From left: Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm (Ward 2); Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). In color are the only two councilmembers on that side of the table who are not running for mayor. (Photo art by The Chronicle.)

The pedestrian safety and access task force appeared on the agenda because confirmation of its nine members was a question before the council. As part of that vote, as well as during council communications, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) revived the recent controversy over an attempted repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance – an effort that mayor John Hieftje ultimately vetoed. The task force was appointed at Tuesday’s meeting, after Kunselman established that he was still interested in revising the city’s crosswalk ordinance so that motorists would be required to stop for pedestrians only if they could “do so safely.”

In other business, the council approved the site plan for a revised, expanded version of the 624 Church St. project, located in the block just south of South University Avenue. The revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The approval came after an hour and a half of debate on the site plan, focusing on the way the project is satisfying a zoning requirement to provide parking spaces – through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had approved three five-year extensions for the CIL monthly permits – beyond the standard CIL term of 15 years. When Kunselman’s bid to eliminate the extended term failed – a move that would have jeopardized the project’s financing – he told Sean Spellman, representing the developer: “I’m sorry if I scared you …”

Also related to downtown development, the council moved along a process to revise downtown zoning regulations. The council accepted the planning commission’s recommendations, and in turn tasked the planning commission to develop ordinance language to implement the recommendations. In general, the planning commission’s recommendations were intended to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods. Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional by-right floor area ratio (FAR).

During its Tuesday meeting, the council added some direction of its own: (1) consider rezoning Huron Street from Division to Fourth Avenue to conform with the East Huron 1 character district, and consider incorporating 25-foot minimum side setbacks and 10-foot front setbacks where feasible in the East Huron 1 character district; and (2) consider whether other D1-zoned areas that do not have buffering from adjacent residential neighborhoods, including some areas of South University and Thayer Street, should be rezoned to D2. A date certain was also added by which the planning commission is to report to the council on all its work on this issue – Oct. 20, 2014.

In other zoning action at its Jan. 21 meeting, the council gave initial approval for the zoning of two unzoned properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. They are proposed to be zoned C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

In another item related to South State Street property, the council approved with no discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services to evaluate 2500 S. State St. That’s the Edwards Brothers Malloy property for which the council is currently exploring options to purchase. The item was added to the agenda on Friday, Jan. 17, after the initial publication of the agenda.

Delayed by the council was a six-month extension of the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, and a proposal to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. The postponement was made amid concern about the remaining $839,507 unallocated balance in the now-defunct Percent for Art fund. The political horse-trade made at the council table was to postpone the contract extension, with the expectation that it would be supported at the council’s next meeting – but at the same time, a process would start to return the better part of the $839,507 to the various funds from which that money was drawn.

The city’s new public art program relies on the idea of integrated or “baked-in” art for capital projects. It was developed by a five-member council committee, which included all four of the councilmembers who have announced that they’re running for mayor in 2014 – Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The fifth member of that committee was Margie Teall (Ward 4), who cast the only vote against postponing the contract extension for Seagraves – as she wanted to approve it at Tuesday’s meeting.

Also at its Jan. 21 meeting, the council approved $6,818 of general fund money to build a sidewalk from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward – to connect to a path leading the rest of the way to King Elementary School. The item, which has a history of at least four years, drew about 15 minutes of discussion.

Taking a half hour of council deliberations was another sidewalk-related item. The council approved the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road. Debate centered on a proposal from Kunselman to ask the city administrator to consider city funding for 80% of the project.

The council dispatched quickly two liquor-license related items: recommendation of a special downtown development liquor license for The Lunch Room at 407 N. Fifth Avenue, and a change in the classification of Silvio’s Organic Pizza license from a Tavern License to a Class C License.

Public commentary was highlighted by concerns about fracking.

Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

Councilmembers were asked to confirm nominations made at the council’s Jan. 6, 2014 meeting for members of a pedestrian safety and access task force. Members of the task force are: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

The task force was established at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. The group is supposed to “explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to Council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.” The group is asked to deliver a report by February 2015.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

During council communications time at the start of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) read aloud from several sources, calling it a “collage of the crosswalk ordinance working as intended.” The first item he read aloud was an email from Chelsea resident Diane Locker, who questioned the city’s crosswalk ordinance, based on an experience she had. The subject line to the email was “Crosswalk law caused a recent near-accident.” The email asked for help in understanding how to comply with the city’s crosswalk ordinance. She’d never received a traffic ticket, nor had she been involved in causing an accident, she wrote.

The previous day she’d had an experience on W. Eisenhower near Waymarket Drive that nearly caused a serious accident, she wrote. Under the city’s ordinance, she felt, she should have received a ticket, like a half-dozen cars behind her. She also felt that the father and child who were waiting to cross Eisenhower would have been within their right to start crossing but would have been seriously injured or killed, if they’d started crossing. To date, that’s the closest she’d come to having an accident since the crosswalk law’s repeal had been vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Locker said she sees pedestrians waiting at the curb to cross on her commute to work and would hate to think that an accident is inevitable. She described other occasions when she’s proceeded without even attempting to stop – because the pedestrian was not walking and the car following her was too close to react to her braking.

Kunselman then read aloud from the ordinance:

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

Kunselman then read aloud from Hieftje’s statement vetoing the ordinance:

Referred to as the “Crosswalk Ordinance,” existing Section 10:148 in the Ann Arbor City Code differs from Rule 702 of the Michigan Uniform Traffic Code (“UTC”) in that it explicitly requires drivers to stop, if they can do so safely, for pedestrians stopped on the curb, curb line or ramp. [.pdf of the Dec. 9, 2013 veto statement]

Kunselman then read aloud from an interview with Hieftje in Concentrate magazine:

Given that you had to use your veto to stop council eliminating the requirement for drivers to stop for pedestrians waiting to enter a crosswalk, are you concerned about how the issue will change without your vote in play?

No, I’m pretty happy with the task force that I’ll be naming at our next council meeting. Their mandate is to study the issue. There’s absolutely no data to show that our crosswalk ordinance isn’t working as intended. So I would hope that the task force would be allowed to work.

Kunselman highlighted the part of Hieftje’s veto statement that requires drivers to stop “if they can do so safely.” He ventured that the city attorney’s office had reviewed the language of Hieftje’s veto statement. So now, Kunselman said – citing the email from the Chelsea driver – people are making decisions as to whether they can stop safely.

A few minutes later, the council was asked to confirm appointment of the nine members of the pedestrian safety task and access force. Kunselman asked what the task is for the task force: Is it to come up with recommendations to amend the ordinance?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) replied that the task force was conceived independently of the heated controversy about the crosswalk ordinance. There are a whole slew of things related to pedestrian safety in addition to crosswalks, she said, which the task force would be reviewing. She alluded to a manual put out by the federal government that will guide the task force’s work. She also said that the task force will be given a book about walkable cities.

Kunselman contended that Briere’s explanation had made clear that the council can continue to consider the question of amending the crosswalk ordinance. He returned to his previous focus on the phrase from the mayor’s veto statement that said drivers should stop “if they can do so safely.” He ventured that an attempt might be made to amend the language of the ordinance to include that phrase.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm all the pedestrian safety and access task force appointments.

624 Church Street

The council considered approval of the site plan for 624 Church Street. This project would be located south of South University Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, next to and over the two-story Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church. A previous version went through the planning review process and was given approval by the city council almost a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

The current, revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down.

Rendering of 624 Church apartments, looking south from South University. Zaragon Place is pictured to the west, immediately next to the proposed 624 Church building. (Image included in the planning commission meeting packet.)

The original plan was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. But after the original plan received site plan approval, the developer purchased an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building eventually to be constructed. [.pdf of site plan] [.pdf of draft development agreement] [.pdf of staff memo]

Premiums offered in the D1 zoning district – for buildings with residential uses, and LEED silver certification – are being used to allow a larger structure than would otherwise be permitted, gaining an additional 267% in floor area ratio for a total of 667% FAR. To use the residential premium, each bedroom must have a window directly to the outside. The premium also triggers the requirement to provide parking – either by building it onsite or through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program.

The project includes a 1,491-square-foot outdoor dining area for Pizza House, which will be built underneath the apartment structure on the south side of the restaurant, opening onto Church Street. It will be partially enclosed, with large garage-style overhead doors along the front property line opening to the sidewalk.

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

• Two small offices for building management on the ground floor of the addition, with a solid waste/recycling room and bicycle parking room at the rear. There will be no new retail space.
• The top floor will include a small “club room” for residents and a rooftop patio with benches, a small grilling area, and garden trellis.
• The second floor will contain a fitness room, study lounge and five apartments. Other floors will have 11 apartments each. The apartments will be divided into: 23 one-bedroom (19%); 88 two-bedroom (72%); and 11 three-bedroom (9%). The units will range in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.
• The developer will make a contribution of $47,120 to the city’s parks and recreation unit for improvements to the nearby Forest Plaza, adjacent to the Forest Avenue parking structure.
• The development agreement includes a requirement to disconnect 27 footing drains as part of the city’s footing drain disconnect program. That’s an increase from the 20 that were required for the previous version of the project.

The new version of this development was evaluated by the city’s design review board, which was generally supportive of the project. [.pdf of September 2013 DRB report] The city planning commission recommended approval of the revised plan at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

The development requires 53 parking spaces under the city’s zoning. Five of those will be provided in spaces underneath the building. The previous proposal had no on-site parking. At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority granted the owner the ability to buy a total of 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure, through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program. That program requires the developer to pay 20% more than the standard rate for monthly parking permits. The DDA had already granted a request for 42 permits under the original version of the project.

At its Jan. 8 2014 meeting, the DDA board approved a request for the option to extend the monthly parking contracts for three five-year periods. Opus had wanted the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing.

The previous development proposal had drawn concern from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, at 619 E. University. The concerns stemmed in part from the fact that under the previous plan, the new building would have been built up to the lot line next to Zaragon Place. The current proposal calls for setbacks of 10 feet and 20 feet from that property line. According to planning staff, the city hasn’t received any feedback from adjacent property owners about this current proposal.

624 Church Street: Public Hearing

Brad Moore, the architect for the project, led off the public hearing.

Architect for 624 Church Street, Brad Moore.

Moore noted that what’s before the council is a revision to the previous project. He reminded the council that the renovation to Pizza House had been designed with strong enough foundations to facilitate a larger project to be built at a later time. He explained that the portion of the previous project that had zero setback with the adjacent Zaragon building has been redesigned, so that it now has a 20-foot setback. [That had been a point of friction with the owner of the Zaragon building in the previous iteration of the project, but has not been an issue this time around.]

Moore noted that the unit mix is about 90% 1-2 bedroom units, with 11 3-bedroom units.

Eppie Potts spoke about the parking permit issue. She questioned the contribution-in-lieu policy that allows a developer to pay for permits in the public parking system, instead of building parking spaces onsite. That’s not good for the public, Potts said. She won’t be able to get to her favorite restaurant, she feared. The public is being crowded out. If the developers can build that big of a building, they could also find a way to build some parking, she contended.

Next to speak was Scott Munzel, who is a local attorney representing Opus, the developer. He noted that the project complies with all the applicable zoning requirements. He called the project a creative use of a “difficult site.” That’s why it’s difficult to construct parking onsite, he said, and that’s why the developer is making use of the city’s contribution-in-lieu program. The project is consistent with the downtown plan, he said, and it’s consistent with other city goals, like creating a sense of place.

Maggie Ladd, director of the South University Area Association, told the council she supports the project. She said that the zoning was changed before the A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) process, and that A2D2 lowered the height restrictions.

624 Church Street: Council Deliberations

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) led off the discussion. She asked for planning manager Wendy Rampson to come to the podium. Kailasapathy wanted to know about the contribution to parks – as $72,450 had been requested. The developer had made a smaller contribution – $47,120. Rampson noted that the parks contribution is voluntary. Brad Moore, the project’s architect, responded by saying the city parks staff member had modified the request downward, based on the specific parks improvements at Forest Plaza that the city wanted to undertake.

Kailasapathy then expressed dissatisfaction with the extension option for the contribution-in-lieu parking program that the DDA had granted – three five-year periods past the standard 15 years for parking CIL permits.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, described the usage pattern of the Forest Avenue parking structure, which is heavy during the school year. She ventured that a circulator bus downtown could allow for relocating the permits to a different parking structure sometime in the future. Mayor John Hieftje noted that the developer is taking advantage of an existing policy – the CIL program.

Pollay described an “experiment” or “pilot” program the DDA had tried where parking permits would be granted not on a first-come-first-serve basis but rather to property owners based on square footage. The number of parking permits that were being granted to the project fell within the square-footage guidelines of that pilot program, she said. [Property owners turned out not to be interested in managing parking permits on behalf of their tenants.] Hieftje elicited the fact that the CIL program requires a 20% premium to be paid on the regular price for a monthly parking permit.

About the Forest parking structure, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked: Is there a wait list? Yes, answered Pollay, 325 are on the list, and 153 of those have joined the list since 2012.

Kunselman said the extension of the CIL by three 5-year periods “irked” him. He asked what the DDA’s discussion had been like in terms of “fairness.”

Pollay said that fairness is the point of the “pilot” program. But the DDA had learned that the property owners didn’t want to manage parking permits for their own tenants. Pollay said the conversation about fairness was ongoing. About the South University area, Kunselman noted that “we’re running out of land over there.”

Kunselman wanted to know what other developments had contracts for parking permits. How many spaces are available to the public at the Forest parking structure?

Pollay said the Forest structure has almost 900 spaces, but the University of Michigan had been a partner on the expansion of the structure. So not counting the spaces allotted to UM, just under 590 spaces are available to the public, she said. There are 131 monthly permits that have been sold to the public now. She explained how the gate arms keep track of public usage versus UM usage.

Pollay noted that the current monthly permit system is on a month-to-month basis – which means that the DDA can choose not to renew a monthly permit. Kunselman wanted to know if the 48 permits for the 624 Church Street project would be taken out of the 131 existing permits. He elicited the fact that the 48 permits sold to the 624 Church Street project will jump ahead in line of those currently on the wait list. Pollay said that many people on the wait list may already be parking in the Forest structure on an hourly basis, adding that having a monthly permit is a matter of convenience.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said the council keeps hearing that for new developments that are built, the residents are going to bring cars. She was not sure that all 48 of those spaces would be needed for the project.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thought that if a more diverse housing mix is desired, not all residents would find it convenient to not have a car. She expressed concerns about the lengthened parking agreement. She was glad that flexibility on the location of the structure where they’d be granted had been built into the agreement. She asked Pollay if this relocation of the permits to a different structure during the extension period had been a point of discussion with the developer. Yes, answered Pollay. Pollay also noted that the CIL program had been approved by the council.

Lumm said she didn’t want to see cars parked in the neighborhood if people can’t get into the structure. Hieftje, who lives in the North Burns Park area, responded to Lumm’s remarks by indicating that the residential parking program is effective in preventing people from storing cars on the streets. Hieftje ventured that if the council wants to review the CIL program, it should do that separate from its consideration of the 624 Church Street project.

Kailasapathy responded to Hieftje by saying that the 15-year extension was outside the CIL policy. She called the use of the CIL policy “externalization of costs” associated with the development.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated support for the site plan –because it conforms with the zoning requirements. It would add useful residential units, he said. Previously the area had been challenged and desolate and it’s no longer so, he said.

On the parking permit issue, Taylor allowed that fairness is an issue, but said he’s relying on the DDA to take a longer view of managing the demand of the parking system. On the parking permit spaces, Taylor said: “They’re being used by Ann Arbor residents – they just don’t live here, yet.”

Kunselman asked if the DDA has looked at subsidizing lower-income students for their parking costs. Pollay replied by saying that the DDA’s strategy has been to make as many options available as possible and to let people choose.

Kunselman asked if the monthly permits allow someone to park 24/7. Yes, Pollay answered. That’s a problem, Kunselman said.

Kunselman then asked if long-term parking had been explored for people to park at a satellite lot for “storage parking.” Pollay said a pilot had been done at the Fingerle lot to explore the idea of “storage parking.” Not many takers had been found, she said.

Kunselman ventured that developments in D1 and D2 zoning districts are “parking exempt,” so he wanted an explanation for why the 624 Church Street project needed parking. Rampson explained that parking can be required for the larger buildings that result from premium FAR (floor area ratio).

Kunselman asked the city attorney what happens if the council amends the development agreement. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald suggested that instead of trying to amend the development agreement, the council should make changes in the resolved clauses of its resolution.

Kunselman asked for the developer to come to the podium, and asked about striking the CIL’s extended term and location from the development agreement: Will that be a deal-breaker? Yes, answered Sean Spellman with The Opus Group. The national lending market has spoken, Spellman added.

Spellman noted that for the extended term of the CIL, the location of the parking structure where the permits would be granted wouldn’t necessarily be the Forest parking structure. But having the extended term was essential to obtaining financing, Spellman said. Kunselman replied: “Your financing is not my concern.”

Kunselman said that all these years he’s participated in this kind of site plan review process, he’s always told citizens that the council is voting on the zoning, not the financing, and it’s up to the developer to put the financing together.

Spellman said that the council could move the spaces wherever it wants, but the development really needed the extension. Kunselman said that if the project can’t get financing without the parking, then maybe it’s too big. About the DDA board’s decision to agree to the extended term, Kunselman said: “The DDA rolled over for ya.”

Kunselman continued by saying that the DDA doesn’t sign contracts, and the developer would have to go to the bank with a DDA resolution, not a contract. Kunselman added that he’d be content not to have any parking required for the project.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) then reviewed with the developer the availability of spaces in the Forest structure. Pollay reviewed how a monthly parking permit is not transferable, and cannot be sublet.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked Rampson if the developer could meet the parking requirement by providing Zipcar spaces. Rampson reviewed the lessons learned from The Varsity project, and noted that Zipcar doesn’t necessarily accept locations on a private site.

624 Church Street: Council Deliberations – Proposed Amendment (Location)

Kunselman then offered an amendment to the resolution. Kunselman’s added “resolved” clause stated that the development agreement is to be renegotiated to eliminate the designation of the Forest parking structure and the three 5-year extensions.

Teall appreciated the sentiment of Kunselman’s amendment. She wished there were more parking in the South University area. But she didn’t think Kunselman’s amendment was practical.

Hieftje said he understood the financing issue. He also understood the value of the additional units the project would provide. He called Kunselman’s amendment a “poison pill” for the development.

Hieftje said the DDA has thought deeply about this issue and knows more about the parking system than the council does. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald suggested that the word “negotiate” should be eliminated from the amendment, because it’s just council’s direction to be followed and nothing would be “negotiated.”

Lumm wanted the question divided. So the designation of the Forest parking structure as the location for the monthly permits was one question. The three 5-year extensions were a separate question.

First up was the location of the permits. Briere asked Pollay if she understood the amendment to mean that the spaces couldn’t be assigned in the Forest structure, and that the DDA would be constrained to look at other parking structures. Pollay replied that she did not know what the DDA board members would think, but what she interpreted the amendment to mean was direction from the council that the council would prefer that the spaces not be allocated in the Forest structure, and the DDA would take it as direction to find spaces for the permits elsewhere in the system.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said the question should actually be directed to Kunselman as to what his intent was. Kunselman said he didn’t mind if the permits were assigned in Forest – and he wanted the DDA to have the flexibility to assign them wherever it deems suitable.

Taylor asked if the location of the parking spaces had an implication for the financing. Spellman indicated the assumption had always been that the majority percentage of the permits would be in the Forest structure. Taylor ventured that the DDA has already indicated that the spaces are available in the Forest structure. Petersen noted that the council had already approved 40 spaces in Forest, in conjunction with the previous version of the project.

Outcome on the location amendment: The amendment failed with support only from Kunselman, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

624 Church Street: Council Deliberations – Proposed Amendment (Term)

Next up was the question of three 5-year term extensions. Lumm said she’d support the amendment, but noted that she wasn’t sure why the DDA agreed to the extensions.

Hieftje brought Spellman back to the podium. He got clarification that Opus needs the “capacity” to extend the term for the permits for 30 years. The location for that entire period is not important. About the chances for getting financing without the 30-year term, Spellman said: “It’s zero.”

Eaton asked if the project could get financing if the project were parking-exempt. Spellman indicated that if the project were exempt, then it would already be zoning-compliant.

Briere wondered what the expectation was for a building becoming compliant with zoning in year 16 – after the standard term for a CIL permit agreement. McDonald explained that the policy was to require a minimum for 15 years. The 20% additional payment is to provide an enhancement to the parking system, McDonald said. He noted that banks are concerned that the building could become out of compliance. He said it was the city that came up with the 15-year requirement.

From right: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Lumm ventured that not having the parking agreement could kill the project. McDonald said that the conversations with the developer have been extensive. He pointed out that the DDA’s initial response to the request of a 15-year extension was to reject that in favor of three 5-year extendable terms.

Taylor called it “nonsensical” to deny the permits, knowing it would stop the project. “This makes no sense to me,” he said.

Kunselman ventured that the previous project was apparently financeable without the parking permit term extensions. He then shifted to a somewhat conciliatory tone, saying the project won’t get killed, because his amendment would be voted down. But later he would be bringing forth a proposal to kill the CIL program. Hieftje ventured technically the vote could come out for the amendment, which would kill the project.

Outcome on amendment on the parking permit extensions: The amendment failed, with support from Kunselman, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy. [Lumm hesitated, saying she was counting votes, then voted no.]

624 Church Street: Council Deliberations – Continued

With the main question before the council again, Lumm worried about the CIL program eating away at the capacity of the parking system.

Petersen said she voted no on Kunselman’s amendment, but wanted the CIL program re-examined. She hoped it could be “Zipcar in lieu of parking.”

Kunselman said he’d had no intention, coming into the meeting, of raising these issues, but as he listened, he thought that the fairness issue was important. He allowed that the developer might have found the council’s discussion to be scary: “I’m sorry if I scared you, but as we work this through, that’s what we do.”

Briere said she’d bring up this issue with the planning commission, as the CIL program is related to D1 zoning and premiums. She ventured that many in the community would advocate for requiring a developer to provide parking for tenants. The issue needs to be considered carefully, she said.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the site plan and development agreement for 624 Church St.

Downtown Zoning Recommendations

The council considered a resolution giving direction to the planning commission to develop revisions to the city’s downtown zoning ordinance.

Downtown Zoning Recommendations: Background

By way of background, a downtown zoning evaluation began last year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2013. That direction was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1, 2013.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

The commission continued the public hearing and debated most of these recommendations at its Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. The group did not tackle the most controversial item that night: Possible changes to the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William.

On Dec. 3, commissioners picked up the topic and heard from three people during the ongoing public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main. Following that, the commission’s discussion focused on 425 S. Main, as well as revisiting a recommendation related to the design guidelines.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “Feedback on Downtown Zoning Continues“; “Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase“; “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review”; ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward” and “Downtown Zoning Review to Wrap Up Soon.”

Downtown Zoning Recommendations: Planning Commission to Council

In general, the final recommendations made by the planning commission at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Three of the recommendations related to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.

Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage. Those recommendations are: (1) Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts; (2) Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing; (3) Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms; (4) Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

Prior to the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) distributed amendments that she intended to bring forward. [.pdf of Briere's possible amendments to the downtown zoning resolution]

At its Jan. 21 meeting, the council considered a resolution that accepted the recommendations as completing the planning commission’s assignment. The resolution further directed the planning commission to translate its recommendations into proposed ordinance language, which would require review and a public hearing. The specific ordinance language would then be recommended by the planning commission to the city council, which would make the ultimate decision after a public hearing.

Downtown Zoning Recommendations: Public Hearing

Peter Nagourney led off the public hearing.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) spoke with Doug Kelbaugh before the start of the council meeting.

He supported the work of consultant Erin Perdu. He called the master plan “the constitution” and the zoning ordinance “the law” – a sentiment he attributed to resident Tom Whitaker. In some cases, the consultant’s recommendations went beyond the council’s direction, he noted, but that was in order to achieve overall consistency.

Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, was next to address the council. He said the fallout from 413 E. Huron had resulted in a productive process.

Going from 180 feet to 60 feet (D1 to D2) is too abrupt, he said. Kelbaugh asked that the rest of Ann Street also be considered as part of the zoning review. He alluded to Briere’s possible amendment as addressing the Ann Street concerns. He told the council that the recommendations in front of the council are supported by many people.

Tamara Burns, an architect and chair of the city’s design review board, told the council that the board does not support tying the award of premiums to compliance with the recommendations of the design review board. The design guidelines need to be revised and the process for the design review needs to be updated, she said – before making premium FAR (floor area ratio) contingent on design review board recommendations.

Steve Kaplan said that in recent history, his observation was that having design guidelines is a great start, but it’s easy to ignore them. He asked that some attention is given to how much teeth the guidelines can have – so that people follow them in the future.

From left: Eleanor Linn, Chris Crockett and Ray Detter.

Chris Crockett thanked the council for providing the direction to re-evaluate the downtown zoning. She said there are some changes to the recommendations that she would suggest. She wanted consideration of zoning changes all the way to Fourth Avenue on Ann Street. She called 413 E. Huron a sad experience because of a misapplication of character areas. Crockett said she has respect for Tamara Burns, saying she’s known Burns since Burns was in high school. But Crockett ventured that there could be some way to put some additional teeth into the design guidelines.

Hugh Sonk spoke representing the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association. Sloan Plaza is located on the north side of East Huron, next to the 413 E. Huron development. He called on the council to support the additional recommendations made by the near downtown neighborhood group. [.pdf of Near-Downtown Neighborhood Group letter]

Piotr Michalowski said he’s very concerned about the corner of Main and William. He asked the council to support the current recommendation to rezone that parcel as D2. He noted that residents of the neighborhood have already been “burned” once with a project he said he would not name. [He was referring to City Place, on South Fifth Avenue south of William.] He asked the council to maintain the transition between residential areas and Main Street.

Cy Hufano, a resident of Sloan Plaza, spoke next. On the technical side, he addressed the second recommendation – for the D1.5 zoning proposal, which includes a height limit of 120 feet, and the use of diagonals.

Cy Hufano.

As far as the process goes, Hufano felt there were a lot of loose ends. He cautioned against making decisions based on the threat of lawsuits. He said he was speaking from the heart. He visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. and looked at a mural. There was a figure holding a halter, he said: “People have got to watch what government is doing.”

When Ray Detter addressed the council, he essentially reprised the same comments that he delivered at the Jan. 8, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. He agreed with Hufano’s comments.

Eppie Potts strongly urged support for the resolution to start the process of much-needed amendments. D1 and D2 have been tried, but found to be controversial, she said. To avoid future controversy, additional revision is needed. She cited problems with overlay districts. She gave The Varsity on East Washington as an example of a problem with front setbacks. She asked the council to keep the door open to reviewing other troublesome aspects of D1 and D2.

Eleanor Linn introduced herself as a resident of Forest Court, near Zaragon and the Landmark apartment buildings in the South University neighborhood. She ventured that another large building will be built on Church Street, depending on the council’s action later that night. [The council later approved the 624 Church St. project.] She supported the possible amendments to be offered by Briere – which would direct the planning commission also to consider revisions to zoning in the South University area. Linn recalled intricate details of the history of past planning exercises.

David Blanchard introduced himself as chair of the city’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). He said he wanted to keep the idea of affordable housing alive, with a diversity of housing choices for different income levels. He remembered the PUD (planned unit development) system where cash-in-lieu of affordable housing units could be contributed. He also noted that the current zoning has a “super-premium” for building affordable housing. The current recommendation is to remove that premium, because that premium wasn’t being used. That might be the right recommendation, he allowed, but he wasn’t sure enough thought had gone into it. He urged the planning commission to work with HHSAB to make affordable housing a reality in Ann Arbor.

Downtown Zoning Review: Council Deliberations – Briere Amendments

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who represents the city council on the planning commission, said that the commission had discussed all the communications that had been described during the public hearing. The public had asked the planning commission to expand its scope of consideration, but the planning commission had decided to confine its recommendations to the council’s specific direction.

Briere then offered her amendments. In addition to the direction already given in the original resolution, her amendments directed the planning commission to: (1) consider rezoning Huron Street from Division to Fourth Avenue to conform with the East Huron 1 character district (which has a height limit of 150 feet instead of a 180-foot limit like other D1 areas); (2) consider whether other D1-zoned areas that do not have buffering from adjacent residential neighborhoods, including some areas of South University and Thayer Street, should be rezoned to D2.

Briere’s amendments added a date certain by which the planning commission is to report to the council on all its work on this issue: Oct. 20, 2014, which is the council’s second meeting that month. [.pdf of amendments to the downtown zoning resolution put forward Briere]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked Briere if she’d be willing to add setback language to the amendments so that 25-foot minimum side setbacks and 10-foot front setbacks would be included for the East Huron 1 character district. Briere said she tried to not constrain the planning commission. So she had not suggested any side setbacks in her amendments. She didn’t think front setbacks of 10 feet would benefit all of Huron Street. Briere wanted further discussion before accepting Lumm’s suggestions as friendly.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) wanted to know if Briere would be willing to add Ann Street between Fourth and Fifth as an area for additional consideration. That suggestion was added in a friendly way.

Lumm then phrased her suggestion on setbacks in terms of “considering” changes to the setbacks, which was added to the set of amendments.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he wanted to “chat” about the reference to Thayer in the amendments offered by Briere. He didn’t think there’s residential in that area that needs buffering. But he thought there needs sight-scape buffering to Hill Auditorium, so he’d support the reference to Thayer.

Outcome: Briere’s amendments were approved.

