the first phase. From the report:

A connection to Riverside Park, for example, would facilitate employees of the University Medical Center to access the Kellogg Eye Center safely from the parking structure. As the parking structure that was originally planned for the vicinity of the Kellogg Eye Center is not being constructed at this time, these commuters need to be accommodated in the Fuller parking structure, and should have a safe way to travel to the Eye Center. Another example is an underpass, utilizing the existing space that was planned for a pathway under the Fuller Road bridge on the east end of the site, which would facilitate a much safer crossing then the at grade crossing on Fuller Road. Elements of the approved Master Plans should be incorporated into this project.

However, the project generally complies with local, state and federal laws and regulations, and the planning staff recommended approval of Fuller Road Station, Kahan said. [Link to full set of planning documents related to Fuller Road Station's site plan, downloadable from the city's Legistar system]

Fuller Road Station: Public Hearing

Seventeen people spoke during Tuesday’s public hearing. Most of the speakers argued against the project, and were greeted with applause by audience members after their comments. Here’s a sampling:

Larry Deck of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition told the commission that WBWC was requesting three things: 1) that the Border-to-Border trail system be completed first, so that Fuller Road Station would complement it, rather than conflict with it, 2) that the trail system be completed before the bike center is finished, because without proper bicycle access, the bike center would have little value, and 3) that UM should share in the cost of constructing and maintaining the trails, because a large number of university staff and students would use them. He estimated the cost of the trails would be about 1% of the cost of the parking structure. If it’s truly to be an intermodal facility, it’s important to address all of the modes at the outset, Deck said, rather than as an afterthought.

John Satarino, a former park advisory commissioner, started by saying he’d just heard that all excursion rail trips had been canceled, and suggested that Cooper get updated on that. He noted that the site plan being considered was for 10 acres, while all the public forums had previously focused on a roughly 3-acre site – he asked commissioners to clarify that. Satarino then described some history of the site, saying that in 1959 Detroit Edison offered to sell the city over 950 acres in that area. In August 1962 a formal resolution authorized the mayor to sign contracts acquiring the land, designated for the preservation of permanent open space – the deal was finalized in September 1963, Satarino said. The city agreed to pay $400,000 over five years, an amount that included a $120,000 federal grant which stipulated the land needed to be kept as open space, Satarino said. He said there’s a simply worded deed restriction from 1959, which states that the land is “subject to dedication as a wildlife sanctuary.”

Satarino also cited the 2008 voter referendum, when over 84% of city voters approved a charter amendment barring the sale of city parkland without voter approval. But the city has found a way to circumvent that vote by setting up long-term use agreements, he said. The public’s fears that the city was planning to secretly sell the land to UM were confirmed when it was revealed that the city had obtained an appraisal for the property in 2004, at over $4 million, Satarino said. The use of municipal immunity, allowing the city to ignore its own rules, means the sad truth is that parkland has no protection, he concluded.

Kathy Griswold raised concerns about the plan’s transportation engineering. The area is very congested, she said, and what she sees in the site plan is something much less than best practices in traffic engineering. One example is the middle entrance – instead of a “Michigan left,” which Griswold described as a safer option, the plan calls for a crossover. Without a traffic signal, there will be problems because of the congestion. She said she’s also troubled that the drop-off can only be accessed if you’re in the eastbound traffic lane. These are probably minor details given the complete scope of the project, she said, but traffic issues are serious and should be addressed prior to site plan approval.

Jim Mogensen also raised safety concerns. Among other things, he cited the potential roundabout at the intersection of Fuller, East Medical Center Drive and Maiden Lane. He said he lives near the roundabout on Nixon Road, and people are learning to cope, but that doesn’t mean it’s safe. He cautioned that many people would be coming to the medical complex from outside this area, and wouldn’t be familiar with using a roundabout.

Noting that she was conflicted because she supports the idea of commuter rail, Marta Manildi said the prospect of the parking structure is frightening, in part because it could grow much larger than proposed. Her home is within 300 feet of the site, and she is concerned about light pollution, noise pollution and traffic. The public should be given more opportunity to comment, she said. [Manildi is a member of the city's housing commission.]

Several other residents who serve on various city commissions spoke against the project. Gwen Nystuen, a park advisory commissioner who’s been an outspoken opponent, said the city purchased this land specifically for use as a park. The area is zoned as “public land,” and Nystuen noted that the planning commission had recently voted to alter one of the permitted uses of public land to include “transportation facilities.” There’s really nothing that can’t be considered a public land use, she said. She wondered if alternative sites were considered, and if nothing else is suitable, she said they should at least mitigate the decision by providing an equal area of similar parkland elsewhere.

