Only five members of the nine-member Ann Arbor planning commission were present on July 15, so Wendy Woods was alone on her side of the table. She was later elected chair of the commission, and moved to a different seat to preside over the meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Developer Tom Fitzsimmons and his partners Peter Allen and Mark Berg were assured that the city council would be informed of the circumstances under which the vote was taken.

The plans call for 22 condos in two new structures and an existing building. The request is for approval of a site plan, development agreement and rezoning – from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface district). The PUD, which has expired, was for a larger development on that same site that was never built – Peter Allen’s Kingsley Lane.

The tallest building at 121 Kingsley West would be 58.4 feet high – just under the 60-foot height limit for D2 zoning.

In other action on July 15, commissioners elected new officers for the coming fiscal year, which began on July 1. Wendy Woods was unanimously elected to serve as the commission’s chair, replacing Kirk Westphal. She has served as vice chair for the past two years. Ken Clein, who has served as secretary, was elected vice chair, replacing Woods in that position. Westphal reported that Jeremy Peters had expressed interest in serving as secretary, though he did not attend the July 15 meeting. Peters was unanimously elected to that position. None of the officer elections were contested.

Planning commissioners also unanimously adopted a master plan resolution and list of resource documents used to support the master plan. This is part of an annual evaluation of the master plan that’s required by the commission’s bylaws. There are no significant changes. Separately, they voted to approve the FY 2015 work program, which planning manager Wendy Rampson characterized as ambitious.

121 Kingsley West

The July 15 agenda included a request to recommend rezoning of 121 W. Kingsley, as well as a site plan and development agreement for a 22-unit condo development called 121 Kingsley West.

Rendering of 121 Kingsley West project, looking south from Kingsley. The existing building is in the left foreground.

The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings above a common parking deck: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building on the south; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the west side of the site, at West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet.

The tallest building would have a height of 58.4 feet, which is slightly below the 60-foot maximum allowed in that zoning designation.

The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The site is surrounded by other D2-zoned parcels on the east, west and south sides. Across the street to the north, the land is zoned R4C, where mostly one- and two-story homes are located. To the west are also one- and two-story homes, though the land is now zoned D2. To the east, most of the homes along Main Street have been converted to offices. And to the south along Catherine and Ashley is a newer office building.

Developer Peter Allen.

Currently, the site includes a two-story brick building on the northeast corner, with a parking lot on the south half of the lot. The far northwest corner of the site, at Kingsley and Ashley, has never been built on, according to Jill Thacher, who gave the planning staff report.

One curbcut is proposed off of Kingsley, which would lead into the parking area between the buildings. There would be 29 “formal” parking spaces below the buildings – though only two spaces are required, based on residential premiums that the project is seeking. The premiums give the project additional floor area, compared to allowable by-right square footage. If premiums were not sought, no parking would be required for D2 zoning.

An elevator for each new building will be accessible from the parking level. The parking level of the east building will include a bike room with 14 spaces, plus three other bike spaces elsewhere in the garage.

Ten street trees will be planted along the Kingsley and Ashley front lot lines, and interior landscaping will be provided.

The developers are requesting that the city change the designation for the street frontage from “front yard,” which has a 15-foot minimum setback, to “secondary street,” which has a zero to 15-foot setback. The proposed new setbacks would be for a 7.35-foot setback on West Kingsley and an 8-foot setback on South Ashley.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff.

Thacher reported that the project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on March 19 and determined that it generally met the intent of the downtown design guidelines. The main objection from board members was their perception of a weak connection between the proposed design of the new building and the existing two-story building.

According to a staff report, the project’s development agreement will address “easements for encroachments onto the City right of way by the existing building, onsite stormwater management, verification of LEED points, six required footing drain disconnects, future façade alterations, and the contribution to Parks and Recreation Services.” [.pdf of staff report]

The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

Developers are Tom Fitzsimmons, Peter Allen and Mark Berg, who all attended the July 15 meeting. Fitzsimmons and architect Marc Rueter answered questions from commissioners.

The project is on the same site as a previously proposed project by Peter Allen called Kingsley Lane. That had been envisioned as a larger development with 46 units in a complex with two “towers” – at four and nine stories. According to a 2006 Ann Arbor News article, pre-sales of the units were slower than expected because of the struggling housing market, and ultimately financing fell through. Last year, at a July 9, 2013 planning commission work session, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the developers had lost the property to the bank, but subsequently secured the land and were expected to submit a new site plan. The PUD for Kingsley Lane had expired.

121 Kingsley West: Public Hearing

Two representatives of the developers were the only speakers during the public hearing. Tom Fitzsimmons said that he and his partners – Mark Berg and Peter Allen – were excited to bring new housing to the downtown area. Allen and Berg have been working on a plan since 2003, he noted. The Kingsley Lane project was a previously approved PUD, with mostly housing. It was 105 feet tall with nine stories, he said.

From left: Architect Marc Rueter and developer Tom Fitzsimmons.

Fitzsimmons pointed out that he’s done a lot of work in the near downtown area, in both R4 and D2 zoning districts. He thought this project was a good one, in terms of meeting the D2 zoning guidelines, and providing a design that transitions from the near-downtown neighborhoods to the downtown. He hoped the project would receive a recommendation of approval.

Architect Marc Rueter described the design concept. The first objective was to introduce the site to traffic coming off of Kingsley, with the parking almost completely hidden from view. One of the comments from the design review board was that there should be “a little more interest” from Kingsley, he said. At that time, there were fewer windows and no balconies on that side. Since then, the design has been revised to add more balconies and windows on the north side facing Kingsley. Also, some of the materials have been changed from brick to a very dark porcelain tile on the main building.

Rueter also pointed out that the trash dumpsters are completely enclosed in a garage that will be opened on trash day. The mechanical equipment is also completely concealed, he said.

One of the project’s objectives was to try to get as much pedestrian connection to the site as possible, Rueter explained. So there’s a small stairway and ramp coming off Kingsley, leading to a community area on the site. Pedestrians can also enter off Ashley, or off of the alley, which Rueter said would be a good place for pizza delivery, mail, and other service deliveries. All the pedestrian entrances come together in the center of the site, where there’s a fairly large community deck.

121 Kingsley West: Commission Discussion

Before beginning the discussion, Wendy Woods noted that because only five commissioners were present, it would not be possible to achieve the six votes necessary for a recommendation of approval. She characterized that outcome as a “technical denial,” and noted that the council would be aware of the circumstances.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Diane Giannola asked if the existing brick building is historic. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff replied that it was built in 1947, and isn’t located in an historic district. So it’s not considered historic.

Giannola then asked whether the units would be apartments or condominiums. Tom Fitzsimmons from the development team said they planned to market the units as condos. The old building will be converted into one condominium unit, although they’ll be flexible if there’s not the demand for that. He said the project has received a lot of interest from people who want to live downtown.

Kirk Westphal asked about floor-area ratio (FAR). FAR – a measure of density – is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.

The 121 Kingsley West project has a proposed 247% FAR. The maximum allowed by right is 200%, and the maximum with premiums is 400%. Thacher pointed out that the project doesn’t use all the available premiums – only the premiums given for residential development. Planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that it’s not possible to achieve 400% FAR using only the residential premiums.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Westphal noted that it would be possible to achieve a higher FAR, and also pointed out that the project has parking spaces far in excess of the requirements. He asked if the developer would like to comment.

Fitzsimmons replied that they’re designing a building to fit well within the scale of the area. Some of the constraints are the basic zoning guidelines of height, setbacks and other design aspects. They’re keeping the existing building on site, so the design is based around that. “We looked at the whole thing as a package,” he said. They are not trying to max out every possible square foot.

In developing condominiums, there are tradeoffs, Fitzsimmons said. They have to make sure there’s enough available parking, which isn’t as critical if you’re marketing apartments. It would be nice if everyone who lived downtown didn’t have cars, he added, “but that’s just not reality where we’re at.”

Building codes are another issue, he noted. That includes how the project deals with elevator access to the upper floors, and how the mezzanine level is handled. The top floor is really a mezzanine, he explained – covering one-third of the floor below it. That was done so that the top floor wouldn’t visually overwhelm the area, Fitzsimmons said. It’s similar to the Liberty Lofts building on the Old West Side, which also has many two-story homes on two sides.

So they’re not trying to maximize square footage, Fitzsimmons said, but rather they’re trying to do something appropriate within the existing constraints.

Westphal said he appreciated the effort to tuck away the parking.

Eleanore Adenekan clarified with Fitzsimmons that a condo association would be responsible for snow removal.

Developer Tom Fitzsimmons.

Responding to another query from Adenekan, Fitzsimmons explained that units will range between 1,100 and 2,400 square feet. Each condo will have either one or two spaces of dedicated parking, based on the size of the condo. Additional parking spaces will be available on the site. Fitzsimmons noted that Ashley has on-street parking, unlike his other development on North Main Street.

Ken Clein asked about the height. He noted that the zoning allows for streetwall height of two stories minimum and three stories maximum. The zoning comparison chart provided in the staff report lists the project’s streetwall height at three stories. But to him, the streetwall for the building along Ashley looked more like five stories.

Thacher explained that the zoning code has a provision that allows the streetwall height to be averaged. Rueter described it as “an extremely complex site, and zoning is usually written for flat sites.”

Zoning code allows a project to establish an average grade throughout the site by taking into account all the different grades on the site. Everything in the development that’s more than 50% lower than the average grade is considered a basement, he said. It doesn’t count as a story, in terms of calculating height. The building’s plinth establishes the grade line for the first story, he said.

Rueter further explained that the zoning requires a specific setback, but it also allows a project to average that setback. So that’s what this project is doing, he said. That allows them to slightly decrease the mass on the north and south sides.

Clein replied that it still seems like it’s four stories from the plinth – in the renderings, there are four sets of windows going up, he noted. Rampson further clarified that because it’s on a corner lot, they’re allowed to apply the streetwall setback – the setback that starts at the top of the building’s streetwall – to both the Ashley and Kingsley frontages. The developers chose to have no streetwall setback for a portion of the streetwall on Ashley. They’re applying that displaced setback on the Kingsley side, and elevating a portion of the building on the south side. The city’s code didn’t anticipate how to treat a corner lot, she said. Rampson acknowledged that it was hard to describe.

From left: Planning manager Wendy Rampson, and planning commissioners Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

Fitzsimmons noted that the code allows for some flexibility in how to do the setback. Rueter added that a uniform 5-foot setback is not necessarily the best way to utilize decks or public space, or to achieve a strong building facade.

Clein stressed that he liked the design, “but I’m imagining that neighbors or other people will look at that and say ‘That doesn’t look like a three-story wall to me.’”

Clein also clarified with staff that the LEED premiums would be “LEED equivalent” – that is, there’s no requirement that they must be officially LEED certified. Thacher noted that the development agreement will include plans for how to reach that equivalent status, and how they’ll prove it before building permits are issued. Rampson added that a registered LEED professional will have to sign off on it, and it’s intended to be an objective evaluation. The premiums are awarded for “energy and atmosphere” points, she explained, not just general LEED points.

As is his habit, Clein asked about the building materials that are proposed. Rueter replied that originally, the design called for brick on the lower level, to tie in with the existing building. But the design review board had suggested using a different material that would allow them to keep the existing building painted a dark green. So instead of stripping the paint off that building, they decided not to use brick on the other buildings, and instead chose a porcelain tile. Other materials include cementitious panel system, which would be painted a dark color, as well as a lighter-colored HardiPlank and corrugated steel.

Clein also clarified with staff that the stormwater management system will be detaining water underground until it infiltrates.

Wendy Woods said she liked the dark green color of the existing building, saying it reminded her of California. Rueter said the color scheme is taken from Aubrey’s and Sidetrack in Ypsilanti’s Depot Town.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning, site plan and development agreement. However, only five commissioners were present, so it failed to achieve the six votes needed for a recommendation of approval. It will be forwarded to the city council with a recommendation of denial, with an explanation of the attendance.

Officer Elections, Bylaws

The July 15 agenda included organizational items for the new fiscal year, which began July 1. The commission holds officer elections at this time each year. This was the first major item on the agenda.

The elections were held according to the commission’s bylaws:

Section 6. The election of officers shall be held at the first regular meeting in July, provided that if that meeting should occur on July 1, the election of officers shall be held at the next regular meeting.

Section 7. Nominations of officers shall be made from the floor, and the election shall be held immediately thereafter. Voting shall be by secret ballot when more than one candidate has been nominated for the office. If only one candidate has been nominated for the office, the election may proceed on a voice vote at the discretion of the Chair.

Section 8. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire membership of the Commission shall be declared elected and shall serve a term of one (1) year or until the candidate’s successor shall take office.