Downtown Zoning Review: Council Deliberations – Taylor Amendment

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said there’s been a lot of good and solid work done on this by the planning commission and the public. He said he hopes that the recommendation on residential premiums means that it’s a reduction in the size of the units – as that would speak to the kind of housing that “millennials” are looking for. He said that the recommendation at the corner of Main and William had been a swift change from the consultant’s initial recommendation. So he wanted to keep an eye on that.

Taylor then offered a specific amendment on the recommendation about the design review board’s role. He said the city needs modest and smart growth. His amendment indicated that the revisions to the design review board process should have the support of the design review board. [That was a reaction to the public hearing comments by design review board chair Tamara Burns, who said that as things currently stand, the design review board did not want to be the arbiter of the award of premium FAR (floor area ratio).]

The phrasing of Taylor’s amendment was to highlight the recommendation on making adherence to core design principles mandatory [numbered (4) in the resolution] by exempting it from the resolution’s general direction to the planning commission to implement the changes.

Briere noted that when Taylor said “save (4)” many people understood it as “save for.” So wordsmithing ensued to ensure Taylor’s amendment did escape the Oct. 20, 2014 deadline.

Mayor John Hieftje said the design review board had all along not wanted to have mandatory compliance. So he appreciated Taylor’s amendment.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said (4) had originally been drafted to say that there would be mandatory compliance. The planning commission had revised the wording to emphasize there should be a focus on the core design guidelines and improving the process, without making the design review board the gatekeeper to the premiums. About Taylor’s amendment, which Rampson said she was seeing for the first time, she concluded that “it looks fine.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Rampson who the gatekeepers to the premiums would be – the planning commission? Rampson responded to Kunselman by saying that the planning commission had discussed various possibilities. Commissioners were reluctant to make compliance mandatory. They wanted the ability to look at each site as unique. Kunselman ventured that the final arbiter would be the council. Rampson suggested that two paths for a project review could be maintained, for site plan and for design review.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked Rampson to comment on the design review board process and the city’s participation in the state’s Redevelopment Ready Communities program. Would the DRB process prevent Redevelopment Ready certification? Rampson said the main thing with the program is that “we have to be clear” so that a developer knows what to expect.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) talked about the idea that the council would be making the judgment about how close a developer had come to meeting the recommendations of the design review board: Is that approach workable? Rampson indicated that the approach works in other communities.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that some developers find out what the neighbors want and build that – while others don’t, and get pushback.

Anglin asked about setbacks. Rampson explained that the idea is that the setbacks allow for some flexibility, but the building should continue a pattern if there’s an existing pattern of buildings set forward on a particular street. The goal was not to crowd the sidewalk, Rampson said.

Lumm asked for confirmation about what the planning commission and design review board will be doing. Rampson indicated that she thought those two groups will be able to chart out a path to work together. Rampson noted that the DRB is not always consistent in its comments – with different members offering different perspectives. So the DRB is looking for a preliminary meeting, with more informal commentary, followed by a more formal process.

Hieftje said he’d always supported mandatory compliance, but he thought the amendment Taylor had offered is very thoughtful.

Outcome: Taylor’s amendment was approved.

Downtown Zoning Review: Council Deliberations – Amended Resolution

When the council had finished its amendment process and focused on the main question, Kunselman said he’d support the resolution. He noted that mandatory compliance can’t be required on a basic project, but it can be required for premiums. He noted that he’d been the only councilmember who’d voted against the A2D2 zoning. He had preferred the previous zoning, which was more of a “mosaic,” he said. He echoed the remarks of Eleanor Linn, who’d described during the public hearing how the “density chips” in the Calthorpe planning exercise were dumped on South U: “They definitely were,” he said.

When the zoning was changed in the South University area before A2D2, the council had not been told about the possibility of parcel combinations, Kunselman said. He added that the current revisions are implementing corrections to the previous policies and the “lust to build more and more housing.”

Briere said she’d support the resolution and she’d try to influence the outcome on the planning commission based on what she’d heard at the council’s meeting.

From left: Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he’d support the resolution – especially because of the deadline that Briere had added. He hoped that the pieces that are clear can be covered quickly, and that not everything will be held up in order that everything is done before anything is done. He was glad the process took a look at the southeast corner of William and Main. He said he’d trust the process, adding that the corner of Main and Packard is not a place for D1 zoning.

Lumm said she’d support the resolution. She ticked through a list of people she wanted to thank. She called the report and recommendations thorough and clear. The recommendations help address the flaws in the A2D2 zoning that manifested themselves in the 413 E. Huron project, she said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said was glad the council was moving forward with this. She’d attended some of the public outreach meetings. What was said at the meetings was reflected in the report, she said. The council’s work session last week [on economic development] gave her pause, she said. She wants to keep Ann Arbor’s housing stock diverse and affordable.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the recommendations, with amendments, to the planning commission for changes to the downtown zoning.

State Street Zoning Request

The council considered initial approval for the zoning of two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. The zoning designation would be C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

The unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

State Street Zoning Request: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective on the Biercamp zoning request, but he wasn’t sure if the current proposal met Biercamp’s needs. He said that it gave him the chance to visit the business to get some jerky and to get a growler so that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was clear about what a growler is. He lifted a growler onto the table, prompting Petersen to ask if it was a gift. [Petersen had previously asked at a council meeting what a growler is. That was the Dec. 17, 2012 meeting, when the council approved a micro-brewery license for Biercamp.]

Warpehoski reported, based on his visit, that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C1 zoning.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the zoning of 1643 and 1645 S. State. It will need a second vote at a subsequent meeting.

Edwards Brothers Land

On the council’s agenda was approval of a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services to evaluate 2500 S. State St. That’s the Edwards Brothers Malloy property for which the council is currently exploring options to purchase.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information. So the site assessment by Atwell is part of that effort. The council is working within a 60-business-day window that began Nov. 27, 2013.

By way of background, the pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013.

Discussion at the city council’s Sunday night caucus on Jan. 19 indicated that conversations could be taking place between city officials and the university about UM’s needs and how the Edwards Brothers property meets those needs – with an eye toward the possibility of the city and the university arriving at a mutually agreeable outcome where the city acquired only a portion of the property.

Caucus discussion also indicated that talks are taking place between the city and developers who might have an interest in purchasing the property from the city. One obstacle in those conversations is the fact that the university could still eventually exercise its right of eminent domain to acquire the property from a developer, even after purchasing it from the city. But that would require convincing a court that the expansion of the university’s athletic campus at that location would be in the public interest.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the contract with Atwell to do a site assessment of the Edwards Brothers property. The council held another closed session on land acquisition at the end of the meeting, which lasted about 40 minutes.

Public Art Administrator Contract

The council considered an extension of the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. A total of $20,500 was to be appropriated from the balance in the public art fund, with the additional money to cover various expenses. Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

By way of background, the city council enacted a public art ordinance in late 2007, setting up a Percent for Art program as a funding mechanism. For each of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – was set aside for public art. The Ann Arbor public art commission oversaw the expenditures. However, the approach proved controversial and the city council changed the ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That ordinance change came after a failed public art millage that was put before voters in the November 2012 election.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Under the new approach, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded. The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

A budget summary provided by Seagraves in response to a Chronicle email shows a current balance of $839,507 in available funds for public art, as of Jan. 14, 2014. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Public Art Administrator Contract: Public Commentary

Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, spoke to the council during public commentary at the start of the meeting. The art commission has followed the direction of the city council since the change to the ordinance last year, he reported. He gave a summary of the projects that are currently in the works. The commission looks forward to achieving the goals set by the council, he told councilmembers.

Public Art Administrator Contract: Council Deliberations

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) led off deliberations by saying he couldn’t support continuing to spend funds that were accumulated under the former Percent for Art program. [As a budget amendment, the item needed eight votes to pass on the 11-member council. So if the council had voted on the issue instead of postponing, there was a credible possibility that it would have failed.]

Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said the money in the public art fund balances should be returned to the funds of origin. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that she’s previously said she wouldn’t support continued spending of public art money. Her resolution to return about $800,000 to the funds of origin had failed several months ago. She said a “clean break” should be made between the current program and the old program.

[At the council's June 3, 2013 meeting, the council eliminated the Percent for Art program from the ordinance, and revised the ordinance in a way that allowed the return of money to its funds of origin – but just for money accumulated in the public art fund for the FY 2014 budget year. And the council voted at the same June 3 meeting to return that money, which amounted to $326,464. But a bid by Lumm to revise the ordinance to allow the return to its funds-of-origin money accumulated in previous years did not win majority support on the council.]

By the end of 2013, Lumm said, the council was supposed to have a description of the new program. Based on Ann Arbor public art commission chair Bob Miller’s remarks that night, Lumm said it didn’t appear that has happened.

On the question of the contract extension, mayor John Hieftje said that pretty much nothing happens without a staff member. A lot of citizens have put in a lot of time on a lot of projects that are in the works, he said. He asked Miller if any of the projects could go forward without an art administrator. Miller’s answer: No. Without an art administrator, the public art commission couldn’t function, he said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she thought that money from the streets millage should be returned to that fund. But she saw the need for a public art administrator. This should be the last extension of his contract, she said. After this, part of the public art administrator’s job is supposed to include raising private funds.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) tried to get an estimate from public services area administrator Craig Hupy of the likelihood of having a private funding mechanism in place by June. Hupy, who supervises Seagraves, described a model where a nonprofit would be formed outside of the city. He ventured that the wastewater treatment facility art project, currently in the planning stages, would have 50% private support.

Briere said that the idea of leaving the money in the public art fund was to use some of that as a “bridge” to the new model. She was concerned about how long that might take. She said she thinks an administrator is needed for the next few months, but she didn’t want to see the contract extension for much longer.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked questions about the projects in the works. Hupy said that the East Stadium bridges artwork had run into some issues with the sustainability of the materials and some modifications had been made. That would come back to the public for review.

Kunselman said he’d made a commitment to following through on the transition. But at some point, he allowed, the council has to pull the plug. He felt that the projects left over from the Percent for Art program were a drag on the ability of the city to transition to the new program. Kunselman said it’s also unfair to Seagraves to be subjected to a contract renewal every six months.

Eaton suggested a postponement on the contract extension, and that it be brought back with a simultaneous proposal to revise the ordinance to allow the return of money to the funds of origin. Kunselman said if all the money is put back, you can’t pay for the art currently in the works.

Hieftje got clarification about Eaton’s intent – which was to provide enough money to fund an administrator, but to return the other public art money to the funds of origin.

Eaton’s motion to postpone nearly failed for lack of a second. But Briere offered the seconding motion.

Briere pointed out that an ordinance can’t be changed in one meeting – because it requires a first and second reading. Hieftje responded to Briere’s point by saying a resolution could be introduced at the council’s next meeting to direct the preparation of ordinance language. Kunselman asked what the ordinance amendment would do. Answer: It would allow the return of the money to the funds of origin for previous years.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) ventured that the compromise he was hearing Eaton offer was to take the amorphous wind-down time period of the old public art program and give it some additional structure. Petersen said she didn’t think the vote that night needed to be postponed.

Eaton clarified, saying that he wanted a quid pro quo – his vote in support of the contract extension in exchange for a commitment to return the unassigned money in the public art fund to the funds of origin.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) was not willing to make the deal Eaton was proposing. She said there had not been an agreement to end the public art program, but rather to transition to a new approach. She was disappointed that no nonprofit has yet been found to take the lead on the private funding component. She said she’d support the contract extension that night.

Kunselman said he’d support the postponement because it continues the dialogue and gives Eaton some time. He appreciated Teall’s sentiments, but said there are other areas of the city that have needs. He compared providing parking for wealthy students in the public parking structure – a reference to debate earlier in the evening over parking permits for 624 Church St. – with a tent out on Stone School Road where people are trying to keep warm.

Hieftje responded to Kunselman by saying there’s not a single dollar in the public art fund that could be used for human services.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that art projects that people can actually see would have a positive impact. He indicated support for the postponement.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone extending Seagraves’ contract as public art administrator. Sole dissent came from Teall.

Sidewalks

Two items involving construction of new sidewalks – at two specific locations – appeared on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

Sidewalks: Waldenwood – Background

By way of background, at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting, the city council had approved a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward, connecting to a path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

In its form, that resolution was similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council approved last year. [For example, the council approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting, and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King Elementary School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009.

For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the new 186-foot sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) spoke with Michael van Nieuwstadt before the meeting started.

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King Elementary School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. And the more recent feedback, reflected in the staff memo for the Jan. 21 meeting, indicates that an Oct. 3, 2013 neighborhood meeting attended by 22 people resulted in 15 feedback forms, 10 of which indicated support and 5 of which indicated opposition. [.pdf of letter from the van Nieuwstadts and Weismans]

The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair, but not new construction, can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage.

In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

Only a small amount of the originally approved $10,000 design budget was spent. To cover the $16,000 construction cost, an additional $6,818 of general fund money was requested at the Jan. 21 meeting.

Sidewalks: Waldenwood – Public Commentary

Michael van Nieuwstadt is an owner of property adjacent to the proposed sidewalk near King Elementary School. He asked for clarification about the nature of the agenda item: Did it involve moving the crosswalk as well as construction of the sidewalk? Sabra Briere (Ward 1) departed from the typical city council practice of not responding at all to public speakers, explaining to van Nieuwstadt that it’s just about construction of the sidewalk. He said he’s been asking for a safety report for the last four weeks, and he’d learned that one had been produced just earlier in the day. He wanted some time to look at the report. He described the sidewalk connection as connecting two pieces of “nowhere.” He asked for some additional time for the neighborhood to gather its thoughts.

Kathryn Dacosta also addressed the issue of the sidewalk extension near King School.

Kathryn DaCosta returned to the podium after providing the city clerk with copies of a photograph she had described during her public commentary.

She walks her kids to school every day, so she’s on the front lines of the issue, she said. Before the 2011-12 school year there was no crossing guard. It’s a difficult situation and it’s very unsafe, she said.

Drivers are distracted by saying goodbye or looking for their kids. They’re not watching for kids doing unexpected things. Drivers are committing traffic infractions, she contended. She reported that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) had visited the site that morning. Dacosta said there have been three traffic accidents in the last year.

There’s gridlock, she said, causing angry drivers. Drivers are also on their cell phones. People also park on the side of the street where the extension is proposed. She took a photo to illustrate the situation, which she handed to the city clerk. It showed parents with their children walking in the street.

Sidewalks: Waldenwood – Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she had the same impression as the speaker during public commentary – that the resolution dealt also with the location of the crosswalk. But the crosswalk location was not a part of the resolution. She proposed an amendment to make that clear.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) added that in the many conversations about the sidewalk, concerns had been raised about previous studies. She referred to a Jan. 21 email from Ann Arbor Public Schools director of ancillary services Brad Mellor, saying that the transportation safety committee agreed that the issue of the sidewalk construction adjacent to the school needs to be resolved, and would not benefit from further analysis or additional delay. [.pdf of email from Mellor]

Lumm said she thought that a sidewalk would provide a good location for kids to be dropped off.

Outcome: The council approved the amendment proposed by Petersen, which stated “Resolved, That such approval does not confer agreement to relocate the existing mid-block crosswalk;”

Petersen then wanted to know how a decision would be made to change the location of the crosswalk, if it were changed. Pat Cawley, a project manager for the city, explained the process to go through moving a crosswalk in the future.

Petersen then wanted to make sure that the King Elementary School families would have an opportunity to provide feedback on a change to a crosswalk location.

Lumm thought all the issues that had previously been raised had been addressed. Lumm inquired about the feedback form from a previous meeting and how it was distributed.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Waldenwood sidewalk construction budget.

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail

In separate sidewalk-related item, the council considered taking the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road. The project would also construct a concrete curb and gutter northward from Skydale about 920 feet along the east side of Pontiac Trail and about 1,030 feet along the west side of Pontiac Trail. Those stretches currently don’t have a curb and gutter.

This first step directed the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate.

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail – Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by explaining why the sidewalk is only on one side: It’s not anticipated that there will be demand. If the property owners on the other side, in the township, are annexed into the city, a sidewalk on that side might be added, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if the city was going to be contributing some percent of the cost. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, said there’s no federal or state dollars involved. Kunselman responded by saying he wanted to amend the resolution. He wanted 80% of the cost to be borne by the city. He was comparing the way the city approached special assessments for some projects in the city when there were federal or state funds available. He didn’t think it was OK to sometimes provide a portion of the cost and sometimes not – for other projects that are special-assessed.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked for an explanation from Hupy about other projects. Hupy explained that for some other projects, state or federal funding is available. The federal or state portion is typically 80% of the project cost. Warpehoski ventured that Kunselman’s amendment would establish a new precedent of the city providing funding.

Nick Hutchinson, a project manager for the city, clarified that there would be eight property owners affected by the special assessment for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk.

Mayor John Hieftje agreed with Warpehoski that it would not set a good precedent as a way to fill sidewalk gaps, to commit city funds to it.

Kunselman asked for an estimate of the cost. Hutchinson ventured that it’d be $45,000 for 920 feet. Kunselman stressed that it’s the first step in the special assessment process and doesn’t commit the city to anything. The issue is to let the people know that the city is thinking about them. He said that Pontiac Trail should have federal dollars available and he thought that the city should wait until federal funds are available.

Hutchinson confirmed that the federal surface transportation program is for major streets and Pontiac is a major street, so it’s eligible. But Hutchinson said it would be at least 2018 before federal money might be available.

Kunselman called it an issue of fairness – because Ward 3 residents with a project on Stone School Road would have their project funded with federal monies, but Pontiac Trail wouldn’t. What he was proposing is to resolve the fairness issue with city dollars.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) joined Hieftje and Warpehoski in expressing a concern about setting a precedent. Hieftje spoke again to the issue of fairness by saying that special assessment is the standard way to finance sidewalk construction and always has been.

Briere said her immediate reaction to Kunselman’s amendment was to be intrigued by it. It seems to indicate a commitment by the council to filling sidewalk gaps. But Briere said that if the council determines the fallback position is that the city would pay 80%, then she fears that very few sidewalk gaps would be filled. Briere noted that she would be attending a meeting the following night with property owners on Newport Road who actually want to pay for construction of a new sidewalk.

Kunselman observed that Chapter 13 of the city code, governing special assessment, has been on the books for a long time but sidewalks gaps have persisted. Any neighborhood that doesn’t have sidewalks will have this process applied, he contended. Kunselman continued by saying the city needs to show some empathy for taxpayers instead of just saying that the city is going to assess them for a sidewalk.

Outcome on Kunselman’s amendment: It failed with support from only Eaton, Kunselman and Anglin.

Outcome: The council has voted to direct the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project.

Liquor: Lunch Room, Silvio’s

The council considered two liquor-license related items. First, the council considered recommending that the Michigan Liquor Control Commission approve a special downtown development liquor license for The Lunch Room at 407 N. Fifth Avenue. That category of license was made available by the Michigan legislature in 2006 for cities that established districts where such licenses would be granted. The requirements include investment in the rehabilitation of the building that houses the establishment seeking the license, and a determination that the recipient of the license be recommended “above all others.”

And the council considered approving a change in the classification of Silvio’s Organic Pizza license from a Tavern License to a Class C License. A key difference between a Class C License and a Tavern License is that a Class C allows the sale and consumption of not just beer and wine, but also liquor. Silvio’s is located at 715 N. University Ave.

Liquor: Council Deliberations

For both liquor license items, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reviewed the details of the requirements. She also thanked the various staff involved, including the clerk’s office, fire department, police department, and city attorney’s office. “They do great work,” she said.

Lumm serves on the council’s liquor license review committee, along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Outcome: On separate votes, the council recommended approval of a downtown development district liquor license for The Lunch Room and the change in category from Tavern to Class C license for Silvio’s Organic Pizza.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Fracking

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Kurt Gleichman told the council that there’s urgency to implement anti-fracking ordinances. Coalition groups have worked on raising awareness, he said. Corporations don’t have a conscience, he said, and they have huge resources to influence legislators and persuade the public. Those in power take the easy way out, he said. Because of a lack of action by those in authority, the people have to take it into their own hands, he added. Gleichman alluded to a trial that’s starting next Monday in connection with a civil disobedience action against fracking. He asked the council to make this a priority.

Leon Bryson introduced himself as a Ward 5 resident. He called for a local ordinance against fracking. He said he recently attended a meeting with state Rep. Gretchen Driskell on the topic. He said some of the people who attended the meeting had been approached by companies who wanted to buy their mineral rights. He’s concerned that horizontal drilling from locations outside the city could come close to his own house.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Bryson alluded to the Elk River chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the drinking water. “We can take the lead in Ann Arbor” to ban fracking, he said. He alluded to the leadership of Ann Arbor on the pedestrian ordinance, and called on the Ann Arbor city council to show similar leadership on the fracking issue.

During council communications time following public commentary, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that fracking is already banned by the city’s prohibition of any extraction of minerals within the city limits.

But he allowed that there could be loopholes – and said that the city is working to address those.

Ann Arbor is already leading on this issue, Warpehoski said. He pointed out that Ann Arbor, as a home rule city, can ban mineral extraction, but townships surrounding Ann Arbor can’t.

From the city code:

Chapter 56: Prohibited Land Uses
…
5:116. Oil and gas wells
The locating, sinking, drilling, casing, deepening or operating of oil wells, gas wells, and oil and gas wells and test holes for the location of natural crude oil or natural dry gas, or both, in the City of Ann Arbor is hereby prohibited.

Comm/Comm: Green Baxter Court Fire

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) gave an update on what’s being done for former residents of the Green Baxter Court building that was destroyed by fire on Jan. 8. It’s an Ann Arbor housing commission property. Petersen said she and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) held a town hall meeting and were updated by Joan Doughty of Community Action Network. CAN runs a community center at Green Baxter, under contract with the city.

Lumm followed up on Petersen’s remarks on the Green Baxter Court fire. She told people to go to the Community Action Network website to find out how they can help.

Comm/Comm: Cold Weather

During his communications time at the start of the meeting, city administrator Steve Powers told the council that the cold weather has again caused the Delonis Shelter to go into emergency mode. The intoxication and behavior rules have been relaxed. He gave additional information about warm places where people could seek refuge, noting that much of it had been covered previously in an update at the council’s Jan. 6, 2014 meeting.

Powers also described how the extreme cold was beginning to reduce the effectiveness of salting the roads, but the city was salting and sanding known “problem intersections,” hills and curves.

Comm/Comm: Homelessness Advocacy

During council communications at the end of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also recognized advocates for the homeless community – Seth Best and Caleb Poirer, who were in attendance and stayed until the end of the meeting – for their cooperation. He said that they’d given assurances that the tent on Stone School Road would be taken down, because it’s not in conformance with city code.

Comm/Comm: Streetlights

During council communications at the end of the meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported that streetlights on Packard have been repaired all the way from Jewett to Stone School, so he thanked DTE.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Jack Eaton, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, Feb. 3, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

The Ann Arbor city council’s second regular meeting in January is shifted to the Tuesday following the national holiday honoring the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. Highlights of the Jan. 21 meeting agenda include three items related to development in the city – one for a specific project downtown and two others related to zoning regulations.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

The council will be asked to approve the site plan for a revised, expanded version of the 624 Church St. project, located in the block just south of South University Avenue. An earlier version of the project went through the planning review process about a year ago, with city council approval coming on March 4, 2013.

The revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would stand adjacent to and over the existing two-story restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down. The city planning commission recommended approval of the revised plan at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

Also on the Jan. 21 agenda are possible future changes to the city’s downtown zoning regulations. A public hearing on the matter will be held at the Jan. 21 meeting. Three of the recommendations relate to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District. Several other recommendations focus on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage.

It’s likely that amendments will be brought forward during the Jan. 21 meeting that would alter the original resolution.

But the decision on the 624 Church St. project will come long before the zoning revisions could be enacted. And the changes – recommended by the city’s planning commission at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting – are focused on parts of downtown Ann Arbor other than the South University area. The council’s Jan. 21 resolution, if approved, would direct the planning commission to translate its recommendations into proposed ordinance language, which would require review and a public hearing. The specific ordinance language would then be recommended by the planning commission to the city council, which would make the ultimate decision. In general, the planning commission’s downtown zoning recommendations aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Also its Jan. 21 meeting, the council will be asked to give initial approval for the zoning of two unzoned properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. They are proposed to be zoned C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The currently unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission.

In another item related to South State Street property, the council will be asked to approve a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services to evaluate 2500 S. State St. That’s the Edwards Brothers Malloy property for which the council is currently exploring options to purchase. The item was added to the agenda last Friday, after the initial publication of the agenda.

Also on the Jan. 21 agenda are two items related to construction of sidewalks. One resolution involves a sidewalk gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward – to connect to a path leading the rest of the way to King Elementary School. The council had already authorized $10,000 for the design and public process budget at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting. A small amount of that was spent. To cover the $16,000 construction cost, an additional $6,818 of general fund money is being requested at the Jan. 21 meeting. The other sidewalk item is the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road.

The council will also be asked to extend the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. It’s a part-time position.

Another agenda item is for a recommendation that the Michigan Liquor Control Commission approve a special downtown development liquor license for the Lunch Room at 407 N. Fifth Avenue. The council also will be asked to approve a change in the classification of Silvio’s Organic Pizza license from a Tavern License to a Class C License, to allow for the sale of liquor in addition to beer and wine. Silvio’s is located at 715 N. University Ave.

The council’s consent agenda includes two contracts related to the sobriety court, one of the 15th District Court’s specialty courts. The consent agenda also includes street closures in connection with three events: Winter Warriors, Shamrocks & Shenanigans, and the University of Michigan Big House 5K.

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

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

624 Church St.

This project would be located south of South University Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, next to and over the two-story Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church. A previous version went through the planning review process and was given approval by the city council almost a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

The current, revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down.

Rendering of 624 Church apartments, looking south from South University. Zaragon Place is pictured to the west, immediately next to the proposed 624 Church building. (Image included in the planning commission meeting packet.)

The original plan was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. But after the original plan received site plan approval, the developer purchased an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building eventually to be constructed. [.pdf of site plan] [.pdf of draft development agreement] [.pdf of staff memo]

Premiums offered in the D1 zoning district – for buildings with residential uses, and LEED silver certification – are being used to allow a larger structure than would otherwise be permitted, gaining an additional 267% in floor area ratio for a total of 667% FAR. To use the residential premium, each bedroom must have a window directly to the outside.

The project includes a 1,491-square-foot outdoor dining area for Pizza House, which will be built underneath the apartment structure on the south side of the restaurant, opening onto Church Street. It will be partially enclosed, with large garage-style overhead doors along the front property line opening to the sidewalk.

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

• Two small offices for building management on the ground floor of the addition, with a solid waste/recycling room and bicycle parking room at the rear. There will be no new retail space.
• The top floor will include a small “club room” for residents and a rooftop patio with benches, a small grilling area, and garden trellis.
• The second floor will contain a fitness room, study lounge and five apartments. Other floors will have 11 apartments each. The apartments will be divided into: 23 one-bedroom (19%); 88 two-bedroom (72%); and 11 three-bedroom (9%). The units will range in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.
• The developer will make a contribution of $47,120 to the city’s parks and recreation unit for improvements to the nearby Forest Plaza, adjacent to the Forest Avenue parking structure.
• The development agreement includes a requirement to disconnect 27 footing drains as part of the city’s footing drain disconnect program. That’s an increase from the 20 that were required for the previous version of the project.

The new version of this development was evaluated by the city’s design review board, which was generally supportive of the project. [.pdf of September 2013 DRB report]

The development requires 53 parking spaces under the city’s zoning. Five of those will be provided in spaces underneath the building. The previous proposal had no on-site parking. At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority granted the owner the ability to buy a total of 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure, through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. That program requires the developer to pay 20% more than the standard rate for monthly parking permits. The DDA had already granted a request for 42 permits under the original version of the project.

At its Jan. 8 2014 meeting, the DDA board approved a request for the option to extend the monthly parking contracts for three five-year periods. Opus had wanted the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing.

The previous development proposal had drawn concern from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, at 619 E. University. The concerns stemmed in part from the fact that under the previous plan, the new building would have been built up to the lot line next to Zaragon Place. The current proposal calls for a setback of 10 feet and 20 feet from that property line. According to planning staff, the city hasn’t received any feedback from adjacent property owners about this current proposal.

Downtown Zoning Recommendations

By way of background, a downtown zoning evaluation began last year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13. That direction was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1, 2013.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

The commission continued the public hearing and debated most of these recommendations at its Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. The group did not tackle the most controversial item that night: Possible changes to the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William.

On Dec. 3, commissioners picked up the topic and heard from three people during the ongoing public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main. Following that, the commission’s discussion focused on 425 S. Main, as well as revisiting a recommendation related to the design guidelines.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “Feedback on Downtown Zoning Continues“; “Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase“; “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review”; ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward” and “Downtown Zoning Review to Wrap Up Soon.”

In general, the final recommendations made by the planning commission at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Three of the recommendations relate to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.

Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage. Those recommendations are: (1) Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts; (2) Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing; (3) Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms; (4) Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years. [.pdf of possible amendments to the downtown zoning resolution that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) might bring forward]

The council’s Jan. 21 resolution would accept the recommendations as completing the planning commission’s assignment. The resolution would further direct the planning commission to translate its recommendations into proposed ordinance language, which would require review and a public hearing. The specific ordinance language would then be recommended by the planning commission to the city council, which would make the ultimate decision after a public hearing.