Also speaking in opposition to the site plan were Ellen Ramsburgh, chair of the city’s historic district commission, and Christopher Graham, who serves on the environmental commission and helped write the city’s natural features master plan – which calls out the Huron River valley as the city’s preeminent natural feature. Eli Gallup led the way to acquire this property along the river in the 1960s, Graham said, as the first step in creating a scenic corridor through the city. Residents have worked hard to add to that over the years, he added, until this ethical lapse on the part of city administration that will convert parkland to a non-park use, without a vote. He suspects the voters wouldn’t approve.

Graham said the agreement with the university stinks, because it brings in less income to the city compared to UM’s current lease of the surface parking lot on that site. Maybe the dream of commuter rail will happen, but until the city has a signed agreement – including operational support for rail – it’s just a dream, Graham said. He asked commissioners to permanently table this site plan.

Former city councilmember Robert Johnson spoke against the project, arguing that the site plan dramatically changes the relationship between the city and its parks, which he described as vulnerable. There’s a charter amendment that prevents the sale of parkland without voter approval, and an ordinance that says construction on parkland must be for park purposes, he said, but the city is now saying they can ignore these protections. In the past, the city worked in concert with the wishes of its citizens and tried to prevent degradations to its parks. The city can ignore its own ordinances, but should it? As planning commissioners, they need to think about the broader implications about their development decisions, he said. This project will set a precedent that will haunt the community for years to come, he concluded.

Ethel Potts stated that some of the more critical statements about the project at the last two public participation forums hadn’t been included in the staff report. She asked a series of questions: What alternative sites were considered? How can they reconcile this major encouragement of the use of cars, which is in conflict with the city’s non-motorized transportation plan? Will it ever be a train station? Why isn’t UM building parking on its own land? The plan isn’t ready for adoption, she said.

Rita Mitchell noted that the plan for Fuller Road Station had been developed without involving the true stakeholders: the public. It encourages the use of cars, and the likelihood of commuter rail seems limited. At this point, the land could be returned to open space – that won’t be possible if the parking structure is built, she said. There seems to be a strategy of re-purposing parkland, starting with a temporary use. In addition to the example of the surface parking lot being converted to a large parking structure, Mitchell cited a plan to use Allmendinger and Frisinger parks for Saturday football parking [a staff proposal that was rejected by city council] and the current request for proposals (RFP) for a possible private/public partnership at Huron Hills golf course.

This approach changes the public’s perception of the land and its sense of ownership, Mitchell said, until they eventually think of it more for parking than for parks. If the city can do this, she said, then it can do anything in any of the parks that the people of Ann Arbor love and have repeatedly supported with tax dollars. She asked commissioners not to violate the people’s trust. She cited a line from a Joni Mitchell song, “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot,” then added, “Let’s not do that.”

Barbara Bach asked commissioners to table action on the site plan until they can address several unresolved issues. Nothing about the project encourages alternative transportation, she said – quite the opposite. There’s confusion about the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the university. Is it a long-term lease? The effect is a transfer of land to the university, she said. There’s confusion between this site plan and the intentions of the city’s master plans, zoning and building standards – this land is not zoned for development, she said. There’s confusion about process – how did officials select this particular site? What alternative sites were explored? How is it possible that the city has spent $600,000 in tax dollars, plus staff time, when they haven’t even started construction? Bach said if the city wants to explore public transportation, they should do it – but don’t be fooled by calling a parking structure a train station.

Two people – Elizabeth Donahue Colvin and Kitty Morloch – spoke in favor of the project. They represented two associations in the Maiden Lane area: Riverside Park Place Condominium Association and the Maiden Lane Neighborhood Association. [Colvin also addressed the AATA board at its Sept. 16, 2010 meeting expressing support for Fuller Road Station.] Residents were relieved that the parking pressure had been taken off of their neighborhood, they said. Fuller Road is a more appropriate location to build a large parking structure, Colvin said. [UM had previously planned to building parking facilities on Wall Street, a move that residents of that area protested.] More broadly, Colvin endorsed the transit center, and said that if commuter rail does become a reality, economic development will follow.

Fuller Road Station: Deliberations, Questions, Comments

Planning commissioners asked a wide range of questions over the course of nearly two hours of deliberations. This report organizes a summary of that discussion thematically.

Fuller Road Station Deliberations: Traffic Engineering

Bonnie Bona asked Eli Cooper to address the traffic engineering concerns that had been raised in public commentary, regarding access to the facility and access to drop-offs. Cooper said that the use of the “Michigan left” presented its own set of safety issues, with vehicles merging and weaving across lanes of traffic. The crossover allows cars to stop, wait until traffic is clear, then cross. Regarding drop-offs, it’s true that access is possible only from the eastbound lane, he said. But a planned roundabout will guide traffic from the westbound to the eastbound lanes, and will be designed to handle anticipated traffic capacity through 2035.