Kirk Westphal, who has chaired the commission for the past two years, presided over the meeting until the new chair was elected.

Kirk Westphal cast a vote during the July 15 meeting. He presided over the early part of the meeting as chair until Wendy Woods was elected to that position. Westphal is running for Ann Arbor city council in the Ward 2 Democratic primary against Nancy Kaplan.

Wendy Woods was nominated as chair. She has served as vice chair for the past two years. There were no other nominations.

Outcome: On a voice vote, Woods was unanimously elected chair, with no competing nominations.

Westphal and Woods switched seats, and Woods presided over the remainder of the meeting.

Ken Clein, who has served as secretary, was nominated as vice chair, to replace Woods in that position.

Westphal reported that Jeremy Peters had expressed interest in serving as secretary, though he did not attend the July 15 meeting. None of the officer elections were contested.

These three positions make up the commission’s executive committee.

Outcome: In separate voice votes, Clein and Peters were elected as vice chair and secretary, respectively.

This is also the time of year when the commission’s bylaws are reviewed. Planning manager Wendy Rampson introduced staff recommendations for changes to the bylaws, which had also been discussed at a July 8 working session. She noted that when revisions to bylaws are being considered, the commission must provide notice at a meeting before that potential action.

Planning commissioners had originally adopted revisions to their bylaws at a Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. Those changes related to two issues: how city councilmembers interact with the commission; and public hearings.

Revisions to bylaws require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office did not forward the Feb. 20 changes to the council for consideration. There was no action until earlier this month, when assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald provided suggested revisions to the bylaws related to public hearings. Those were the changes that were presented to commissioners at their July 8 working session, and again at their July 15 regular meeting. [.pdf of revised bylaws regarding public hearings] [.pdf of bylaws staff memo]

The main changes are in Article VIII Section 5 [deletions in strike-thru, additions in bold]:

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another date. meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original. If a public hearing is continued, individuals who have not previously addressed the Commission during the public hearing may address the Commission following the requirements of Section 3. Individuals who have addressed the Commission previously during the public hearing may only address the Commission for additional time (as limited by Section 3) during the continued public hearing if the Chair, with the consultation of Planning and Development Services staff, determines that: 1) additional public feedback is necessary, or 2) a specific petition has materially changed since the date of the original public hearing date. Agendas for continued public hearings shall specify whether members of the public shall be granted additional time to speak.

There were no changes suggested for the revisions that were passed by planning commissioners on Feb. 20 related to interactions with city councilmembers. That revised section states:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.

Kirk Westphal asked for clarification of the process. Rampson explained that after commissioners discuss these revisions at their next meeting, if they adopt the changes then it will be forwarded to the council for consideration. The bylaws must be approved by the council before taking effect.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. The bylaws revisions will likely appear on the Aug. 6 planning commission agenda.

Master Plan Review

The July 15 agenda included a review of the city’s master plan and list of resource documents used to support the master plan. This is part of an annual evaluation of the master plan that’s required by the commission’s bylaws. No significant changes were proposed. [.pdf of master plan resolution]

From left: Planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein and Diane Giannola.

Seven documents constitute the city’s master plan: (1) sustainability framework, adopted in 2013; (2) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, as adopted in 2011; (3) land use element, as adopted in 2013 to add the South State corridor plan; (4) downtown plan, as adopted in 2009; (5) transportation plan update, as adopted in 2009; (6) non-motorized transportation plan, adopted in 2007; and (7) natural features master plan, adopted in 2004.

On July 15, the commissions were also asked to adopt a revised list of resource documents, with two new additions: (1) the climate action plan; and (2) the North Main/Huron River corridor vision report, which replaces the 1988 North Main Street corridor land use plan. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that commissioners had discussed making these additions at earlier meetings.

Commissioners had held a public hearing on a master plan update at their May 6, 2014 meeting, as part of this annual review process. Only one person – Changming Fan – spoke during the hearing, asking the commission to include his company’s technology in the master plan. The hearing continued on July 15, but no one spoke.

According to a staff report, in FY 2015 – which began on July 1, 2014 – the planning staff and commission will work to update the master plan in the following ways: (1) incorporating a right-of-way plan for Washtenaw Avenue; (2) developing a greenway plan for Allen Creek; and (3) revising the future land use recommendations for the North Main/Huron River corridor. They also will assist the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in creating a streetscape framework plan and help city staff identify a locally preferred alternative for the connector high-capacity transit route.

Discussion was brief. Kirk Westphal asked about the sustainability framework action plan, and whether that would eventually become a resource document. Rampson replied that city staff had discussed using it internally as a way to organize the work of various commissions and staff, and to gauge how that work relates to achieving the sustainability goals. “I think it’s more of a communication tool,” she said. However, if the planning commission at some point feels that it’s important to include in the master plan’s resource documents, that would be an option.

Westphal characterized it as a work plan for all the commissions, in a way.

Ken Clein asked where the Reimagine Washtenaw initiative would fit. Rampson replied that a recently competed study of that corridor had recommended a right-of-way plan in order to implement the Complete Streets approach along Washtenaw Avenue. [.pdf of right-of-way study] One possibility would be to adopt a future right-of-way line, she explained, that could eventually allow for a bike lane or a high-capacity transit lane. It would set a mark from which building setbacks would be measured. So it’s listed as a future possibility for the master plan, she noted, as an amendment to the land use element or transportation plan.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the master plan resolution and update to the resource document list.

Annual Work Program

Commissioners were asked to approve the FY 2015 work plan. [.pdf of FY 2015 work plan]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

“This is your To Do list for the next year,” planning manager Wendy Rampson said. “It’s very ambitious.”

In addition to items that are related to the master plan, Rampson highlighted the affordable housing needs study, and the work of the affordable housing subcommittee. That group includes planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Eleanore Adenekan, as well as members of the city’s housing & human services advisory board and staff of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development (OCED). The needs study includes a survey that OCED is currently undertaking.

The work plan also consists of the capital improvements plan (CIP) review, which will begin this fall, as well as several ordinance revisions:

• A2D2 downtown zoning amendments: Completion target – December 2014.
• Citizen participation ordinance evaluation and amendments: Completion target – January 2015.
• Zoning ordinance re-organization (ZORO) amendments: Completion target – January 2015.
• Redevelopment Ready certification: Completion target – November 2014.
• R4C-R2A zoning amendments: Completion target – March 2015.
• Floodplain ordinance/flood insurance impacts: Completion target – March 2015.
• Accessory apartments/affordable housing amendments: Completion target – TBD.

Rampson reported that in terms of staff work load, most of the numbers had increased – for work like development reviews and site compliance activity, among other things. [.pdf of FY 2014 work plan update]

Ken Clein noted that while this work plan is a blueprint, it also depends on work flow coming into the city for developments and other projects, which would take top priority for planning staff. “So petitioners out there shouldn’t be afraid that we’re going to ignore [their projects] because we’ve got all these other great things to work on, and the community shouldn’t be afraid that if there aren’t petitions, there won’t be enough work for staff to do,” he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously adopted the work program.

Betke Annexation & Zoning

The July 17 agenda included a request to annex an 0.09-acre strip of land from Ann Arbor Township and to zone it as R1A (single-family residential).

Aerial view of 2562 Newport. The dark strip is the parcel to be annexed.

The property is attached to 2562 Newport, which was annexed into the city in August of 2011. The vacant strip – 12 feet wide and 330 feet long – was inadvertently omitted in that original annexation. It’s necessary to annex now in order to clear the title so that the property can be sold.

According to a staff report, there are no plans to build anything on this strip. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff characterized the action as “cleaning up and adding this strange little panhandle onto the main parcel.”

Thacher noted that the parcel doesn’t reach Warrington Drive, and would never be used as a driveway. At one point there was a well on this strip, but now the site uses city services and the well has been removed.

The current owners are Erik and Alicia Majcher. The petitioner is Michael Betke. No one spoke during a public hearing on the item, and there was no discussion among commissioners.

Outcome: The rezoning and annexation were unanimously recommended for approval. The item will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners. No one spoke during either of the opportunities for general public commentary. Here are other highlights from July 15.

At a July 8, 2014 Ann Arbor planning commission work session, architect Robb Burroughs showed concept designs for a Toll Brothers residential development along Nixon Road.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager Update

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that there had been a citizen participation meeting about a proposed development along Nixon Road – a residential complex by the Toll Brothers. It was very well attended, with over 200 people, she said – making it the largest citizen participation meeting since the ordinance was adopted. She wasn’t sure when the project would be submitted to the city. [Representatives of the Toll Brothers had attended the commission's July 8 working session to present a "concept plan" for the project.]

Rampson also noted that the Ann Arbor housing commission has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, south of Packard – so they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. The city council’s July 21 meeting includes an item authorizing the purchase of property at 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the housing commission. That property is adjacent to the existing AAHC site, and would be used for the expanded project.

Rampson clarified that this is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is be considered for affordable housing.

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

Ken Clein, who represents the planning commission on the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, reported that the DDA held another advisory committee meeting for the streetscape framework project on July 8. Committee members met with consultants hired by the DDA to figure out how to proceed. There will be a public forum on the project sometime in September. [The DDA board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.]

Clein said the goal is to complete the project by the end of this calendar year, and to report out in early 2015.

Communications & Commentary: Ordinance Revisions Committee

Kirk Westphal reported that the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) had met prior to the commission’s regular meeting on July 15. They discussed parcels along Huron Street, and are looking at changing height maximums as well as ways of addressing the shape of buildings. This is the next step in a process, based on a city council directive, to review and recommend zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved a set of recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Implementation of ordinance changes related to those recommendations began with a vote at the commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting to rezone a large parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William – at 425 S. Main – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface), a lower-density zoning. The commission also recommended adding new requirements to the Main Street character district, where 425 S. Main is located. At that May 6 meeting, they voted 6-3 to recommend changes that include setting a maximum height of 100 feet for properties in that district that are zoned D2, and requiring upper story stepbacks from any residential property lines. That maximum was 40 feet taller than the 60-foot height limit specified for D2 zoning elsewhere in the downtown.

However, when the changes were forwarded to city council for consideration, the council amended the height down to 60 feet. Councilmembers gave initial approval of that amended version on June 16, 2014. The item is on the council’s July 21 agenda for final approval.

Communications & Commentary: Resolution of Appreciation

Because only five commissioners on the nine-member entity were present, planning manager Wendy Rampson suggested deferring action on a resolution of appreciation for outgoing member Paras Parekh, who is resigning to move to Chicago.

His replacement will be nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. Application forms are available on the city’s website.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters.

Next meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Rendering of 121 Kingsley West project, looking south from Kingsley. The existing building is in the left foreground.

The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

Developers are Tom Fitzsimmons, Peter Allen and Mark Berg, who all attended the July 15 meeting. Fitzsimmons and architect Marc Rueter answered questions from commissioners.

There would be 29 parking spaces below the buildings – though only two spaces are required, based on residential premiums that the project is seeking. The premiums give the project additional floor area, compare to what’s allowed by right. An elevator for each building will be accessible from the parking level. The parking level of the east building will include a bike room with 14 spaces.

According to a staff report, the project’s development agreement will address “easements for encroachments onto the City right of way by the existing building, onsite stormwater management, verification of LEED points, six required footing drain disconnects, future façade alterations, and the contribution to Parks and Recreation Services.” [.pdf of staff report]

Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, site plan and development agreement. However, only five commissioners on the nine-member body were present, and the commission’s bylaws stipulate that approval requires six votes. So the project will be heading to city council for consideration with a recommendation of denial from the commission. Wendy Woods, who was elected chair earlier in the meeting, assured the developers that city council would be informed that the project secured unanimous support from all commissioners who were present.

The project is on the same site as a previously proposed project by Peter Allen called Kingsley Lane. That had been envisioned as a larger development with 46 units in a complex with two “towers” – at four and nine stories. According to a 2006 Ann Arbor News article, pre-sales of the units were slower than expected because of the struggling housing market, and ultimately financing fell through. At a July 9, 2013 planning commission work session, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the developers had lost the property to the bank, but subsequently secured the land and were expected to submit a new site plan. The PUD for Kingsley Lane had expired.

This brief was filed from the council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron, where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow.

The surface of the Library Lane parking structure is highlighted in yellow.

Direction from the city council to Powers – to engage a broker for the development rights on top of the Library Lane underground parking parking garage – initially came at the council’s March 17, 2014 meeting. That was an 8-1 vote, with dissent from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Absent was Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Margie Teall (Ward 4) departed late in the meeting but before the vote.