State Street Zoning Request

On the city council’s Jan. 21 agenda is initial approval for the zoning of two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. The zoning designation would be C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

The unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

Public Art Administrator

The council will be asked to extend the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. A total of $20,500 would be appropriated from the balance in the public art fund, with the additional money to cover various expenses. Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

By way of background, the city council enacted a public art ordinance in late 2007, setting up a Percent for Art program as a funding mechanism. For each of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – was set aside for public art. The Ann Arbor public art commission oversaw the expenditures. However, the approach proved controversial and the city council changed the ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That ordinance change came after a failed public art millage that was put before voters in the November 2012 election.

Under the new approach, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded. The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

A budget summary provided by Seagraves in response to a Chronicle email shows a current balance of $839,507 in available funds for public art, as of Jan. 14, 2014. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Sidewalks

Two items involving construction of new sidewalks – at two specific locations – appear on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

Sidewalks: Waldenwood

By way of background, at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting, the city council had approved a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward, connecting to a path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

In its form, that resolution was similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council approved last year. [For example, the council approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting, and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King Elementary School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009.

For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the new 186-foot sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King Elementary School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. And the more recent feedback, reflected in the staff memo for the Jan. 21 meeting, indicates that an Oct. 3, 2013 neighborhood meeting attended by 22 people resulted in 15 feedback forms, 10 of which indicated support and 5 of which indicated opposition. [.pdf of letter from the van Nieuwstadts and Weismans]

The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair, but not new construction, can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage.

In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

Only a small amount of the originally approved $10,000 design budget was spent. To cover the $16,000 construction cost, an additional $6,818 of general fund money is being requested at the Jan. 21 meeting.

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail

In a different sidewalk-related item, the council will be asked to take the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road. The project would also construct a concrete curb and gutter northward from Skydale about 920 feet along the east side of Pontiac Trail and about 1,030 feet along the west side of Pontiac Trail. Those stretches currently don’t have a curb and gutter.

This first step directs the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate.

Sobriety Court

On the council’s consent agenda are two items related to the sobriety court, which is a specialty court within the 15th District Court.

One is a contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) to provide mental health treatment services to defendants who appear in the sobriety court. The amount of the contract is $45,271 and is funded with a grant from the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Michigan Drug Court Grant Program (SCAO-MDCGP).

The second is a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening services of defendants in the sobriety court and the veterans treatment court. The amount of the contract is $23,200 and is paid for through the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Veterans Treatment Court Grant Program (SCAO-MVTCGP) and the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Drug Court Grant program (SCAO-MDCGP).

Street Closings

Three street closings appear on the council’s consent agenda:

• Feb. 1, 2014: Winter Warriors. The event will shut down a half block of E. Washington outside the Arbor Brewing Company. The fundraiser to “terminate” hunger with a special batch of Terminator Doppelbock entails sitting outside in the cold.
• March 9, 2014: Shamrocks and Shenanigans 5K Run/Walk. The course is straight up Main Street from the corner of Main and Stadium into downtown Ann Arbor, where it loops around. [.pdf of Shamrocks and Shenanigans street closures]
• April 6, 2014: University of Michigan Big House 5K. Streets to be closed are in the vicinity of the university campus. The finish takes runners into Michigan Stadium down the tunnel with a finish at the 50-yard line.

Liquor: Lunch Room, Silvio’s

Two items added to the council’s agenda on Jan. 17 after the agenda’s initial publication are related to liquor licenses. The council will be asked to recommend that the Michigan Liquor Control Commission approve a special downtown development liquor license for The Lunch Room at 407 N. Fifth Avenue. That category of license was made available by the Michigan legislature in 2006 for cities that established districts where such licenses would be granted. The requirements include investment in the rehabilitation of the building that houses the establishment seeking the license, and a determination that the recipient of the license be recommended “above all others.”

And the council will be asked to approve a change in the classification of Silvio’s Organic Pizza license from a Tavern License to a Class C License. A key difference between a Class C license and a Tavern License is that a Class C license allows the sale and consumption of not just beer and wine, but also liquor. Silvio’s is located at 715 N. University Ave.

Edwards Brothers Land

Another item added to the agenda on Jan. 17 is the approval of a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services to evaluate 2500 S. State St. That’s the Edwards Brothers Malloy property for which the council is currently exploring options to purchase.

The University of Michigan has made an offer to Edwards Brothers to purchase the property for $12.8 million, but the city has a right of first refusal. At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information. So the site assessment by Atwell is part of that effort. The council is working within a 60-business-day window that began Nov. 27, 2013.

Live updates will begin closer to the 7 p.m. scheduled meeting start time.

4:11 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) might be bringing forward some amendments to the council’s resolution that directs the planning commission’s work on revisions to downtown zoning. In addition to the original resolution’s direction to implement as a part of the zoning code a set of the planning commission’s own recommendations, Briere’s amendments would also direct the planning commission to (1) consider rezoning Huron Street from Division to Fourth Avenue to conform with the East Huron 1 character district (which has a height limit of 150 feet instead of a 180-foot limit like other D-1 areas); (2) to consider whether other D1-zoned areas, which do not have buffering from adjacent residential neighborhoods, including some areas of South University and Thayer Street, should be rezoned to D2. Briere’s amendments add a date certain by which the planning commission is to report to the council on all its work on this issue: Oct. 20, 2014, which is the council’s second meeting that month. [.pdf of possible amendments to the downtown zoning resolution that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) might bring forward.]

4:14 p.m. Staff’s written responses to questions about agenda items are now available: [.pdf of Jan. 21, 2014 agenda responses] Highlights include the clarification that in the resolution authorizing the contract with Atwell for the Edwards Brothers land site assessment, the acronym ACM stands for “asbestos-containing materials.”

4:55 p.m. Five people are signed up for public commentary reserved time. Two are signed up to speak on the Waldenwood sidewalk project: Michael van Nieuwstadt and Kathryn Dacosta. Two people are signed up to talk about a fracking moratorium: Kurt Gleichman and Leon Bryson. And Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, is signed up to give an update on public art.

6:27 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

6:29 p.m. CTN staff has installed microphones for councilmembers at the table. Replay of most the recent Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority meeting is playing on the monitor. Council chambers are empty except for The Chronicle. Odile Hugonot Haber arrives.

6:41 p.m. A UM political science graduate student who has been attending city council meetings for the last year and a half has arrived. Dissertation to come in a year or so. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive.

6:52 p.m. Chambers are starting to fill up. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived. Several high school students here to satisfy a course requirement are here.

6:54 p.m. Usual interested parties on zoning issues are here: Eppie Potts, Piotr Michalowski, Peter Nagourney. City administrator Steve Powers and city attorney Stephen Postema have arrived. Bob Miller from the public art commission is here.

7:05 p.m. All the councilmembers have now arrived.

7:07 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje is twirling the gavel. We’re close to starting.

7:07 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:09 p.m. Approval of agenda. The agenda has been approved.

7:10 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. Steve Powers says that the cold weather has again caused the Delonis Shelter to go into emergency mode. The intoxication and behavior rules have been relaxed. He gave additional information, noting that much of it had been covered previously in an update at the council’s Jan. 6, 2014 meeting.

7:10 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.] Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking is: Michael van Nieuwstadt and Kathryn Dacosta, speaking on the Waldenwood sidewalk project; Kurt Gleichman and Leon Bryson to talk about a fracking moratorium; and Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, to give an update on public art.

7:14 p.m. Michael van Nieuwstadt is an owner of property adjacent to the proposed sidewalk near King Elementary School. He asks for clarification about the nature of the agenda item: Does it involve moving the crosswalk as well as construction of the sidewalk? Sabra Briere (Ward 1) tells him it’s just about construction of the sidewalk. He says that he’s been asking for a safety report for the last four weeks, and he’d learned that one had been produced just today. He wants some time to look at the report. He described the sidewalk connection as connecting two pieces of “nowhere.” He asks for some additional time for the neighborhood to gather its thoughts.

7:17 p.m. Kathryn Dacosta is also addressing the sidewalk extension. She walks her kids to school every day, so she’s on the front lines of the issue, she says. Before the 2011-12 school year there was no crossing guard. It’s a difficult situation and it’s very unsafe, she says. Drivers are distracted by saying goodbye or looking for their kids. They’re not watching for kids doing unexpected things. Drivers are committing traffic infractions. She reports that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) visited the site this morning. Dacosta says there have been three traffic accidents in the last year. There’s gridlock, she says, causing angry drivers. Drivers are also on their cell phones. People also park on the side of the street where the extension is proposed. She took a photo to illustrate it, which she hands to the city clerk – parents with their children walking in the street.

7:19 p.m. Bob Miller, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, is now addressing the council. The art commission has followed the direction of the city council since the change to the ordinance last year, he reports. He’s giving a summary of the projects that are currently in the works. The commission looks forward to achieving the goals set by the council, he tells councilmembers.

7:22 p.m. Kurt Gleichman expresses that there’s urgency to implement anti-fracking ordinances. Coalition groups have worked on raising awareness, he says. Corporations don’t have a conscience, he says. Corporations have huge resources to influence legislators and persuade the public, he cautions. Those in power take the easy way out, he says. Because of a lack of action by those in authority, the people have to take it into their own hands, he says. He alludes to a trial that’s starting next Monday in connection with a civil disobedience action against fracking. He asks the council to make this a priority.

7:27 p.m. Leon Bryson introduces himself as a Ward 5 resident. He calls for a local ordinance against fracking. He says he recently attended a meeting with state Rep. Gretchen Driskell on the topic. He said some of the people who attended the meeting had been approached by companies who wanted to buy their mineral rights. He’s concerned that horizontal drilling could come close to his own house. He alludes to the chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the drinking water. “We can take the lead in Ann Arbor” to ban fracking, he said. He alludes to the leadership of Ann Arbor on the pedestrian ordinance, and calls on the Ann Arbor council to show similar leadership on the fracking issue.

7:27 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:27 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) notes that fracking is already banned by the city’s prohibition of any extraction of minerals within the city limits. But he allows that there could be loopholes – and says that the city is working to address those. Ann Arbor is already leading on this issue, he says. He points out that Ann Arbor, as a home rule city, can ban mineral extraction, but townships surrounding Ann Arbor can’t.

7:30 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) gives an update on what’s being done for former residents of the Green Baxter Court building that was destroyed by fire on Jan. 8. It’s an Ann Arbor housing commission property. Petersen said she and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) held a town hall meeting and were updated by Joan Doughty of Community Action Network. CAN runs a community center at Green Baxter, under contract with the city.

7:33 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is reading aloud a communication from a driver who questions the city’s crosswalk ordinance, based on an experience she had. Kunselman now is reading aloud from the ordinance, and from mayor John Hieftje’s veto statement. Kunselman then reads aloud from an interview with Hieftje in Concentrate magazine.

7:33 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is following up on Petersen’s remarks on the Green Baxter Court fire. She tells people to go to the Community Action Network website to find out how they can help.

7:35 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) announces a meeting on Jan. 22 at Forsythe Middle School about a sidewalk. Lumm announces a Millers Creek sediment accumulation study meeting.

7:35 p.m. MC-1 Pedestrian safety and access task force appointments. The council is being asked to confirm appointment of the nine members of the pedestrian safety task force, which was established by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. The members of the task force are: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

7:36 p.m. Kunselman asks what the task is of the task force: Is it to come up with recommendations to amend the ordinance?

7:39 p.m. Briere says the task force was conceived independently of the heated controversy about the crosswalk ordinance. There are a whole slew of things related to pedestrian safety in addition to crosswalks, she says. She alludes to a manual put out by the federal government that will guide the task force’s work. She also says that the task force will be given a book about walkable cities.

7:40 p.m. Kunselman says that Briere’s explanation makes clear that the council can continue to consider the question of amending the crosswalk ordinance. He’s focused on a phrase from the mayor’s veto statement that says that drivers should stop “if they can do so safely.” He ventures that an attempt might be made to amend the language of the ordinance to include that phrase.

7:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the pedestrian safety and access appointments.

7:42 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Nominations to city boards and commissions to be voted on at the council’s next meeting include the following: Jim Simpson is being nominated to fill the vacancy of Malverne Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013. Daniel Lee is being nominated to serve out the rest of Marta Manildi’s term on the Ann Arbor housing commission. Manildi’s term ends this spring, but she said she’d step down early if someone could be appointed. Paige Morrison is being nominated to serve out the rest of Jennifer Geer’s term on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Geer resigned. Peter Woolf is being nominated to fill the vacancy of Lindsey-Jean Hard on the public market advisory commission.

7:42 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Tonight the two public hearings that are scheduled are on (1) the downtown zoning recommendations, and (2) the 624 Church St. project, a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms.

7:46 p.m. PH-1 Downtown zoning amendments. Peter Nagourney is first up. He supports the work of consultant Erin Perdu. He calls the master plan the constitution and the zoning ordinance the law. In some cases the consultant’s recommendations went beyond the council’s direction, he notes, but that was in order to achieve overall consistency. He’s arguing for specific points of rezoning.

7:49 p.m. Doug Kelbaugh is now addressing the council. He says the fallout from 413 E. Huron has resulted in a productive process. Going from 180 feet to 60 feet (D-1 to D-2) is too abrupt, he says. He asks for the rest of Ann Street to be considered as a part of the reconsidered zoning. He alludes to Briere’s possible amendment as possibly addressing the Ann Street concerns. He tells the council that the recommendations in front of the council are supported by many people.

7:51 p.m. Tamara Burns, an architect and chair of the city’s design review board, tells the council that the board does not support tying the award of premiums to compliance with the recommendations of the design review board. The design guidelines need to be revised and the process for the design review needs to be updated, she says – before making premium FAR (floor area ratio) contingent on design review board recommendations.

7:52 p.m. Steve Kaplan says that in recent history, his observation is that having design guidelines is a great start, but it’s easy to ignore them. He asks that some attention is given to how much teeth guidelines can have so people follow them in the future.

7:55 p.m. Chris Crockett thanks the council for providing the direction to re-evaluate the downtown zoning. She says there are some changes to the recommendations that she would suggest. She wants consideration of zoning changes all the way to Fourth Avenue on Ann Street. She calls 413 E. Huron a sad experience because of a misapplication of character areas. Crockett has respect for Tamara Burns, saying she’s known Burns since Burns was in high school. But Crockett ventures that there could be some way to put some additional teeth into the design guidelines.

7:56 p.m. Hugh Sonk represents the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association. Sloan Plaza is located on the north side of East Huron, next to the 413 E. Huron development. He calls on the council to support the additional recommendations made by the near downtown neighborhood group. [.pdf of Near-Downtown Neighborhood Group letter]

8:00 p.m. Piotr Michalowski says he’s very concerned about the corner of Main and William. He asks the council to support the current recommendation to rezone that parcel as D-2. He says that residents of the neighborhood have already been “burned” once with a project he says he will not name. [He's referring to City Place, on South Fifth Avenue south of William.] He asks the council to maintain the transition between residential areas and Main Street.

8:04 p.m. Cy Hufano is a resident of Sloan Plaza. On the technical side, he addresses the second recommendation – for the D-1.5 zoning proposal, which includes a height limit of 120 feet, and the use of diagonals. As far as the process goes, he felt there were a lot of loose ends. He cautioned that decisions get made based on the threat of lawsuits. He says he’s speaking from the heart. He visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. and looked at a mural. There was a figure holding a halter, he said: “People have got to watch what government is doing.”

8:07 p.m. Ray Detter is now addressing the council and essentially reprising the same comments that he delivered at the Jan. 8, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. He agrees with Hufano’s comments.

8:10 p.m. Eppie Potts strongly urges support for the resolution to start the process of much-needed amendments. D-1 and D-2 have been tried, but found to be controversial, she says. To avoid future controversy, additional revision is needed. She cites problems with overlay districts. She gives The Varsity on East Washington as an example of a problem with front setbacks. She asks the council to keep the door open to reviewing other troublesome aspects of D-1 and D-2.

8:13 p.m. Eleanor Linn introduces herself as a resident of Forest Court, near Zaragon and the Landmark apartment buildings in the South University neighborhood. She ventures that another large building will be built on Church Street, depending on the council’s action later that night. She supports the possible amendments to be offered by Briere that would direct the planning commission to consider revisions to zoning in the South University area. Linn recalls intricate details of the history of past planning exercises.

8:16 p.m. David Blanchard introduces himself as chair of the city’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). He says he wants to keep the idea of affordable housing alive and a diversity of housing choices for different income levels. He remembers the PUD (planned unit development) system where cash-in-lieu could be contributed. He also noted that the current zoning has a “super-premium” for building affordable housing. The current recommendation is to remove that premium, because that premium wasn’t being used. That might be the right recommendation, he said, but he wasn’t sure enough thought had gone into it. He urged the planning commission to work with HHSAB to make affordable housing a reality in Ann Arbor.

8:16 p.m. That’s it for PH-1.

8:16 p.m. PH-2 624 Church site plan. Brad Moore, the architect for the project, is first up.

8:19 p.m. Moore notes that what’s before the council is a revision to the previous project. The renovation to Pizza House was designed with strong enough foundations to facilitate a larger project. He’s explaining that the portion of the previous project that had zero setback with the adjacent Zaragon building has been redesigned, so that it now has a 20-foot setback. [That had been a point of friction in the previous iteration of the project, but has not been an issue this time around.] Moore notes that the unit mix is about 90% 1-2 bedroom units, with 11 3-bedroom units.

8:21 p.m. Eppie Potts is speaking to the parking permit issue. She questions the contribution-in-lieu policy that allows a developer to pay for permits in the public parking system, instead of building parking spaces onsite. That’s not good for the public, Potts says. She won’t be able to get to her favorite restaurant, she fears. The public is being crowded out, she says. If the developer can build that big of a building, they could find a way to build some parking, she contends.

8:23 p.m. Scott Munzel is a local attorney representing Opus, the developer. He notes that the project complies with all the applicable requirements. He says that it’s a creative use of a “difficult site.” That’s why it’s difficult to construct parking onsite, he says. That’s why the developer is making use of the city’s contribution-in-lieu program. The project is consistent with the downtown plan, he says, and it’s consistent with other city goals, like creating a sense of place.

8:25 p.m. Maggie Ladd, director of the South University Area Association, tells the council she supports the project. She says that the zoning was changed before the A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) process, and that A2D2 lowered the height restrictions.

8:25 p.m. That’s it for PH-2.

8:25 p.m. Approval of previous meeting minutes. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the previous meeting’s minutes.

8:25 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Approve a contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services to provide mental health treatment services to sobriety court defendants ($45,271) .
• CA-2 Approve contract with the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office to provide drug abuse screening services to veterans treatment court and sobriety court defendants ($23,200).
• CA-3 Approve a purchase order for Enertron LLC for the city hall network cabling project ($39,704)
• CA-4 Approve a purchase order to New World Systems for financial system annual software support and maintenance agreement ($64,040).
• CA-5 Accept board of insurance administration minutes of Dec. 17, 2013.
• CA-6 Close E. Washington for Winter Warriors (Saturday, Feb. 1, 2014).
• CA-7 Close streets for Shamrocks & Shenanigans 5K (Sunday, March 9, 2014)
• CA-8 Close Streets for UM Big House 5K (Sunday, April 6, 2014).

8:26 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does.

8:26 p.m. Outcome: All items on the consent agenda have now been approved.

8:26 p.m. C-1 Hofmann zoning. The council is being asked to give initial approval of the zoning of the parcel as C1 (local business district). This parcel houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The owners of Biercamp had wanted C3 zoning two years ago, which was denied. C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.This is just the initial approval to establish zoning, after annexation from the township. [For more detailed background, see State Street Zoning Request above.]

8:29 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) notes that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he wasn’t sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. He says that it gave him the chance to visit the business to get some jerky and to get a growler so that Sally Petersen was clear about what a growler is. He lifts a growler onto the table. [Petersen had previously asked at a council meeting what a growler is.] Warpehoski says that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

8:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has given initial approval to the Hoffman zoning. It will need a second vote at a subsequent meeting.

8:30 p.m. DC-1 Recommend approval of downtown development district liquor license to The Lunch Room, LLC. [For more detailed background, see Liquor: Lunch Room, Silvio's above.]

8:30 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reviews the details of the requirements. She thanks the various staff involved including the clerk’s office, fire department, police department, and city attorney’s office.

8:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend approval of a downtown development district liquor license for The Lunch Room.

8:31 p.m. DC-2 Approve request from Silvio’s Organic Pizzeria Inc. to transfer classification from a Tavern License to a Class C License. A key difference between a Tavern license and a Class C license is that Tavern licenses are restricted to beer and wine. Class C includes other alcohol. [For more detailed background, see Liquor: Lunch Room, Silvio's above.]

8:32 p.m. Lumm reviews the item, noting it’s not a new license, but rather a change in the classification. She reiterates her thanks to the various city staff: “They do great work,” she says.

8:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the change from a Tavern license to a Class C license for Silvio’s Organic Pizza.

8:32 p.m. DC-3 Approve a contract with Atwell, LLC for environmental site assessment (ESA) services ($25,550). The property in question is the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on S. State Street. The city is now gathering information in advance of a decision on whether to exercise its right of first refusal to purchase the land. The University of Michigan has made an offer of $12.8 million. [For more detailed background, see Edwards Brothers Land above.]

8:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the contract with Atwell to do a site assessment of the Edwards Brothers property.

8:33 p.m. DB-1 Downtown zoning amendments. These are recommendations for changes to downtown zoning that came from the planning commission, prompted by the controversy last year surrounding the 413 E. Huron project. If the recommendations for the changes are approved, the planning commission will then be tasked with crafting ordinance language to implement the recommendations. After the planning commission has completed that task, held a public hearing and voted on it, the ordinance revisions will be forwarded to the city council. The council would then need to give initial approval, hold a public hearing, and then give the changes final approval. [For more detailed background, see Downtown Zoning Recommendations above.]

Here’s a .pdf of possible amendments to the downtown zoning resolution that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) might bring forward.

8:36 p.m. Briere, who represents the city council on the planning commission, says that the commission had discussed all the communications that had been described during the public hearing. The public had asked the planning commission to expand its scope of consideration, but the planning commission had decided to confine its recommendations to the council’s specific direction.

8:40 p.m. Briere offers her amendments. [.pdf of amendments]

8:42 p.m. Lumm asks to add setback language to the amendments. Briere says she tried to not constrain the planning commission. So she didn’t suggest any side setbacks. She didn’t think front setbacks of 10 feet would benefit all of Huron. She wanted further discussion before accepting Lumm’s suggestions as friendly.

8:43 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) wants to know if Briere would be willing to add Ann Street between Fourth and Fifth to an area for additional consideration. That’s added in a friendly way.

8:45 p.m. Lumm now phrases her suggestion in terms of “considering” changes to the setback.

8:47 p.m. Taylor says he wants to “chat” about the reference to Thayer. He doesn’t think there’s residential there that needs buffering. But he thinks there needs sight-scape buffering to Hill Auditorium, so he’ll support the reference to Thayer.

8:47 p.m. Outcome: Briere’s amendments are approved.

8:50 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says there’s been a lot of good and solid work done on this by the planning commission and the public. He says he hopes that the recommendation on residential premiums means that it’s a reduction in the size of the units – as that would speak to the kind of housing that millennials are looking for. He says that the change at the corner of Main and William had been a swift change from the consultant’s initial recommendation. So he wants to keep an eye on that.

8:53 p.m. Taylor offers a specific amendment on the recommendation about the design review board’s role. He says the city needs modest and smart growth. His amendment indicates that the revisions to the design review board process should have the support of the design review board. [This reacts to the public hearing comments by design review board chair Tamara Burns, who said that as things currently stand, the design review board did not want to be the arbiter of the award of premium FAR (floor area ratio).]

8:55 p.m. Briere says that when Taylor said “save (4)” many people understood it as “save for.” Some wordsmithing ensues to ensure Taylor’s amendment does not escape the Oct. 20, 2014 deadline.

8:56 p.m. Hieftje says the design review board has all along not wanted to have mandatory compliance. So he appreciates Taylor’s amendment.

8:58 p.m. Planning manager Wendy Rampson says (4) had originally been drafted to say that there would be mandatory compliance. The planning commission had revised the wording to emphasize there should be a focus on the core design guidelines and improve the process, without making the design review board the gatekeeper to the premiums. She concludes about Taylor’s amendment that “it looks fine.”

9:00 p.m. Kunselman asks Rampson who the gatekeepers to the premiums would be – the planning commission? Rampson said the planning commission had discussed various possibilities. Commissioners were reluctant to make compliance mandatory. They wanted the ability to look at each site as unique. Kunselman ventures that the final arbiter would be the council. Rampson suggests that two paths could be maintained, for site plan and for design review.

9:01 p.m. Petersen asks Rampson to comment on the design review board process and the city’s participation in the state’s Redevelopment Ready Communities program. Would the DRB process prevent RR certification? Rampson said the main thing with RR is that “we have to be clear.”

9:02 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) talks about the idea that council would be making the judgment as to how close a developer had come to meeting the recommendations: Is that workable? Rampson indicates that this works in other communities.

9:05 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that some developers find out what the neighbors want and build that. Others don’t and get pushback.

9:07 p.m. Anglin asks about setbacks. Rampson says that the idea is that the setbacks allow for some flexibility, but the building should continue a pattern if there’s an existing pattern of buildings set forward. The goal was not to crowd the sidewalk, Rampson says.

9:10 p.m. Lumm asks for confirmation about what the planning commission and design review board will be doing. Rampson indicates that she thinks those two groups will be able to chart out a path to work together. Rampson notes that the DRB is not always consistent in its comments. So the DRB is looking for a preliminary meeting, with more informal commentary, followed by a more formal process.

9:11 p.m. Hieftje says he’s always supported mandatory compliance, but says he thinks the amendment Taylor has offered is very thoughtful.

9:11 p.m. Outcome: Taylor’s amendment is approved.

9:15 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution. He notes that mandatory compliance can’t be required on a basic project, but it can be required for premiums. He notes that he’d opposed the A2D2 as the only councilmember who did so. He preferred the previous zoning, which was more of a “mosaic,” he says. He echoes the remarks of Eleanor Linn, who’d described how the “density chips” in the planning exercise were dumped on South U: “They definitely were,” he said.

When the zoning was changed in the South University area before A2D2, the council had not been told about the possibility of parcel combinations, Kunselman said. He says the current revisions are implementing corrections to the previous policies and the “lust to build more and more housing.”

9:16 p.m. Briere says she’ll support the resolution and she’d try to influence the outcome on the planning commission based on what she’s heard tonight.

9:19 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support this – especially because of the deadline that Briere has added. He hopes that the pieces that are clear can be covered quickly, and that not everything will be held up in order that everything is done before anything is done. He’s glad the process took a look at the southeast corner of William and Main. He said he’d trust the process. He says the corner of Main and Packard is not a place for D-1 zoning.

9:20 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support the resolution. She’s ticking through a list of people she wants to thank. She calls the report and recommendations thorough and clear. The recommendations help address the flaws in the A2D2 zoning that manifested themselves in the 413 E. Huron, she says.

9:23 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) says she’s glad the council is moving forward with this. She’d attended some of the public outreach meetings. What was said at the meetings was reflected in the report, she says. The council’s work session last week [on economic development] gave her pause, she said. She wants to keep Ann Arbor’s housing stock diverse and affordable.

9:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the recommendations, with amendments, to the planning commission for changes to the downtown zoning.

9:23 p.m. Recess. We are now in recess.

9:34 p.m. And we’re back.

9:34 p.m. DB-2 624 Church site plan. The current, revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down. [For more detailed background, see 624 Church St. above.]

9:37 p.m. Kailasapathy leads things off. She asks for planning manager Wendy Rampson. Kailasapathy wants to know about the contribution to parks – $72,450 had been requested. The developer had made a smaller contribution. Rampson notes that the parks contribution is voluntary. Brad Moore, the project’s architect, responds. He says that the city staff member had modified the request downward based on the specific parks improvements that the city wanted to undertake.

9:38 p.m. Kailasapathy is now expressing dissatisfaction with the extension option for the contribution-in-lieu parking program that the DDA had granted – three five-year periods past the standard 15 years for parking permits.

9:40 p.m. Executive director of the DDA, Susan Pollay, is describing the usage pattern of the Forest Avenue parking structure, which is heavy during the school year. She ventures that a circulator bus downtown could allow for relocating the permits to a different parking structure sometime in the future. Hieftje notes that the developer is taking advantage of an existing policy.

9:42 p.m. Pollay describes an “experiment” or “pilot” program where parking permits would be granted not on a first-come-first-serve basis but rather to property owners based on square footage. Hieftje elicits the fact that the CIL program requires a 20% premium.

9:42 p.m. Kunselman asks: Is there a wait list? Yes, says Pollay, 325 are on the list, and 153 have joined the list since 2012.

9:43 p.m. Kunselman says the extension of the CIL by three 5-year periods “irks” him.

9:44 p.m. Kunselman asks what the DDA’s discussion was in terms of “fairness.” Pollay said that was the point of the “pilot” program. The DDA had learned that the property owners didn’t want to manage parking permits for their own tenants. Pollay said that the conversation about fairness was ongoing. Kunselman noted that “we’re running out of land over there.”

9:45 p.m. Kunselman wants to know what other developments have contracts for parking permits. How many spaces are available to the public at Forest, he asks?

9:47 p.m. Pollay says the Forest structure has almost 900 spaces, but the UM had been a partner on the expansion of the structure. So just under 590 spaces are available to the public, she says. There are 131 permits now. She explains how the gate arms keep track of public versus the UM usage.

9:50 p.m. Pollay notes that the current monthly permit system is on a month-to-month basis. Kunselman wants to know if the 48 permits would come out of the 131 existing permits. Kunselman elicits the fact that the 48 will jump ahead of line of those on the wait list. Pollay says that many on the wait list may already be parking in the Forest structure on an hourly basis, and having a monthly permit is a matter of convenience.