Bona noted that the roundabout is planned for a future phase. She wondered what Cooper’s comfort level was for the project without the roundabout, or whether it should be part of this first phase. At minimum, Cooper replied, there should be “coincidental development” – putting Fuller Road Station in a congested area would be a “death knell,” he said. The timing and funding for the roundabout aren’t yet identified, he added, but it’s important to move quickly.

[The full traffic impact report is downloadable from the Fuller Road Station website.]

Fuller Road Station Deliberations: Bike and Pedestrian Paths

Noting that she’s a regular user of the Border-to-Border trail, Bonnie Bona asked why plans for bike paths aren’t incorporated into this phase of the project. Cooper said it had been included initially, but was eliminated because of budgetary considerations. Those paths aren’t directly related to issues in the memorandum of understanding between the city and the university, he said. [.pdf file of the MOU] But the fact that the paths are in the non-motorized transportation plan and the PROS plan will keep them a priority, he added.

Jean Carlberg

Erica Briggs also had concerns about the pathway connections. She noted that planning staff has strongly recommended that a shared path be incorporated into the project.

Jean Carlberg asked about the trail connections, noting that a key piece was the ability to cross Huron River. What was the time frame for completing that part of the pathway? Cooper said that if they were to do the design today, it would take two to three years to complete. That part of the path is included in the non-motorized transportation plan, he noted.

Westphal said that if this were a private development, he would make approval contingent on the completion of the trails. He wouldn’t allow the petitioner to tell them that it wasn’t financially feasible or that they’d do it in the future.

Fuller Road Station Deliberations: Alternative Transportation

Bonnie Bona asked Jim Kosteva, UM’s director of community relations, to explain how the university was addressing its parking needs, noting that this structure wouldn’t provide spaces for all its employees. Kosteva estimated that overall, 40% of UM employees are getting to work via alternative transportation – vanpools, carpools, buses and park-and-ride lots, biking or walking. The university has strong incentives designed to increase that percentage. He said the medical complex has the largest concentration of employees, and an expectation of growth there.

Tony Derezinski, a Ward 2 city councilmember who serves on the planning commission, asked what AATA’s role was in the Fuller Road Station. Eli Cooper responded, saying AATA officials had helped shape the project from the beginning. That includes design of the structure to accommodate buses, as well as grant applications for federal funding. They’re also helping with the environmental assessment. AATA will be “all in,” Cooper said.

Eric Mahler questioned the level of anticipated bus service – an estimated 460 UM buses passing through Fuller Road Station each day. How does that compare to current service in that area? Cooper replied that currently during peak periods, buses are running every two minutes, but he didn’t know how that was distributed over the day. Kosteva said that not all of those buses would be making stops at Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station Deliberations: Building Design

The design of the structure received criticism from several commissioners. Erica Briggs described it as “not very inspiring,” and not incorporating progressive elements of design. There’s nothing that welcomes people to Ann Arbor, or that would make it recognizable as a gateway to the city, she said. The structure didn’t seem to incorporate public art or try to integrate more as a building rather than a parking garage, she said, adding that she assumed it was because of budgetary constraints.

Dick Mitchell of the Ann Arbor firm Mitchell and Mouat agreed that the south elevation, facing north toward the railroad tracks, is most lacking. That’s the side that won’t be used until later phases, he said.

He described some elements of the design that make it distinctive, including the 18-foot ceilings of the ground level, some decorative metalwork, and the plans for public art. [The Ann Arbor public art commission has been told they'll be involved in a task force to select public art for Fuller Road Station, and at their last meeting expressed some frustration that the process of forming the task force has been slow. They discussed the project at length during their July 13, 2010 meeting.]

Bonnie Bona said she found the design to be less than what she’d expect for a gateway. She didn’t blame the architect, noting that Mitchell and Mouat had designed the Fourth and Washington parking structure, which had also been the most expensive one in the city to build. But don’t tell the public that it’s a gateway building if it’s just going to be designed as a parking structure, she said. The challenge is to really make it a gateway.

Eric Mahler also echoed comments about wanting to make it a gateway, and said he’d encourage a design that would “wow” people. Ann Arbor has the best combination of assets to make it a leader in the state in terms of job growth along this corridor, he said.

Fuller Road Station Deliberations: Land Use, Public Process

Stating that she wasn’t sure it was the purview of the planning commission, Erica Briggs expressed dismay over concerns that residents had raised during public commentary about the re-purposing of parkland. She said she hadn’t yet heard the issue addressed in a straightforward manner. It might be more compelling if the train station were being built, she said, but it’s not part of this initial phase. Briggs said it was useful to hear some of the historical context provided by the public commentary, including Eli Gallup’s vision for this area. There was never a public process for this project, she said, and that’s a concern.