However, the resolution was reconsidered at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting – with the same outcome, but a different vote tally. The vote on April 7 was 7-4, with dissent from Kailasapathy, Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who’d sponsored the resolution, nonetheless asked the council to reconsider it. He made it clear that he was bringing back the resolution for reconsideration to highlight why he had wanted the property listed for sale: He wanted definitive answers on the question of how many of the Library Lane structure parking spaces could be dedicated for private use – while still meeting the restrictions of the Build America Bonds used to finance the structure.

A partial answer to some of Kunselman’s questions came when the council voted on March 17, 2014 to waive attorney-client privilege on a memo written by outside bond counsel. [.pdf of Aug. 9, 2012 Dykema memo]

Other recent council action on Library Lane includes a resolution to allocate 50% of the proceeds of the sale of the development rights to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. That resolution was approved at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting. Also on April 7, the council re-settled a previously decided issue, and passed a resolution that would reserve a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface for an urban plaza/park.

The message from the city administrator announcing the selection of CBRE cites the broker’s extensive experience in community engagement and clients that include cities, counties, universities and states. CBRE’s international, national, and regional experience is also cited in the administrator’s message. Next steps will include city staff working with CBRE  on development of  the community engagement plan, competitive disposition process, and marketing of the property, Powers wrote.

This is the second time in the past year that the city has hired a broker to explore the sale of city-owned property. A year ago, Powers selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale of the former YMCA lot, located at the corner of Fifth and William in downtown Ann Arbor – near the Library Lane site. On Nov. 18, 2013, the city council approved the sale of that site – a parcel north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues – to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million. Of that sale, the city council voted to deposit $1.4 million into the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund.

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The proposal calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron includes a Greyhound bus depot and a one-story building that houses the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. Both of those buildings will be demolished. The bus depot facade will remain in place as part of the new building’s design. [.pdf of staff report]

The main hotel entrance is proposed for the building’s west side, facing North Ashley, while the main entrance for the restaurant or retail space is proposed to face West Huron, on the building’s south side. The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the downtown. According to the staff memo, five off-street parking spaces are required.

First Martin has secured a letter of commitment from Zipcar, a car-sharing service, for two vehicles. Parking spaces for those cars are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. For purposes of the city’s parking requirement, the two Zipcars would count as eight off-street parking spaces, and would satisfy the requirement. The two existing curbcuts – on North Ashley and West Huron – will be closed, and access to the two parking spaces, loading dock and trash/recycling would be from the mid-block alley to the north. The alley is currently one-way, and will be converted to a two-way alley and repaved.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron, looking north. One North Main is the building on the right. The city’s Ann Ashley parking structure is visible in the background.

Streetscape changes will include curb bump-outs on North Ashley, on the north and south ends of the site for passenger drop-off. Nine bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, and would include two bike hoops in the North Ashley right-of-way and two in the West Huron right-of-way, for a total of eight bike spaces. Three more hoops are proposed for the Ann Ashley parking structure, with First Martin paying for labor and materials. The city of Ann Arbor and Downtown Development Authority would assume responsibility for maintenance of those hoops.

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million. In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the Greyhound bus depot has been at that location since 1940, and the site has been a transportation hub since 1898.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The development of the policy was spurred by a request from First Martin Corp., which has asked the DDA to support its extended-stay hotel project at the corner of Ashley and Huron streets.

Highlights of the policy include a limit on the amount, keyed to the amount of tax increment finance (TIF) revenue the project will generate: “… calculated to be between 1% and 25% of the ten year TIF captured by the DDA from this project, with these funds to be directed to the cost of the public improvements agreed to by the DDA.”

Criteria for awarding grants include:

1. Addresses a documented gap in the marketplace or underserved markets of commerce within this sector of downtown.
2. Demonstrated that the project will act as a catalyst for additional revitalization of the area in which it is located which will trigger the creation of additional new tax revenue.
3. Is “connected” to the adjacent sidewalk with uses on the first floor that are showcased using large transparent windows and doorways to give pedestrians a point of interest to look at as they walk by the project.
4. Creates a large office floor plate.
5. Will facilitate the creation of a large number of new permanent jobs.
6. Is a mixed use development, that will encourage activity in the daytime, evening, and weekend, such as a development with a mix of commercial and residential.
7. Adds to downtown’s residential density.
8. Reuses vacant buildings, reuses historical buildings, and/or redevelops blighted property.
9. Number of affordable housing units created on site or funded by the project elsewhere in the community, which are beyond what is required by the city.
10. Environmental design is at or above a Gold LEED certification, or an equivalent environmental assessment.
11. Architecturally significant building or project design.
12. Strengthens Ann Arbor’s national visibility.

The grant policy adopted on June 4 is similar to but distinct from a policy the board adopted at its June 6, 2012 meeting to cover brownfield grants – a policy that was spurred by the 618 S. Main project. [.pdf of brownfield policy]

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Proposed facade of Ruth’s Chris Steak House at 314 S. Fourth Ave.

The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report on Ruth's Chris site plan]

There was no discussion on this item at the council meeting. Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. The architect also indicated that the restaurant will be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building.

This will be the first Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Ann Arbor. The chain is based in Florida, with locations nationwide.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

Mike Martin of First Martin Corp. answered questions from planning commissioners at their May 20, 2014 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Issues included blocked views, noise from rooftop mechanicals, and problems with egress from One North Main’s underground parking. But even people who raised these concerns applauded the project, saying a hotel there would help bring vitality to that part of town. The site on the northeast corner, owned by First Martin Corp., now includes a building that houses the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau and the bus depot for Greyhound, which will be relocating next month to the city’s Fourth & William parking structure.

First Martin’s proposal includes a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space facing Huron and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels, with an entrance off of Ashley. The hotel will be operated by Marriott. The bus depot facade – including an iconic art moderne sign – will remain in place.

The project will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Also heading to the council with a recommendation of approval is an expansion of the Bank of Ann Arbor’s downtown building at the northeast corner South Fifth and East Washington. The plan involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of the bank’s South Fifth Avenue side to the corner of Fifth and Washington. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side.

The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side, which will not be altered. The site’s D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission granted in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval.

Commissioners amended the special exception use to limit the drive-thru to a financial institution, so that it can’t be used in the future for other businesses – like a pharmacy or fast food restaurant. That amendment, put forward by Sabra Briere, was approved on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Briere also proposed an amendment that would restrict the hours that the drive-thru could be open. The concern was that vehicles pulling out from the drive-thru onto Fifth Avenue could cause a threat to pedestrians and bicyclists in the evening. But after discussion – including some comments from Hans Maier, a senior executive for the bank – Briere withdrew that amendment.

Two other special exception use requests were granted during the May 20 meeting – from companies selling seasonal Class C fireworks for the July 4 holiday. Phantom Fireworks will be putting up a tent in the parking lot of the Maple Village Shopping Center, across from Veterans Memorial Park. In previous years the business operated in the parking lot of Colonial Lanes on South Industrial. Patriot Fireworks will be selling fireworks in the parking lot of the Twin Valley shopping center at 2750 Jackson Ave., west of the I-94 overpass. Both special exception uses were amended to limit the sales to fireworks only – not other seasonal items – and to put specific limits on the days of operation.

One item was postponed by commissioners on May 20 – a site plan for Mark Condominiums on West Liberty, brought forward by developer Alex de Parry. The postponement was based on a recommendation from the planning staff, to allow time for a public water system issue to be addressed. City staff determined that the six-inch water main along Liberty needs to be replaced with a 12-inch main. De Parry told commissioners that the development team had just recently been informed about this issue, and they are now analyzing the budget impact and alternatives they might pursue.

Downtown Hotel

The site plan and development agreement for a new downtown hotel at the northeast corner of North Ashley and West Huron were on the May 20 agenda.

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The proposal brought forward by First Martin Corp. calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron includes a Greyhound bus depot and a one-story building that houses the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. Both of those buildings will be demolished. The bus depot facade will remain in place as part of the new building’s design. [.pdf of staff report]

The main hotel entrance is proposed for the building’s west side, facing North Ashley, while the main entrance for the restaurant or retail space is proposed to face West Huron, on the building’s south side. The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the downtown. According to the staff memo, five off-street parking spaces are required. First Martin has secured a letter of commitment from Zipcar, a car-sharing service, for two vehicles. Parking spaces for those cars are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. For purposes of the city’s parking requirement, the two Zipcars would count as eight off-street parking spaces, and would satisfy the requirement.

The two existing curbcuts – on North Ashley and West Huron – will be closed, and access to the two parking spaces, loading dock and trash/recycling would be from the mid-block alley to the north. The alley is currently one-way, and will be converted to a two-way alley and repaved.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron, looking north. One North Main is the building on the right. The city’s Ann Ashley parking structure is visible in the background.

Streetscape changes will include curb bump-outs on North Ashley, on the north and south ends of the site for passenger drop-off.

Nine bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, and would include two bike hoops in the North Ashley right-of-way and two in the West Huron right-of-way, for a total of eight bike spaces. Three more hoops are proposed for the Ann Ashley parking structure, with First Martin paying for labor and materials. The city of Ann Arbor and Downtown Development Authority would assume responsibility for maintenance of those hoops. The installation of hoops in the city’s right-of-way will require city council approval. The planning commission was asked to make a recommendation on that as well.

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million.

In giving the staff report, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the Greyhound bus depot has been at that location since 1940, and the site has been a transportation hub since 1898.

Downtown Hotel: Public Hearing

Four people spoke during the public hearing about this project. Changmin Fan told commissioners that Ann Arbor is expanding, and he was impressed by the proposed hotel. But there are also challenges. The city needs to consider how to maintain a dynamic downtown, he said.

This hand-drawn alternative site plan proposed by Todd Sachse representing One North Main was passed out at the May 20 planning commission meeting.

Todd Sachse represented One North Main, the office and residential building east of the hotel site, on the northwest corner of Main and Huron. They were happy to see a development on that site and the hotel will be a great contribution to downtown, he said. However, the current design will block about half of the windows on the west side for the commercial condominiums. So he proposed an alternative plan that would shift the building about 12-15 feet to the west, and extend the building to the north. To do this, it would require cooperation from the city and from First Martin. The alternative plan would result in the same amount of square footage and rooms, Sachse said. He thought that if the city cooperated quickly, it could be accomplished in a way that would be a win-win-win for the new development, the city, and One North Main.

Stephen Ranzini introduced himself as a resident of One North Main and president of University Bank. He thanked First Martin for proposing a hotel on this site, saying it’s an excellent building. He cautioned against doing anything that would damage the value of the adjacent property, however.

In addition to the issues Sachse had mentioned, Ranzini warned against noise generated by mechanical systems on top of the hotel. There needs to be baffling of air-conditioning systems and elevators, he said. Residents on the upper floors of One North Main, on the west side, enjoy the amenity of their outdoor balconies, he noted. If the noise from the hotel is loud, that would be damaging. Ranzini criticized the city for ignoring noise coming from the top of the nearby KeyBank building. “This is a good example of bad planning leading to persistent bad results, right?”

Todd Sachse.

Another issue is the exit from the underground parking at One North Main, Ranzini said. It’s very valuable to have parking underneath your downtown building, he noted – each resident has two spaces. But people illegally block egress, he said, and there’s concern that the hotel will exacerbate that situation. It’s important to preserve the value of existing investments, he said, while new investments come in. He also complained about the signs on the Ann Ashley public parking structure, saying that they’re inadequate to indicate entry and egress.

Richard Broder spoke on behalf of the One North Main condominium association, which includes both residential and commercial condos. He thought the hotel proposal was right for the community, but he shared concerns of previous speakers. He hoped planning commissioners would consider issues related to the back alley and the separation of the buildings.

Downtown Hotel: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere asked First Martin Corp. representatives – Mike Martin and Darren McKinnon – to answer some questions about the concerns raised during public commentary by residents of One North Main. What’s been done in the design phase to address those concerns?

Martin replied that the design team has met with representatives of both the residential and commercial condo associations. Prior to submitting the hotel proposal, Martin said they worked with the city to make two-way access and egress off of the Ann Street alley. Having more ways to get into and out of that area is important, he said. One problem in the past has been dumpsters, he noted. They’ve worked with city staff and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development to potentially designate some parking spaces for delivery vehicles. Martin said they share concerns about having a functional alley, so they’re working to improve the circulation and plan to enforce “good parking behavior.”

Briere was also interested in the issue of noise from rooftop mechanicals. What has the hotel design done to baffle sound?

McKinnon replied, saying they’d talked to Ranzini about this issue. They brought an acoustic consultant on board as part of the design team, and there will be screening on the roof for both visuals and sound, he said. They’re making every effort to limit the impact, he said. Martin added that each hotel room has VTAC (vertical terminal air conditioning) units. Because there’s not a central system, the amount of equipment on the roof will be greatly reduced, he said.