9:52 p.m. Teall says we keep hearing that for new developments that are built, the residents are going to bring cars. She was not sure that all those spaces would be needed.

9:55 p.m. Lumm says that if a more diverse housing mix is desired, she thinks not all residents would find it convenient to not have a car. She expresses concerns about the lengthened parking agreement. She was glad that flexibility had been built in terms of the location of the structure where they’d be granted. She asks Pollay if this relocation of the permits to a different structure had been a point of discussion with the developer. Yes, says Pollay.

9:55 p.m. Pollay notes that the CIL program had been approved by the council.

9:57 p.m. Lumm is speculating about what kind of people are on the wait list. Lumm and Pollay are in an extended back-and-forth.

9:59 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t want to see cars parked in the neighborhood if people can’t get into the structure. Hieftje, who lives in the North Burns Park area, responds to Lumm’s remarks by indicating that the residential parking program is effective in preventing people from storing the cars on the streets. Hieftje ventures that if the council wants to review the CIL program, it should do that separate from this project.

10:00 p.m. Kailasapathy responds to Hieftje by saying that the 15-year extension was outside the CIL policy. She calls this a case of “externalization of costs.”

10:03 p.m. Taylor says he’ll support the proposal, because it conforms with the zoning requirements. It would add useful residential units, he says. Previously the area had been challenged and desolate and it’s no longer so, he says. On the parking permit issue, he allows that fairness is an issue, but says he’s relying on the DDA to take a longer view of managing the demand of the parking system. On the parking spaces, Taylor says: “They’re being used by Ann Arbor residents, they just don’t live here, yet.”

10:04 p.m. Kunselman asks if the DDA has looked at subsidizing lower-income students for their parking. Pollay says that the DDA’s strategy has been to make as many options available as possible and to let people choose.

10:06 p.m. Kunselman asks if the monthly permits allow someone to park 24/7. Yes, Pollay says. That’s a problem, Kunselman says.

10:07 p.m. Kunselman asks if long-term parking had been explored for people to park at a satellite lot for storage parking. Pollay says a pilot had been done at Fingerle to explore the idea of “storage parking.” There had not been many takers, she says.

10:08 p.m. Kunselman ventures that D-1 and D-2 are parking exempt. Rampson explains that for residential use and premiums, parking can be required for the larger buildings that result from premium FAR.

10:09 p.m. Kunselman asks the city attorney what happens if the council amends the development agreement. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald suggests that the council should make changes in its resolved clauses of its resolution.

10:11 p.m. Kunselman asks for the developer to come to the podium: Will that be a deal breaker? Yes, says Sean Spellman with The Opus Group. The national lending market has spoken, he says.

10:12 p.m. Spellman notes that for the extended term of the CIL, the location of the parking structure where the permits would be granted wouldn’t necessarily be the Forest parking structure.

10:13 p.m. Kunselman says: “Your financing is not my concern.”

10:14 p.m. Kunselman says that all these years he’s participated in this kind of process, he’s always told citizens that the council is voting on the zoning, not the financing, and it’s up to the developer to put the financing together.

10:16 p.m. Spellman says that the council could move the spaces wherever it wants, but he really needs the extension. Kunselman says that if the project can’t get financing without the parking, then maybe it’s too big. “The DDA rolled over for ya,” he says.

10:17 p.m. Kunselman also contends that the DDA doesn’t sign contracts, and the developer would have to go to the bank with a DDA resolution, not a contract. Kunselman says that he’d be content not to have any parking required for the project.

10:20 p.m. Briere is now reviewing with the developer the availability of spaces in Forest structure. Pollay is reviewing how a monthly parking permit is not transferable, and cannot be sublet.

10:22 p.m. Petersen asks Rampson if the developer could meet the parking requirement by providing Zipcar spaces. Rampson reviews the lessons learned from The Varsity project, and noted that Zipcar doesn’t necessarily accept locations on a private site.

10:25 p.m. Kunselman now offers an amendment to the resolution. The added resolved clause says that the development agreement is to be renegotiated to eliminate the designation of the Forest parking structure and the three 5-year extensions.

10:26 p.m. Teall appreciates the sentiment of Kunselman’s amendment. She wishes there were more parking in the South University area. But she doesn’t think Kunselman’s amendment is practical.

10:28 p.m. Hieftje says he understands the financing issue. He also understands the value of the additional units. He calls Kunselman’s amendment a “poison pill” for the development.

10:29 p.m. Hieftje says that the DDA has thought deeply about this issue and knows more about the parking system than the council does. McDonald suggests that the word “negotiate” should be eliminated from the amendment, because it’s just council’s direction to be followed and nothing would be “negotiated.”

10:30 p.m. Lumm wants the question divided. Designation of the Forest parking structure is one question. The three 5-year extensions are a separate question.

10:34 p.m. First up is the location of the permits. Briere asks Pollay if she understood the amendment to mean that the spaces couldn’t be assigned in the Forest structure. Pollay says the message she is taking away is that the council doesn’t want the spaces assigned in Forest. Eaton says the question should go to Kunselman as to what his intent is. Kunselman says he doesn’t mind if they’re assigned in Forest – and he wants the DDA to have the flexibility to assign them wherever it deems suitable.

10:36 p.m. Petersen and Pollay discuss 10 of the parking permits in use currently by Pizza House.

10:37 p.m. Lumm wants to know if there are implications for the developer’s ability to satisfy the premium requirements.

10:41 p.m. Taylor asks if the location of the parking spaces has an implication for the financing. Spellman indicates the assumption is that the majority percentage would be in Forest. Taylor indicates that he thinks the DDA has already indicated that the spaces are available in Forest. Petersen notes that the council had approved 40 spaces in conjunction with the previous version of the project.

10:43 p.m. Outcome on location amendment: The amendment fails with support only from Kunselman, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

10:44 p.m. Now up is the question of three 5-year term extensions.

10:44 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support the amendment, saying she’s not sure why the DDA agreed to the extensions.

10:45 p.m. Hieftje brings Spellman back to the podium. He gets clarification that Opus needs the “capacity” to extend the term for the permits for 30 years. The location for that entire period is not important.

10:46 p.m. About the chances for getting financing without the 30-year term, Spellman says: “It’s zero.”

10:47 p.m. Eaton asks if the project could get financing if the project was parking-exempt. Spellman indicates that if the project were exempt, then it would already be zoning-compliant.

10:50 p.m. Briere wonders what the expectation was for a building becoming compliant with zoning in year 16. McDonald says the policy was to require a minimum for 15 years. The 20% additional payment is to provide an enhancement to the parking system, McDonald says. He notes that the banks are concerned that the building could become out of compliance. He says it was the city that came up with the 15-year requirement.

10:53 p.m. Lumm says that it could kill the project without this parking agreement. McDonald says that the conversations with the developer have been extensive. He points out that the DDA’s initial response to the request of a 15-year extension was to reject that in favor of three 5-year extendable terms.

10:55 p.m. Warpehoski raises a point of order so the council can vote to start its closed session after 11 p.m. The council votes to suspend the rule.

10:56 p.m. Taylor says that it’s “nonsensical” to deny the permits, knowing it would stop the project. “This makes no sense to me,” he says.

10:59 p.m. Kunselman ventures that the previous project was apparently financeable without the parking permit extensions. He says the project won’t get killed because the amendment would be voted down. But afterwards, he would be bringing forth a proposal to kill the CIL program. Hieftje ventures that the vote could go toward killing it.

10:59 p.m. Outcome on amendment on the parking permit extensions: The amendment fails.

11:00 p.m. Lumm worries about eating away at the capacity of the parking system.

11:02 p.m. Petersen says she voted no on Kunselman’s amendment, but wants the CIL program re-examined. She hopes it can be “Zipcar in lieu of parking.” Kunselman said he had no intention, coming into the meeting, of raising these issues, but as he listened, he thought that the fairness issue was important. He allows that the developer might have found the council’s discussion to be scary. “I’m sorry if I scared you, but as we work this through, that’s what we do.”

11:04 p.m. Briere says she’ll bring up this issue with the planning commission, as the CIL program is related to D-1 and premiums. She allows that many in the community would advocate for requiring a developer to provide parking for tenants. The issue needs to be considered carefully, she says.

11:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for 624 Church St.

11:06 p.m. DB-3 Approve amendment to the contract with Aaron Seagraves as public art administrator ($18,500). This resolution would extend Seagraves’ contract by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. A total of $20,500 would be appropriated from the balance in the public art fund, with the additional money to cover various expenses. Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week. [For more detailed background, see Public Art Administrator above.]

11:08 p.m. Eaton says he can’t support a continuation of spending funds that were accumulated under the former Percent for Art program. Kailasapathy says that the money in the public art fund balances should be returned to the funds of origin. Lumm notes that she’s previously said she wouldn’t support continued spending of public art money. Her resolution to return about $800,000 to the funds of origin had failed several months ago. She says a “clean break” should be made between the current program and the old program.

11:09 p.m. By the end of 2013, Lumm says, the council was supposed to have a description of the new program. Based on Bob Miller’s remarks that night, Lumm says that it doesn’t appear that has happened.

11:11 p.m. Petersen is getting clarification about what the status of the funds is.

11:12 p.m. Hieftje says that pretty much nothing happens without a staff member. A lot of citizens have put in a lot of time on a lot of projects that are in the works, he says. He asks Bob Miller, chair of the public art commission, if any of the projects could go forward without an art administrator. Miller says: No. Without an art administrator, the public art commission couldn’t function, he says.

11:14 p.m. Petersen says she thinks that money from the streets millage should be returned to that fund. But she sees the need for a public art administrator. This is the last extension of his contract, she says. After this, part of the public art administrator’s job is to raise private funding.

11:17 p.m. Briere is getting an estimate from public services area administrator Craig Hupy of the likelihood of having a private funding mechanism in place by June. Hupy is describing a model where a nonprofit would be formed outside of the city. He ventures that the wastewater treatment facility art project would have 50% private support.

11:20 p.m. Briere says that the idea of leaving the money in the public art fund was to use some of that as a bridge to the new model. She was concerned about how long that might take. She says she thinks an administrator is needed for the next few months, but she didn’t want to see the contract extension for much longer.

11:24 p.m. Kunselman is asking questions about the projects in the works. Hupy says that the East Stadium Bridges artwork had run into some issues with the sustainability of the materials and some modifications had been made. That would come back to the public for review. Kunselman says that he’d made a commitment to following through on the transition. At some point, he allowed, the council has to pull the plug. He felt that the projects left over from the Percent for Art program were a drag on the ability of the city to transition to the new program. Kunselman says it’s also unfair to Seagraves to be subjected to a contract renewal every six months.

11:26 p.m. Eaton suggests a postponement on the contract extension, and that it be brought back with a simultaneous proposal to revise the ordinance to allow the return of money to the funds of origin. Kunselman says if all the money is put back, you can’t pay for the art.

11:27 p.m. Hiefte gets clarification about Eaton’s intent, which is to provide enough money to fund an administrator, but to return the other public art money to the funds of origin.

11:28 p.m. Eaton’s motion to postpone nearly fails for lack of a second. Briere offers the second.

11:31 p.m. Briere ventures that an ordinance can’t be changed in one meeting – because it requires a first and second reading. Hieftje says a resolution could be introduced to direct the preparation of ordinance language. Kunselman asks what the ordinance amendment would do. Answer: It would allow the return of the money to the funds of origin.

11:32 p.m. Warpehoski ventures that the compromise he’s hearing is to take the amorphous wind-down time period of the old public art program and give it some additional structure. Petersen says she doesn’t think the vote needs to be postponed.

11:34 p.m. By way of background here, it requires 8 votes.

11:37 p.m. Eaton is saying that he wants a quid pro quo, a vote in support of the contract extension in exchange for a commitment to return the money to the funds of origin.

11:37 p.m. Teall says she’s not willing to make the deal Eaton is proposing. She says there was not an agreement to end the public art program, but rather to transition to a new approach. She’s disappointed that no nonprofit has been found to take the lead on the private funding component. She says she’ll support the contract tonight.

11:39 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll support the postponement because it continues the dialogue and gives Eaton some time. He appreciates Teall’s sentiments, but says there are other areas that have needs. He compares providing parking for wealthy students in the public parking structure, with a tent out on Stone School Road where people are trying to keep warm. Hieftje says there’s not a single dollar in the public art fund that could be used for human services.

11:41 p.m. Anglin says that art projects that people can actually see would have a positive impact. Anglin supports the postponement.

11:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone extending Seagraves’ contract as public art administrator. Sole dissent came from Teall.

11:42 p.m. DS-1 Waldenwood sidewalk ($6,818). The resolution would authorize the construction budget for a sidewalk from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward – to connect to a path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School. The council had already authorized $10,000 for the design and public process budget at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting. A small amount of that was spent. To cover the $16,000 construction cost, an additional $6,818 of general fund money is being requested tonight. [For more detailed background, see Sidewalks: Waldenwood above.]

11:43 p.m. Petersen says she had the same impression as the speaker during public commentary – that the resolution dealt also with the location of the crosswalk. But the crosswalk location is not a part of the resolution. She proposes an amendment to make that clear.

11:46 p.m. Lumm adds that in the many conversations about the sidewalk, concerns had been raised about previous studies. She refers to this email: [email from Mellor]

11:47 p.m. Lumm says she thinks that a sidewalk will provide a good location for kids to be dropped off.

11:47 p.m. Outcome: The amendment proposed by Petersen is approved.

11:49 p.m. Petersen now wants to know how a decision would be made to change the location of the crosswalk if it were changed. Pat Cawley, a project manager for the city, is explaining the process to go through moving a crosswalk in the future.

11:50 p.m. Petersen wants to make sure that the King Elementary School families would have an opportunity to provide feedback on the change to a crosswalk location.

11:52 p.m. Lumm says she thinks all the issues that had previously been raised had been addressed. Lumm inquires about the feedback form from a previous meeting.

11:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Waldenwood sidewalk construction budget.

11:55 p.m. DS-2 Special assessment resolution #1 for Pontiac Trail sidewalk. This is the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road. The project would also construct a concrete curb and gutter northward from Skydale about 920 feet along the east side of Pontiac Trail and about 1,030 feet along the west side of Pontiac Trail. Those stretches currently don’t have a curb and gutter. [For more detailed background, see Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail above.]

11:57 p.m. Briere explains why the sidewalk is only on one side: It’s not anticipated that there will be demand. If the property owners on the other side in the township are annexed into the city, a sidewalk on that side might be added.

11:58 p.m. Kunselman asked if the city was going to be contributing some percent of the cost. Hupy says there’s no federal or state dollars involved. Kunselman says he has an amendment.

11:59 p.m. Kunselman wants 80% of the cost to be borne by the city. He doesn’t think it’s OK to sometimes provide a portion of the cost and sometimes not – for other projects that are special-assessed.

12:02 a.m. Warpehoski asks for explanation from Hupy about other projects. Hupy explains that for some other projects, state or federal funding is available. Warpehoski ventures that Kunselman’s amendment would establish a new precedent of the city providing funding.

12:05 a.m. Nick Hutchinson, a project manager for the city, clarifies that there would be eight property owners affected by the special assessment.

12:07 a.m. Hieftje agrees with Warpehoski that it would not set a good precedent for a way to fill sidewalk gaps.

12:11 a.m. Kunselman is asking for an estimate for the cost. Hutchinson ventures that it’d be $45,000 for 920 feet. Kunselman stresses that it’s the first step in the special assessment process and doesn’t commit the city. The issue is to let the people know that the city is thinking about them. He says that Pontiac Trail should have federal dollars available and thinks that the city should wait until federal funds are available. Hutchinson says that the surface transportation program is for major streets and Pontiac is a major street, so it’s eligible.

12:13 a.m. Hutchinson says it would be at least 2018 before federal money might be available.

12:13 a.m. Kunselman says it’s an issue of fairness – because Ward 3 residents with a Stone School project would have their project funded with federal monies, but Pontiac Trail wouldn’t. What he’s proposing is to resolve the fairness issue with city dollars.

12:14 a.m. Lumm is concerned about setting a precedent.

12:16 a.m. Hieftje speaks to the issue of fairness by saying that special assessment is the standard way to finance sidewalk construction and always has been.

12:17 a.m. Briere says her immediate reaction to Kunselman’s amendment was to be intrigued by it. It seems to indicate a commitment by the council to filling sidewalk gaps. But Briere says that if the council determines the fallback position is that the city would pay 80%, then she fears that very few sidewalk gaps would be filled.

12:19 a.m. Briere notes that she’s going to a meeting of property owners tomorrow night with property owners on Newport Road who actually want to pay for construction of a new sidewalk.

12:20 a.m. Kunselman notes that Chapter 13, governing special assessment, has been on the books but sidewalks gaps have persisted. Any neighborhood that doesn’t have sidewalks will have this process applied, he contends.

12:21 a.m. Kunselman says we need to show some empathy for taxpayers instead of just saying that the city is going to assess them for a sidewalk.

12:24 a.m. Briere asks Hupy to comment on funding proposals for filling sidewalk gaps.

12:25 a.m. Outcome: Kunselman’s amendment fails with support from only Eaton, Kunselman and Anglin.

12:25 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project.

12:25 a.m. DS-3 Approve contract with Transmap Corporation Data Collection Services for the sign inventory and pavement assessment project ($272,490). According to the memo accompanying this resolution, the city needs to do a sign inventory and pavement assessment to meet federal regulations. It will also use the result of the work to improve efficiency in operations and maintenance, capital improvements planning and integrate the results with an asset maintenance management system. According to the memo, both projects – the pavement assessment and sign inventory – can be achieved for about the same cost as each would have cost over the next three years: “By approving the resolution, the City is using technology and market place changes to generate savings.”

12:26 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Transmap Corporation Data Collection Services.

12:26 a.m. DS-4 Approve a five-year lease to University of Michigan for city-owned property behind 926 Mary Street ($4,000 annually). The University of Michigan currently leases the 12-15 parking spaces for $225 per month, which translates to an annual cost of $2,700. The lease hasn’t been renewed or re-evaluated since approval of the month-to-month terms by city council in 1987.

12:26 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the lease with the University of Michigan for the city-owned property on Mary Street.

12:28 a.m. Communications from council. Kunselman says that streetlights on Packard have been repaired all the way from Jewett to Stone School, so he thanks DTE. He also recognizes Seth Best and Caleb Poirer (who are here in the audience) for their cooperation, saying that they’d given assurances that the tent on Stone School Road would be taken down because it’s not in conformance with city code.

12:28 a.m. Clerk’s report of communications, petitions and referrals. Clerk’s report is received.

12:28 a.m. Public comment general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary. No one speaks.

12:29 a.m. Closed session. The council votes to go into closed session for discussion of land acquisition and pending litigation.

1:10 a.m. We’re back.

1:10 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

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

The council will be asked to approve the site plan for a revised, expanded version of the 624 Church St. project, located in the block just south of South University Avenue. An earlier version of the project went through the planning review process about a year ago, with city council approval coming on March 4, 2013.

The revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would stand adjacent to and over the existing two-story restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down. The city planning commission recommended approval of the revised plan at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

Also on the Jan. 21 agenda are possible future changes to the city’s downtown zoning regulations. A public hearing on the matter will be held at the Jan. 21 meeting. Three of the recommendations relate to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District. Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage.

But the decision on the 624 Church St. project will come long before the zoning revisions could be enacted. And the changes – recommended by the city’s planning commission at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting – are focused on parts of downtown Ann Arbor other than the South University area. The council’s Jan. 21 resolution, if approved, would direct the planning commission to translate its recommendations into proposed ordinance language, which would require review and a public hearing. The specific ordinance language would then be recommended by the planning commission to the city council, which would make the ultimate decision. In general, the planning commission’s downtown zoning recommendations aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Also its Jan. 21 meeting, the council will be asked to give initial approval for the zoning of two unzoned properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. They are proposed to be zoned C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The currently unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission.

Back in 2011, Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site. C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

Also on the Jan. 21 agenda are two items related to construction of sidewalks. One resolution involves a sidewalk gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward – to connect to a path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School. The council had already authorized $10,000 for the design and public process budget at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting. A small amount of that was spent. To cover the $16,000 construction cost, an additional $6,818 of general fund money is being requested at the Jan. 21 meeting. The other sidewalk item is the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road.

The council will also be asked to extend the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. It’s a part-time position.

The council’s consent agenda includes two contracts related to the sobriety court, one of the 15th District Court’s specialty courts. The consent agenda also includes street closures in connection with three events: Winter Warriors, Shamrocks & Shenanigans, and the University of Michigan Big House 5K.

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

624 Church St.

This project would be located south of South University Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, next to and over the two-story Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church. A previous version went through the planning review process and was given approval by the city council almost a year ago at its March 4, 2013 meeting.

The current, revised plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down.

Rendering of 624 Church apartments, looking south from South University. Zaragon Place is pictured to the west, immediately next to the proposed 624 Church building. (Image included in the planning commission meeting packet.)

The original plan was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. But after the original plan received site plan approval, the developer purchased an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building eventually to be constructed. [.pdf of site plan] [.pdf of draft development agreement] [.pdf of staff memo]

Premiums offered in the D1 zoning district – for buildings with residential uses, and LEED silver certification – are being used to allow a larger structure than would otherwise be permitted, gaining an additional 267% in floor area ratio for a total of 667% FAR. To use the residential premium, each bedroom must have a window directly to the outside.

The project includes a 1,491-square-foot outdoor dining area for Pizza House, which will be built underneath the apartment structure on the south side of the restaurant, opening onto Church Street. It will be partially enclosed, with large garage-style overhead doors along the front property line opening to the sidewalk.

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

• Two small offices for building management on the ground floor of the addition, with a solid waste/recycling room and bicycle parking room at the rear. There will be no new retail space.
• The top floor will include a small “club room” for residents and a rooftop patio with benches, a small grilling area, and garden trellis.
• The second floor will contain a fitness room, study lounge and five apartments. Other floors will have 11 apartments each. The apartments will be divided into: 23 one-bedroom (19%); 88 two-bedroom (72%); and 11 three-bedroom (9%). The units will range in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.
• The developer will make a contribution of $47,120 to the city’s parks and recreation unit for improvements to the nearby Forest Plaza, adjacent to the Forest Avenue parking structure.
• The development agreement includes a requirement to disconnect 27 footing drains as part of the city’s footing drain disconnect program. That’s an increase from the 20 that were required for the previous version of the project.

The new version of this development was evaluated by the city’s design review board, which was generally supportive of the project. [.pdf of September 2013 DRB report]

The development requires 53 parking spaces under the city’s zoning. Five of those will be provided in spaces underneath the building. The previous proposal had no on-site parking. At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority granted the owner the ability to buy a total of 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure, through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. That program requires the developer to pay 20% more than the standard rate for monthly parking permits. The DDA had already granted a request for 42 permits under the original version of the project.

At its Jan. 8 2014 meeting, the DDA board approved a request for the option to extend the monthly parking contracts for three five-year periods. Opus had wanted the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing.

The previous development proposal had drawn concern from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, at 619 E. University. The concerns stemmed in part from the fact that under the previous plan, the new building would have been built up to the lot line next to Zaragon Place. The current proposal calls for a setback of 10 feet and 20 feet from that property line. According to planning staff, the city hasn’t received any feedback from adjacent property owners about this current proposal.

Downtown Zoning Recommendations

By way of background, a downtown zoning evaluation began last year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13. That direction was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1, 2013.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

The commission continued the public hearing and debated most of these recommendations at its Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. The group did not tackle the most controversial item that night: Possible changes to the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William.

On Dec. 3, commissioners picked up the topic and heard from three people during the ongoing public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main. Following that, the commission’s discussion focused on 425 S. Main, as well as revisiting a recommendation related to the design guidelines.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “Feedback on Downtown Zoning Continues“; “Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase“; “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review”; ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward” and “Downtown Zoning Review to Wrap Up Soon.”

In general, the final recommendations made by the planning commission at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Three of the recommendations relate to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.

Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage. Those recommendations are: (1) Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts; (2) Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing; (3) Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms; (4) Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

The council’s Jan. 21 resolution would accept the recommendations as completing the planning commission’s assignment. The resolution would further direct the planning commission to translate its recommendations into proposed ordinance language, which would require review and a public hearing. The specific ordinance language would then be recommended by the planning commission to the city council, which would make the ultimate decision after a public hearing.

State Street Zoning Request

On the city council’s Jan. 21 agenda is initial approval for the zoning of two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State. The zoning designation would be C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

The unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

Public Art Administrator

The council will be asked to extend the contract with the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, by six months – through June 30, 2014 – and to add $18,500 to his compensation to cover the added term. A total of $20,500 would be appropriated from the balance in the public art fund, with the additional money to cover various expenses. Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

By way of background, the city council enacted a public art ordinance in late 2007, setting up a Percent for Art program as a funding mechanism. For each of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – was set aside for public art. The Ann Arbor public art commission oversaw the expenditures. However, the approach proved controversial and the city council changed the ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That ordinance change came after a failed public art millage that was put before voters in the November 2012 election.

Under the new approach, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded. The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

According to a budget distributed at the Ann Arbor public art commission’s Jan. 23, 2013 meeting, the public art fund had at that time an available balance of $1.453 million. Of that, about $607,800 was already allocated for projects already underway, including artwork for East Stadium bridges ($400,000), Argo Cascades ($150,000) and in a rain garden at First and Kingsley ($27,000). The remaining funds totaled about $845,000. [.pdf of Jan. 2013 budget summary]

Updated after publication: A budget summary provided by Seagraves in response to a Chronicle email shows a balance of $839,507 in available funds for public art, as of Jan. 14, 2014. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Sidewalks

Two items involving construction of new sidewalks – at two specific locations – appear on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

Sidewalks: Waldenwood

By way of background, at its Aug. 8, 2013 meeting, the city council had approved a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward, connecting to a path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

In its form, that resolution was similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council approved last year. [For example, the council approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting, and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King Elementary School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009.

For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the new segment of sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King Elementary School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. And the more recent feedback, reflected in the staff memo for the Jan. 21 meeting, indicates that an Oct. 3, 2013 neighborhood meeting attended by 22 people resulted in 15 feedback forms, 10 of which indicated support and 5 of which indicated opposition.

The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair, but not new construction, can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage.

In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

Sidewalks: Pontiac Trail

In a different sidewalk-related item, the council will be asked to take the first of four steps in the process to impose a special assessment on property owners for a sidewalk on the east side of Pontiac Trail, between Skydale and Dhu Varren Road. The project would also construct a concrete curb and gutter northward from Skydale about 920 feet along the east side of Pontiac Trail and about 1,030 feet along the west side of Pontiac Trail. Those stretches currently don’t have a curb and gutter.

This first step directs the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate.

Sobriety Court

On the council’s consent agenda are two items related to the sobriety court, which is a specialty court within the 15th District Court.

One is a contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services (CSTS) to provide mental health treatment services to defendants who appear in the sobriety court. The amount of the contract is $45,271 and is funded with a grant from the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Michigan Drug Court Grant Program (SCAO-MDCGP).

The second is a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening services of defendants in the sobriety court and the veterans treatment court. The amount of the contract is $23,200 and is paid for through the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Veterans Treatment Court Grant Program (SCAO-MVTCGP) and the Supreme Court of Michigan State Court Administrative Office Drug Court Grant program (SCAO-MDCGP).

Street Closings

Three street closings appear on the council’s consent agenda:

• Feb. 1, 2014 Winter Warriors. The event will shut down a half block of E. Washington outside the Arbor Brewing Company. The fundraiser to “terminate” hunger with a special batch of Terminator Doppelbock entails sitting outside in the cold.
• March 9, 2014 Shamrocks and Shenanigans 5K Run/Walk. The course is straight up Main Street from the corner of Main and Stadium into downtown Ann Arbor, where it loops around. [.pdf of Shamrocks and Shenanigans street closures]
• April 6, 2014 University of Michigan Big House 5K. Streets to be closed are in the vicinity of the university campus. The finish takes runners into Michigan Stadium down the tunnel with a finish at the 50-yard line.

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

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioner Bonnie Bona talks with city planning manager Wendy Rampson before the start of the commission’s Dec. 3, 2013 meeting. Bona was successful in advocating for the downzoning of a parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William. (Photos by the writer.)

In general, the recommendations aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods.

Three of the recommendations relate to specific parcels: (1) Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north; (3) Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.

Several other recommendations focused on the issue of “premiums” – certain features that a developer can provide in exchange for additional square footage. Those recommendations are: (1) Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts; (2) Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing; (3) Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms; (4) Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

On Dec. 3, commissioners heard from three people during the public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main, including one of the property owners, Andy Klein. Speaking on behalf of the owners was Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, who suggested a third option to consider: Keep the D1 zoning on that site, but reduce the maximum height to 122 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 50% of the maximum diagonal dimension of the site. Ted Annis, who lives near that location, called for D2 zoning there.

Bonnie Bona, who’d been involved in the original A2D2 zoning process that’s now being partially reviewed, advocated for downzoning the entire site at 425 S. Main, to provide a buffer between D1 zoning and the nearby residential neighborhood. Some commissioners, including chair Kirk Westphal, wanted more density in the downtown, and noted that the site has allowed for denser development since the 1960s. The final vote on the recommendation for that site was 5-4, with support from Bona, Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were Westphal, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola and Paras Parekh.

Also, because of feedback received from the city’s design review board, commissioners revisited a recommendation that they’d previously settled regarding compliance with design guidelines. They unanimously voted to change the recommendation – so that it would require mandatory compliance with some of the design guidelines. The intent is to develop a process that will clarify the design compliance that will be required in order to receive premiums.