Eli Cooper responded, saying that the deeds had been inspected by the city attorney’s office, and this is the first time he’s heard about any deed restrictions or covenants on the property. The land is zoned as public land, he said, and though it’s listed as parkland in the city’s master plan, it’s been a parking lot for nearly 20 years. The question of building on parkland is one for city council and the public, he added. For his part, Cooper said he’s done the best he could to ensure minimal intrusion, maintaining as small a footprint as they can. The issue of 3 acres versus 10 acres relates to the amount of land that’s included in stormwater management – most of the 10 acres will continue to be open space. Fuller Road Station itself is on 3.5 acres of land, he said.

Wendy Woods later followed up on the issue of deed restrictions, asking if commissioners could get copy of information from the city attorney’s office related to their research. It would be helpful, she said, because there’s a lot of concern about that. Cooper said he didn’t know why that wouldn’t be possible. [As of Friday, Sept. 24, commissioners had not yet received this information.]

Woods also asked about the question of whether alternative sites were explored. Cooper said the location of a major commuter rail is not a small undertaking. They needed a site that’s contiguous to the railroad tracks. They looked at the existing Amtrak station site, but needed more space for parking – at least 3 acres, he said – in order to support commuter rail. They needed access to major roadways, which Fuller Road provides. The current proposed site also gives them access to the region’s largest employment base, he said, and there’s development potential – the Lowertown site – within walking distance.

Kirk Westphal said he didn’t see citizen comments included in the meeting packet provided to commissioners. Jeff Kahan of the city planning staff responded that commissioners received an executive report of comments, and Cooper added that all questions and comments were recorded, reduced into a “professional format” and included in a citizen participation report. [The 5.7MB report is downloadable as a .pdf file from the city's Legistar system.]

Westphal clarified that the citizen participation ordinance requires the petitioner to respond to questions, in written form. Cooper said that the Fuller Road Station website includes a FAQ (frequently asked questions) document that addresses citizen questions. Westphal noted that if this were a project submitted by a private developer, the commission would expect to see answers to those questions submitted as part of the meeting packet.

The main stumbling block for approval, Westphal said, is that the citizen participation ordinance hasn’t been followed for this project.

Fuller Road Station Deliberations: Partnerships

Eric Mahler pointed out that there were other examples of the city partnering with the university – the Forrest Avenue parking structure was the most similar, he said. Eli Cooper and Jim Kosteva agreed, with Kosteva noting that the university and the city had an ongoing operating agreement for that structure as well. But there are numerous examples of the university partnering with the city and other local entities, Kosteva said. He cited the connector study that’s being paid for by UM, AATA and the city; the partnership between AATA and UM’s MRide bus system; and the fact that the city’s detective unit is being housed in university offices at no charge, while the new municipal center is being built.

Tony Derezinski clarified that it improved the city’s chances of getting federal funding if they could show collaboration among different entities. Cooper confirmed that view, saying that in addition to the university and AATA, the city was working with Greyhound, SEMCOG (the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) – up and down the chain of transportation entities, he said, there was a buzz about the potential of this project.

Fuller Road Station Deliberations: General Comments

Kirk Westphal clarified that the planning commission’s charge was to determine whether the site plan met the city’s project development standards. And because it’s zoned public land, there are no area, height and placement requirements to meet. Westphal asked Jeff Kahan whether the city’s various planning documents – the PROS plan, master plan, etc. – should be brought to bear. Master plan elements are not standards, Kahan said, but can be used to give guidance.

Erica Briggs said she was confused by the staff recommendation for approval, given the concerns related to parks and planning issues. Phase 1 of the project is contradictory to many of the city’s planning documents, she noted, though the future phase – when a commuter rail station is planned – would fit the city’s goals. Major elements in the process have been overlooked, and she couldn’t support it.

Bonnie Bona said she appreciated everyone who came to speak, and that she’d struggled with the same issues: How to have an exciting transit center, while at the same time protecting parks. She fully supports the master plan, which calls for this type of use at that location. She also supports putting parking there, rather than on Wall Street or Maiden Lane. Bona noted that while the university needs parking, it also does more than the city to encourage alternative transportation, which is positive. She said that the issue was more about the quality of parks, and she challenged city officials to improve the park system – in part by making pathway connections – and not just focus on acreage.

Evan Pratt noted that the project involves a controversial and difficult policy decision, with financial concerns, and issues of quality-of-life, sustainability and public process, among other things. The planning commission’s role is to determine if any of the development standards are deficient, he said – it’s the role of city council to decide policy. He said he doesn’t envy the next step in the process.

As a voter, Pratt said he guessed he had more faith in the city than some people. There’s been investment in the park system, he said, so he’s not suspicious that the council wants to gut the parks. He noted that millions of dollars are being invested in places like West Park and Mary Beth Doyle Park, and he believes there will be continued investment in the city’s parks. Pratt said he wanted to bring some balance to other comments that had been made that night.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 7-2 to approve the Fuller Road Station site plan, with dissent from Kirk Westphal and Erica Briggs. The plan will next be considered by city council.