Briere asked the staff if the city has looked into dedicating two of the metered spaces in the city-owned Ann Ashley parking lot for delivery. Not yet, Alexis DiLeo replied, but that’s something that could be explored. Responding to another query from Briere, DiLeo indicated that other issues related to the midblock alleys, including better directional signs from the parking area, could be discussed. Martin noted that First Martin has contributed to the cost of installing a security camera so that Republic Parking, which manages the city’s parking system on behalf of the DDA, can monitor the area.

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff.

These issues are moving in a positive direction, Briere said. Her biggest concern is that as new buildings are added, there are all these other “moving pieces” that need to be considered. She referred to additional issues raised in an email from Kathy and Angelos Constantinides, who are One North Main residents. [.pdf of Constantinides email]

Kirk Westphal asked staff to describe what’s allowed, in terms of noise and air rights. He also asked for an explanation about the building separation issue, noting that sometimes people wonder why some projects have a blank wall with no windows – it’s because another building could be constructed right next to it, he said.

Regarding building separation, DiLeo explained that the One North Main project was a planned unit development (PUD). When it was built, it received a variance from the city’s building board of appeals to have windows on its west facade at the property line. Normally, windows are either prohibited or the size is greatly reduced because of issues like fire penetration and the fact that an adjacent building could also be built up to the property line. DiLeo was under the impression that the variance indicated the windows would need to be closed if another building was constructed adjacent to it. “So they enjoyed 30 or 40 years of windows,” she said.

Regarding noise, the city code is a bit antiquated in terms of noise decibel level, DiLeo said. It worked well when there were no residents downtown, but now it doesn’t seem to adequately address noise for residents. The staff has worked with the developer to voluntarily include noise buffers and other design aspects that minimize noise, she said.

Diane Giannola asked where the mechanicals would be located, in relation to One North Main residents. McKinnon replied that air-conditioning compressors are notoriously the loudest mechanical systems. “There’s none of that on the roof whatsoever,” he said. Most of the rooftop equipment will be for ventilation of the hotel’s public corridors.

Diane Giannola.

Martin added that there are two floors of vertical separation between the hotel rooftop and the residential floors of One North Main. The hotel is six stories, and residential units of One North Main begin on the eighth floor. From the audience, Ranzini said: “The noise goes up.” That’s a valid point, Martin replied, but it’s a couple of floors down and also offset from the property line. Martin hoped that the design and less noisy new equipment “would win the day” in terms of reducing noise.

Giannola asked if the window units would make noise. McKinnon replied that when the units are on, it makes about as much noise as the compressor of a home air-conditioning unit. They don’t run all at once, he noted.

Ken Clein pointed to a relevant section in the development agreement, which states: “(P-11) To design, construct, repair and maintain this development in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 119 (Noise Control) to ensure that any noise emanating from said development will not impact nearby residents or businesses. In addition, PROPRIETOR shall review existing noise sources surrounding said development and incorporate necessary design and construction techniques to ensure that future tenants will not be exposed to noise sources in violation of Chapter 119.”

Westphal asked staff to explain who residents can contact if construction noise becomes a problem. DiLeo said she can give contact info to the One North Main condo associations. Typically, the responsibility for enforcing issues related to construction fall to the city’s building department or the police department’s community standards unit.

Clein asked about the at-grade pedestrian passageway between One North Main and the hotel site, leading back to the parking area. He knew it wasn’t First Martin’s responsibility, but wondered if they planned to enhance it in any way. Martin replied that there will be some lighting and landscaping, to give it a “softer edge.” He also thought that having more people in that area would help that entire corridor.

Responding to another query from Clein, Martin said they don’t yet have a tenant identified for the retail/restaurant space.

Wendy Woods asked about the car-sharing service. Martin explained that the Zipcars would be available to anyone who had a membership with that company – it wasn’t just limited to hotel guests. The hope would be that someone could take the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s AirRide from the Detroit Metro airport to Ann Arbor, then use Zipcar to get around town.

Eleanore Adenekan.

Westphal asked how comfortable Martin was that the space fronting Huron would be leased to a retailer or restaurant. He was very confident, Martin replied. They’ve had some conversations with local restauranteurs, and have signed up with a commercial brokerage to show it. Early indications are very positive, he said, but they haven’t signed anyone up yet. Martin said he expected they’d end up with a restaurant there that would complement the hotel.

Westphal asked if that’s something that First Martin would be willing to include in the development agreement – a commitment to restaurant or retail uses? Martin indicated they’d be willing to talk about that. The ground floor of the hotel will be an extremely active use, he noted. However, he’d like to have as much flexibility as possible in the development agreement. Twenty years ago, no one would have said that a brokerage firm would be an active retail use, he noted, but now it is.

Westphal clarified that he didn’t want to see office or any kind of financial use there, which elicited a laugh from other commissioners. [Westphal has been vocal about how banks and other financial institutions with storefronts create dead space along a street.]

Jeremy Peters asked whether the hotel would have valet service, to help some of the issues related to drop-offs, traffic and parking. Martin replied that they’d talked with Art Low of Republic Parking, with the intent of working out an agreement for valet service to use some of the nearby public parking spaces.

Briere noted that the draft development agreement mentions footing drain disconnects. She was under the impression that First Martin was working on an alternative to footing drain disconnects. McKinnon said he’s met with city staff on this issue, and is planning to take some ideas to the citizens advisory committee for the sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study. He hopes to participate as the committee develops recommendations for city council.

Ken Clein.

Martin added that they’re certainly willing to mitigate, but they’d like to have language in the development agreement that would provide for some flexibility, if the footing drain disconnect program changes.

There was some back-and-forth between Briere, Martin and McKinnon about the two different types of city programs – a residential footing drain disconnection program, and a developer offset mitigation program. McKinnon noted that the two programs are different, but related.

Woods referenced the hand-drawn alternative design that Todd Sachse had distributed during his public commentary. She urged Sachse to discuss it with the First Martin team. Kirk Westphal asked Martin about that alternative design in relation to the city’s mandated citizen participation meeting.

Martin replied that the One North Main representatives were having “off-line” conversations with First Martin about this alternative design. “We evaluated it,” he said. “We came up with a number of reasons why it did not work for us in our development.” The primary reason is that the alternative design would require getting easements from the city, he added. It’s uncertain that the city would grant the easements, and unclear how long the process might take.

One other problem is that if the hotel is taller than six floors, it would require compliance with the city’s high-rise code and also affect First Martin’s agreement with Marriott. “We’ve been on record with [Sachse] telling them it’s just not something we can do,” Martin said.

Briere asked for clarification about where hotel patrons will be dropped off. Martin replied that the drop-off, loading and unloading will be along North Ashley. There might be some sort of outdoor cafe space in front of the hotel, and a couple of on-street parking spaces. He confirmed for Briere that the hotel will include front-desk concierge service to contact taxis for customers.

Planning commissioners Paras Parekh and Sabra Briere.

Clein noted that the commission’s packet on this project includes comments from the city’s design review board. He wondered which suggestions were incorporated into the hotel design. Martin indicated that there hadn’t been unanimity of opinion among design review board members. The main takeaway was that the style of the bus depot was art moderne, not art deco, he said, “so our wrists were slapped.” He also said that board members suggested the design should be simplified a bit.

Martin noted that the site is located on the first block created within the city of Ann Arbor, so they’ve encountered a lot of “fun” issues dealing with easements and title searches for the back alley area, he said. Related to the site’s historic nature, the design review board thought it would be good for the Huron Street facade to tie into the cadence of an original city block, which was 66-feet wide. The board also wanted to carry the horizontal element of the art moderne style from Huron Street and wrap it around to the Ashley side too. It was difficult to balance all the comments, Martin said.

Clein thought the revised design was an improvement. He noted that it wasn’t the planning commission’s purview, but he thought the light-colored materials proposed for the top of the building felt a little heavy. He suggested having the brick continue up to the cornice, which he thought would make the cornice stand out more.

Regarding the bus depot facade, Clein noted that some preservationists would want to save more of the building behind it, “but in reality, there’s not a lot of integrity behind the facade.” He thought First Martin’s approach of protecting it in place during construction is preferable to dismantling it then reinstalling the facade later. He clarified with staff that this preservation qualifies the project to get premiums (a 50% floor area “bonus” of an additional 4,352 square feet) for historic preservation. “Where do we draw the line to say that allows you to qualify for premiums?” Clein asked.

Kirk Westphal.

DiLeo replied that premiums are awarded for historic preservation when a project preserves something that’s eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places. The bus depot facade is eligible, she said, but she’d have to consult with the city’s historic district coordinator for more details about the building behind the facade. At one point, the Ann Arbor historic district commission approved a “facade-ectomy,” DiLeo said, adding that “if it’s good enough for the HDC, it’s good enough for the premium.” She clarified that getting a premium for historic preservation doesn’t require review or approval of the HDC.

Woods indicated that requiring HDC review or approval is something the planning commission might consider in the future. She also thought it might be an opportunity for Ray Detter to install an historic street plaque.

Woods also asked about whether the Greyhound bus services would be relocated to the Blake Transit Center. DiLeo replied that apparently it would be easy to relocate the passenger service to BTC, located on South Fourth Avenue north of William Street. However, Greyhound handles a significant amount of freight, and that’s becoming difficult to coordinate. The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, which operates the transit center, is working with Greyhound on that, she said.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, reported that the Ann Arbor DDA has approved a plan to accommodate Greyhound at the Fourth & William parking structure, at least in the short-term. [At its May 7, 2014 meeting, the DDA board authorized its executive director to come to terms with Greyhound on a two-year lease that would cost Greyhound $1,525 a month, which works out to $36,600 for the two-year period. Buses would not pull into the structure, but would stage on Fourth Avenue. The lease would include about 400 square feet of office space in the structure, which would be finished out by the DDA for Greyhound. The lease rate works out to about $40 per square foot.]

Woods wondered when Greyhound would move. Martin indicated that the move would probably occur in mid-June. Woods noted that Greyhound is used by University of Michigan students, and she hoped the relocation would be widely publicized. Martin said it would be a more convenient location for students. [The Fourth & William structure is closer to UM's central campus, and across the street from BTC.]

Joe Fitzsimmons, a resident of One North Main, attended the May 20 meeting but did not formally address the planning commission.

Giannola asked why First Martin decided to build an extended-stay hotel, rather than a traditional hotel. Martin said the decision was based on business and market reasons. They did a market study, and one thing missing from this community is hotels with larger rooms and flexibility for longer-term stays. With the university and other organizations in town, an extended-stay hotel seemed to make the most sense. People who have family members in the hospital also need extended-stay facilities, he noted.

Martin explained that each room has a small kitchenette. The hotel won’t provide room service, but breakfast will be provided. If the retail space becomes a restaurant, there might be an opportunity there, he noted.

Clein noted that this project epitomizes the challenges of downtown development. The project is doing some great things, like bringing more activity to an area that needs it, he said. The building is handsome and the preservation of the bus depot facade is good. But there are issues with the neighboring building, so it’s a balancing act, he added. Similar issues will arise as the city gets more downtown development, Clein noted.

Clein said he was empathetic with the neighbors’ concerns, and he hoped First Martin would be proactive in trying to address them. He was supportive of the project, however.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement, as well as for the plan to install required bicycle parking within the North Ashley and West Huron rights-of-way and the Ann Ashley parking structure.

Downtown Hotel: Public Commentary

During the time for general public commentary at the end of the meeting, around 10:45 p.m., Stephen Ranzini spoke again.

Stephen Ranzini.

He told commissioners that he’s been a resident at One North Main for 14 years, and has observations about things “that clearly some of you are not aware of.” He thought development agreements were really important, and should be carefully negotiated. The problem in Ann Arbor, he said, is that after a development agreement is reviewed and approved by planning commissioners and the city council, “the city staff has – and often do – change it completely at will.” Projects change radically, he said.

Ranzini said he has suggested to the city attorney, mayor and councilmembers that any material changes to development agreements should require a new approval process. “You’re giving city staff way too much authority to change at-will things,” he said. As an example, he said changes were made for the Ashley Terrace project that related to parking and the number of bedrooms in units. He said the staff will make changes “when the developer cries poverty or economics, which downsize and dumb down the project.” Many projects in the city look awful because of that, he said.