The vote on the full resolution with all of the recommendations, as amended, passed unanimously.

The next step is for the council to review the recommendations and give direction back to the commission about which recommendations to implement. At that point, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee would work with city planning staff to craft actual ordinance language. Any specific ordinance changes would be reviewed by the full planning commission and ultimately would require city council approval before taking effect. That process would include additional opportunities for public input.

Also on Dec. 3, commissioners reviewed the 2015-2020 capital improvements plan (CIP). After about an hour of discussion – touching on street lights, sidewalks, the rail station, public engagement, and other issues – they voted unanimously to adopt the updated CIP as a supporting document for the city’s master plan, and to recommend that the city council base its FY 2015 capital budget on the CIP.

The CIP includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of staff memo and CIP for FY 2015-2020] Most of the updates relate to FY 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. This year reflects the first-time inclusion of projects undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Downtown Zoning Review

The downtown zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13 that was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations, which served as the basis for the Nov. 19 discussion. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

The commission continued the public hearing and debated most of these recommendations at its Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. The group did not tackle the most controversial item that night: Possible changes to the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William.

On Dec. 3, commissioners picked up the topic and heard from three people during the ongoing public hearing – all three of them addressing the issue of zoning at 425 S. Main. Following that, the commission’s discussion focused on 425 S. Main, as well as revisiting a recommendation related to the design guidelines.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “Feedback on Downtown Zoning Continues“; “Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase“; “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review”; ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward” and “Downtown Zoning Review to Wrap Up Soon.”

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing

Ted Annis told commissioners that he lived across the street from the property at 425 S. Main. He’d been following the commission’s recommendations and had been glad to see that – at their Nov. 12 working session – they had agreed that the parcel should be zoned D2 and not D1. He supported that decision.

Ted Annis.

He read aloud from an email he sent out to his neighborhood group and other neighborhood groups after that meeting. In the email, he stated that the planning commission had agreed to change the zoning to D2 rather than the D1 zoning that had been recommended by the consultant. [The commission didn't formally vote on any of the recommendations at that working session, though they did discuss the recommendations and indicated some support for downzoning.]

Annis called the D2 zoning “more logical and aesthetically pleasing” for building heights downtown. He thought that the outcome would be accepted by the downtown community, with the exception of one or two property owners. “Unless there is a last minute flip-flop by planning commission, city council should be spared the agony of the downtown zoning fight,” he said.

Referring to a proposal from the owners of 425 S. Main for a modified D1 zoning, Annis told commissioners that he didn’t agree with that. “I think D2 makes sense for that parcel, and most of the downtown citizens that I work with agree to that,” he concluded.

Andy Klein spoke next, introducing himself as one of the owners of 425 S. Main. Noting that he’d spoken to the commission on previous occasions, Klein said this site was developed 30 years ago and it’s a valuable asset to the community. The real question is the future, he said. They have a tenant with a long-term lease, but in the long-term, the question is whether they’ll be able to build a landmark building there. Obviously, they’d want to develop something that has value and that’s important to the community, he said.

The change from D1 to D2 would represent a 70% reduction in allowable height, Klein noted. “That’s not urban planning. That’s just a knee-jerk reaction to reduce height because people have been unhappy with other developments.” He pointed out that the consultant, Erin Perdu, had recommended a 150 feet height limit on the site. Klein then introduced Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, who had been hired to come up with a “reasonable solution” for the site. Klein noted that Neumann/Smith had designed Zaragon West, a building that he described as successful for this community. [The apartment building, with retail on the first floor, is located at the southeast corner of Thompson and William.]

Scott Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture.

Scott Bonney told commissioners that his firm designed Zaragon Place before A2D2 was enacted. [That apartment complex, also with retail on the ground floor, is on East University between Willard and South University.] He said the city “sort of wrote the ordinance around that, what we did at Zaragon Place.” After that, he added, Zaragon West was the “poster child for D1.”

Bonney reviewed some slides that showed an alternative zoning for the 425 S. Main site, as well as what could be built given the current zoning in that area. [.pdf of Bonney's slides] D1 zoning allows a height of 180 feet, while D2 areas have a height of 60 feet. The alternative proposal put forward by Bonney would match the height of Ashley Mews, which is located on the opposite side of Main Street from the 425 S. Main site. The suggestion was to put a 122-foot height limit on the property as a compromise, as well as keeping a diagonal restriction. [Diagonals are a method of controlling shape, and typically allow for taller but less massive buildings.]

Bonney said that a 122-foot building is lower than what is allowed nearby under D1 zoning, and that a diagonal requirement would result in slender buildings. He urged commissioners to consider this alternative zoning.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Main & William Site

Kirk Westphal began the discussion by asking planning manager Wendy Rampson to review the history of the 425 S. Main site.

Rampson described the area’s zoning prior to the adoption of A2D2 in 2009. The site was previously zoned C2BR, based on zoning categories established in 1963. What’s now called the core downtown was zoned C2A, with the fringe downtown zoned C2B. That zoning didn’t allow for residential use in the downtown core, so subsequently zones were created (C2AR, C2BR) where residential use was permitted. After several high-rises were built – including Campus Inn, Tower Plaza and University Towers – the city commissioned a study of the downtown zoning, conducted by JJR.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Until 2009, there were no height limits in the C2A, C2AR, C2B and C2BR zoning districts. For parcels zoned C2BR – including 425 S. Main – there was a 300% by-right floor-area ratio (FAR) and up to 600% FAR with premiums. [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%.]

When the premiums were revised in the 1990s, that FAR for C2BR districts increased to 660%. The D1 zoning on the 425 S. Main site now is fairly similar to the previous zoning, Rampson said, aside from the height limit and change in premiums.

Sabra Briere asked Rampson to explain why there was an increase in the use of PUDs (planned unit developments) between 1985 and 2005. Rampson said the increase was due primarily to limitations on FAR. One North Main and 305 E. Liberty were PUDs, for example, because the buildings exceeded the 600% FAR. The PUDs were one way to get bigger buildings in terms of floor area, not necessarily height, she said.

Westphal asked whether the 425 S. Main site had been discussed during the A2D2 process. Had the D1 zoning been called into question?

All of the “edge” parcels were discussed during A2D2, Rampson replied. Any of the properties that abutted residential or that were constrained by the floodplain were debated. The areas along the north side of East Huron as well as along some parts of South University were “hotly debated,” she recalled. The 425 S. Main site had been discussed, she said, “but not at the same level.”

In order to lessen the impact of D1 in some areas, the height limit was reduced for certain character overlay districts – including on East Huron and South University. [.pdf of character overlay district maps]

Bonnie Bona provided additional historical context regarding the A2D2 process. The council had created several committees to tackle specific aspects of the project, like design guidelines, historic districts and zoning. Bona served on the committee that looked at zoning. That group decided that the entire D1 core should be surrounded by D2, she said – and that was the recommendation that the zoning committee sent to an A2D2 steering committee. The steering committee changed that recommendation, however. The discussion centered around whether a block should be split into different zoning districts, Bona recalled.

Looking east at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William. The northern half of the site is a surface parking lot, with a building that houses DTE offices on the southern half. Nearby residential houses are visible to the east of the property.

On East Huron, for example, the zoning committee had recommended placing D2 between residential areas and D1 districts. The exception was on parcels adjacent to the University of Michigan, because the university can build whatever it wants, Bona said, so there was no need for a transition zone.

So why did the D2 recommendation get changed? Some people felt that when you’re driving along East Huron, Bona explained, “the buildings should be the same on both sides.” The problem is that it’s a very shallow site between parcels on the north side of East Huron and the Old Fourth Ward, she noted. So the zoning committee had recommended D2 for the north side of East Huron. The steering committee wanted the same zoning on both sides instead.

The 425 S. Main site probably got changed from D2 to D1 because of its history, Bona said, and because of the desire to have the same zoning on both sides of Main Street. “I don’t agree with that,” she added. “I think the world is much more interesting when it’s not so completely obvious and literal.” There were a lot of changes during the A2D2 process, she noted. “It wasn’t quite horse trading, but it kind of felt like that. What it felt like was ‘What hill am I going to die on, and what am I going to let go?’ – for everyone on the planning commission, and everyone on the council. Everybody kind of had their favorite spot that they wanted to protect, and had to compromise on others.”

Westphal asked Rampson to review the zoning of parcels surrounding the 425 S. Main site. She explained that adjacent parcels along William – including where the Beer Depot is located – are zoned D2, with residential zoning (R4C) further south on Fourth Avenue. Responding to a query from Sabra Briere, Rampson said that the parcels along the south side of William, east of the alley that separates the Beer Depot site from the 425 S. Main site – are in the East William historic District. [.pdf of East William historic district map]

Rampson explained that parcels in a historic district can’t use premiums. So sites that are zoned D2 would be limited to 200% FAR. Bona noted that if a 200% FAR building filled the entire site of a parcel located in an historic district, the building could not be 60 feet tall, because of the FAR limitations.

Overall, the idea of the A2D2 process was to reduce the density in some areas with D2 zoning, Rampson explained. The 425 S. Main site was zoned D1 – with a height limit of 180 feet – because it was considered to be part of the Main Street character district.

Commissioners also discussed the possibility of using split zoning on the site – the northern half toward William as D1, and the southern half toward Packard as D2. Diane Giannola wondered whether that would mean that a tower could be built on the northern half, but not on the southern half. That’s right, Rampson replied.

Jeremy Peters wondered about the height of the Bethlehem United Church of Christ on South Fourth. It seemed taller than nearby residential structures, he said. That’s true, Rampson said, but she didn’t know how tall it was.

Slide by architect Scott Bonney showing potential structures on and around 425 S. Main. In the foreground is planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Bona said that to her, the entire 425 S. Main site should be zoned D2. If split zoning were used, she’d only support D1 zoning on the very north end, next to the Beer Depot – “and that’s hardly worth doing.” Sixty feet height limits are still a big transition to residential areas, she said, and anything higher than that “would be unfortunate.”

Westphal clarified with Rampson that if the site had split zoning, only two residential parcels would directly abut the D1 portion. He felt that’s why the split-zoning proposal is compelling.

Bona expressed concern about affecting even those two residential properties. “Those houses are just as important to not overpower as a whole row of them,” she said.

Diane Giannola liked the idea of split zoning, saying that it would look better visually. With D2, she’s worried about getting a long, 60-foot-high building on the entire site. “I’d rather have taller, more compact buildings,” she said, not a huge, massive apartment building. She thought the city could get a better building with D1 zoning and a 120-foot height limit on the northern part of the site.

Briere described the site as massive. With D2 – a 200% FAR – you could build quite a large building, she said, even without premiums. She suggested considering whether there should be mandatory open space, so that the entire FAR couldn’t be used. “I’m really frustrated at talking about this,” she said, because it’s not clear how to go about getting the right design. “So much of it depends on the quality of the developer.”

Bona suggested that the issue of blocky versus slender buildings could be addressed by using diagonals, rather than split zoning.

Bona also clarified with Rampson that if the site were rezoned to D2, the owners could still seek a PUD (planned unit development) to build more square footage in exchange for community benefits. Westphal followed up by asking whether PUDs are something that the city wants to encourage. “No,” Rampson replied. One of the stated goals of the A2D2 process was to eliminate a trend of using PUDs to develop downtown sites.

Ken Clein reviewed the zoning of D1 – with by-right FAR of 400%, and more FAR with premiums – compared to D2, with by-right FAR of 200%, and up to 400% with premiums.

Planning commissioner Ken Clein.

Westphal pointed to the city’s master plan and the issue of density, and the notion that denser development should be located downtown, near public transit. It’s compelling to him to have opportunities for people to live without relying on cars. If the parcel were downzoned, that could potentially eliminate housing for 100 or 200 people, he said. The master plan also talks about protecting residential areas, so that’s why he’s struggling with this site.

This is the most challenging parcel of those that the council directed the commission to look at, Clein said. The site is so large that you could probably put two or three buildings on it that are the size of Zaragon West. The process that the commission and city council have to go through is to balance the rights of property owners with the ability to develop downtown property to support the tax base, Clein said, and to protect the rights of the nearby neighbors. “It’s a compromise, no matter what,” he said.

Personally, as an architect, Clein said, he’d be very comfortable with zoning the entire site as D2. However, it was instructive to hear about the site’s history, he added, and to know that the property has been zoned something similar to D1 since the mid-1960s. You could say that the owners had their chance to develop it, but didn’t – so “too bad,” Clein said. Or you could say to the neighbors that development could have happened at any time over the past few decades. “There’s validity in both of those points,” he said.

Split zoning would offer a compromise to greater density and height, Clein added. Alternatively, one option would be to change the maximum height of the Main Street character district, and to add a diagonal requirement, he said. Given the site’s history, he’d be willing to support a compromise that would leave part of the site D1, especially at the corner.

Bona added another piece of historical context, referring to the downtown plan that was written in 1988. It was the first time that the concept of “interface zones” between downtown and residential neighborhoods was introduced. When the A2D2 process took place nearly 20 years later, none of the recommendations for interface zones had been enacted, she said. “So this isn’t a new issue that came up now,” she said. “The neighborhoods around downtown have been fighting for an interface zone since 1988 – and probably before that.”

Commissioners continued discussing the option of split zoning, along with some combination of step-backs and diagonals, to limit the impact on the residential neighborhood.

Bona said she personally didn’t like the character overlay zoning, finding it “overly detailed.” If the commission wants to recommend step-backs or diagonals, they should do it for the entire downtown, she said, not just this site. Noting that commissioners seemed to be stuck, Bona formally put forward a recommendation: To rezone the entire site D2, and to establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 in the Main Street character district.

Westphal asked Rampson to review the height limits in D2 districts. She explained that height is determined by character district, and there is no current D2 zoning in the Main Street character district. For D2 sites in all other character districts, however, the height limit is 60 feet.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Clein floated the possibility of having two different heights on the site, even if the entire site were zoned D2. Briere clarified with Rampson that there’s a two-story minimum height in D2 districts. The by-right FAR is 200%, and up to 400% with premiums.

Westphal noted that by downzoning the site to D2, it would go from a possible 900% FAR (with premiums) to 400% (with premiums). In terms of affecting the property’s value, he said, it’s a challenge to rezone the entire site as D2. Bona replied that from a density perspective, 400% FAR is still a lot – and it’s a lot more density than the R4C zoning. Also, 60 feet is a tall building that belongs downtown, not in the neighborhoods, she said.

Concerns about massiveness are important, she said, and it’s something that the design guidelines attempted to address. She suggested revisiting the design guidelines as the best way to handle those concerns, noting that it’s a problem everywhere, not just at this site. Development of the Brown Block – currently a surface parking lot bounded by Huron, Ashley, Washington and First streets – is “a scary thought,” Bona said. The idea of using diagonals or step-backs for one site almost creates spot zoning, she said, which isn’t a desired approach.

After additional back-and-forth, commissioners voted on Bona’s proposed recommendation:

Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character district.

Outcome: Commissioners approved the recommendation on a 5-4 vote, with support from Bonnie Bona, Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were Kirk Westphal, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola and Paras Parekh.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Design Review

During her update to the commission, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that she’d met with the design review board in November to go over the commission’s draft recommendations. Board members had expressed some concern, she said, for the recommendation that they felt would make the board the “sole gatekeeper” for premiums. The design guidelines were drafted to be flexible, they said, and weren’t intended to be structured for decision-making. “They were worried that they’d be placed in a position of having some pretty subjective standards to apply to a project, and saying yea or nay to whether a project can obtain premiums,” Rampson said.

In general, the design review board members felt there was value for the board to being involved in the discussion about premiums, Rampson said. They thought it would make sense to have a joint meeting with the planning commission to flesh out some of these issues, she said.

Rampson noted that at this point, there are no items on the agenda for the commission’s Jan. 7 meeting, so it might be possible to schedule a joint meeting then. Another possibility would be the Jan. 14 working session.

Bonnie Bona said that based on this feedback, she’d like to discuss the recommendation that commissioners had previously voted on at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting. That recommendation stated:

Revise the premium conditions to require compliance with Design Review Board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.

Bona noted that when A2D2 was being developed, the planning commission and city council had considered making the design review guidelines mandatory. “So it’s not like we haven’t had this discussion before,” she said, adding that she thought it would be good to discuss the option of making some guidelines mandatory.

Jeremy Peters didn’t think the commission needed to button down details at this point. The recommendation didn’t call for mandated compliance, he said. The commission was just recommending that the council consider requiring compliance, he said.

From left: Eppie Potts talks with Ann Arbor planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Ken Clein agreed with Peters, and was in favor of leaving the recommendation unchanged. Bona noted that the language of the resolution stated that the commission was making a set of recommendations, and the recommendation for this item was to require compliance. “We’re not recommending to consider requiring compliance,” she said. “We’re recommending requiring compliance.”

If the commission feels, based on feedback from the design review board, that they should “tread carefully around that and get more input,” she said, “I think we might make this more of a consideration rather than a requirement.”

Wendy Woods expressed concern that if the recommendation is changed, it will end up with what is currently in place – that a developer can consider input from the design review board, but not actually make changes to the design. She wasn’t in favor of changing the recommendation, but supported having a conversation with the design review board.

Ken Clein noted that there seemed to be some confusion over the word “consider.” There’s a difference between asking council to consider a recommendation, compared to recommending that a developer consider input from the design review board. So in the planning commission’s recommendations to council, he said, commissioners should be very clear about their intent.

Bona indicated that Woods had interpreted her suggestion in a completely different way than what she had intended, so it hadn’t been clear.

Sabra Briere said she’d be happy if the planning commission could use input from the design review board as a tool to determine whether a project has met all the requirements of the ordinance – without making the design review board more powerful than it was created to be. It was designed to be a voluntary board that gives advice, she said, but not as a board to make recommendations about whether to approve a project. She’d like to include the board’s input as part of the approval process regarding premiums, “rather than the design review board handing us a fait accompli, and we feel our hands are tied then.”

As a way to incorporate Briere’s comments, Peters suggested a possible alternative recommendation: “Revise the premium conditions to allow the planning commission to use design review board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.”

Clein agreed that he didn’t want to put a new burden on the design review board, or hamstring the planning commission or city council. However, members of the community as well as developers have both indicated that they want the city to “Tell us what you want,” he said. So he’s reluctant to do anything that will make it less clear to developers what’s required in order to secure premiums.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods, Jeremy Peters, Paras Parekh.

Bona noted that when it was decided that the design guidelines would be voluntary, the guidelines were written in a different way than if they had been mandatory. Not every design guideline should be mandatory, she added. On the other hand, there were things that didn’t become mandatory in 2009 that should perhaps now be revisited, Bona said. She wanted to recommend a mandatory requirement for some of the design guidelines. If the council agrees, then the commission and others can look at which guidelines should be mandatory versus voluntary.

Another thing to be determined is which body – the design review board, planning commission or council – determines whether those mandatory requirements have been met, Bona said.

Diane Giannola interpreted the commission’s original recommendation as simply requiring compliance with the design review board’s report on a project, not requiring compliance with all of the design guidelines.

Bona then made another suggestion for revision: “Revise the premium conditions to consider requiring mandatory compliance with some design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.”

Clein suggested replacing the word “some” with “core” – to indicate that it will be a subset of the overall guidelines. Bona agreed to that change.

Woods said she’d support this, but expressed concern that the recommendation was in danger losing the essence of its original intent. “It’s starting to feel a little watered down from where it started,” she said.

Westphal wanted to eliminate the word “consider.” Bona said she’d be in favor of that, noting that she’d included the word as a reflection of the concerns cited by the design review board. Westphal thought that using “design guidelines” rather than “design review board” addressed that concern.

Rampson noted the design review board had mentioned another initiative that the council had started, but that hasn’t moved ahead: A review of the design guidelines. [A task force was established through council action on March 4, 2013 to review the downtown design guidelines, but that group has not yet met. Westphal had served on the original design guidelines task force in 2010, but had asked to be removed from the group when it was reconstituted earlier this year.] The expectation was that these two efforts – a review of downtown zoning, and a review of the design guidelines – would go hand-in-hand, Rampson said.

Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and the Ann Arbor city council.

Rampson characterized the current guidelines, which were adopted by the council in 2011, as “fairly subjective and qualitative.” [.pdf of design guidelines]

Briere said she’d ask mayor John Hieftje if the design guidelines review could move ahead.

Woods expressed some concern about whether the commission would be taking on a much bigger task – if their recommendation opened the door for a broader review of design guidelines. The term “design guidelines” seemed nebulous, she said, and she wondered if it referred to “a list of things that everybody learns in Landscape 101 or urban planning? What is that? What really are we saying?”

Bona replied, saying there might be some changes recommended to the city’s existing design guidelines, based on the task force review. “There is no magic book of design guidelines,” she added. “It’s whatever we want to put in there, and we think we can figure out a way to get.”

Eleanore Adenekan weighed in, saying she wanted to make sure the word “consider” had been removed from the revised recommendation.

Bona described the review of design guidelines as a project, and she didn’t think the guidelines would be nebulous after that project is completed. The end result should be a clear set of mandatory design requirements and voluntary guidelines.

The final revised recommendation states:

Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved this recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Main Street Character District

Sabra Briere indicated that she had some concerns about height in the Main Street character district. The community has not absorbed the fact that four buildings on Main Street could be demolished and replaced with 180-foot buildings as infill. There are two buildings now that are empty – the former Middle Kingdom restaurant, and the former house where an ice cream parlor was located. Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that those sites are in the Main Street historic district, so the heights would be limited. [.pdf of Main Street historic district map] Rampson noted that the southern edge of the district has a jagged edge, and there are some properties between Liberty and William that aren’t in the district.

Briere noted that the surface parking lot at the northeast corner of Main and William – next to Palio restaurant – isn’t in the historic district, nor are the buildings directly north of that.

In general, Briere anticipates that there will be problems in this area, but she noted that it’s not part of the council’s current charge to the planning commission. She said she didn’t want mission creep, but it might be appropriate to discuss this issue as part of a review of the design guidelines.

Outcome: There was no formal recommendation on this item.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Main Motion

The final set of recommendations, as amended, are:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.
• Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.
• Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.
• Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing.
• Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms.
• Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium.”
• Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved these recommendations, which will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rampson told commissioners that unless the recommendations move forward in an expedited way, it’s likely that they’ll be included at the council’s second meeting in January – on Jan. 20, 2014.

Capital Improvements Plan 2015-2020

The Dec. 3 agenda included a resolution to approve the city of Ann Arbor’s capital improvements plan (CIP) for 2015-2020.

Deb Gosselin, a city staffer who oversees the capital improvements plan.

The CIP provides a roadmap for investments in a wide variety of infrastructure projects. It is prepared by city staff and is the basis for budget decisions made by the city council, but the council does not approve the CIP. That’s the purview of the planning commission.

Required by state statute, the CIP must be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning for major projects – permanent infrastructure like buildings, utilities, transportation and parks. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon. Major updates are conducted every two years. This year is considered an “off” year with only minor adjustments.

The updated plan covers the fiscal years 2015-2020, but most of the updates relate to FY 2015, which begins on July 1, 2014. It includes a list of major capital projects, both those that are funded and those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. [.pdf of staff memo and CIP for FY 2015-2020] The plan indicates changes in scheduling compared to the previous CIP, as well as funding adjustments and new projects. In the report, new projects are indicated with gray shading. This year the gray shading primarily reflects first-time inclusion of projects undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Ann Arbor housing commission.

The DDA’s projects are included this year due in part to an ordinance change approved by the city council on Nov. 18, 2013 which added, among other language: “The authority shall submit their capital budgets to incorporate them into the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP).”

The CIP contains over 300 projects in 13 different asset categories. Of those, 127 projects require funding in FY 2014 – the current fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2013 – or in FY 2015. Funding needed in FY 2015 totals $62.253 million. That’s $11,881,800 (23.59%) more in FY 2015 than was included in last year’s CIP. But most of that increase is due to the addition of the DDA and housing projects. If those projects weren’t included, funding needs for FY 2015 would have dropped by 27.55%, That’s because many FY 2015 street construction projects were pushed back to FY 2016 or later to allow time to develop a pavement asset management program.

The housing commission projects primarily relate to an effort to renovate and redevelop the city’s public housing properties. [See Chronicle coverage: "Work Progresses on Public Housing Overhaul."]

Highlights of FY 2015 projects by the DDA include $2.5 million for elevators in the Fourth and William parking structure, $600,000 for a first-floor build-out of the Fourth and William parking structure, $250,000 for a South University streetscape project, $50,000 for vehicle charging stations, and $30,000 for crosswalk repairs in the DDA district.

Deb Gosselin, who oversees the CIP process, was on hand to give an overview of the document and to field questions from commissioners. The planning commission’s meeting also included a public hearing on the CIP, but no one spoke.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Street Lights, Signals

Sabra Briere asked about the funding line for lights on Main Street, scheduled in FY 2015. It’s not clear what entity is providing that funding, she said. Deb Gosselin replied that the report provided to commissioners didn’t include that information, but it’s available in the online database.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioner and city councilmember Sabra Briere talks with Deb Gosselin.

The line item in the 2015-2020 CIP that Briere referred to was $588,000 in FY 2015 for “TR-OT-14-01 S Main St Street Light Poles, William to Huron.” By way of background, the CIP for 2014-2019 that the planning commission approved on Dec. 18, 2012 included the same line time, but at $600,000 for FY 2014. [.pdf of 2014-2019 CIP as approved by the planning commission on Dec. 18, 2012] A separate document that shows the funding sources for CIP items in 2014-2019 lists the funding source for that line item as “Operating Transfer from 0003″ – the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment financing (TIF) fund – but the document indicated that no funding had yet been authorized.

In fact, the issue of which entity would for the Main Street light pole replacement – the city or the DDA – has been a point of contention. The question was answered the day after the planning commission meeting, on Dec. 4, when the DDA board voted to allocate $280,000 to the project. That amount, added to a previously approved $300,000 from the DDA, covers the entire cost of the replacement. For details of the history of this dispute, see Chronicle coverage: “DDA Ponies Up for Main Street Light Poles.”

At the planning commission’s Dec. 3 meeting, Briere noted that councilmembers have been talking about adding improved street light options for several locations around town, including Dhu Varren, Pontiac Trail, Stone School Road and others. But she didn’t see a subsection in the CIP for lighting, so she wondered where such projects would be listed. Gosselin replied that there’s not a separate category for street lighting. Also, only projects costing more than $100,000 are included in the CIP, so it’s possible that individual street light projects fall below that threshold.

Briere wondered if items like flashing beacons or HAWK signals would also fall below the $100,000 threshold. Gosselin explained that often those items are bundled with street construction projects, and that funding typically comes from federal or state sources. Briere said that given the conversation that occurred at the Dec. 3 city council meeting, “I have a feeling that we’re going to need to be able to pull that information out.” [Briere was alluding to a debate over proposed changes to the city's crosswalk ordinance.] Gosselin agreed, saying that the recently formed pedestrian safety task force would likely want that kind of information, too.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Streets, Sidewalks

Briere referred to an organization that grades the streets in Michigan each year, saying “it never makes the city look good.” Gosselin noted that SEMCOG (the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) does street ratings, using a system called PASER [Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating]. Ann Arbor uses a Pavement Condition Index. [.xls spreadsheet of PCI for 2001-2010]

Gosselin reported that the city has hired a firm to do a sign inventory, and that same firm might be hired to a PCI rating for all of the city’s streets as well. It would be the first time that the city has PCI ratings of all of its streets during the same timeframe. The city is looking at possibly doing a full-scale rating every three years, she said.

Briere said she knew that city staff takes an inventory of streets every spring and fall. In the spring, they look at what has deteriorated over the winter. In the fall, they try to anticipate the needs for the following spring. “But spring is always a surprise,” she said. People living on a street have no “visceral memory, that’s connected to a calendar, of when that street was last in good condition,” Briere said. So when the staff prepares a list of street projects, it would be helpful to include information about when it was last resurfaced and the current condition, she said.

Eleanore Adenekan asked about sidewalk gap projects. Gosselin reported that the city council has funded development of a sidewalk gap strategic plan. [In May 2013, when the council adopted the city's budget for the current fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2013, it included a $75,000 allocation for a study of sidewalk gaps, so that they can be prioritized.] Gosselin said the scope recently expanded to include a pedestrian safety plan. But that study isn’t completed, she added, so it hasn’t generated any projects in the CIP yet. “I certainly anticipate that it will,” she said.

In addition to an inventory of sidewalk gaps, the staff will be building a prioritization tool specifically for sidewalks, with points awarded for different elements like how far the sidewalk would be from a school, for example. There will be a lot of public engagement on this project, Gosselin said. In addition, the city will be exploring potential funding sources. To fill every sidewalk gap, the city has estimated it would cost between $25 million to $50 million, she said. So it won’t happen all at once.

Briere noted that the city is trying to roll sidewalk gap construction into broader road projects. For example, Newport Road from M-14 to the city limit is going to be resurfaced in FY 2014. Residents have been contacted about a possible sidewalk plan and there will be a community meeting on Jan. 2. A sidewalk is needed from Riverwood to Wines Elementary School, she said. “It’s an important thing for a community that was built to rely on a [school] bus, and who no longer has access to a school bus.” The project has taken over two years to get this far, she noted, and will be another year before it’s completed.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Rail Station

Kirk Westphal asked if a future reconstructed rail station is part of the CIP. Yes, Gosselin replied. She noted that the project has “started and stopped a number of times,” and she indicated that the outcome will depend on available funding as well as “community values at the time.” [The project is listed under the "Alternative Transportation" category. Line items include $2.6 million for final design in FY 2016 and $44.5 million for construction, also in FY 2016. The project would require city council approval to move forward.] Gosselin noted that the staff listed construction in FY 2016 as a placeholder, but “it’s not going to stay in 2016, because – it’s just not,” she said.