Medical Marijuana Zoning

The issue of local regulation of medical marijuana first emerged publicly at the Aug. 5, 2010 meeting of the Ann Arbor city council, when councilmembers considered a resolution originally drafted by city attorney Stephen Postema to impose a temporary moratorium on the dispensing and growing of medical marijuana. The city council ultimately passed a modified version of the moratorium, with exemptions for patients and caregivers, a grandfathering-in of existing facilities in the city and a reduction in the length of the moratorium from 180 to 120 days. The moratorium ends Dec. 3.

The resolution passed by the council also directed the city staff and planning commission to look at possible zoning ordinance changes, with the intent of regulating medical marijuana in Ann Arbor. Since then, the city’s planning staff and the ordinance revisions committee of the planning commission have been developing recommendations to change the city’s zoning code. The changes would regulate medical marijuana dispensaries as well as marijuana grown by registered caregivers as a “home occupation.”

Though the city council did not discuss it publicly, the city attorney’s office is separately pursuing the possibility of licensing medical marijuana providers. [See Chronicle coverage: "Licensing or Zoning for Medical Marijuana?"]

In addition to work by the ordinance revisions committee, the planning commission discussed the topic at its Sept. 14 working session, where about a half-dozen advocates for medical marijuana – many of whom also attended Tuesday’s regular meeting – gave input on the proposed ordinance.

In its draft version, the main points of the ordinance address three issues: 1) types of facilities allowed, 2) location of facilities, and 3) enforcement. [.pdf file of draft zoning ordinance related to medical marijuana]

From the staff report:

Types of Facilities Allowed

Medical marijuana home occupations consist of one or two caregivers growing and/or transferring medical marijuana from a single-family dwelling in which they reside.

Medical marijuana dispensaries consist of three or more caregivers transferring medical marijuana to patients.

Medical marijuana cultivation facilities consist of three or more caregivers or eleven or more patients growing marijuana on a parcel.

A patient may grow plants as allowed by the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) in their dwelling. If eleven or more patients wish to grow medical marijuana together on a parcel other than where they reside, they are considered to be a cultivation facility.

Location of Facilities

Medical marijuana home occupations are allowed in a single-family dwelling in any zoning district, subject to limits on the floor area devoted to the home occupation and neighborhood impacts. Caregivers must deliver medical marijuana to their patients.

Medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities may not be located in residential, office or neighborhood commercial (C1) districts. Each is allowed in certain commercial, and industrial districts, and cultivation is also allowed in research districts. Neither is allowed within 200 feet of a residential zoning district, and they must be 500 feet from another dispensary or cultivation facility and 1000 feet from a primary or secondary school.

Enforcement

Zoning compliance permits are required annually for dispensaries, cultivation facilities, and home occupations.

Violations of the zoning ordinance are a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of up to $500 per instance.

Medical Marijuana: Public Hearing

Fifteen people spoke during public commentary that wrapped up around midnight – many more people attended the meeting but did not speak during the public hearing. All of the speakers supported medical marijuana, and applause from the crowd followed most of their comments. At one point, commissioner Bonnie Bona gently admonished the audience, saying that although she appreciated everyone’s passion on the topic, if someone present at the meeting had an opposing view, they’d likely find the applause intimidating.

Here’s a sampling of the comments:

Mark Curtis of Spring Arbor, Michigan, told planning commissioners they should be aware that the ordinance passed in Ann Arbor might be used as a model for other cities. In his household, there are four people who need medical marijuana – he, his wife and their two grown children. He had heard the city was thinking about limiting the number of people who can grow marijuana to two per home, as a “home occupation.” He cautioned that the four people who were growing it in his home weren’t doing it as an occupation – it was medication. There are serious side effects to most pain medication, but there aren’t side effects to medical marijuana, he said. So it’s logical to use marijuana instead of prescription drugs.

Gersh Avery of Dexter spoke at length about the liver damage caused by most opiate drugs – 1,800 people in Michigan die every year because of the side effects of pain medication. Medical marijuana is a viable alternative, he said. His remarks prompted Eric Mahler, the commission’s chair, to note that they’re not debating the benefits of medical marijuana. The comments that would be most helpful, he said, would be pertinent to the proposed ordinance or zoning related to medical marijuana.

Sam Mendez of Ann Arbor described himself as a patient and caregiver. He reviewed the proposal and said he found it very reasonable. He asked that the commission strongly consider grandfathering in existing facilities that don’t meet the ordinance requirements. The restrictions on home occupations are reasonable, he said, but it’s important to make clear the difference between 1) home occupations, where people grow medical marijuana for patients who don’t live there, and 2) patients who grow medical marijuana for themselves in their homes. Referencing the first speaker, he said that everyone who lives in the same home should be able to grow medical marijuana for themselves, assuming it’s not grown as a business.