He then brought up issues related to enforcement of existing regulations. He talked about calls he’s made to city police regarding decibel-level violations. Construction repeatedly begins at 5 a.m. when the law requires a 6 a.m. start. He said the police never respond to complaints. Road cleaning occurs at 1 a.m. or 2 a.m., with the noise coming into his windows at more than 120 decibels. “The police response time? Never.” He cited a Huey chopper on Sunday morning – without a permit – generating 200 decibels in his home, as it installed air conditioner units on top of an adjacent building. It was so loud “that my teeth were literally vibrating so much that I was afraid my teeth would come out of my mouth, ok?” Still, the police didn’t respond, he said. Other examples Ranzini cited were bagpipes and city garbage trucks.

Mark Condominiums on Liberty

A site plan for new condominiums at 318 W. Liberty was on the May 20 agenda. Planning staff recommended postponement, however, to allow time for a public water main issue to be addressed.

Rendering of Mark Condominium proposal, as viewed from West Liberty next to the former Moveable Feast building.

The proposal from developer Alex de Parry of Ann Arbor Builders Inc. is to demolish an existing car wash and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. One unit would face West Liberty, with the others facing east.

Each condo would have its own two-car tandem garage for a total of 14 parking spaces, although no parking is required.

The lot, on the north side of Liberty, is east of the historic Peter Brehme house at 326 W. Liberty and located in the Old West Side historic district. The historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness for the project on March 13, 2014. The property is also within the boundaries of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district. It backs up to the surface parking lot at the city-owned 415 W. Washington.

The property is zoned D2 (downtown interface).

The project would require two footing drain disconnects, according to a staff memo. In addition, the existing six-inch water main in West Liberty Street would need to be upsized to a 12-inch water main. The six-inch main wouldn’t have the capacity to handle the additional development, particularly the building’s fire-suppression system. That was the reason for postponement. [.pdf of staff memo]

The project is expected to cost $2.7 million.

No one spoke during the public hearing for this item.

Mark Condominiums on Liberty: Commission Discussion

Paras Parekh asked staff to elaborate on the water capacity issue. Planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that for every proposed project, the city’s systems planning unit does modeling of its impact on the city’s infrastructure for sewer and water. Typically, the only problems that are encountered are with sewer capacity. But in this case, because this part of the city had been developed with a more residential character, the water main is currently six inches in diameter.

Developer Alex de Parry.

The developer must provide fire suppression for the new building, which would require upsizing to an eight-inch water main. However, the city doesn’t upsize in two-inch increments, Rampson said. So the city is requiring that the water main be upsized to 12 inches. The developer can take on that cost if they want to move quickly, she added, or they can wait until it’s incorporated into the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP).

The upsizing needs to run from Third Street to First Street. The city’s project management staff has said that the developer’s responsibility would be to pay for the upsizing from Third Street to the front of 318 W. Liberty. This requirement emerged just a few days prior to the planning commission meeting, and the developer is now exploring the cost implications of that effort, Rampson said.

Jeremy Peters asked to hear from a representative of the project. Alex de Parry replied that they’re analyzing how to possibly change some construction methods and exploring other options. “We’ve only known about this for about two days,” he noted.

Steve Rojeck of Perimeter LLC, who is also working on this project, added that they’re also evaluating the cost of the upsizing. It could be a substantial impact on the project’s budget, he said.

Sabra Briere asked if the project will include any streetscape improvements. She noted that the site is located within the DDA district, and that the DDA is working on a streetscape project. De Parry replied that they’d received some feedback from residents who attended the project’s citizens participation meeting about adding trees in front of the property. He said they’re working with the owners of the adjacent property to the west – where Moveable Feast restaurant was formerly located – to make sure the grading of the two properties is smooth in front.

Rampson reported that the DDA has asked the developer to coordinate the construction to minimize impact on the parking patrons at 415 W. Washington. The DDA manages the lot as part of its agreement with the city to oversee the public parking system. Rampson added that as far as she knew, there are no streetscape improvements proposed as part of this project.

Kirk Westphal noted that the proposed condominiums will be about half of the proposed density that would be allowed under D2 zoning on that site. De Parry replied that D2 zoning would technically allow for a project that’s up to 60 feet high, but since the site is also in an historic district, there are limitations on height and setbacks.

A car wash is currently located at 318 W. Liberty.

Rampson explained that the historic district commission has purview to limit the size of the building. The project went before the HDC two times, she said, and as a result it had been scaled back.

De Parry said it’s not a high-density development, with just seven units. So doing a major water main replacement for that is “problematic,” he told commissioners.

Westphal observed that in some cases, the planning commission moves projects along with the stipulation that certain issues must be addressed before going to the city council for approval. De Parry supported that approach, but Rampson noted that this was a big issue and the kind of thing that the planning commission typically addressed before recommending a project. It would likely change some aspects of the development agreement, she added, including a potential cost-sharing arrangement.

Wendy Woods was in favor of postponing, with the hope that it could be brought back to the commission as soon as possible. She said it seemed like the developer was almost in shock, “and understandably so.” Other commissioners agreed regarding postponement.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the project.

After the vote, de Parry asked whether it was a two-week postponement. Rampson replied that it will come back to the commission as soon as the issues are worked out. It could be two weeks, but it could be longer. The commission’s next meeting is June 3.

Bank of Ann Arbor Expansion

An expansion of the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters in downtown Ann Arbor was on the May 20 planning commission agenda.

Architect Scott Bowers with a rendering of the expanded downtown Bank of Ann Arbor building and reconfigured entrance, at the northeast corner of Fifth and Washington.

Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a site plan that involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. Existing doors will be replaced with windows. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. In total, the building would be 32,651 square feet after construction. The project is estimated to cost $4.2 million. [.pdf of staff memo]

One outstanding issue relates to a tree that’s needed in one of the landscape islands in the parking lot.

According to the staff memo, the design “seeks to transform the current style from contemporary to traditional by replacing the yellow brick façade with brown and red-colored bricks and limestone-colored stone accents and trim and creating a brick and glass tower at the street corner to create a prominent entry.” The original two-story building was constructed in 1965, which included the drive-thru window. An addition was completed in 1999.

The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Jan. 14. The board suggested making the entry structure taller and more closely aligning the bank’s design features with those of the adjacent Ameritech building to the east.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density in the downtown area.

D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission considered on May 20 in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval. The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side. No changes are planned to that configuration, however.

In giving the staff report, city planner Alexis DiLeo said if the drive-thru were used more frequently, staff might suggest additional design features, like a more clearly marked crossing or differentiated surface materials. But because there are only 20-25 transactions per day at the drive-thru, and given the “successful history” of the existing drive-thru, staff is comfortable with it remaining as is, DiLeo said.

Modifications to drive-thru regulations are in the works, but not yet enacted. The planning commission approved new drive-thru regulations earlier this year. Amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus received initial approval at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting, and will appear on the council’s June 2 agenda for final approval.

Bank of Ann Arbor Expansion: Public Hearing

Scott Bowers, an Ann Arbor architect, introduced his partner, Susan Bowers – both are working on this project. He reviewed details of the project and showed renderings of the proposed building. A tower will be added to the northeast corner entrance, giving it more excitement and movement, he said. The use of glass on the tower will allow pedestrians to see into the lobby. He noted that the issue of the tree in the parking lot landscape island will be addressed.

Bank of Ann Arbor Expansion: Commission Discussion – Site Plan

Sabra Briere noted that there’s a lot of construction underway downtown. Residents have complained, she said, especially about the fact that they can’t walk past projects. She wondered if there was any way for the bank to allow pedestrians to walk on sidewalks while construction takes place.

Bank of Ann Arbor building at the northeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. The proposed renovations will create a “tower” entrance into the building at this corner.

Scott Bowers said they’d have to see if it could be worked out with the contractor. It probably couldn’t happen during heavy construction periods, he added, but perhaps at other times.

Ken Clein asked whether infiltration would be possible for the stormwater system. Bowers replied that there is infiltration, as part of a water charging system.

Clein clarified that the windows would allow people to see inside the building. He said that’s a benefit, both for the business and for pedestrians. He also confirmed with Bowers that the building’s mechanical systems would be located on top of the new addition. There will be screening around that equipment, Bowers said.

Kirk Westphal asked if the rebricking will look like full-depth brick. Bowers explained that actual brick will be used, after the old yellow brick is stripped off. There will also be stone accents around the windows. Westphal noted that even though it’s not in the planning commission’s purview, it’s nice to see how the architect responded to feedback from the design review board. That information is included in the planning commission’s meeting packet.

Wendy Woods noted that the project is located in the Midtown Character District, and she asked the staff to explain what that means. Alexis DiLeo explained that there are eight character districts. The Midtown Character District is a bit of mishmash now and needs to be more defined, she added. Now, it’s “mostly a government and utility-type feel” with several vacant parcels.

DiLeo also read excerpts from the written staff report:

Midtown Character District – Architectural styles in Midtown include some 19th century wood-framed residential (mostly converted to office use), by stylistically, the district is dominated by an a range of late 20th century mid-rise office and governmental facilities.

The primary north-to-south street in Midtown is Fifth Avenue. It can be considered Ann Arbor’s “civic corridor,” anchored to the south by the Ann Arbor District Library’s Main Branch, the Blake Transit Center and the Federal Building. To the north, directly across E. Huron Street from Midtown, are the Ann Arbor municipal Center and the old and new fire stations and Hands-On Museum.

With the exception of the Library, the buildings in Midtown have limited hours and are used primarily during the business day. Since Midtown is surrounded by character districts with evening-use venues, it often serves as a passage, in particular the west-to-east blocks between Main Street and State Street. Pedestrians seem to be focused on getting from point A to point B and would benefit from more opportunities to linger.

Future development should find opportunities to establish an identity for Midtown, increasing its vitality and expanding its offerings. Primary pedestrian access to buildings along the civic corridor should be from the corridor street.

Jeremy Peters wondered if this expansion would change the hours that the bank would be open. Not at this time, Bowers replied.

Outcome on the site plan resolution: It was approved unanimously. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Bank of Ann Arbor Expansion: Commission Discussion – Special Exception Use

Diane Giannola confirmed with planning staff that the drive-thru isn’t new, and that the only reason a special exception use is now required is that it’s not automatically grandfathered in, and the need for approval is triggered by the site plan process. Alexis DiLeo explained that the city began requiring special exception uses for drive-thrus in 2009, as part of a broader zoning overhaul known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown).

Hans Maier, Bank of Ann Arbor’s senior vice president of specialty banking, and architect Susan Bowers.

The drive-thru now is considered a “legal non-conforming use.” It had been legally established initially, but the zoning code changed, she said. If the bank wasn’t seeking site plan approval, there would be no need for a special exception use.

Responding to a query from Wendy Woods, DiLeo said that if the city council approves amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus – which were recommended by the planning commission – then any new drive-thru could not be located between the building and the street. Because the bank’s drive-thru is located on the side of the building, it would conform with that future code, she said.

Ken Clein was concerned because it’s an area of “reasonably high” foot traffic. He wondered if the drive-thru would be open beyond normal banking hours. Hans Maier, the bank’s senior vice president of specialty banking, replied that it’s open during regular banking hours on weekdays, and from 9 a.m. until noon on Saturdays. Maier joked that the traffic downtown in the evening isn’t coming to do banking.

Kirk Westphal said this isn’t the kind of use that the city wants to encourage downtown, so he shared Clein’s concern. He wondered if there was an intention to expand the drive-thru hours in the future. Maier indicated that he didn’t think so.

Westphal asked if the special exception use can apply to a different tenant at that location. DiLeo said it could be used as a drive-thru for other types of businesses, not just banking, unless a condition is put on the special exception use. Restrictions could include hours of operation and type of business. Westphal wondered if the condition could restrict the number of people who use the drive-thru daily. DiLeo replied that it would be difficult to enforce that kind of restriction.

Jeremy Peters.

Westphal said he wouldn’t be comfortable for this drive-thru being used for another purpose, which might mean longer hours or more traffic.

Sabra Briere proposed an amendment to limit the drive-thru to use by a financial institution. She also asked about time restrictions: Would 7 p.m. be a reasonable time to limit drive-thru operations? Maier told commissioners that the banking business changes, and he indicated that it’s difficult to anticipate what might happen in the future. The bank has been at that location for 18 years, he noted, and hasn’t yet used extended hours. Maier added that given the angle of the curbcuts, it’s not possible to move straight forward from the drive-thru window to the street – there’s a slight curve. Briere said she worried about drivers who aren’t paying attention on Fifth Avenue.

Briere proposed limiting the hours from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m., saying it struck her as “perfectly generous.” She expected in the future, there won’t be a “human attendant” at the drive-thru, so the customers could get out of their car and walk over to the building.

Jeremy Peters asked that Briere separate those two issues – use and hours of operation – so that the amendments could be voted on separately. Briere agreed.