The project is included in the CIP so that “the need is memorialized,” Gosselin said, and as each stage gets funded “it will keep moving along.”

Westphal asked whether the station would be considered a city asset. When Gosselin hesitated, Briere said the determination hasn’t been made. The current station is built on Amtrak-owned property and is an Amtrak building, Briere noted. If another station is built, “where it’s built would determine who owns it,” she said, “as much as what funding is used to build it.”

The project is a city project that’s 80% federally funded for the current stage, Briere said. The location hasn’t been determined, she noted. At this point it’s a city project, she added – that’s why it’s in the CIP. She pointed out that the connector study is listed in the CIP as well, even though much of that project won’t end up being an asset that the city owns.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Housing Commission

Wendy Woods asked about changes at the Ann Arbor housing commission (AAHC). Her understanding was that the commission is getting a federal grant to improve some of the city’s public housing. [Woods is married to Ronald Woods, who serves as president of the housing commission.]

By way of background, in January 2013 the housing commission board selected Norstar as a co-developer for a major overhaul to the city’s public housing. AAHC is using low-income housing tax credits from the state of Michigan as the primary funding source for renovating its properties. It’s part of a broader effort to help AAHC convert Ann Arbor’s public housing units into public/private partnerships through a new rental assistance demonstration program, known as RAD, offered by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). AAHC was accepted into the program late last year. The goal is to allow AAHC to use private financing for capital improvements in its existing housing stock, which is decades-old and in need of major upgrades.

Housing commission projects included in the 2015-2020 CIP total $21.23 million, including renovations at Baker Commons ($4.195 million), Green Baxter Court ($6.325 million), Miller Manor ($4.8 million) and Maple Meadows ($4.544 million).

Gosselin replied that some of these projects are approved, while others are still in the pipeline. She noted that the projects include energy efficiency and other improvements.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – University Collaboration

Woods wondered what happens when the city finds out about a big project that the University of Michigan is doing. She referred to the large graduate student complex that was announced earlier this year. [The project is for a 370,000-square-foot, eight-story building on the north side of East Madison Street between South Division and Thompson streets, where Blimpy Burger was formerly located. The anticipated opening date is fall 2015.] Woods asked how the city handled unexpected projects like that, which could affect the city’s infrastructure.

“With the university, I would say it’s an ever-evolving relationship,” Gosselin replied. Part of the challenge that the university has is with the board of regents approval process, she added. “My perception is that it’s difficult for staff to share as much as I would like or that city staff would like to have more lead time on knowing what’s coming. They’re reluctant to state ‘We’re doing this’ until the board [of regents] has blessed it.”

If the university creates a new need – for example, with a project that might require a new water main – then the city treats them like a private developer, Gosselin said. That means asking UM to pay for up-sizing the main. “We’re trying to do that with the university. There are times in the past when they’ve participated with street costs, but we can’t compel them to.” Ideally, it could be a smoother process, she added, “but we work with it the best that we can.”

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Parks

Paras Parekh asked about the $60 million total listed in the line item for ”Open Space and Park Acquisitions.” Was that amount merely a budget, but with no expectation that there would be that much land to acquire? [The line item indicates that $26 million had been spent in previous years, with $2 million in revenues listed each year from FY 2015 through 2019, then $24 million listed in FY 2020.]

Planning commissioners Paras Parekh and Sabra Briere.

Gosselin replied that the $2 million was the annual amount of revenue from the city’s open space and park preservation millage. It’s not necessarily the amount that might be spent, she explained.

By way of background, in 2003 Ann Arbor voters passed a 30-year 0.5 mill tax called the open space and parkland preservation millage. It appears on the summer tax bill as the line item CITY PARK ACQ. The city’s policy has been to allocate one-third of the millage for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the greenbelt program.

To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being paid back with revenue from the millage. Debt service on that bond in FY 2013 year totaled $1.227 million. [.pdf of fiscal 2013 activity report] [.pdf of FY 2013 financial statements]

In FY 2013, which ended June 30, 2013, $2.141 million in revenue came from millage proceeds. Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Colin Smith – manager of parks and recreation for the city – explained that the $24 million listed in FY 2020 represents the remainder of the millage funds through 2033, at an estimated $2 million per year.

Parekh asked what happens to the money if it’s not spent? It’s kept in a fund balance, Gosselin explained. [As of June 30, 2013, the fund balance for the millage stood at $8.856 million, with about equal amounts designated for the greenbelt ($4.413 million) and park acquisitions ($4.442 million).]

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Asset Management

Bonnie Bona asked how the staff assesses the totality of the city’s assets, and makes sure infrastructure doesn’t crumble before it’s repaired or replaced.

No community will say that they’re exactly where they want to be in that regard, Gosselin replied, including Ann Arbor. The CIP is a short-term planning tool, she added. “Six years is not a long time, when it comes to infrastructure.” The city is doing long-term asset plans for several of the 13 asset groups, she said. There’s a water asset management plan that’s underway, for example, that includes prioritization related to the consequences if a particular water main fails. Another project focuses on pavement asset management, looking at options beyond repaving or resurfacing. A stormwater asset management plan is also in the works.

Gosselin said the water asset management is probably the most challenging financially, because a lot of water mains were installed at about the same time during the building boom of the 1960s. The cast iron used during that era has been relatively problematic, she said, and there’s a lot of work being done so that the city can be proactive.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters listen to Deb Gosselin (foreground) talk about the city’s capital improvements plan.

Regarding roads, Gosselin said that Ann Arbor’s street millage “is such a privilege.” She’s worked in other communities that didn’t have that revenue source. A millage is a much more stable funding source, she said.

Kirk Westphal asked how the city staff assesses the impact of a large development on the city’s infrastructure, and how it’s determined whether a developer must pay for an upgrade.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson said that it’s done in a variety of ways. Generally, if a development is going to impact the sanitary sewer system, for example, the developers aer required to upsize the capacity before they build. The Landmark apartment complex on South University is one example where the developers had to upsize the sanitary sewer, she said, and they shouldered the whole cost for that. In other cases, like traffic intersection improvements, the city determines a “fair share” contribution based on the amount of traffic that a project is expected to generate, she said, and that’s included in a development agreement. Those contributions are often used to match federal or state funding sources to complete a project. The Plymouth/Green intersection is an example of that.

In response to a query from Westphal, Rampson said that the city is not proactively upsizing infrastructure in order to support future growth, although that’s an approach that some communities take, she said.

Ken Clein asked how the prioritization model works. Gosselin explained that prioritization works within each asset group – that is, the city doesn’t pit a water project against a road project. Within an asset category, each project gets ranked by a team of people, which results in an overall ranking. The lower the number, the higher the priority. Then the staff looks at funding and programming. The next step is done in a very old-fashioned way, she reported – by listing projects on a board and seeing how much money is available, and how many projects can be funded from that pot of funding.

Westphal wanted to know if the prioritization model is being tweaked. Gosselin replied that it’s been five years since it’s been revised in any significant way. The one change that was made last year was to incorporate the city’s new sustainability framework – by asking how many of the city’s 16 sustainability goals a project is contributing to. This winter, she’s planning to do a detailed evaluation of the prioritization criteria, she said. “I don’t anticipate big changes, but there will be some.”

Westphal asked about the typical percentage of expenditures on a city’s asset base, benchmarked against other communities. Does Ann Arbor spend more or less on road maintenance, for example, than other cities? Rampson elaborated on the question, asking if there are best practices for the amount spent on maintenance of infrastructure.

Gosselin said the city hasn’t done a benchmarking study. The city’s prioritization model is considered cutting edge, she noted, with staff from other cities frequently calling to ask about it. She said that it’s difficult to make comparisons, because so much of the work depends on the availability of funding sources. For example, Ann Arbor probably looks like it’s spending way more on roads compared to other communities, because the city has a street millage.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – 415 W. Washington

Clein asked about the 415 W. Washington project, which is listed in the CIP with $300,000 in FY 2015. Gosselin replied that she was torn about what dollar amount to attach to the project. The council commissioned a study of the site, which is in the hands of the city administrator, she said. It’s unclear what the council will decide to do when they’re presented with a variety of options. The $300,000 figure is “basic,” she said.

CIP 2015-2020: Commission Discussion – Public Engagement

Bonnie Bona asked how projects end up on the CIP. Gosselin replied that there are several ways that projects get added. Often the city staff will identify a need, but sometimes a project is recommended by an advisory body – like the planning commission or the park advisory commission – or from the city council. Other projects are driven by needs identified in the city’s master plan, or are spearheaded by citizens, like the skatepark that’s under construction at Veterans Memorial Park, or the sidewalk construction along Scio Church Road. She estimated that about 75% of projects are generated from staff input.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Jeremy Peters said he appreciated Gosselin’s responsiveness to questions and openness to input from the public. Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that it’s been a challenge getting public input – she noted that no one had attended the public hearing on the CIP that night, for example. She told commissioners that if they’re able to tap their networks for input and bring suggestions back to the staff, that helps staff members understand the needs of residents.

Paras Parekh noted that the CIP lists so many great things that are planned – in parks, for example. How does the public find out pro-actively what’s been completed? “I think people are proud of the city, and I think if they knew more about all these great things that are happening,” he said, “I think there’d be more people here tonight and there’d just be more of an engaged citizenry around what we should be doing and taking pride in where we’re headed.”

Gosselin said she’d like to develop ward-by-ward maps of projects. There was a pilot attempt to do that last year, but it didn’t work out. The staff is continuing to work on it, with information available on the CIP page. In addition, the city website is being redesigned to make it easier to navigate, she said.

Gosselin also reported that the city’s new communications specialist, Robert Kellar, is very enthusiastic about exploring different ways to improve communications. Parekh encouraged the use of social media like Pinterest, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. “That’s where people are,” he said. Wendy Rampson pointed out that “it’s easier to promote an Argo Cascades than it is a new sewer.”

Rampson noted that during the construction of East Stadium Bridges, the city set up a bridge cam and promoted that through social media.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the 2015-2020 CIP.

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

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [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.

The recommendations, which in general aim to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods, included the following:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.
• Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William, from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.
• Revise the premium conditions to require mandatory compliance with core design guidelines for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.
• Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies and workforce housing.
• Review options in D1 and D2 districts, with the housing and humans services advisory board (HHSAB), for providing additional affordable housing within mixed income projects or through other funding mechanisms.
• Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium.”
• Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

The commission debated most of these recommendations at its Nov. 19, 2013 meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. The group did not tackle the most controversial item that night: Possible changes to the parcel at 425 S. Main, at the southeast corner of Main and William.

On Dec. 3, commissioners heard from Scott R. Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, who spoke on behalf of KRG Investments, the owners of the Main and William property. Bonney had previously written a letter to the city that suggested a third option to consider: Keep the D1 zoning on that site, but reduce the maximum height to 122 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 50% of the maximum diagonal dimension of the site. The letter included diagrams showing the impact this proposal, which Bonney discussed on Dec. 3. [.pdf of Bonney's letter]

Bonnie Bona, who had been involved in the original A2D2 process, advocated for downzoning the entire site, to provide a buffer between D1 zoning and the nearby residential neighborhood. Some commissioners, including chair Kirk Westphal, would like more density in the downtown, and noted that the site has allowed for denser development since the 1960s. The final vote on the recommendation for that site was 5-4, with support from Bona, Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Jeremy Peters and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were Westphal, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola and Paras Parekh.

Also, because of feedback received from the city’s design review board, commissioners revisited one of the previously settled recommendations regarding compliance with design guidelines. They unanimously voted to change the recommendation – so that it would require mandatory compliance with some of the design guidelines. The intent is to develop a process that will clarify the design compliance that will be required in order to receive premiums.

The vote on the full resolution with all of the recommendations, as amended, passed unanimously.

The downtown zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13 that was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations, which served as the basis for the Nov. 19 discussion. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

The recommendations approved by planning commissioners on Dec. 3 now will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The intent is for the council to review the recommendations and give direction back to the commission about which recommendations to implement. At that point, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee would work with city planning staff to craft actual ordinance language.

Any specific ordinance changes would be reviewed by the full planning commission and ultimately would require city council approval before taking effect. That process would include additional opportunities for public input.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “Feedback on Downtown Zoning Continues“; “Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase“; “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review”; ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward” and “Downtown Zoning Review to Wrap Up Soon.”

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

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan and Ken Clein sign papers attesting that these high school students had attended the Nov. 19 meeting. The class assignment did not require that the students stay for the entire meeting, which adjourned at about 12:30 a.m. (Photos by the writer.)

Planning commissioners made decisions on the majority of recommendations for revising the city’s downtown zoning ordinance, but adjourned after midnight before completing their final resolution for city council. Though they did not formally vote to postpone action on the resolution, the item will be taken up again at the commission’s Dec. 3 meeting. [.pdf of revised draft recommendations to be considered on Dec. 3]

Generally, the changes reflect a downzoning in some locations in an attempt to lessen the impact of development on adjacent residential neighborhoods.

A public hearing on the downtown zoning review drew seven speakers, all of whom had previously addressed the commission on this topic. Andy Klein – one of the owners of a site at the southeast corner Main and William, which is being considered for downzoning – spoke against rezoning that property, calling himself the “lone dissenter.” Other speakers at the hearing were in favor of downzoning in general, including at that site. The recommendation for that property – possibly one of the most controversial – was not debated or acted on by commissioners at their Nov. 19 meeting.

Attached to the commission’s Dec. 3 agenda was a communication from Scott R. Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, written on behalf of KRG Investments, the owners of the Main and William property. It suggests a third option to consider as a compromise, and indicates that Bonney will attend the Dec. 3 meeting to make a presentation about this proposal in person. [.pdf of Bonney's letter]

After the planning commission finalizes and approves its resolution regarding these downtown zoning recommendations, the resolution will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The intent is for the council to review the recommendations and give direction to the commission about which recommendations to implement.

At that point, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee would work with city planning staff to craft actual ordinance language. Any specific ordinance changes would be reviewed by the full commission and ultimately would require city council approval before taking effect. That process would include additional opportunities for public input.

In addition to downtown zoning, three other projects were on the Nov. 19 agenda. Commissioners recommended approval of a proposal to build two restaurants adjacent to Macy’s at Briarwood Mall. They also recommended approval of a four-story addition to the existing two-story building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor, known as the Montgomery Building. The expansion will create 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units.

One project that didn’t move forward was a proposed expansion of Germain Motors – the former Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street. Owner Steve Germain and his daughter Jessica Germain attended the meeting and described the growth of their business, with a 55% increase in combined sales compared to last year. They indicated that expanded showrooms and additional parking and vehicle display areas are needed to accommodate future growth. However, planning staff recommended postponement to address several outstanding issues, and commissioners acted on that advice.

Downtown Zoning Review

A downtown zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13 that was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. The council’s direction was for the planning commission to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1.

Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations, which served as the basis for the Nov. 19 discussion. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

Commissioners made several amendments during their deliberations on Nov. 19, and adopted the following recommendations, which will likely be part of the final resolution to the city council. In general, the changes reflect a downzoning in an attempt to lessen the impact of development on adjacent residential neighborhoods:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.
• Revise the premium conditions to require compliance with Design Review Board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.
• Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies, and workforce housing.
• Review options in D1 and D2 districts with the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects or through other funding mechanisms.
• Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium.”
• Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

The only draft recommendation that was not discussed on Nov. 19 was for a parcel located at the southeast corner of Main and William (425 S. Main). A surface parking lot and a building that currently houses DTE offices are located there.

Commissioners are expected to weigh two options for that site at their Dec. 3 meeting: (1) Rezone the parcel from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District; or (2) Change the maximum height in the Main Street Character District to 100 feet when within 20 feet of a residential zoning district and add a tower diagonal maximum and/or “shadow setback” requirement to limit shading on adjacent residential properties.

For additional background on this process, see Chronicle coverage: “Feedback on Downtown Zoning Continues“; “Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase“; “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review”; and ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward.”

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing

The public hearing on the downtown zoning review drew seven speakers – all but one in favor of downzoning. All of them had previously addressed the commission on this topic.

Ray Detter said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council. The group based its support of the 2009 zoning revisions on the goal of minimizing the negative impact of downtown development on neighbors in terms of height, scale, shading and harm to natural and historic resources, he said. In general, Erin Perdu has done a good job of summarizing the community’s view, Detter told commissioners.

Detter noted that at the Nov. 12 working session, which he and several others attended, they were pleased that the planning commission was supportive of changes to the three locations where the city “made past zoning mistakes,” he said. The advisory council believes the Ann Street lot should be downzoned from D1 to D2, as it’s clearly an interface area across the street from historic properties in the Old Fourth Ward, he said. But it’s also true that D2 zoning should be used for the property south of Ann Street all the way to North Fourth Avenue, he added.

From left: Ray Detter, Jeff Crockett and Chris Crockett.

Detter said the advisory council was also pleased that the commission supported decreasing the allowable height of property between Campus Inn and Sloan Plaza from 150 feet to 120 feet, and to use diagonals, setbacks, stepbacks, and a shadow setback requirement to eliminate shading. There should also be at least a 25-foot separation between Sloan Plaza and any development next to it, he said. The advisory council supported rezoning the other parcels on the north side of East Huron between North Division and North Fifth – from 180 feet to 120 feet with possible diagonals, setbacks and stepbacks. That includes the Ahmo’s site, he noted, and the property management office next to Ahmo’s. The 120-feet zoning change should also be extended to include the northeast corner of North Fourth, where a former gas station is located.

Detter said there were cheers during the Nov. 12 working session when it seemed that commissioners agreed that the property at the southeast corner of Main and William should be rezoned from D1 to D2. Apparently that’s still open to discussion, he noted, but the downtown citizens advisory council definitely supports D2 on that entire site. He encouraged commissioners not to give premiums to things that the community doesn’t want – like student housing – but instead to give premiums to features that the community supports, like more open space and affordable housing. Also, the advisory commission supports giving no approvals or premiums unless the development follows recommendations of the design review board, which he said should include a member of the historic district commission.

Jeff Crockett supported what Detter had said, and added that he’s been pleased with the process in that it reflects community input. He encouraged the city in the future to look carefully at the landmark tree ordinance and toughen it up. He liked the idea of D2 on the William and Main site, and also supported creating shadow setbacks as well as a review of premiums every two to five years.

Chris Crockett also thanked the commission for reviewing A2D2, especially in proximity to residential areas. She noted that although the property at Main and William is viewed as a gateway to the city, it’s also adjacent to a residential area and D2 zoning there is as valid as any. She was happy that the commission is reconsidering the use of premiums. People hadn’t understood the ramifications of the original zoning, she said, and didn’t realize that the city would end up with “essentially dormitories.” The premiums haven’t led to good architecture or good development, she said. The city also needs affordable housing, to make sure there’s a good urban mix.

Eleanor Linn told commissioners she hadn’t seem the most recent draft of recommendations before she wrote her comments, so some of the things she was asking them to consider are things that are now in the recommendations. She read her statement, which noted that she lives near the 13-story Landmark “private student dormitory” at South University and Forest. She’s learned something about the problems of high-rise buildings invading residential neighborhoods, she said. Large setbacks are crucial, and she supported 40-60 foot setbacks where D1 or D2 zoning abuts residential zoning. D1 buildings are far too tall to ever abut residential areas. She wants lower height limits where D2 abuts residential, and she hoped the city would review other vulnerable parcels that aren’t included in this current review. She also thinks it’s necessary to reinstate the cash-in-lieu option for affordable housing, if it’s legally possible.

Marc Gerstein also read a statement that had been prepared before he’d seen the updated recommendations. He also lives near South University and Forest, and urged that no D1 zoning should abut residential areas. He supported rezoning the Main and William parcel to D2, and lowering the height limit on the parcel next to Sloan Plaza with bigger side setbacks. He supported shadow setbacks and other requirements that would reduce the impact of D1 and D2 zoning on residential areas. There should always be an interface between D1 parcels and residential areas, and the city should re-examine areas where this occurs – like on the north side of Willard, between East University and South Forest. He also wanted protections for Hill Auditorium and Burton Tower, which are across from D1 zoning on Thayer Street.

Andy Klein, one of the owners of the property at the southeast corner of Main and William.

Andy Klein introduced himself by saying he was the “lone dissenter.” He’s one of the owners of the property at Main and William, where the DTE building is located. It’s interesting to hear other people’s comments about property that you’ve spent millions of dollars on, he said. He respects the concerns that have been voiced, but there’s no pressure to make any changes on the site. It’s been owned by his family and other investors for over 30 years, Klein said, “and that’s the way it’s going to stay.” Whatever they do with the site in the future will respect the residents and protect the property value, he said, and would be something that the city would be proud of.

Reducing the zoning from D1 to D2 is a “Draconian measure,” Klein said, and is a response to other buildings that have been developed in an “untasteful way.” Every other corner of that intersection is zoned D1, he noted. Lowering the height by 40% could be an option, and adding a diagonal requirement is a flexible solution, he said. “I just don’t think that solutions that are so harsh that they really destroy the potential development of a key site in the city makes a lot of sense.”

Klein noted that his voice is the only one on his side. He can’t come to every meeting and he doesn’t have a group of people to argue vehemently on his behalf. “But my voice is important,” Klein said. His family and other investors have contributed millions of dollars to the city’s tax base, and continue to do so. He urged commissioners not to impose D2 zoning at the site.

[Attached to the commission's Dec. 3 agenda was a communication from Scott R. Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, written on behalf of KRG Investments, the owners of the Main and William property. It suggests a third option to consider: Keep the D1 zoning on that site, but reduce the maximum height to 122 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 50% of the maximum diagonal dimension of the site. The letter, which includes diagrams showing the impact this proposal, indicates that Bonney will attend the Dec. 3 meeting to make this presentation in person.] [.pdf of Bonney's letter]

The last speaker Doug Kelbaugh, who said he was speaking as a private citizen. [Kelbaugh is a professor at the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning.] It’s been a “very productive if tedious process for you,” he told commissioners, but he was in favor of continuing it in some way. He knew there were no additional funds for consultants, but he hoped the commission would ask the city council for more funding to continue the zoning review beyond the current scope.

In particular, he hoped they could look at extending some of their “wise decisions.” For example, he hoped to extend the zoning changes next to Sloan Plaza, with lower height limits, all the way along the north side of Huron to Main Street, or perhaps even further west to Ashley or First. The changes at Division and Ann should also be extended all the way to Main Street or further, he said. Other edges of the downtown – like the church site at Huron and State Street, and the block of Thayer – need to be re-examined, where D1 zoning hits the UM campus. Kelbaugh hoped the city could find the wherewithal to continue its zoning review.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Affordable Housing

The commission considered this draft recommendation regarding affordable housing:

• Revise the affordable housing premium so that the provision of affordable housing or a contribution-in-lieu of affordable housing is mandatory for receiving any premiums in the D1 or D2 districts.

In reviewing the proposed recommendations at the start of the Nov. 19 discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the draft recommendation to add a contribution-in-lieu as an option for the affordable housing requirement was seen as problematic by the city attorney’s office. Any type of in-lieu-of payment is very difficult in Michigan because the state statute does not clearly indicate that it can be done, she reported. It’s more straightforward with elements like parking, she added. But with affordable housing, it’s harder to draw a connection between the need for affordable housing in one location, and addressing that need through a payment to the affordable housing trust fund, which can be used to support affordable housing anywhere in the city, not just downtown. The commission could still include it in their recommendations, she said, but as it moves to city council, it might be tempered by advice from the city attorney.

Kirk Westphal highlighted a communication regarding a more detailed recommendation that had been approved by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). It was included as part of the planning commission’s meeting packet. [.pdf of HHSAB recommendation] The HHSAB recommended modifying the premiums to require building affordable housing or making a cash-in-lieu contribution to affordable housing, and included a detailed formula for calculating contributions:

(i) For purposes of obtaining any premium listed in (_______) above, developments less than 400 FAR shall provide 10% of the total square footage as dwelling units affordable to very low income households. Projects exceeding 400 but less than 700 FAR shall provide 15% of the total square footage as dwelling units affordable to very low income households.

(ii) Payment in Lieu Formula, Discretion of City Council to Allow. Dwelling units affordable to very low income households shall be provided by the development of units on-site, or through an affordable housing contribution “in lieu of” units. The amount shall be set consistent with a “payment in lieu” formula set by recommendation of the HHSAB annually by the end of March each year and submitted to City Council for approval or rejection.

(iii) Calculation for Pro Rata Amounts. When the affordable housing requirement results in a fractional unit, the fractional unit shall be converted to an affordable housing contribution in lieu of units, using the following formula: the fraction shall be multiplied by the per-unit affordable housing contribution as determined by the formula adopted annually by City Council.

(iv) Recommendation of Planning Commission, Approval of City Council required. For each proposed development utilizing a premium to exceed base FAR, the Planning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and City Council, in its sole discretion, may approve or deny payment of an affordable housing contribution in lieu of all or part of units on site.

Westphal wondered whether commissioners would be able to “button down” the legal issue that night related to the contribution-in-lieu approach to affordable housing. Rampson indicated that it would not be possible to determine that at the meeting. She also didn’t think the issue could be handled in isolation from other recommendations.

From left: Ken Clein, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Rampson and Bonnie Bona.

Sabra Briere asked Rampson is there’s any scenario that she’s heard the city attorney support when it comes to cash-in-lieu for affordable housing. Rampson noted that the planned unit development (PUD) approach includes a contribution-in-lieu option. That’s possible because a PUD is “a very special animal under state law,” she said.

But in a standard zoning district, the only requirement for affordable housing is if a developer wants to secure premiums. The question becomes whether there’s a nexus between that requirement and making a payment into a fund that won’t necessarily result in what you’re looking for – affordable housing in the downtown. So one possibility might be to create a separate fund to be used only for affordable housing downtown, Rampson said. But according to the city attorney’s office, even that might not be sufficient, she added.

“Any time you’re asking people for money in exchange for approval of zoning, there is some discomfort about that,” Rampson said. It’s different when you ask for requirements like parking or landscaping, she said. Requiring affordable housing is a bit of a stretch in Michigan, she noted, but it’s the contribution-in-lieu option that becomes really problematic.

Ken Clein said he’s in favor of affordable housing downtown, but he pointed out that you can build a lot more affordable housing outside of the downtown, where land prices are lower. Rampson replied that if you require contributions to affordable housing that can be spent outside of the downtown, you’d be creating an island in the downtown where affordable housing isn’t deemed appropriate – that’s one way of looking at it, she said.

Briere noted that at the Nov. 18 city council meeting, the council had revised the ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Starting in FY 2016, the DDA will put aside $300,000 annually to use on affordable housing within the DDA’s boundaries or within a quarter mile of those boundaries. It will be challenging, Briere said, but the goal is to encourage affordable housing downtown. She wondered if the zoning could require affordable housing as a gateway for getting a housing premium.

Rampson replied that because seeking a premium is optional, that might be possible. Briere pointed out that it might then discourage the development of housing altogether.

Bonnie Bona felt that the most effective approach to affordable housing is when it’s part of a mixed-income development. If the city collects affordable housing funds and steers those funds toward property that’s less valuable, “we’re actually segregating,” she said. The gap in housing options is big enough that it requires multiple approaches, Bona said. She wondered if the recommendations to the council can include a recommendation to look more deeply into this issue, working with the city’s housing and human services advisory board.

Later in the meeting, Bona proposed a revised recommendation: “Review options for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects and through a fund, with the assistance of the housing and human services advisory board.”

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Sabra Briere, who also serves on the city council representing Ward 1.

Paras Parekh asked whether they needed to specify D1 and D2 districts, or whether the recommendation was for the whole city. Bona felt it’s an issue for the entire city, but the downtown zoning review is why it’s being addressed. She didn’t want to be restrictive.

In response to another query from Parekh, Bona said the phrase “mixed-income projects” is to prevent segregating affordable housing into one location. “We don’t want housing projects, if we can help it,” she said.

Wendy Woods was concerned about including a reference to the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). She didn’t feel the recommendations should be so specific at this point. She made a motion to strike that reference from the recommendation.

Ken Clein said he didn’t feel strongly about it, noting that the commission can always consult with other entities if it wants to. But if the recommendation specifies the HHSAB, he wondered whether they should also specify consulting with the city attorney’s office. The suggestion elicited a laugh from commissioners. Clein said his point is that the recommendation might be getting “too in the weeds” by specifying who they’ll consult.

Rampson noted that HHSAB did provide very specific feedback to the commission regarding the affordable housing issue.

Bona thought that including a reference to HHSAB acknowledges that the commission has received that feedback, and that it’s important. Affordable housing also is a complicated topic – much more so than something like LEED certification, she said. Affordable housing has been a problem for centuries, Bona added, and the city doesn’t seem to be any closer to a solution.

Outcome on amendment to strike the reference to HHSAB: It failed on a 1-8 vote, with support only from Wendy Woods.

Commissioners also discussed the phrasing “and through a fund.” Bona said she’d stayed away from saying “payment-in-lieu” because of concerns that the city attorney’s office had raised.

Clein suggested using the phrase “or through other funding mechanisms” instead. It was accepted by Bona as a friendly amendment.

Another amendment was suggested by Woods, to add “D1 and D2 districts.” Bona said she wanted to leave it vague. She pointed out that the title of the overall resolution is “Recommended Downtown Zoning Amendments.” She thought that adding D1 and D2 would be redundant, and noted that it’s not included in the other recommendations.