Eric VanDussen of Traverse City, who was videotaping the proceedings, told commissioners that it was asinine for speakers to be required to state their home address. He pointed out that the meeting was being broadcast on live TV, and that many of the speakers were people who grew medical marijuana in their homes. This was information that the state didn’t even allow to be released, he noted.

Stating that he was in extraordinary pain, Chuck Ream noted that more than 79% of local voters had voted in favor of the 2008 statewide medical marijuana referendum, and that at a recent Ann Arbor city council meeting, the police chief had stated that there had been no problems related to it. He reminded the commission that the city of Ann Arbor had voted to impose only a $5 fine on marijuana possession in 1972, and had voted to allow medical marijuana under a charter amendment in 2004 – he wondered why there was no mention of that charter amendment in the staff report.

Ream said there’s no reason to keep dispensaries 200 feet from a residential area – he quipped that people who grow and sell medical marijuana don’t have cooties – they are helping people. There’s also no reason why dispensaries shouldn’t be allowed in C1 (office) zoning areas, he said, nor is there any reason to prevent dispensaries from being within 500 feet of each other. Ream also took issue with preventing caregivers from growing marijuana outdoors, saying it would save on fossil fuel. There’s no need for the section regulating home occupations at all, he said – it’s completely covered by state law. He disputed the section of the proposed ordinance that would require caregivers to get annual zoning permits – that’s fine for dispensaries, he said, but you can’t go into people’s homes.

Michael Meade said he’d been an Ann Arbor resident for 32 years, and shared the concerns of other speakers. The proposed ordinance was written too broadly, he said, and much of it was already covered by the state law. He objected to the use of the term “drug paraphernalia,” saying that it had a pejorative connotation.

Meade was one of several people who spoke about the restrictions on limiting dispensaries to 200 feet from residential areas and 500 feet from each other. He asked that the city not legislate based on fear or stereotype, and noted that tobacco and alcohol were more dangerous than cannabis, but there were no such restrictions on those businesses. Another speaker pointed out that no crime was being committed, so there was no rationale to restrict dispensaries from operating within 1,000 feet of a school.

Dennis Hayes, a local attorney, spoke on behalf of the Ann Arbor Medical Marijuana Patients Collective, which he said represents about 1,400 patients and caregivers. There are patients whose needs aren’t being met, he said. Zoning should facilitate the ability of caregivers to produce this medicine – it’s hard work, he noted – and facilitate access so that patients can have the widest variety of options to suit their medical needs. Neighborhoods aren’t being impacted, Hayes said – that’s an urban myth perpetuated by people who are neither caregivers nor patients, nor people who are interested in helping them. He urged commissioners to keep in mind the patients who have real needs and the caregivers who are working hard to meet those needs. Ann Arbor has been at the forefront of this issue in the past, he concluded, and he thinks they can develop a model ordinance for the state and the nation.

Brian Fenech identified himself as an Ann Arbor attorney and noted that the state medical marijuana law had too many gray areas – he urged commissioners to choose the ordinance language carefully. He echoed the sentiments about the negative connotation for the phrase “drug paraphernalia.” He said that while zoning restrictions were fine for pornographers or people selling tobacco and alcohol, when they’re talking about compassionate individuals who are attempting to provide medicine for those with serious debilitating conditions, perhaps some of these restrictions aren’t the best choice.

Liz Pierce pointed to the section that would require caregivers to deliver  marijuana to their patients, and said that she knows a number of patients who don’t feel comfortable disclosing their address to their caregiver. They should be allowed to pick it up from the caregiver.

Mark Passerini of Ann Arbor, founder of a local dispensary, reminded commissioners that this isn’t a medical issue, it is a health issue. Thousands of patients statewide need access to medical cannabis, he said, and the state law was written and passed to protect those patients. He asked them to grandfather in existing dispensaries, and to allow for different delivery methods – he noted that not all patients want to smoke.

Identifying himself as a long-time Ann Arbor resident, John Weston invited commissioners to interview patients and caregivers to get a better feel for what’s really going on. He sensed that they were bringing old-fashioned ideas to the table, and that they needed more information in order to make an accurate decision.

Medical Marijuana: Commissioner Deliberations

Commissioners took planning staff’s recommendation and voted unanimously to postpone action on the ordinance until their Oct. 5 meeting. After their vote, they continued discussion on the issue.

Erica Briggs questioned the restriction on odors for people in the category of “home occupations.” She said it seemed a little too much to regulate. Kirk Westphal also addressed the odor issue, and asked how someone would go about complaining if there were an odor problem. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff said complaints would be handled just like other zoning complaints related to noise or light. The city would literally have a planning staff member or a police officer go and stand at the property line. If they didn’t smell anything, then there’d be no zoning violation, she said.