Outcome on limiting the use to financial institutions: The amendment passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Bonnie Bona was absent.

The commission next considered restricting the hours of operation to between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m.

Paras Parekh wondered if the drive-thru hours would be limited even if it was an automated teller. Sabra Briere said her big concern is the exit onto Fifth Avenue at night.

Jeremy Peters was concerned that if the drive-thru becomes an ATM and there are restricted hours, it would force the bank to turn off the ATM. He thought it would also be hard to regulate, and he hesitated to regulate the hours that a business can be open.

Kirk Westphal asked if a walk-up ATM would be accessible. Hans Maier replied that a walk-up ATM already exists on the same side of the building, near the corner. He noted that the bank’s competitors – including the nearby Comerica and KeyBank branches – wouldn’t have these same restrictions.

Looking east across Fifth Avenue at the Bank of Ann Arbor building. Toward the corner is the green awning of the walk-up ATM. Further east is the awning for the drive-thru teller window.

Diane Giannola said to her, limiting hours of operation seemed like overkill. Cars that parked and used the walk-up ATM would also be driving out that same exit, she noted. Eleanore Adenekan agreed, saying there shouldn’t be restrictions on hours.

Westphal replied that he didn’t want it to be perceived that the planning commission was picking on this bank. He said the same concerns would exist for drive-thrus anywhere in town.

Ken Clein said that trying to legislate the hours of operation might have unintended consequences. He’s comfortable with the amended language that restricts the special exception use to financial institutions. With that, the amount of traffic in the evenings would be much less than if it were a fast food restaurant or pharmacy.

Wendy Woods said she’d vote against regulating hours. She voted against the previous amendment because she wouldn’t have a problem with another drive-thru use at that location – like a pharmacy. “Indeed, it might be an attraction for some people,” she said. She was concerned about restricting the use.

At this point, Briere withdrew her motion, saying “I’m disinclined to vote in favor of the motion myself.” She thought it had been worth the discussion.

Outcome on main motion for granting the special exception use, as amended to limit it to financial institutions: The resolution passed unanimously. It does not require additional approval from the city council.

Fireworks

There were two requests for special exception use related to the sale of Class C fireworks. This is a standard request for this time of year, when temporary sales of fireworks take place. The special exception use can be granted by planning commissioners and doesn’t require additional approval from the city council.

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Class C fireworks include “shells and mortars, multiple tube devices, Roman candles, rockets, sparklers, firecrackers with no more than 50 milligrams of powder, and novelty items such as snakes, airplanes, ground spinners, helicopters, fountains, and party poppers.”

Fireworks: Phantom

Phantom Fireworks was requesting a special exception use to put up a temporary 40×40-foot tent and an 8×40-foot storage container in the parking lot of the Maple Village Shopping Center at 205 N. Maple, across from Veterans Memorial Park. The purpose would be for the temporary outdoor sales of fireworks, for 10 days around the July 4 holiday – from June 26 to July 5.

Rick Tapper, regional manager of Phantom Fireworks.

The shopping center is in Ward 5.

The tent and container would be set back 44 feet from North Maple Road, and traffic to businesses wouldn’t be impacted, according to city planner Alexis DiLeo, who gave the staff report. The location would be open from about 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., with extended hours depending on sales and demand.

The tent would occupy about 21 of the shopping center’s 1,500 parking spaces. Generally, there’s a lot of available parking there, DiLeo said.

A special exception use is required because this vendor isn’t a permanent tenant of the shopping center, and isn’t being sponsored by any of the tenants.

Approval of the special exception use would allow the sale of fireworks and seasonal products at this location annually, as long as the owner obtains a permit and inspection from the city’s fire marshal each time the tent is put up.

No one spoke during the public hearing for this item. DiLeo reported that no concerns about this proposal have been received. [.pdf of staff report]

Fireworks: Phantom – Commission Discussion

Eleanore Adenekan asked if there’d be extra lighting in that area. Alexis DiLeo replied that the tent will rely on parking lot lighting for the site.

Rick Tapper, regional manager for Phantom Fireworks, came to the podium to answer additional questions. He noted that the company has operated in Ann Arbor for the past two years, but previously were located in the parking lot of Colonial Lanes on South Industrial.

There’s a minimum of two employees in the tent at all times, Tapper said, and at night there are a minimum of three employees. There will be lights inside the tent, run by a generator. The products will be stored at night in the storage unit next to the tent, which is fireproof.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters

Jeremy Peters asked about the duration of sales: Was that Phantom’s choice? Yes, Tapper replied. He noted that 80% of sales take place during the last three days of business.

Wendy Woods asked about the permanent nature of this special exception use. DiLeo clarified that it would also allow for the sale of “seasonal items” at other times of the year, though that hasn’t been proposed by Phantom Fireworks. Other examples might be gear for Red Wings or University of Michigan sold during football and hockey seasons, respectively. She noted that if the operation is discontinued for three years, the special exception use would be voided.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said that if planning commissioners have concerns about the operation, they should state those issues in the conditions of the special exception use.

Tapper stressed that Phantom Fireworks doesn’t intend to operate at any other time than the 10 days indicated around the July 4 holiday. He was open to the commission striking the phrase “seasonal items” from the special exception use.

Woods moved an amendment to strike the phrase “seasonal items.”

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Woods then suggested inserting language to refer to sales during specific dates. Tapper asked that the reference to dates be somewhat general, because the timing of the sales depends on when the weekends fall around July 4.

Peters proposed adding “for a period of up to 15 days total in the months of June and July.”

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Kirk Westphal said he assumed this special exception use couldn’t be transferred. DiLeo clarified that it actually could be transferred to another Class C fireworks vendor.

Woods noted that a new skatepark is opening across the street from this shopping center, at Veterans Memorial Park. So she thought it was important to have a few extra conditions on the special exception use.

Outcome on granting the special exception use, as amended: It passed unanimously.

Fireworks: Patriot

The second special exception use request came from Patriot Fireworks, to put up an 8×40-foot temporary unit and 20×20-foot tent in the parking lot of the Twin Valley shopping center at 2750 Jackson Ave., west of the I-94 overpass. It would be set back 45 feet from Jackson and use 5 of the 75 parking spaces.

Robert Horvath represented Patriot Fireworks.

The business would operate from the Memorial Day weekend through the July 4th holiday, from about noon to 7 p.m., with possible extended hours.

Staff received one call from a resident in the Lakewood neighborhood, located southwest of the shopping center. The resident was concerned that children would cross Jackson Avenue at unsafe locations to get to the fireworks.

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff reported that staff looked at the site with regard to that concern. She noted that state law restricts fireworks sales to anyone under age 18, so unaccompanied minors wouldn’t likely be crossing Jackson Avenue, she said. “It would be a fruitless cause for them.”

The site is located in Ward 5.

Fireworks: Patriot – Public Hearing

Only one person spoke during the public hearing. Robert Horvath told commissioners that Patriot Fireworks was a local business, with a warehouse on Jackson Road in Scio Township. They sell fireworks at about 40 locations. They’ve been selling fireworks for over a quarter-century, he said. Horvath noted that he’s a “fireworks attorney,” and had sat on the committee that developed the state’s fireworks safety act. “So I’m involved both on a business level, but also on a legal level,” he said.

Fireworks: Patriot – Commission Discussion

Ken Clein asked about plans for signs at this location. Alexis DiLeo replied that businesses are allowed two square feet of signage for every foot of frontage. Since the tent is 20 feet, Patriot would be allowed 40 square feet of signs attached to the tent. They would need a separate city permit for the signs.

Eleanore Adenekan asked how many employees would be on site. Robert Horvath said there would be at least one employee. He described it as more of a “modified store” than a tent, with doors, shelving, lighting and a more controlled environment. It’s also a relatively small area, he noted. They carry about 300 different items.

Jeremy Peters clarified with Horvath that only fireworks would be sold. Horvath didn’t object to striking the term “seasonal items” – as commissioners had done with Phantom Fireworks. But Patriot planned to be open for a longer time than Phantom, he noted.

As she had for the previous special exception use request, Woods moved an amendment to strike the phrase “seasonal items.”

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Peters moved an amendment regarding the time of operation, to add the phrase “for a period from three days in advance of Memorial Day, to three days after the July 4th holiday.” Sabra Briere proposed changing “three days after the July 4th holiday” to “July 7.”

Further wordsmithing ensued. Diane Giannola proposed “for a period beginning four days before the Memorial Day holiday and ending four days after the Fourth of July holiday.” Kirk Westphal suggested from May 20 to July 10.

Paras Parekh then proposed “the Thursday before Memorial Day to July 7.” Peters accepted Parekh’s amendment as friendly.

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Outcome on granting the special exception use, as amended: It passed unanimously.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Bonnie Bona.

Next meeting: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The proposal, brought forward by First Martin Corp., calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The site currently includes a Greyhound bus depot and a one-story building that houses the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. Both of those buildings will be demolished. The bus depot facade will remain in place as part of the hotel’s design. [.pdf of staff report]

The main hotel entrance is proposed for the building’s west side, facing North Ashley, while the restaurant’s main entrance is proposed to face West Huron, on the building’s south side. The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the downtown. According to the staff memo, five off-street parking spaces are required. First Martin has secured a letter of commitment from Zipcar, a car-sharing service, for two vehicles. Parking spaces for those cars are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. For purposes of the city’s parking requirement, the two Zipcars would count as eight off-street parking spaces, and would satisfy the requirement.

The two existing curbcuts will be closed, and access to the two parking spaces, loading dock and trash/recycling would be from the mid-block alley to the north.

Nine bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, and would include two bike hoops in the North Ashley right-of-way and two in the West Huron right-of-way, for a total of eight bike spaces. Three more hoops are proposed for the Ann Ashley parking structure, with First Martin paying for labor and materials. The city of Ann Arbor and Downtown Development Authority would assume responsibility for maintenance of those hoops. The installation of hoops in the city’s right-of-way will require city council approval, and was recommended by the planning commission.

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million.

During a public hearing on the project, three people spoke representing owners of residential and commercial condominiums at One North Main, on an adjacent site east of the hotel project. Concerns included blocking views, noise from rooftop mechanicals, and problems with egress from One North Main’s underground parking.

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

Commissioners recommended approval of a site plan that involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. In total, the building would be 32,651 square feet after construction. The project is estimated to cost $4.2 million. [.pdf of staff memo]

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density in the downtown area.

D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission granted to Bank of Ann Arbor on May 20 in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional council approval. The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side. No changes are planned to that configuration, however.

Commissioners amended the special exception use to limit the drive-thru to a financial institution. That amendment, put forward by Sabra Briere, was approved on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Briere also proposed an amendment that would restrict the hours that the drive-thru could be open. The concern was that vehicles pulling out from the drive-thru onto Fifth Avenue could cause a threat to pedestrians and bicyclists in the evening. But after discussion – including some comments from Hans Maier, a senior executive for the bank – Briere withdrew that amendment.

The special exception use, as amended, received unanimous approval.

Modifications to drive-thru regulations are in the works, but not yet enacted. The planning commission approved new drive-thru regulations earlier this year. Amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus received initial approval at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting, and will be on the council’s June 2 agenda for final approval.

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

From left: Tina Rosselle, Becky Gajewski, Erika Pratt. All three are city staff who are involved in volunteer and outreach efforts for the parks & recreation unit. (Photos by the writer.)

But the council followed up at its April 7 meeting by considering a total of four resolutions on the Library Lane site – including the reconsideration of the two March 17 resolutions. At the end of the April 7 meeting, a portion of the site was still reserved for an urban park, and the city administrator was still directed to hire a broker to list the property for sale. A vote on how to use the proceeds of a possible sale was put off until June. For more details on the council’s April 7 actions, see Chronicle coverage: “Council Wrangles on Library Lot – Proceeds, Process.”

On March 17, the city council had passed two resolutions regarding the site: (1) reserving a portion of the west side, along South Fifth Avenue, as the site for an urban public park; and (2) directing the city administrator to hire a broker to explore the sale of development rights on that site. The council’s meeting, which adjourned at about 1 a.m., included debate that lasted more than 2.5 hours on the future of this city-owned property, located north of the downtown library.

The following day, at PAC’s March 18 meeting, commissioners were briefed by the two councilmembers who also serve on PAC as ex officio members: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Anglin, who had co-sponsored the park resolution along with Jack Eaton (Ward 4), told commissioners that he’d been comfortable with both resolutions, and that he had voted for both of them.

Anglin said he hoped PAC would now start working on guidelines for developing a portion of the site, and to make sure all stakeholders are well-represented. “Feelings were hurt last night,” he said, “and so now we’re in damage control, and we’re also in the idea of further discourse. And we need to do that.” There needs to be a real dialogue, including the library, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, PAC and others in the community, he said – all stakeholders need to help decide what to do as a town.