Woods pointed out that earlier in the evening, commissioners had discussed concerns about possibly locating affordable housing outside of the downtown. That’s why she wanted to be more specific.

Outcome on amendment to add D1 and D2: It passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Bonnie Bona and Jeremy Peters. Sabra Briere was out of the room during the vote.

The final revised recommendation states:

Review options in D1 and D2 districts with the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects or through other funding mechanisms.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to make this recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Residential Premiums

Commissioners discussed how to combine these two separate items from the draft resolution:

• Reduce the residential use premium from 0.75 sf to 0.25 sf per square foot of residential use to encourage the use of other premiums.
• Include other types of premiums in addition to the ones currently available.

The consensus was to make the first recommendation less specific, and to include several examples of the types of premiums that commissioners would like to see. Affordable housing was left out in favor of a broader goal of workforce housing.

Jeremy Peters suggested a premium of the shadow setback, but when planning manager Wendy Rampson asked whether commissioners wanted that as a premium or a requirement, the consensus initially was to recommend shadow setbacks as a requirement.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Ken Clein suggested making LEED silver certification as a premium. Rampson reminded commissioners that LEED certification is already included as an A2D2 premium – silver, gold and platinum certification can result in additional floor-area ratio (FAR). Only two projects so far – at 618 S. Main and 624 Church St. – have proposed using LEED certification as a premium, she reported. And because the developer of 618 S. Main subsequently scaled back that project, that premium isn’t needed. There are also energy efficiency “points” that are required as a gatekeeper to securing premiums.

Bonnie Bona counseled against being too specific at this point regarding LEED certification, and suggested a more general recommendation of increasing the energy efficiency requirements as a premium.

Sabra Briere noted that the LEED premium is the only one that comes with a penalty. That is, if you get a premium to build additional FAR on the premise that the building will be LEED-certified, but it doesn’t achieve that status, then there’s a financial penalty. “I’m not going to even try to replicate the incredibly complex equation that nobody understood sitting around the table except maybe the person who was proposing it – and maybe not,” she said. But it reminded her that when the city grants premiums, there’s an expectation that the city will reap a benefit. One option would be to look at applying a cash penalty for other premiums that aren’t met. She described her suggestion as “a very unformed thought.”

Later in the discussion, Briere pointed out that the directive from council was not to rewrite the zoning ordinance at this point. It was to make broader recommendations. What’s needed is for the council to clearly define the problems that it wants the planning commission to address, and at that point the commission can work on revising the ordinance. Getting into details at this point could really bog down the work, she said.

Rampson cautioned that if the commission sent recommendation to the council that are too general, the subsequent direction from council might not be clear. Briere countered that if the planning commission is too specific, it could result in some councilmembers pushing back because they don’t like the specifics. Briere indicated that if the commission looks like it’s done all the work, that’s not a good approach.

Rampson also pointed out that if more options are provided as premiums, it might dilute the ability to encourage any one particular goal, like residential development.

The final revised recommendation states:

Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies, and workforce housing.

Outcome: This recommendation was passed unanimously.

Briere suggested eliminating another recommendation related to residential premiums, which she felt could be addressed elsewhere:

• Revise the residential use premium to be more specific about the types of units that will be eligible for premiums.

Bona agreed, saying she was very opposed to having premiums for specific unit types that could be reconfigured soon after a building is constructed. The buildings need to be designed to be flexible, if they’re going to last a long time, she added. One possibility is to require that developers show the interior design during the site plan phase, to show that the interior could be flexible, she said.

Clein agreed with Bona, saying it would be very difficult to enforce any kind of interior requirement.

Outcome: This recommendation was eliminated on a 7-2 vote, over dissent by Eleanore Adenekan and Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – East Huron

Commissioners discussed two related draft recommendations for the East Huron area:

• Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District to 120 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum and/or “shadow setback” requirement to limit shading on adjacent residential properties.
• Rezone the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue from E. Huron 2 Character Overlay District to East Huron 1 Character Overlay District.

Wendy Rampson explained that if these recommendations are approved, the height limits for properties adjacent to city hall and the University of Michigan Credit Union site – currently a parking lot off of Ann Street, next to city hall – would be reduced from 180 feet to 120 feet.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Kirk Westphal clarified with Rampson that owners of those properties weren’t interviewed for this zoning review. He said he wouldn’t be comfortable making the changes proposed for the East Huron 1 Character District, adding that it’s beyond the scope of the council directive.

Diane Giannola said she’s not in favor of shadow setbacks. She wondered how it would affect property rights. Shadows come from everything, including trees, she said, “and when you own property, you don’t necessarily own the sun.” The concept is way too vague, she added, and she’d rather see diagonals used to address the issue of shadowing.

Jeremy Peters didn’t think it was fair to talk about trees in this context. It’s clear that the shadow setbacks refer to buildings, he said. He didn’t support removing it.

Sabra Briere voiced concern over investments that people make in solar panels and alternative energies that rely on solar gain. What happens when something happens next door that shades the investment? It’s a different set of property rights at stake, she said, compared to the rights that Giannola mentioned. Briere supported the idea of shadow setbacks, because the city is encouraging alternative energy investments and they need to be protected. “We have to come up with a way to balance the individual’s rights with the community’s rights,” Briere said.

Westphal was cautious about introducing a completely new tool at this point, and would prefer to stick to responding to the council’s charge.

Paras Parekh wondered why the shadow setbacks were only proposed for the East Huron 1 Character District, and not elsewhere. On philosophical grounds, he had concerns about requiring something in one part of the city that wasn’t required anywhere else.

Rampson noted that Briere’s concerns are more related to solar access law, and the shadow setback requirement wasn’t intended to regulate solar access. The reason Rampson included a mention of shadow setbacks in the draft was because commissioners had discussed the issue at the Nov. 12 working session. It was specified for that particular part of town because of D1 zoning that abuts residential neighborhoods located to the north, “which is probably the worst shadow configuration that you could get,” Rampson said. Perhaps there’s a better term to use instead of shadow setbacks, she added.

Ken Clein agreed that solar access rights are best left for longer-term study.

Bonnie Bona noted that this section of East Huron is the only area where D1 zoning is directly adjacent to residential. She described this part of the downtown zoning as a “major flaw” in the final A2D2 zoning. She thinks an interface district is needed around the entire downtown, but “we need it here more than anywhere.” Especially in the winter, there’s a lot of shade. If the shadow setback isn’t included, Bona said she’d then support rezoning that area to D2. She noted that the Sloan Plaza site could also be built to a greater height, which would impact the residential neighborhood to the north.

Briere cautioned against rewriting the East Huron 1 Character District – in terms of height and shadow setback. That’s too ambitious to do on the fly at midnight, she said. Instead, Briere proposed recommending that the East Huron 1 Character District be revised.

After further discussion – which included distinguishing between “setback” and “step-back” – commissioners reached a compromise wording:

Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.

Outcome: The revised recommendation was unanimously approved.

Regarding the draft recommendation to rezone the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue from East Huron 2 Character Overlay District to East Huron 1 Character Overlay District, commissioners were reluctant to make that specific recommendation at this time. Clein noted that it wasn’t part of the charge from the city council. Westphal said he’d be willing to strike it.

Clein and Peters both suggested that instead of this recommendation, the commission should create a separate recommendation that would focus on review of additional sections of the downtown.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to strike the draft recommendation to rezone block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Review of Other Areas

Ken Clein proposed adding a new recommendation to request that the planning commission review any area where D1 zoning directly abuts or is within 25 feet of residential or historic districts, and to review whether those areas should be rezoned to D2 or whether to modify the zoning in these sensitive areas.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Ken Clein, who is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects.

Sabra Briere noted that one area where D1 abuts an historic district is on Main Street. About a third of the block between Liberty and William is not in an historic district, and is zoned D1. “The day that someone proposes a 180-foot tall building [there] is a day that this body will … hear from the public about problems with that,” she said. Briere noted that other areas have been mentioned by members of the public as problematic, including Thayer Street, South University, and some parts of Forest, for example. She supported Clein’s recommendation.

Diane Giannola felt that if any area abutting an historic district must be rezoned, then there likely won’t be any D1 zoning downtown – because there are so many parts of downtown that are designated historic districts. Jeremy Peters noted that Clein was suggesting only to review those areas, not to actually make recommendations at this point.

Wendy Rampson clarified that the current review already includes all the areas where D1 directly abuts residential. The review does not include areas that abut historic districts, she added.

Giannola thought Clein’s proposal was outside of the council’s charge, and that it would require an entirely new study, starting the process all over again. Bonnie Bona also said she didn’t support the proposal.

Briere noted that the planning commission and council have heard from people who want the city to review all character districts. It’s true that it wasn’t in the council’s charge to the commission, she said, but people have brought it up. She suggested recommending that the council consider whether all the areas that aren’t zoned D2 need to be re-evaluated.

Rampson pointed out that the planning commission and staff spent six years creating the A2D2 zoning, which was just adopted in 2009. “If you are really opening the door to rethinking all of the character districts, are you really ready to say that’s a priority, given your work program – to revisit everything in the downtown?”

Briere said the only way to get more specific direction from council is to put a resolution on the council agenda, which she was reluctant to do. Instead, she wants to take a “deep dive” into the Redevelopment Ready project, to see if the city’s existing ordinances match its master plans. She’d also like to get the ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project completed, before taking on something else. She said she was struggling to find a way to indicate that the commission has heard the problems that people have raised.

Wendy Woods noted that for sites next to the University of Michigan, it didn’t make sense to be overly concerned about zoning. “The university can change what it has on campus next year, if they want to. We could be worried about shadowing Hill Auditorium, and it could be gone – because that’s the reality.” She thought the commission should focus on what it was asked by council to do.

After some additional discussion, Clein offered to withdraw his proposal.

Outcome: Clein withdrew his proposed recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Other Recommendations

Two draft recommendations were accepted without substantive discussion:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• Revise the premium conditions to require compliance with Design Review Board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Adjournment

At about 12:30 a.m., commission chair Kirk Westphal said he wasn’t prepared to tackle the remaining draft recommendations. He offered to entertain a motion to adjourn.

Outcome on adjournment: The motion passed 8-1, over dissent from Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Final Public Commentary

After adjournment, Westphal realized he had omitted the final public commentary. The only person remaining was Ray Detter, who told commissioners: “I’ve got a lot to say, but you’re not really interested in hearing it.”

Germain Motors Expansion

Earlier in the meeting, commissioners discussed a proposal to expand two buildings and the parking area for Germain Motors – the former Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street. Planning staff had recommended postponement, to allow the owners to address staff feedback on the project.

Aerial view of Germain Motors site, outlined in green. South State Street is on the left (west) side of this property. Expansion is proposed for the two smaller buildings on the north and center of the site that fronts South State.

The proposal calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces.

The owner also wants a variance from Chapter 62 (landscaping) to eliminate the requirement for interior depressed landscape islands in the car inventory and display areas.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. In a staff memo, city planners called the project an upgrade to the appearance of the site, but also cited several concerns.

The work would result in the loss of three out of four landmark trees on the property, to be mitigated by planting 11 additional trees. City staff were concerned by that reduction in landmark trees, as well as by the proposed request for planting fewer interior landscaping trees. Another concern was the additional amount of impervious surface that would be created by this expansion.

That was also an issue cited by the Malletts Creek coordinating committee, a group that includes representatives from the city, the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, the Huron River Watershed Council, and Pittsfield Township. That committee, which is focused on improving the condition of the Malletts Creek watershed, felt that a variance might be justified or mitigated only if the project included offsetting stormwater management on the site – such as green roofs, sand filters, or other low-impact development techniques.

Germain Motors Expansion: Public Hearing

Four people – all affiliated with Germain Motors and its proposed expansion – spoke during a public hearing on the project.

John Oney of Architectural Alliance, the architect for an expansion of Germain Motors – formerly the Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street.

John Oney of Architectural Alliance in Worthington, Ohio, gave an overview of the project. He said it’s their goal to work through any issues and hopefully agree to any conditions that the city deems to be appropriate so that the project can move forward as quickly as possible.

The existing site was “piece-mealed together,” Oney said, so they’d like to develop a comprehensive master plan to upgrade the buildings to the new “image requirements” of the auto manufacturers, to address the working needs of the business as it expands, and to improve the State Street corridor and the dealership’s customer experience. The new design is intended to provide connecting pedestrian walkways throughout the campus, as well as additional landscaping and upgraded building materials, he said.

Oney showed some architectural renderings of the buildings, then introduced Steve Germain. He said Germain had taken “a leap of faith here in these uncertain economic times to acquire the dealership and make some significant improvements.”

Steve Germain, owner of Germain Motors, began by introducing his daughter, Jessica Germain. He told commissioners that they live in Columbus, Ohio, “but don’t hold that against me, please.” He noted that Jessica Germain is a 2004 graduate of the University of Michigan, with strong ties to this community. One of her responsibilities is to help manage this region, and he said he was proud of her work.

Germain described how his business had acquired most of the assets of Howard Cooper Imports about a year ago, noting that Cooper has been a member of this community for over 45 years. They purchased the three dealerships on South State Street, and the rights to four franchises. They took over a business with a great reputation both in the industry and in this community, he said. The business employs 92 people, Germain reported, saying it was an honor to carry on a tradition with such wonderful employees in a vibrant market.

In order for the business to continue to grow and prosper, Germain added, they need to do three things. They need to upgrade the facilities to meet the requirements of the manufacturers. They need to provide ample, safe and convenient parking to enhance the customer experience and allow the business to create more jobs. Third, he said, they need to maximize their storage capacity and grow their inventory to meet the market demand.

Jessica Germain then reviewed the sales for the past 10 months. She said the business has achieved significant growth, beyond industry averages. Ann Arbor’s demographics align with Honda’s target buyers for fuel-efficient and economic products, she said. Honda sales from January through October of 2013 have exceeded last year’s sales by 31%.

Volkswagen sales are up 40% compared to last year, she reported, and sales for Audi have increased 76%. The business services both the Ann Arbor and Toledo markets for the luxury brand of Porsche, Germain said, and sales have increased 89% in 2013 compared to the first 10 months of 2012. In the sale of pre-owned (used) cars, sales are up 108% in 2013.

Jessica Germain and Steve Germain of Germain Motors.

Strengthening the inventory for new and pre-owned sales gives the business an opportunity and range of price points to provide in this market, she explained. Overall, they’ve seen a 55% increase in combined sales, but she said the business still hasn’t met the requirements and expectations of manufacturers. Germain Motors aspires to exceed those requirements, she added.

Steve Germain spoke again, saying that when they acquired the business in September 2012, they soon realized that the potential in this market with these brands would require that they expand the inventory. Their first thoughts were for off-site storage, he said, but it’s not recommended because of the costs involved in security, fencing and shuttling cars back and forth. They also considered a parking deck, but the cost at about $18,000 per space would put the total cost at over $3.6 million. He indicated that the proposal that was before the planning commission is the best approach.

Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering, the project’s civil engineer, noted that there are three issues that the planning staff raised. One is the increased amount of impervious surface. The city also would like to add additional landscaping islands and address some stormwater management issues. The landscaping islands that the city is requiring are located in the storage area, Wanty said, but he argued that the requirement of landscaping islands should apply to parking for the public, not for storage.

Regarding staff concerns over a “heat island effect,” Wanty noted that over 50% of the vehicles sold are lighter in color – silver and white – and these cars would be parked there 24/7. He contended that the site plan exceeds the city’s requirements for interior landscape island area by 2,300 square feet. Wanty noted that the soil is mostly clay, so the landscape islands don’t really result in infiltration. The site has a very good stormwater management system, he said. He described the system, and noted that it meets the county water resources commissioner’s standards.

Germain Motors Expansion: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked about the requested landscape modifications, and wanted to know whether there are any alternatives if the required landscaping can’t be provided on site – such as planting trees at another location. City planner Matt Kowalski replied that there’s an option of planting trees to mitigate the removal of landmark trees, but it has to occur on public land and meet other standards, such as proving that the mitigation can’t occur on site. The city’s natural features coordinator didn’t feel Germain Motors had met that requirement, he said. This applies only to mitigation trees, Kowalski noted. There are no options like that for trees required under the city’s landscaping ordinance, other than a variance.

Bona pointed out that 103 trees are required to be planted, but the proposal calls for planting 95 – eight trees short of the requirement.

Bona asked about the extension of the parking 32 feet toward State Street, on the south side of the site. Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering replied: “That is not parking. That is display.”

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona, and city planner Matt Kowalski. Kowalski was recently elected to the Dexter city charter commission.

Bona referred to the presentation that Kowalski had given earlier in the meeting, which included a slide that showed cars parked on the lawn. “I can’t let that go,” Bona said. She asked whether the business is proposing to pave that area. Yes, Wanty replied. Are those cars allowed to be parked there now? she asked. “They’re not there,” Wanty said. Kowalski noted that the cars were parked there that morning, prompting Steve Germain to call out: “But they won’t be there tomorrow.”

“This is a huge amount of parking,” Bona said, so the total number of required trees and the depressed landscape islands need to be provided. She understands that their business requires a lot of parking, and that the site is sloped so there area certain areas where parking can’t be located. Because the parking doesn’t directly benefit the public, she said, “I think you have even more of a responsibility to help Tree City plant urban trees in areas that are impervious.” She wouldn’t be voting in favor of a variance. “You’ve got to do your fair share.”

Sabra Briere said she wanted to echo Bona’s comments, saying that an area to display vehicles is still parking. Adding impervious surface impacts the Malletts Creek area, especially since that area has clay soil and the Malletts Creek system is already overwhelmed, Briere said. For her, the big issue is that there will be a lot of polluted water running off that surface.

Ken Clein asked whether other dealerships in town have asked for variances to not put in landscape islands and trees. Kowalski wasn’t sure how many dealerships are left in Ann Arbor. There’s Varsity Ford, but that dealership hasn’t done any recent renovations, he said. There was a Fiat dealership project, but no variance had been requested for that. [Planning commissioners had recommended approval of the Fiat project on West Stadium Boulevard at their Aug. 21, 2012 meeting.]

Clein said he agreed that the requirement for landscape islands shouldn’t be waived, and that the full amount of trees should be planted to mitigate the removal of landmark trees. Otherwise, it would seem like the city is giving the business a free pass, he said. The purpose of planting trees isn’t just because Ann Arbor is Tree City, he said, but because it helps mitigate the impact of climate change a little. “Those eight trees may not save the world, but those eight trees done again and again and again may help,” Clein said.

Paras Parekh asked why the business didn’t feel that the eight trees could be added to the site. Wanty replied that the trees could probably be squeezed onto an area on the site’s slope, but vegetation is already located there and it’s “like a jungle.” Putting in more trees would disturb the existing vegetation, he said, and create the potential for erosion. He noted that the city requires the mitigation trees to be interior to the site, not on the perimeter.

Rick Meader, a landscape architect with Washtenaw Engineering, came to the podium. He said the landmark trees are only characterized as landmark in aggregate. They aren’t “big, majestic oaks,” he said. Three of them are box elders that are being replaced with better trees, he said, including oaks and tulip trees.

In response to a query from Kirk Westphal, Kowalski said the business submitted one alternative plan, which included a parking structure on the lower level of the site. It didn’t result in any landmark trees being removed. Westphal wondered if there were a middle option, in order to preserve the trees but still provide the amount of desired parking. Kowalski replied that there might be other options – such as quadruple stacking – but probably anything would require some sort of variance.

Westphal wondered if quadruple stacking was possible. Wanty said they didn’t look at that option, and it would entail re-aligning the aisles and spaces. It was something they could look at, he said.

Wendy Woods noted that the Malletts Creek coordinating committee had suggested some options, like the use of green roofs and other low-impact development techniques. She wondered whether the business would consider any of these.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters.

Wanty replied that the site currently drains into a sediment forebay, then into a wetland, then into a second wetland – before it enters Malletts Creek. It’s a good system to break down any oils, he said, and there’s very little silt or sediment that comes off of the site. The new cars don’t leak the fluids that older cars would leak, he noted. “So we’ve really got a clean site here,” Wanty said. That’s why they felt that additional stormwater management wasn’t necessary.

John Oney indicated that a green roof had been considered, but it wasn’t economically feasible so they didn’t pursue it.

“So it looks like what we have is a difference of opinion,” Woods said. Kowalski clarified that the site plan meets the stormwater management requirements. That shouldn’t be confused with a separate issue, he said – the landscaping requirements, and the functions that the interior landscape islands serve.

Bona took issue with Oney’s contention that a green roof isn’t economically feasible. She recommended that he contact A3C Architects, who’ve been monitoring the temperature of their roof – a black section, a white section and a green section. The amount of heat that’s retained from their green roof in the winter, and the amount of heat that’s not absorbed in the summer, significantly reduces the building’s heating and air-conditioning costs, Bona said. A green roof is not just for the environment, she added. There are strong reasons why that greenery moderates the temperature of the roof.

Jeremy Peters echoed some of the previously stated concerns about runoff and water quality. As someone who previously lived near Malletts Creek, he agreed with the coordinating committee’s suggestions. He also agreed with Bona’s suggestion to look at installing a green roof.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Germain Motors proposal.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a four-story addition to the existing two-story building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor. It’s known as the Montgomery Building, because from the late 1920s until 1960 it housed a Montgomery Ward’s department store.

The plan calls for creating 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units.

Aerial view of the Montgomery building (indicated with crosshatches) at 210 S. Fourth Ave. in downtown Ann Arbor.

City planner Matt Kowalski gave the staff report. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. The footprint of the existing building won’t change, and the ground floor would remain commercial space. Current tenants include Salon Vertigo and Bandito’s Mexican Restaurant. The top floor will include a stair/elevator lobby, restroom, wet bar, and access to several roof decks. Part of the fifth-floor roof will be covered in vegetation as a green roof.

The third-floor addition will be set back 11 feet from the existing building’s facade. The fourth floor will be set back an additional nine feet.

Because the building is located in an historic district, it required a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s historic district commission. The HDC granted that certificate at its Sept. 12, 2013 meeting.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density. According to a staff memo, eight footing drain disconnects will be required.

According to a report from the July 10, 2013 citizen participation meeting, the units will be marketed to “anyone who wants to live downtown.” If approvals are received, construction is expected to begin next summer.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth: Public Hearing

Three people spoke during a public hearing on this project. Luke Norman, who lives on South Fourth Avenue, wondered if there would be any affordable housing in this development.

Brad Moore, the project’s architect, told commissioners that the project would rejuvenate the building. The plan is to completely reconstruct the facade and give it a look that’s “more characteristic of its heyday,” he said, while adding some additional stories to increase the amount of downtown residential space.

Rendering of proposed Montgomery Building addition.

The hope is to also increase the amount of retail space along that section of Fourth Avenue, he said, in conjunction with the development at Fourth and Liberty. [Moore is also the architect for an expansion project on the adjacent property – a three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth, which will create six residential units. That project received a recommendation of approval from planning commissioners at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting but still needs city council approval.]

The proposed setbacks of the upper floors are intended to prevent a feeling of the building encroaching on the street, Moore said. He said he had additional information if the commissioners had any questions.

Ray Detter noted that the downtown citizens advisory council had looked at this project. The proposed changes will be a marvelous addition to that block, he said, and it’s a positive direction to restore something that’s part of the city’s past and will be part of its future. The advisory council strongly supports the addition of mixed-income housing in that part of the downtown, Detter said.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by taking up a question asked during public commentary: Is there any affordable housing in this project? Brad Moore replied that there’s nothing that would be dedicated affordable housing, but there are some studio apartments – at about 500 square feet apiece – that would have a lower rent than the other units, because of the smaller size. The one-bedroom apartments will average about 750-800 square feet, and the two-bedroom units will be about 950 square feet.

Brad Moore, architect for the Montgomery Building expansion.

Bona said it would be nice to get some market-rate affordable units rather than subsidized affordable housing. She hoped that if the project is forwarded to the city council for approval, it would include pricing for the various units, relative to income levels. For example, would someone who makes 80% or 60% of the area median income be able to afford the rent?

Bona then asked about the building in relation to neighboring parcels. Moore explained that a portion of the building on the north and south sides will be built up to the property line. Bona wondered how it was possible to put in windows there, considering the fact that the building adjacent to this proposed expansion could also add additional floors someday.

Moore said that the developer will be applying for a variance from the building board of appeals in order to install windows on walls that aren’t set back from the property line. He indicated that a city building official has told him that it’s been the city’s practice to grant such a variance for a limited quantity of windows, with the caveat that additional fire sprinklers must be installed to prevent fire from shooting out the windows into the adjacent building.

There’s also the understanding that if the adjacent building increases in height, the windows would be blocked in, Moore said. There are other opportunities for light in the units, so the windows on those sides would be “supplemental,” he said.

Ken Clein confirmed with Moore that the windows on the property line would be non-operable. He also asked about exterior materials that will be used. [Clein is an architect, and typically asks about exterior materials.] Moore explained that some of the color choices were made in response to feedback from the historic district commission.

Wendy Woods asked about the west side of the building, facing a back alley. The units on that side have balconies over the alley – what would those balconies be facing? Moore replied that most of the buildings on the other side of the alley are three stories high. So balconies on the Montgomery Building’s second and third floors would be looking across the alley at other residential units. Moore confirmed for Woods that the trash pickup and recycling takes place in that alley.

In response to another query from Woods, Moore reported that the studio apartments will be in the building’s southwest corner.

Clein asked about the first floor “arcade,” and wondered if that configuration would remain. Moore noted that the arcade walkthrough ceased to exist 10 years ago, when the hair salon expanded across the back of the building. The rear entrance from the alley serves only the hair salon and as an emergency exit. He said there’s been no commitment to a specific layout, so it’s possible that they could reestablish the arcade walkthrough.

Diane Giannola asked if there would be any coordination in the construction of this project and the adjacent expansion at the corner of Fourth and Liberty.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

It’s possible, Moore replied, though he noted that the buildings have separate ownership. The merchants on that street are sensitive about the sidewalks being closed all summer, so there’s an effort not to do that, he said. It depends on the timing of the construction for each project, however.

Jeremy Peters said he’s glad to see a project that could revitalize an area that seems to need some help. He liked the fact that the design would evoke the building’s historic facade, and was happy to see more density in the downtown core.

Bona asked about the building’s mechanicals. She said one deficiency in the city’s zoning code is a lack of requirements to screen the mechanical units. When screening does occur, it sometimes looks worse than just leaving the mechanicals exposed, she said.

Moore explained that there would be a screen of the rooftop mechanicals, behind the penthouse. The building will likely use a heat-pump system, he said, so that the only equipment mounted on the roof will be a boiler and a chiller. There will be a parapet around the perimeter of the roof that’s about two feet tall, and the mechanical screen will rise above that, but will be unenclosed at the top.

Bona wondered what it would look like if someone were to look down onto the roof from a taller building. Moore indicated that there might be room for potential solar panels toward the back of the roof, but three sides in front will have a green roof, wrapping around patios.

Sabra Briere asked about the noise that would be generated by the mechanicals. She hears from people about the noise caused by such heating and cooling elements, especially from residents whose units back up to shared alleys. Moore said he hoped the screening would address that to some extent. He didn’t know how many decibels the equipment would generate. Briere hoped he would keep the noise factor in mind as the project moved forward.

Clein noted that from his experience, most modern boilers and chillers are fairly quiet. [Clein is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects.] Condensers and pressers tend to make a lot of noise, he observed – but those won’t be used in this project. He wondered whether the mechanicals include an emergency generator. Moore replied that the generator will likely be located in the basement.

A slide from the city planning staff’s presentation showing a photo of the 1960 fire at the Montgomery Building on South Fourth Avenue.

Wendy Woods noted that fires had occurred in both the Montgomery Building and the adjacent Running Fit structure – was it the same fire? No, Moore replied. The fire at the Running Fit building pre-dated the Montgomery Building fire, which occurred in 1960. He noted that in doing historic research for this project at the Bentley Historical Library, he was amazed by how many buildings had burned in Ann Arbor. “It seemed to be a big problem,” he said.

Kirk Westphal said people were pleased that the building design respected the historical context. Referring to the city’s master plan, Westphal noted that it strongly encouraged active uses on the ground floor. He asked if the owners were willing to abide by those desires. “Absolutely,” Moore replied.

Westphal also asked about the contractor that would be used for this project – did they use local labor? Moore wasn’t certain but thought that they did. He noted that the contractor is a firm based in Ypsilanti.

Clein pointed out that despite the questions from commissioners, this is the kind of development that’s needed downtown and he hasn’t heard many people object to the project.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the site plan, which will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants

Planning commissioners were also asked to recommend approval of a site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. [.pdf of development agreement] The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Angeline Lawrence gave the staff report. The proposal calls for building two new freestanding restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. Bicycle parking will be added to the north and west entrances to Macy’s.

The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff have subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning is needed.

The city’s planning staff previously had recommended postponement in order to allow the developer to deal with some outstanding issues related to zoning, landscaping, easements and utilities. Those issues are now resolved, according to staff.

For example, concerns had been raised about the location of the area for trash and recycling. That area has been reconfigured and approved by the city’s solid waste staff. Also, plans were eliminated for a new detention pond on the northeast corner of the mall site, based on a recommendation by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. Instead, an existing detention pond on that site will be dredged and retrofitted.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Public Hearing

The only speaker during the public hearing for this project was Scott Richardson, representing the Briarwood Mall owners. He noted that he and the project’s engineer were on hand to answer any questions.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked staff to explain how they interpreted “this convoluted site” during their review of the project. She described it as a fairly odd-shaped site, and some of the improvements are being included not just near the restaurants, but elsewhere around the Macy’s building. She clarified with staff that the improvements, such as adding landscape islands in the parking area, are being done in response to the addition of the two restaurants.