Jean Carlberg asked how the city could get a list of current dispensaries and home occupations – they’d need such a list if they decided to grandfather in existing businesses, she noted. Thacher said the city doesn’t have a comprehensive list. Not everyone wants to be identified as having a medical marijuana operation, she said.

Wendy Woods noted that home occupations are limited to single-family homes. Does that mean people can’t grow medical marijuana if they live in an apartment? she asked. Thacher said that’s true if the caregiver is operating a home occupation and selling to patients. If someone grows medical marijuana for their own use, they can do that no matter where they live.

Bonnie Bona said it would be helpful to know which components of the proposed ordinance are consistent with other ordinances, and which parts are unique to this ordinance.

Briggs mentioned the concern that had been raised during public commentary about having people state their home address. She asked that in future public hearings, people be required only to say what city they live in.

Eric Mahler asked whether there was any state-level statute being considered related to this issue. He noted that the city had been moving to act on banning cell phone use while driving, but called off action because they didn’t want to duplicate efforts underway in Lansing. Thacher said there wasn’t anything pending in the immediate future regarding medical marijuana.

Woods asked how this ordinance would apply to university housing. She said she asked because she works with students. [Woods is associate director of the Michigan Community Scholars Program.] Thacher responded that the university isn’t regulated by the city’s zoning laws, so her sense is that it wouldn’t affect residence halls.

Diane Giannola asked whether it would be possible for landlords to impose restrictions on tenants regarding medical marijuana. Thacher said she thought so, based in part on her own experience with restrictive leases.

Outcome: Commissioners will continue their discussion and are expected to take action on the proposed zoning changes related to medical marijuana at their Oct. 5 meeting.

Arbor Dog Daycare

The owners of Arbor Dog Daycare requested an amendment to their existing special exception use that would allow the expansion of their business located at 2856 S. Main St., near the corner of Eisenhower. The proposal would have increased the firm’s square footage within an existing building from 3,200 square feet to a maximum of 8,800 square feet, extended the hours of operation and allowed a maximum of 125 dogs on site, with no more than 25 dogs outside at any one time.

The request had been initially considered at the planning commission’s Dec. 5, 2009 meeting but had been postponed, with the request that the owners address questions issues related to the noise and smell created by the dogs. The commission also asked that the owners hold additional neighborhood meetings; compare the proposed dog daycare standards with the standards of other animal shelter organizations; and provide a description and location of outdoor activities for dogs.

These requests were met, and the planning staff recommended that the amendment to the special exception use be approved.

Arbor Dog Daycare: Public Hearing

Four people spoke during the public hearing, including the two owners. A neighbor who lived on Oakbrook Drive in the nearby Balmoral Park condominium complex, north of Arbor Dog Daycare, said he supported small businesses and commended the efforts of the owners. But his condo is located closest to the outside dog run, and they already hear constant barking and yapping – it’s a real aggravation, he said. “To expand the operation means more barking,” he said, noting that it was a shame they couldn’t put the dog run to the south of the building.

Linda Coon spoke in support of the expansion, saying it was a service that a lot of people used. It was also important to note that when the firm’s capacity is increased, they’ll increase the number of employees, she said. That’s especially important in these economic times, she said, and she hoped the commission would approve the expansion.

Both of the owners – Margaret Svoboda and her husband Jon Svoboda – spoke during the public hearing. Margaret Svoboda said they’d talked to the neighbors and discussed the sound issues, as the commission had previously requested. She felt they had worked out most of the issues.

Jon Svoboda talked about the sound study they had commissioned, reporting that there were 25 dogs in the dog run when the study was done. On the parcel’s north property line, the study showed a one or two decibel increase when the dogs were outside, but if other ambient noise was present – from traffic, for example – then no noise increase was detected. He said they’d agreed with the Balmoral Park condo board to limit the number of dogs outside to 25 at any given time. They want to be good neighbors, he said, and to work through any issues that might arise.

Arbor Dog Daycare: Commissioner Deliberations

Jean Carlberg said she wasn’t convinced that the sound study had addressed what the neighbors are experiencing. Saying she loves dogs, she added that one yapping dog drives her crazy – she couldn’t imagine what 25 dogs would be like. She wondered if there would be any way to soundproof the dog run. Clearly there are neighbors in Balmoral who’ve been bothered by barking, she said. “I can’t ignore that.”

Jon Svoboda responded by saying that at times, there are dogs within the Balmoral complex that are barking. “It’s not all us,” he said. Svoboda said they’ve worked with their landlord and there really isn’t any other option for relocating the dog run. He said they’ve put in a solid wood six-foot-high fence, and they can’t go any higher than that.

Kirk Westphal said he was still struggling with the noise issue. They have to take it on faith from the neighbors that there’s barking coming from the business, and if so, that violates the zoning. Increasing the number of dogs would increase the shifts in the dog run, even if the total number outside at any given time was limited to 25. He wasn’t comfortable with that.