For his part, Taylor pointed out that the council’s urban park resolution doesn’t actually ask PAC to do anything. The “resolved” clauses make no mention of PAC. He said he didn’t know the rationale for that – whether it was an attempt to go around PAC, or whether there’s an expectation that PAC will be brought in. “There’s a measure of uncertainty there,” Taylor said, so PAC’s role is unclear.

Taylor also noted that there’s complete consensus on the idea that there will be public space on the Library Lane parcel, to which the public has full access. “There is not complete consensus on who owns that element of the parcel,” he added. “Nor, I think, is there complete consensus on who will maintain and provide security for that part of the parcel.”

Ingrid Ault, PAC’s chair, noted that the commission had developed recommendations for downtown parks, adding that it was “very disappointing to feel that we weren’t listened to” as the council resolution was developed. If that had happened, she added, “we wouldn’t have hurt feelings.”

Though Anglin had supported the council’s March 17 actions, subsequently – at the council’s April 7 meeting – he co-sponsored another resolution that would have delayed hiring a broker until additional public process had been undertaken, including the possibility of reserving the entire site for a park. After a 40-minute debate and a recess to discuss a possible compromise, the council unanimously voted down that resolution – though it could be brought back for future consideration.

Anglin also supported another action on April 7, which passed, that increased the amount reserved for a park to 12,000 square feet, along the entire west side of the South Fifth Avenue parcel. Previously, the council had indicated a range for the space – between 6,500 and 12,000 square feet, with a northern boundary to be determined. A range, instead of 12,000 square feet, had been the result of an amendment made at the council table on March 17. During deliberations on April 7, Anglin said he hoped for an even larger park at the site.

PAC’s March 18 meeting agenda also included a resolution to recommend that the city apply for a grant to help renovate the Gallup Park pathway, which is part of the countywide Border-to-Border Trail. The grant application is to the federal transportation alternatives program (TAP), which is administered in this region by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and statewide by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). At its April 7 meeting, the city council authorized the grant application.

Also on March 18, Dave Borneman, parks and recreation deputy manager, gave an overview of volunteer efforts within the parks, recreation facilities and natural areas, and talked about how people in the community can participate. Ault encouraged others to volunteer, saying she’s taken part in the frog and toad survey for the past couple of years. “I’ve gone to places that I didn’t really know existed,” she said. “And I can tell you what a spring peeper and a leopard frog sound like.”

Park at Library Lane

PAC’s March 18 meeting occurred the day following a city council meeting when councilmembers took action that directly affected the parks system and PAC. The council had engaged in a lengthy debate – two and a half hours of sometimes heated commentary – over a proposal reserving part of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure for an urban public park. That resolution passed, over dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). The council also passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to explore selling development rights to the Library Lane surface.

Regarding a park at Library Lane, the council resolution’s key resolved clause from March 17 stated:

Resolved, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

Prior to the council’s action on this proposal, Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy had presented the plan to PAC at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting. See Chronicle coverage: “Concerns Voiced over Urban Park Proposal.”

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

At PAC’s March 18 meeting, Ingrid Ault – who chairs the commission – reported that she and parks and recreation manager Colin Smith had attended the March 17 council session, which lasted until about 1 a.m. She noted that councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Mike Anglin, who serve as ex officio members of PAC, had also attended.

Park at Library Lane: Council Update

Ault asked Anglin, who had co-sponsored the March 17 council resolution, to provide an update on the council action. Anglin urged PAC members to watch the council discussion on video. [A link to Community Television Network's recording of that meeting is online. The Library Lane discussion begins at about the 43-minute mark. A report on council deliberations also is included in The Chronicle’s live updates from city hall during the March 17 meeting.]

Mike Anglin, who serves on both city council and PAC.

Anglin said there had been “quite a bit of dialogue.” He reported that a group has been advocating for the city to designate the entire top of the underground parking structure as a park. [That group is the Library Green Conservancy.] “As in a democracy, we compromise,” Anglin said. “This is the compromise.”

About $56 million was spent on the underground parking garage, Anglin noted, “and we have to get something out of it.” So the council wanted to have the opportunity to define some of the surface space for a park, he said, as well as space for development.

“Unfortunately, things get convoluted and difficult,” Anglin said. “It’s like a difficult math problem. There’s probably many solutions but many different ways to get there.”

Anglin said that supporters have known for a long time that they had the six votes to pass this resolution. They wanted to both set some of the land aside for the public, as well as develop part of that site, he said. “This is the result of that compromise, I believe.” He said he was comfortable with the result, and that he voted both for designating a park and for moving forward with development [by hiring a broker].

Anglin said he hoped PAC would now start working on guidelines for developing a portion of the site, and that all stakeholders are well-represented. “Feelings were hurt last night,” he said, referring to the March 17 council meeting. “And so now we’re in damage control, and we’re also in the idea of further discourse. And we need to do that.” There needs to be a real dialogue, including the library, DDA, PAC and the community. All stakeholders need to help decide what to do as a town, he said.

The council resolution wasn’t directing PAC to do a specific task, Anglin said. Rather it was saying “here’s the land – what do you think?” he told commissioners. He suggested having activities on the site to get a response about how the site might be used. There had been a couple of attempts to do this last year, Anglin noted – someone put a temporary lawn there, he said, with food so that passers-by could stop. But it hadn’t been well-advertised, he added, and it wasn’t sponsored by the parks, “so it was very difficult for the community to get totally behind it.”

Anglin thought the March 17 council resolution had been a good compromise, with most interests addressed. “At least we know what we have to do now for further dialogue,” he said, adding that he was confident they could do this and overcome any problems they might have. Some people say that this proposal has bypassed PAC’s authority, he continued, adding that’s one way to look at it. But elected officials have the ability to act independently, Anglin said, “and that’s what a group did.”

Christopher Taylor, who serves on both city council and on PAC.

Christopher Taylor, who had voted against the March 17 resolution, also described the council’s action. He stressed that it wasn’t accurate to call the council’s resolution about brokerage services a “sale.” There’s been no decision made to develop the site, he said, and the resolution simply gave direction to retain a broker to explore development on the site.

Taylor pointed out that the Ann Arbor District Library board had weighed in with what the board had described as an unprecedented action, he said. The AADL board voted to request that the council reject the resolution about designating part of the site as a public park. [The AADL board took that vote at its March 17, 2014 meeting – the same night as the council's meeting. AADL director Josie Parker attended the council meeting and read aloud the board's resolution.]

The council’s resolution about the public park had been amended during the March 17 meeting, Taylor noted. It originally designated the entire west side – 12,000 square feet – as a park. But the resolution that ultimately passed gave a span of between 6,500 to 12,000 square feet, with the northern boundary to be determined. [That amendment was reversed at the council's April 7 meeting, supported by Anglin and opposed by Taylor. The area designated is now 12,000 square feet. Taylor called the council's action on April 7 "borderline contemptuous of the library's position.]

The request to designate the site as a park in the city’s parks, recreation and open space (PROS) plan had been pulled out of the March 17 resolution, Taylor said. That means it would not yet be designated as a park in terms of the city’s master plan.

Taylor said that in his view, the amendments improved the March 17 resolution, but he still voted against it – citing the library board’s request and PAC’s “discomfort.” Ultimately, everyone wants the site to be active, useful and successful, he said, with open space somewhere on the site.

Taylor also pointed out that the resolution doesn’t ask PAC to do anything. The “resolved” clauses make no mention of PAC. He said he didn’t know the rationale for that – whether it’s an attempt to go around PAC, or whether there’s an expectation that PAC will be brought in. “There’s a measure of uncertainty there,” he said, so PAC’s role is unclear.

Ault reported that she had attended the council’s March 17 meeting and had spoken during public commentary to reiterate issues that had been discussed at PAC’s Feb. 25, 2014 meeting, following Hathaway’s presentation to PAC. She said she equated the council’s action to buying a wedding dress before you’ve gone out on a date. The council resolution was making decisions about a process that should be inclusive of both partners, she said – the council and PAC.

Park at Library Lane: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson said he wasn’t sure what PAC was supposed to do now. It wasn’t clear whether PAC should engage in any work to move this forward. He said he’s happy to help if that’s what council wants, and if councilmembers will listen to what PAC has to say.

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation manager.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said that while the resolution doesn’t specifically direct PAC to do anything, it does refer to the city. He read one of the “resolved” clauses: “Resolved, that the City will work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the designs for both spaces, an urban public park and the adjacent development, complement and support each other’s successful uses;…”

It’s fair to suggest that in this context, Smith said, “the city” would include PAC and parks staff, along with many others. Smith noted that PAC has already weighed in on the issue of what makes downtown parks successful, and he didn’t think those recommendations had changed substantially. [PAC had passed a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.] Those recommendations would be conveyed to any eventual developer of the site, Smith said.

Graydon Krapohl, PAC’s vice chair, thought that any action on the site would be premature until there’s a developer and some kind of site plan, to ensure that any kind of park would fit with what a developer was doing. It will be months until that might happen, he said, and any plans to develop a park before then would be “very premature.”

David Santacroce clarified with Taylor that the council resolution would result in the development rights being listed for sale. Taylor said that it didn’t mean the city would “pull the trigger” on a sale, however. “And the level of commitment to actually getting the deal done is open and in flux,” he said. “I think it’s fairly characterized as exploratory.”

Karen Levin indicated that a park couldn’t be developed without funding from development of the site. Taylor agreed, saying that anyone who purchased rights to the site would come forward with a proposal for the open space/park side of the parcel. After such a proposal is received, he added, he’d expect PAC to weigh in about whether the proposed open space met the criteria laid out in PAC’s downtown park recommendations.

Taylor said there’s complete consensus on the idea that there will be public space on the parcel, to which the public has full access. “There is not complete consensus on who owns that element of the parcel,” he added. “Nor, I think, is there complete consensus on who will maintain and provide security for that part of the parcel.”

Responding to a query from Jackson, Taylor said the plan is for the city to explore selling condominium rights to the site, but that the city would continue to own the parcel. Smith gave the example of Liberty Square [the former Tally Hall] as a condominium arrangement, where one of the units is the city’s parking structure. Other units are office condominiums, and there are common spaces as well.

Anglin said that it’s difficult “because this is the first urban park that we have.” [His remark caused some commissioners to exchange puzzled looks, given that there are other downtown sites designated as parks – most notably the nearby Liberty Plaza.] He said you could consider the Ann Arbor farmers market as a park. But it’s not on top of something else that the city owns, he noted. Anglin said it’s a process that will require a lot of attention.

Anglin pointed to the resolution’s second resolved clause as giving direction:

Resolved, that the City will encourage the creative use of this space to commence on an occasional basis during the transition from parking to public park even before the urban park design and installation work is complete, and hereby requests that Community Services and the Park Department work together with DDA and the AADL to encourage groups to reserve the space for public activities including, but not limited to, craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, fine arts performances, and other activities and consider modification of permit requirements in order to eliminate fees for those seeking to put on public programs on the Library Lane site;

The idea is to start to get a feel for what this spot might be used as, Anglin said. Councilmembers made some suggestions, he said, but were leaving it up to PAC to decide what kinds of things might occur on the space. Anglin pointed out that Alan Haber has suggested that it would be a great site for an ice-skating rink. The hope, Anglin said, is that groups would come forward to use the space for concerts or other activities. That’s the kind of thing that the city is inviting, he said.

PAC member Missy Stults.

The downtown library has 600,000 visitors each year, Anglin noted. At the council’s March 17 meeting, he said, the discussion “got a little bogged down in the negative parts associated with the library, perhaps.” But 600,000 is a lot of people with a lot of different needs, he said. The goal is to make a nexus there between the public and the library as a community-supported entity. “I think the possibilities are tremendously powerful there,” Anglin said. He cited swing dancing as a possibility.

Anglin indicated that the city has been caught in the “negativity of Liberty Plaza.” He described generally the history of that public plaza at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division, noting that originally, there was a business that opened up directly onto the plaza. It failed, he said, and “became something else.” There’s a question of “where do we push our problems with people who are in the streets a lot,” Anglin said. That’s a concern for PAC, he said, because “Liberty Plaza is one of our parks.”

Now, a portion of the Library Lane site is also part of the parks system, Anglin contended, adding that it’s because the council has designated it as part of the parks system.

Smith replied that the council action reserved a portion of the site for a park. But at the start of the day on March 17, he said, the city had 158 parks, and that hasn’t changed. The parks system isn’t responsible for that site yet. If the city reaches an agreement with a developer and the land is added to the PROS plan, then it becomes a park.