Bonnie Bona said she had the same struggle. She wanted to encourage businesses to grow and expand, and that the indoor expansion wasn’t a problem. Even if they were able to move the dog run, she didn’t think it would matter since there were residential developments on three sides. She didn’t see how she could approve it. Diane Giannola agreed, saying the concerns of the neighbors took precedence.

Margaret Svoboda clarified that there wouldn’t be more dogs outside than they currently have. She clarified for Wendy Woods that they’d be increasing the hours of operation by one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. Svoboda also noted that although the dogs bark, they don’t bark constantly. “I wouldn’t be able to keep employees if they did,” she said.

Carlberg asked what would happen to the business if they couldn’t use the outside dog run. Jon Svoboda indicated that it was part of their firm’s draw, so it’s important to have the ability to take the dogs outside. Margaret Svoboda added that when potential customers call, they ask whether the firm takes the dogs outside and they’re impressed by the amount of outdoor play time provided.

Bona clarified that if their request wasn’t granted, they’d still be able to operate their business as it currently stands.

Mahler said he was sensitive to neighbors’ concerns, but he noted that the president of the Balmoral Park condo association supported the expansion. The project seemed to have an equal number of supporters and detractors, Mahler said. Any requirement to do more than the owners have already done would be a hardship on them, he added. He also noted that the distance between the dog run and the street that separates the property from the condo complex is almost the length of a football field. In addition to that, there are three lanes of traffic. He said he was inclined to support the request.

Outcome: The special exception use requires six votes. Only four commissioners voted in favor of it, so the request was denied. Voting against the proposal were Jean Carlberg, Kirk Westphal, Bonnie Bona and Diane Giannola. Evan Pratt was absent.

Arbor Dog Daycare: Reconsideration

Commissioner Evan Pratt arrived at the meeting after the Arbor Dog Daycare proposal had been acted on. At the end of the meeting – at nearly 12:30 a.m. – Pratt requested that the commission reconsider the item, so that he could vote on the issue. Commissioners agreed, and voted unanimously to reopen the item for consideration.

Pratt asked whether anything had emerged during the deliberations he’d missed that wasn’t mentioned in the meeting packet of materials. Kirk Westphal said his concern was that there would be more shifts of dogs in the dog run during the day. Also, the business is already operating under a special exception use – it’s located in an area zoned for office use, he noted.

Eric Mahler said that no one objected to the expansion inside the building, but the outside dog run was an issue. The owners couldn’t relocate the dog run, and felt that they needed to have one because it gave them a competitive advantage.

Outcome: The second vote also failed to achieve the necessary six votes for approval, though it gained support from Evan Pratt as well as Eric Mahler, Tony Derezinski, Wendy Woods and Erica Briggs. Voting against it were Jean Carlberg, Kirk Westphal, Bonnie Bona and Diane Giannola.

Lake Trust Credit Union

Lake Trust Credit Union plans to construct a new building at the southeast corner of West Liberty and West Stadium Boulevard, and was seeking site plan approval at the Sept. 21 meeting. The project includes demolishing the existing structure and constructing a new one-story, 3,686-square-foot building. The planning staff recommended approval of the site plan. No one spoke during a public hearing on the proposal.

Lake Trust Credit Union: Commissioner Deliberations

Jean Carlberg began by noting that nothing in the report indicates why the current building must be removed. She said she’d hate to see it become a pattern – putting up cheap buildings only to tear them down after a few years.

A representative of BEI Associates, the Detroit firm that’s handling the project, said that credit union officials didn’t feel the current building could handle the volume of business they expected at that location.

Carlberg asked why they’d want to build at an intersecton that already had two banks. [A Bank of Ann Arbor branch is located on the northeast corner, and a KeyBank branch is on the northwest corner.] Denise Gately, the credit union’s vice president of corporate assets, said they wanted to compete and get their name in front of customers, and it was a great location to do that. She also assured commissioners that they wouldn’t be putting up a “throw-away” building. They were in Ann Arbor for the long-term, she said.

Wendy Woods asked whether they knew anything about the mostly vacant strip mall that was adjacent to the bank site – a CVS pharmacy was previously located there. Neither Gately nor the BEI representative had additional information. Woods noted that if the new bank building looks good, it could improve the condition of that entire area.

Bonnie Bona said that although the petition indicated there would be no detrimental effect on the environment, in fact the materials from the demolished building will go into a landfill – something that future generations would have to deal with. She asked if they were planning to do anything to mitigate that, such as recycling or reusing materials. The BEI representative said the building would be demolished to the city’s highest standard.

Outcome: The planning commission approved the credit union’s site plan, with dissenting votes from commissioners Bonnie Bona and Erica Briggs. The site plan will be forwarded to the city council for its approval.

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

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Oct. 5 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers of city hall, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]