Missy Stults said this process seemed unprecedented, in terms of collaboration between the planning commission and PAC. Smith replied that it would require a lot of collaboration among a lot of groups. The parks and planning staff already work very well together, he said, so that’s a good partnership.

Levin said it sounded like programming and activities on that site would start almost immediately. How would that happen? she asked. Smith noted that the resolution indicates the parks staff should work with other groups, including the library and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, to encourage the use of the site for public activities. So that will be a responsibility that the parks staff takes on, he said. At some point, representatives from these groups will have to discuss how that happens. It might require permit requirements to be modified, for example.

This effort will take staff time and resources, Smith noted, depending on the level of activity. It doesn’t take as much to handle sporadic event requests, he said, but to do actual programming takes time.

Santacroce noted that the programming mentioned in the council resolution refers to a transition period. He also highlighted the tension between the use of the word “park” in a legal sense as a park owned by the city, and in the lay sense as a public space of some sort. Since the site was not added to the PROS plan, he said, that indicates that the word “park” is being used in the lay sense, and that there’s still a decision to be made about whether it will be a city park or a public space.

From left: PAC member Graydon Krapohl and Mike Anglin, a city councilmember who also serves on PAC.

Smith pointed out that one reason why a reference to adding the site to the PROS plan was removed from the resolution is because the council can’t unilaterally add it. The PROS plan is part of the city’s master plan, and there’s an extensive process required for amending it – including the need for approval from the planning commission. The process would take months, Smith explained.

Krapohl said it goes back to the development of the site. An eventual site plan would determine how that portion of the property is used – whether it’s green space or an urban plaza. He noted that if someone wanted to reserve the space for programming, they could do that now through the process that exists.

Anglin replied that PAC could start thinking about the discussion of public versus private. The distinction is pretty clear, he said. A developer might agree to certain conditions about keeping a space for the public, but years could pass and “people could forget totally what that commitment was,” he said. Since the public owns the city’s parks, he added, that gives parks a great deal of protection and versatility of use. That’s been seen at Liberty Plaza, Anglin said, where people have offered social services to those in need. That had been a new concept that PAC had dealt with, he noted.

Regarding how people might be encouraged to use the Library Lane site, Anglin suggested putting a sign there to advertise it. “There are groups that would come in from Chelsea, with their fiddlers and things of that sort, who would love a venue,” Anglin said. “There are people at the university who do swing dance, who would love this venue.” The council resolution is asking the community, with its creativity, to move forward with this, he said.

Anglin cited music at Liberty Plaza, saying he thought someone paid to have groups perform there. Smith clarified that Bank of Ann Arbor sponsors the Sonic Lunch summer concert series at Liberty Plaza, though he wasn’t sure if the groups that perform there are paid. [They are paid.]

Anglin also mentioned the Water Hill Music Fest, saying that groups from that neighborhood might also like Library Lane as a performance space. There are choral groups in the schools that would love a venue, he added, and plenty of musicians and other talented people. “I could see skits being put on there,” Anglin said. “I could see it being a place where someone who really wants to do something for little children comes on a Saturday morning and puts something out there.” So lots of kids and their parents would show up on a Saturday morning to enjoy the outside show, he said.

That’s the concept, Anglin continued. The idea of a commons is to be a place where people gather, he said, “and their own energy creates the source of things.”

Smith said the parks staff could use some advice from PAC. The staff now have an assignment to encourage the creative use of this Library Lane space, he noted. He reminded commissioners that last year, the city – acting on PAC’s recommendation – had waived rental fees at Liberty Plaza, to try to activate that space in a similar way. If a band approaches the parks staff and is looking for a place to perform, “which place do I sell?” Smith asked. It’s a bit of a conundrum, he added, and “it is a little bit of a head scratcher for me at the moment.”

Ingrid Ault, chair of PAC.

Taylor pointed out that the Library Lane surface currently has parking spaces there, which are under the control of the DDA by virtue of a parking agreement with the city. “That’s got to interface in here somehow,” he said.

Santacroce worried about the competition between the two sites – Library Lane and Liberty Plaza. Would programming be moved from Liberty Plaza to Library Lane?

Santacroce also noted that the difference between a city-owned park and a public space that’s owned by a developer “is zero, if we choose it to be zero.” The only difference could be that the city wouldn’t pay to maintain the space, he said. The same kinds of activities and events that have been described could still take place.

Jackson wanted direction from parks staff about what PAC should do next, saying it’s probably something that will be discussed again at future meetings.

Ault wrapped up the discussion. One of the things that’s been troubling about this process, she said, is that “we are now in damage control.” There are hurt feelings, she said. There are groups that feel they weren’t listened to – “and this is one of them,” she added, referring to PAC. She requested that Anglin and Taylor communicate PAC’s desires to other councilmembers, “and that you consider talking to us when crafting these kinds of resolutions.” She noted that everyone, including PAC, has agreed that there will be open space on that site. If PAC had been involved, it could have been a resolution that everyone bought into, she said.

Ault noted that last year, the downtown park subcommittee – which she chaired – worked hard to do outreach before developing its recommendations. Regarding development of the council resolution, she said, “it was very disappointing to feel that we weren’t listened to in that process.” If that had happened, “we wouldn’t have hurt feelings.”

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Park at Library Lane: April 7 Council Action

The issue of the Library Lane site was again the focus of action by city council during its April 7, 2014 meeting, which adjourned at 1:30 a.m. The result is that a significant portion of the surface – 12,000 square feet – is reserved as an urban park, and the property will be listed for sale without any delay for a public process. A decision on how to use the net proceeds of a potential sale of the land will be put off at least until June.

Anglin supported the April 7 action to set the size of the Library Lane park at 12,000 square feet, extending across the entire western border of the property on South Fifth Avenue. Taylor opposed that increase. Anglin also was a co-sponsor – along with Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – of a resolution that would have delayed listing the development rights on the property until additional public process was taken, including a community discussion about possibly designating the entire Library Lane surface as a park. That resolution was debated but ultimately voted down unanimously – though it might be brought back for consideration in the future.

Ault spoke to councilmembers during public commentary on April 7, saying that significant public process had already been done on this issue and asking “When will the madness stop?” She said a “special interest group” can’t take no for an answer, and she asked the council to “end the hamster wheel ride tonight.” Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy contacted The Chronicle during the April 7 council meeting, saying that while some members of the conservancy were certainly in favor of the resolution to delay listing the property, the group has not taken a position on it.

More details on the council’s debate to increase the square footage of a park is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the April 7 meeting. The live updates also cover deliberations on reconsidering the resolution about listing the Library Lane site for sale, and on a move to delay hiring a broker.

Grant for Gallup Park Pathway

PAC’s March 18 agenda included a resolution to recommend that the city apply for a grant to help renovate the Gallup Park pathway, which is part of the countywide Border-to-Border trail. The grant application is to the federal transportation alternatives program (TAP), which is administered in this region by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and statewide by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT).

Aerial view showing location of trail improvements at Gallup Park. (Links to larger image.)

Funds would be used to renovate the path from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. The project also entails renovations to the large loop that encircles that portion of the park, totaling about 2 miles of trail. The application amount hasn’t yet been determined, but will likely be for $400,000 to $500,000. The entire project budget is in the $600,000 range, with likely about $200,000 in matching funds to come from the city’s parks and recreation maintenance and capital improvements millage.

In describing the project, park planner Amy Kuras told commissioners that it’s being undertaken in conjunction with a major “universal access” playground that’s being developed at Gallup, using a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor. For background on that effort, see Chronicle coverage: “Rotary to Fund Universal Access Playground.”

Kuras also noted that the University of Michigan’s Matthaei Botanical Gardens is putting in a grant application for a new non-motorized path along Dixboro Road from Plymouth to Geddes. That trail will connect very well to the Gallup Park pathway, she said. [The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission is also contributing to these trails. At its March 11, 2014 meeting, the WCPARC approved a $250,000 grant to Ann Arbor Township for trail in that area.]

The application will next be considered by the city council at its April 7 meeting. The deadline to apply for the current round of funding is April 21.

Grant for Gallup Park Pathway: Commission Discussion

Bob Galardi said he’s ridden along that trail often, and it’s in need of fixing up. When would the project begin, assume that the city gets it? he asked. Kuras indicated that the work would likely be done in 2015-2016.

Alan Jackson clarified with Kuras that there isn’t a specific plan that needs approval at this point – it’s just the grant application that PAC is addressing.

Outcome: PAC recommended that the city apply for the grant to build trail improvements. The city council subsequently authorized the application at its April 7 meeting.

Volunteerism in the Parks

Dave Borneman, parks and recreation deputy manager, oversees the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) program and volunteer efforts for the entire parks & recreation department. He briefed commissioners on volunteerism in the parks.

Dave Borneman, manager of the city’s natural area preservation (NAP) program.

Borneman began by introducing three other staff members: Tina Rosselle, NAP’s volunteer and outreach coordinator; Becky Gajewski, NAP stewardship specialist; and Erika Pratt, the city’s Give 365 volunteer and outreach coordinator.

Giving an historical overview, Borneman noted that volunteer programs began with NAP in 1993, starting with individual work days that led to a park stewardship program. Park stewards are dedicated long-term volunteers for the natural areas within specific parks, typically near where they live.

A few years later, the city’s Adopt-a-Park program was created, focusing not just on natural area issues, but on the broader needs of the city’s 158 parks. In turn, that led to several other programs, including a citizen pruner program, to help residents take care of trees within the parks; and Adopt-a-Median for traffic islands and medians within the city.

More recently, the Give 365 program was started to help formalize volunteers for a range of programs and activities, including volunteer opportunities at the city’s recreation facilities.

Borneman also noted that volunteers are used in taking inventories of salamanders, frogs and toads, mudpuppies, and breeding birds. Those activities will be happening this spring, he said, “to help us see what’s living in the parks.” Volunteers help with controlled burns, community outreach, office work, research projects, and photo monitoring, to get visual documentation of how the parks change over the years. Volunteers also help translate newsletters into different languages, including Japanese. “We’re trying to broaden our message to get to a lot of folks that we haven’t traditionally gotten to,” he said.

The largest number of NAP volunteer hours are logged working on control of invasive plant species, followed by trail work, Borneman reported.

NAP has been located at the Leslie Science & Nature Center for about 20 years, but is relocating to an office on Huron River Drive that will bring all staff – including the volunteer coordinators – under the same roof, Borneman said. The office will be located in a recently donated house near the South Pond Nature Area off of Huron River Drive. More details are in NAP’s spring newsletter, he said.

Borneman noted that there were lots of ways to connect with the NAP and parks volunteer programs, including Facebook and Twitter. He also described activities of Give 365, which is more focused on recreation facilities. Give 365 has Facebook and Twitter accounts too, as well as a presence on Pinterest.

Volunteerism in the Parks: Commission Discussion

Bob Galardi asked about plantings in traffic islands and medians. Is there any thought to putting in plants that attract honey bees? Borneman replied that plantings take into account several factors, including what types of plants will grow in a particular site. Some sites are “pretty inhospitable,” he noted.

PAC members Bob Galardi and Paige Morrison.

In those locations, the staff try to choose plants that will be colorful and not too tall. There is a growing movement to attract native pollinators, Borneman said, including honey bees and bumblebees.

Tina Rosselle, NAP’s volunteer and outreach coordinator, said planting native flora to attract bees is definitely something NAP is thinking about. But she indicated that planting such things in traffic islands might not be the best idea, since the bees or butterflies would have to fly across traffic.

Christopher Taylor said he was glad there was a focus on the height of plants in medians and traffic islands. Last year on Liberty, sunflowers were planted, he said. They looked beautiful, but got a little obstructive.

Alan Jackson wondered how NAP prioritizes its activities. He asked if there was a mission that guided the work. Yes, Borneman replied. With 158 parks and over 1,200 acres of natural areas, the staff can’t possible get out to all the sites – even with a corps of volunteers. Over the past 20 years, NAP has done a lot of inventory work, he said, to identify areas that are high-quality native forest remnants, for example, compared to sites that might have less quality native flora. That helped in doing a priority ranking of all the city’s parkland acreage. The staff schedules most of its work in those higher-priority sites, Borneman said. However, volunteer preferences also play a role, he added.

Ingrid Ault encouraged others in the community to volunteer, saying she’s taken part in the frog and toad survey for the past couple of years. “I’ve gone to places that I didn’t really know existed,” she said. “And I can tell you what a spring peeper and a leopard frog sound like.” It’s very rewarding, she said.

More information about volunteering is on NAP’s website.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Paige Morrison, David Santacroce, Missy Stults, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.