Scott Richardson, a representative of the Briarwood Mall owners.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed to a page in the meeting packet that showed the site configuration of the mall and indicated each parcel’s ownership. [.pdf of site configuration] She said that at the Oct. 15 meeting, the planning staff was still struggling to understand how the parcel configuration ended up that way. As far as staff can tell, the parcels inside the mall’s “ring road” never went through a formal land division process, she said. “That was what we tried to untangle.”

Macy’s owns the land where the restaurants are proposed, Rampson explained, so the mall owners – Simon Company – are buying and developing that parcel.

Bona then asked Scott Richardson about the future development of the mall. It’s important to make sure that “we’re not boxing ourselves into something that looks like the past, instead of like the future,” she said. Bona wondered whether the mall site’s subdivisions would prevent the site from more progressive development in the future.

Richardson replied that when the company looks at a master plan for any mall that it’s developing, “we tend to lose sight of the property lines.” When there’s a “win-win” for all of the parties involved, he said, “there’s ultimately a deal that can be done” to allow for what he called “grand development.” Even though parcel lines might change, nothing being done for this restaurant deal will eliminate the possibility for anything in the future, he said. Representatives for Simon Company meet at least quarterly with representatives from the key department store companies, he said, to talk about issues that arise, including opportunities for future development.

As an example, it would be possible to develop the property so that the road in front of the two new restaurants becomes “like an intimate Main Street,” Richardson said, with additional shops, restaurants – or even a parking structure with some residential units above it, built to face the street. He said that everyone recognizes the fact that a lot of parking is underused, and a lot of the site is undervalued and can be improved. It’s not a change that happens quickly, he added, but it’s something “that we certainly have on our plate, to make sure that we think big picture – because the last thing you want to do is sell yourself short in the future for a bird in the hand today.”

Bona said she was glad Richardson “could see more optimism here than I’m seeing, so I’ll take you at your word.” She then asked about the number of trees and bioswales on the site, saying that at first glance it seemed to her to be in excess of what would be required by the two new restaurant buildings. She noted that it seemed to relate to the fact that two parcels were impacting this development – a parcel owned by Macy’s, a the parcel owned by Simon Company.

City planner Angeline Lawrence replied that 169 trees are required by code for the Macy’s parcel, but the city allowed the developer to count some of the existing trees on the site as part of that total. That means that only 133 trees will be added, she said.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh.

Bona also wondered how the regional detention system worked. Lawrence replied that the existing detention pond is just to the north of the proposed new restaurant site. There’s a similar pond on the other side of Briarwood Circle, she said. The plan calls for dredging sediment from the bottom of the existing detention pond that’s near the to-be-developed site, and to install a new pipe that would allow runoff to flow into that pond.

Rampson added that when Briarwood Mall was developed, a regional detention system was created for the whole area. The detention ponds drain east into Malletts Creek.

Jeremy Peters asked about a possible scenario in which one of the core companies at the mall goes out of business, and was sold to a “less cooperative” holding company. Would the property lines pose any problems in that case? Richardson replied that the property lines have nothing to do with what happens in that situation. There are legally binding documents between the mall developer and the property owner, he explained, that restrict what a retailer can or can’t do with their property. There would also be a dialogue between Simon Company and the retailer, he said, because Simon Company has more invested in Briarwood Mall than any individual retailer, and would “vigorously” protect its asset.

Saying that she frequented the mall, Eleanore Adenekan asked about handicapped parking spaces. Richardson assured her that all of the spaces are being designed to meet current Americans with Disabilities (ADA) codes.

In response to a query from Ken Clein, the project’s engineer – Gary Tressel, with the engineering firm of Hubbell, Roth & Clark in Bloomfield Hills – explained that the lights in the parking lot at Macy’s will be retrofitted with LED fixtures. The new parking area will also have LED fixtures.

Noting that it wasn’t directly related to this project, Wendy Woods asked about a new skating area at the mall. Richardson replied that an inside “faux ice” skating rink was installed in the mall near the JC Penney store. He described how skaters use special shoes with pads to simulate ice skating.

Outcome: The site plan and development agreement was unanimously approved. The proposal will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

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

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [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.

This zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13 that was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development. The council’s direction was to make recommendations to the city council by Oct. 1. Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown), which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu took the lead on this project.

Her report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of consultant's downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

Commissioners held a public hearing on the consultant’s recommendations that began on Oct. 15, 2013, and continued at their Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. They also discussed the recommendations at a Nov. 12 working session. Based on that discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson made revisions to Perdu’s original set of recommendations. Rampson drafted a memo and resolution containing these revised recommendations, which served as the basis for the Nov. 19 discussion. [.pdf of Nov. 19 memo and draft resolution]

Commissioners made several amendments during their deliberations on Nov. 19, and adopted the following recommendations, which will ultimately be part of the resolution to the city council. In general, the changes reflect a downzoning in an attempt to lessen the impact of development on adjacent residential neighborhoods:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a “shadow setback” requirement to limit shading on adjacent residential properties to the north.
• Revise the premium conditions to require compliance with Design Review Board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.
• Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as open space with landscape, increased energy efficiency certification, active ground floor use, balconies, and workforce housing.
• Review options in D1 and D2 districts with the housing & human services advisory board (HHSAB) for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects or through other funding mechanisms.
• Eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium.”
• Evaluate the downtown real estate market to determine the effectiveness of premium incentives every 2-5 years.

The only draft recommendation that was not discussed on Nov. 19 was for a parcel located at the southeast corner of Main and William (425 S. Main). A surface parking lot and a building that currently houses DTE offices are located there. Commissioners are expected to weigh two options for that site at their Dec. 3 meeting: (1) Rezone the parcel from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District; or (2) Change the maximum height in the Main Street Character District to 100 feet when within 20 feet of a residential zoning district and add a tower diagonal maximum and/or “shadow setback” requirement to limit shading on adjacent residential properties.

During a public hearing on the downtown zoning review that drew seven speakers, Andy Klein – who’s one of the owners of that Main and William site – spoke against rezoning the property, calling himself the “lone dissenter.” Other speakers at the hearing were in favor of downzoning.

The late hour (about 12:30 a.m.) persuaded most commissioners to adjourn rather than continue the discussion of this item. Jeremy Peters was the only commissioner voting against adjournment.

After the planning commission finalizes and approves its resolution regarding these downtown zoning recommendations, the resolution will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The intent is for the council to review the recommendations and give direction to the commission about which recommendations to implement. At that point, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee would work with city planning staff to craft actual ordinance language. Any specific ordinance changes would be reviewed by the full commission and ultimately would require city council approval before taking effect. That process would include additional opportunities for public input.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal. (Photos by the writer.)

In a non-voting item, the commission was presented with a possible change to its bylaws – that could clarify whether someone is allowed to speak more than once at the same public hearing. The bylaws themselves prescribe that changes to the bylaws can only be voted on after their presentation at a previous meeting. The city council would need to give final approval to any bylaws changes.

The following evening, on Nov. 7, the city council delayed consideration of an earlier bylaws change that the planning commission had approved (dealing with accessibility issues) – to allow for the possibility that the council could eventually approve both changes in one action.

The bylaws issue involving public hearings had stemmed from an Oct. 15, 2013 debate among commissioners about the ability of a person to address the commission more than one time during the same public hearing. The Oct. 15 public hearing involved the downtown zoning review that the planning commission was directed by the city council to complete by Oct. 1. That public hearing continued at the commission’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. It marked the third time in the past month that commissioners have heard public input on a consultant’s report with recommendations to changes in the city’s downtown zoning.

The commission didn’t vote on the zoning review item, however. It will be taken up again at a Nov. 12 work session, with an eye toward eventually making a recommendation to the city council.

The majority sentiment among the nearly dozen people who spoke to the commission about the zoning review on Nov. 6 was that the consultant’s recommendations did not adequately address the need for buffering between areas zoned D1 and those zoned residential. However, the owner of the building on property at the southeast corner of William and Main – where DTE offices are located – did not share that sentiment. He offered his perspective that the parcel should not have zoning applied that splits the parcel between D1 and D2 zoning, which is the consultant’s recommendation.

Planning commissioners did not engage in substantive discussion on the downtown zoning review. Instead they focused on what procedure to use in delaying consideration of a resolution that would make a recommendation to the city council. The inclination to delay stemmed from a request by two commissioners who were absent due to illness – Sabra Briere and Wendy Woods.

The outcome of the scheduling discussion was to postpone consideration until the commission’s next working session on Nov. 12 – which will start at 7 p.m. in a basement conference room at city hall. The public will be heard at the end of the commission’s working session discussion. Commissioners at the Nov. 6 meeting indicated that they’ll likely need more than just one additional discussion to come to a consensus on what the recommendation to the city council should be. They won’t be voting on anything at the Nov. 12 working session.

This report also includes material on the downtown zoning review from the meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board earlier in the day on Nov. 6. 

Traverwood Apartments

At its Nov. 6 meeting, the planning commission considered the Traverwood Apartments project – a complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. Commissioners had three separate items in front of them for consideration: a site plan and development agreement, a rezoning request, and a wetland use permit.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

The project is being developed by Ann Arbor-based First Martin Corp. Action had been postponed at the commission’s Sept. 17, 2013 meeting due to outstanding issues related to utilities, natural features, connections from the site to adjacent properties, and wetland mitigation. Those issues have been addressed, according to the city’s planning staff.

Subsequently, First Martin decided to donate the 2-acre high-quality woodland portion on the north end of the site to the city for parkland. It would be an addition to the Stapp Nature Area, which was created when First Martin sold another parcel to the city in 2003.

Due to that donation of land, the Traverwood Apartment site was reduced from 21.8 acres to 19.82 acres, which is currently vacant. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). The smaller lot needs to be rezoned R4D.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The complex will include a 6,150-square-foot community building near the center of the site, with a leasing office, meetings rooms, a small kitchen and an exercise facility. An outdoor pool with patio will be located adjacent to the building. There will also be a play area with playground structures and benches.

The project could be constructed in phases, with the first phase consisting of 11 buildings and the community center. The site will include 336 parking spaces – 152 spaces inside garages and 184 surface parking spaces.

According to a staff memo, the property has several significant natural features. About 40 landmark trees will be removed for construction. An additional 165 trees will be planted on the property to mitigate the trees that will be removed. The owner will also put in a woodchip path connecting to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area to the north.

There are three wetlands on the site, and one will be removed. The owner must secure a wetland use permit from the city and a permit for wetland disturbance from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. The project includes removing 1,800 square feet of a regulated wetland, which currently leads from a natural pond to a regional detention basin. An underground piping system will be installed there. In addition, a new 2,700-square-foot wetland will be created at the southern edge of the preserved native woodland on the north end of the site.

Traverwood Apartments: Commissioner Discussion

City planner Jill Thacher reviewed the details of the project for the commission, noting that all outstanding review issues had been addressed. Thacher concluded her remarks by pointing out that the donation of land was scheduled for action by the city council before the end of the year. She stressed that the land donation was an entirely separate transaction from site plan review process.

No one addressed the commission during the public hearing.

First the commission considered the rezoning [ORL to R4D] and the site plan with its associated development agreement. That was followed by a vote on the wetland use permit.

Bona Bona led off by asking about the pavement plan and the sidewalks. At the podium available to answer questions was Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting. She thanked him for doing the sidewalk identification drawing, saying it was tedious but made it easier to visualize. She wanted to know about sidewalks adjacent to a parking space – where the front of vehicles would extend out over the sidewalk, reducing width available for pedestrians. How does that work, she asked, with a 7-foot-wide sidewalk?

Ophoff noted that the standard sidewalk width is 5 feet, and he indicated the 7-foot width is meant to accommodate the possibility of vehicular overhang. Bona complimented that aspect of the development. Bona also inquired about the wood chip paths, and whether they will end up connecting with a sidewalk in every case or to the path system on the adjacent park property. Ophoff described the drawing as informal, with the actual layout to be done in the field – as a joint exercise with city park staff.

City of Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson and Mike Martin of First Martin Corp.

Citing the project’s stormwater management features, Ken Clein asked if the intent was to undertake the southern half of the project as phase 1, with phase 2 contingent on marketing of the buildings in phase 1. Mike Martin, with First Martin Corp., indicated that the intent was to build the whole project in one phase, but there’s phasing described in order to give First Martin some flexibility.

Clein also inquired about the trash pickup areas. He asked Ophoff to review how that would work. He wanted an explanation about the distance of the pickup locations from the buildings.

Ophoff described how the types of containers used by the city for trash and recycling required access for trucks to be able to pull straight in as well as to access from the side. So he’d worked with city solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie to make sure that the trucks would have adequate access. He ventured that if a development has more than 30 units, it’s a requirement that such dumpsters be provided. Clein expressed concern that it might result in a bit of a walk for some residents to the trash receptacles.

Jeremy Peters said he was glad to see that the petitioner was able to provide information about the sidewalks that had been requested last time. He was also glad that wetland mitigation has been sorted out with the city staff.

Kirk Westphal asked about a possible impact to the Leslie Woods Nature Area. He sought confirmation that there was not an adverse impact to a steep slope. Ophoff described the tests that had been done to determine whether the site contained a woodland or not – and it did not.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning [ORL to R4D] and the site plan with its associated development agreement. That was followed by a unanimous vote on the wetland use permit.

Planning Commission Bylaws

Commissioners at their Nov. 6 meeting weighed a bylaws revision that would attempt to clarify the rules for speaking turns at public hearings. The commissioners had debated the question at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, when commission chair Kirk Westphal had indicated that speakers who addressed the commission during the public hearing at that meeting would not be able to speak again when the matter was postponed and the public hearing was continued.

The idea of the bylaws change would be to clarify the definition of a public hearing so that when a matter is postponed, its public hearing is continued – as opposed to starting a fresh public hearing. Applying a time limit of three minutes for each speaker would effectively rule out a situation where a person could speak multiple times in a public hearing on the same matter.

But the bylaws revision being considered by the commission could explicitly rule out multiple speaking turns by the same person at a public hearing. The possible revision, which was considered but not decided at the Nov. 6 meeting, also provides a mechanism for an exception.

The proposed revision, which commissioner Jeremy Peters had crafted for consideration by his colleagues, would add two items to the rules on public hearings (Article VIII). [Italics indicates a portion of the proposal that at least some commissioners seemed inclined to delete from the new sections]:

Section 6. If an item on the agenda which has a public hearing attached to it is postponed or continued at a later date, the public hearing on the later date will be deemed to be a continuation of that original public hearing.

Section 7. Members of the public may only be allowed to speak once during the entirety of a single public hearing, but shall not be precluded from speaking at multiple public hearings on separate agenda items. The Chair may entertain a motion from the Commission to modify this rule to allow a second turn at comment, as it pertains to an individual agenda item, as the Commission deems appropriate, by majority vote.

The revisions would clarify a process that was debated by commissioners on Oct. 15, during the middle of a public hearing on downtown zoning changes. Before that hearing began, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal stated that the hearing would likely continue at a future meeting, but that speakers would be allowed only one turn during the entire hearing – either that night, or at a subsequent meeting. Midway through the hearing, Sabra Briere raised an objection to Westphal’s ruling, and commissioners spent about 20 minutes debating the issue.

During that Oct. 15 debate, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the commission’s bylaws are silent on this issue. The commission ultimately voted to allow for people to speak more than once when the public hearing is continued, over the objection of Westphal, Diane Giannola and Wendy Woods.

The commission will likely vote on the proposed revisions at some upcoming meeting.

The bylaws were most recently revised at the commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting. Those changes related to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. The changes approved by commissioners on July 16 appeared the city council’s Nov. 7 agenda for approval. However, the council postponed consideration of those changes (until Dec. 16) in light of this possible new bylaws revision. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws on Nov. 7 city council agenda]

Planning Commission Bylaws: Commission Discussion

Under the bylaws themselves, the mechanism for changing the planning commission bylaws is first to present changes at a meeting of the commission, and to vote on those changes at a subsequent meeting. So the Nov. 6 discussion was not meant to lead to a vote that night. Commissioners engaged in considerable back-and-forth on the question.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson summarized the proposed change to the bylaws by noting that commissioner Jeremy Peters had drafted language to explain what it means when a public hearing is continued – for example, when the matter for which the public hearing is being held is postponed by the commission. A continued public hearing would be the same public hearing that started at the previous meeting, she explained: If you speak at the public hearing that started at one meeting, then when the public hearing is continued at the next meeting, you wouldn’t have an opportunity to speak again, she explained.

That new bylaw doesn’t preclude a person speaking at that meeting on other topics, she said. So the proposed bylaws change does allow people to speak multiple times at the same meeting, just not at the same public hearing. The commission’s customary practice in the past has been to allow people to speak more than once at a public hearing on the same project, she said. Rampson noted that the city council’s rule on speaking turns doesn’t limit a speaker to one turn, but rather three minutes. She ventured that if a person spoke 1.5 minutes they might be able to speak later for another 1.5 minutes at a city council public hearing. No one has ever done that, she said. Westphal quipped: “City council thanks you for that invitation!”

Rampson said the intent is to clarify what the rules are, and the point is to make it crystal clear. A provision to allow people to speak again is included, Westphal noted, if the commission takes a majority vote.

Peters stressed that the proposed change in the bylaws didn’t arise out of an interest in limiting comment but rather an interest in providing clarity and a desire to match the practice at city council as closely as possible. That way a clear standard would exist for all public bodies.

Commissioner discussion turned to the upcoming work session on Nov. 12 and how the possible continuation of a public hearing on the downtown zoning review would be handled. Ken Clein ventured that the public hearing would not be continued for the working session. Public hearings are only for the commission’s business meetings, he said. Westphal concurred, saying that it would simply be called public commentary.

Peters wondered if it would be of interest to get a legal opinion with respect to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act – on the question of not having the public hearing at the working session. He didn’t think it would violate the act, but wondered if a legal opinion would be useful.

Rampson indicated that she didn’t think a legal opinion was necessary: As long as an opportunity is provided for members of the public to address the commission in some fashion – not necessarily in the context of a formal public hearing – the conditions of the OMA are met. Reasonable limits can be put on time and extent of public comment, she said.

Clein appreciated the work Peters had done, and stated that he was in favor of creating bylaws consistent with expectations of other public bodies. He echoed Peters’ sentiment that the idea is not to limit public input. Paras Parekh worried about possible time lags between continuations of the same public hearing. Changes to a project might take place that could cause people to want to weigh in again. Peters indicated that the provision of an exception was meant to address that possibility. Rampson pointed out that if a project has taken longer than six months, the public hearing would need to be re-noticed.

Before the Nov. 6 meeting started, planning commissioner Paras Parekh (left) talked with Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting. Ophoff was at the meeting to answer questions about the Traverwood Apartments project.

Commissioner discussion then turned to the possibility of making the planning commission’s bylaws more consistent with the city council’s rule – by not explicitly stating a limit on the number of speaking turns. Peters ventured that to achieve that parallel with the city council’s approach, this clause could be eliminated: “… may only be allowed to speak once during the entirety of a single public hearing, but …”

If the 3-minute rule, as applied by the city council, prevented people from speaking on more than one occasion, that should be sufficient for the planning commission, too. Clein ventured that Peters’ approach made sense. Diane Giannola noted that it made sense, but was not clear to others.

Westphal ventured that it made sense to match the council’s approach, but it sounded like the council’s rules are not ideal. Peters said he wanted  to withdraw the proposal.

Rampson suggested that commissioners could take time at their Nov. 12 working session to hammer out the language, but that people had now been put on notice. Westphal said he hoped the bylaws change could be voted on at the next regular meeting, which falls on Nov. 19.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Downtown Zoning Review

The Nov. 6 meeting marked the third time in the past month that planning commissioners heard public input on a consultant’s report with recommendations to changes in the city’s downtown zoning. The item on the commission’s Nov. 6 agenda included the continuation of a public hearing that began on Oct. 15, 2013.

A consultant’s report had been originally presented at the commission’s Oct. 8, 2013 working session. [.pdf of downtown zoning report] [.pdf of Appendix A: city council resolution regarding zoning review] [.pdf Appendix B: list of downtown development projects since 2000] [.pdf of Appendix C: public input results]

In general, the recommendations – which were prepared by consultants ENP & Associates – call for some sections of the downtown to be downzoned, to create better transitions between residential neighborhoods and property that’s zoned for denser development. The recommendations also call for mandatory approval from the city’s design review board for any projects that are seeking premiums.

The recommendations reviewed on Oct. 15 and Nov. 6 include: (1) rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface); (2) rezone the municipal center parcel (city hall and Justice Center) from PL (public land) to D2; (3) reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 130 feet; (4) rezone the D-zoned parcels on the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue (where city hall is located) from East Huron 2 Character District to East Huron 1 Character District; (5) change the maximum height in the Main Street Character District to 150 feet when within 20 feet of a residentially zoned area and add a tower diagonal requirement of 50% of the maximum parcel diagonal; and (6) rezone the south half of the parcel at 425 S. Main (between William and Packard) from D1 to D2.

In addition, several recommendations relate to premiums: (1) require approval of the design review board for a project to be eligible for any premium; (2) revise the residential premium to be more specific about the types of units that will be eligible for premiums; (3) revise the affordable housing premium so that the provision of affordable housing is mandatory for receiving any premiums; (4) eliminate the affordable housing 900% FAR (floor area ratio) “super premium”; and (5) include other types of premiums in addition to those currently available.

This zoning evaluation began earlier this year, following a city council directive to the planning commission on April 1, 2o13 that was prompted in part by the controversial 413 E. Huron development. The council’s direction was to make a recommendation to the city council by Oct. 1. Planning consultant ENP & Associates was hired to gather public input and evaluate certain aspects of downtown zoning known as A2D2, which was adopted in 2009. ENP’s Erin Perdu has taken the lead on this project.

The commission will eventually vote on a final set of recommendations to be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Downtown Zoning Review: DDA Meeting

The Nov. 6 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – which took place at noon, or seven hours earlier than the planning commission’s meeting – also featured some discussion of the ongoing zoning review. That discussion is included in this report.

Reporting out from the downtown citizens advisory council, Ray Detter reviewed what he called the “mistakes” that were made during the A2D2 process that resulted in the current downtown zoning adopted in 2009. The CAC had based its analysis on a basic approach that would minimize the extent to which high-rise developments create negative impacts on neighbors in terms of height, scale, massing, shading and harm to natural and historic resources. Those are all considerations already in the city’s downtown plan, he said. The consultant for the review, Erin Perdu, has done a good job, Detter said. He added that he was going to call the issues “mistakes,” which he’d identify subsequently because he thought they were, in fact, mistakes that had resulted from the “rush” to enact the A2D2 zoning.

The first mistake, Detter said, was that the parcel currently occupied by the University of Michigan Credit Union [formerly the Ann Arbor News building, at the southwest corner of Division and Huron], should have been zoned D2 not D1. He noted that D2 has a height limit of 60 feet, compared to D1, which has a height limit of 180 feet. The parcel is clearly in an interface area, he contended, across the street from residential and historical properties in the Old Fourth Ward that require protection. That’s also true for the properties to the west of the UM Credit Union along the south side of Ann Street all the way to North Fourth Avenue, he said.

The second mistake, according to Detter, had been made obvious by the 413 E. Huron proposal, he said. The parking lot east of Sloan Plaza and west of Campus Inn should not be zoned D1 [which in that part of D1 zoning has an overlay reducing the height limit to 150 feet]. Rather, it should be D2 or some appropriate hybrid, he said, with a height limit of 120 feet and some combination of setback and diagonal requirements that keep it at least 25 feet away from Sloan Plaza. Detter said the goal was to prevent a structure from being built that would destroy the livability of Sloan Plaza or to the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. Detter said that the owner of Campus Inn and the parking lot in question, Dennis Dahlmann, supports the zoning change.

The recommendation by the consultant, Detter said, is to include the frontage of Huron Street on its north side all the way to Ashley in this reduced zoning. Detter allowed that it was not part of the charge given by the city council to consider these properties, but the Ahmo’s property at the northwest corner of Division and Huron should not be zoned D1 with a height limit of 180 feet, Detter said. Rather, it should have some kind of hybrid zoning with a limit of 120 feet appropriate to the sites across from it, which Detter called one of the most historic sites in the city.

The third mistake that had been made in the 2009 A2D2 zoning, Detter said, was the property at the southeast corner of Main and William streets across from Ashley Mews. That should not be zoned D1 at 180 feet, Detter said, but rather D2 or some hybrid with reduced height and setbacks and diagonal requirements that would protect the historic properties on East William Street, he said. There are other mistakes as well, Detter said.

About the changes recommended in the consultant’s report, Detter said that the Ann Arbor community “wants this.” He also said it’s important not to continue to award premiums for additional floor area ratio (FAR), if the premiums depend on things that “we don’t want.” Among those things he said that the community doesn’t want is student housing. What the community does want are things like more open space, and perhaps affordable housing, Detter concluded.

DDA board member Roger Hewitt responded to Detter’s remarks by focusing on Detter’s contention that the A2D2 process had been “rushed.” Having served on a steering committee for the A2D2 process, Hewitt said, it was not rushed compared to what’s going on now – it had lasted several years. Hewitt stated that the A2D2 process was certainly not a rushed process. The decisions that Detter was describing as “mistakes” had not been described as mistakes at the time, Hewitt noted. The A2D2 decisions had broad-based community support, Hewitt said. At that point Detter interjected that he wanted to respond to Hewitt, but board chair Sandi Smith told him that of course he could not.

Mayor John Hieftje followed up a bit later in the meeting on Hewitt’s remarks, saying that the A2D2 process took around six years. He pointed to the work of a downtown residential task force that was established in 2004, Hieftje characterized the amount of public input and workshops that went on for a number of years as unprecedented. At the time, the community had reached a consensus, he said. Hieftje allowed that, as Detter was pointing out, “we didn’t get everything right,” but he said not every detail was expected to be right. Some of those details are being worked through now, Hieftje said.

Downtown Zoning Review: Planning Commission Public Hearing

At the planning commission meeting, Ray Detter reprised the comments he’d made earlier in the day at the DDA board meeting. Several other people commented as well.

Norm Tyler told the commission he wanted to share some information that had first been put together by Doug Kelbaugh, a professor of architecture and urban planning at the University Michigan. Tyler showed the planning commission a superposed map of zoning revisions.

Norm Tyler.

[It's a similar map to the one described by Kelbaugh at the Feb. 19, 2013 city council meeting during his commentary on the 413 E. Huron project. Tyler owns a property just to the north of the 413 E. Huron project.] Tyler said he was speaking on behalf of Kelbaugh. The idea was based on simplifying the boundaries between D1 and other zoning designations.

It included a new D1.5 designation north of Huron Street as a transition area, Tyler said. A height limit there was recommended of 120 feet with a 10-foot setback from sidewalks. The existing D2 is used elsewhere as a transition between the core and surrounding residential areas. The proposal has been discussed by a group of representatives from the downtown and near downtown neighborhoods, he said. Tyler called the map a consensus map that had evolved from that discussion. He offered the map as a reference guide for the conversation.

Ethel Potts said that there’d been some substantial changes recommended by the consultant. She said the consultant was very good and managed a series of meetings quite open to the public. But Potts claimed that the council had limited the scope of the review, so the report is very limited. She saw this report as the first stage of a comprehensive evaluation of the D1 and D2 zoning designations. There are other locations – besides those included in the scope laid out by the council – at the edge of downtown where a buffer is needed, Potts said. Amendments are needed to the D2 zoning definition, because it does not function as a buffer. The flaws need to be corrected, she said, otherwise we will continue to have controversy.

Ted Annis introduced himself as a resident of 414 S. Main (Ashley Mews). He supported the proposed zoning map that was shown by Norm Tyler. That map solves a nasty problem for him, Annis said, allowing that he was looking after his own interests – because he had just bought a condo. Annis had a sense that the planning commission is reluctant to change the Perdu report, but he reminded the commissioners that the people addressing the commission that evening were “the neighborhood speaking to you.”

Andy Klein introduced himself as one of the owners of the DTE building at Main and William – he was the “K” in KRG Investments, he said. His father had developed the property in the early 1980s when interest rates were over 18%, and took a considerable risk to develop it. Klein said he’d built in the community for 25 years. He’d participated in the interview process done by the consultant, and had done the online surveys. Throughout his participation, he said, he’d talked about how he believed in development that is harmonious with surrounding areas. But he thought that cutting the allowable height of part of the property (through the split D1/D2 zoning) by 66% was a harsh reaction to recent undesirable projects. The split D1/D2 zoning would create an awkward situation for future development, he said.

So Klein supported an earlier recommendation by the consultant, which maintained the D1 zoning but reduced the height to 150 feet and used diagonals as a way to control the shape of the building. D2 is inconsistent with the other three buildings on the corner, he said. The consultant’s earlier recommendation had been a reasonable solution. It’s not possible to know what will happen with the property, but it’s important to preserve flexibility, he said.

Reducing the zoning could have a significant impact on taxes and limit creativity. Creativity is “what development is all about,” Klein said. The parcel could house a corporate headquarters, or become a landmark building that’s a gateway to the city. Applying D2 zoning there is not urban planning, he said, but rather a knee-jerk reaction to previous projects. He hoped that planning commissioners would consider a reasonable solution that benefits everyone.

Steve Bellock told the commissioners that he owned the 11-unit historic home immediately to the north of the 413 E. Huron project. He had loads of questions about how a town like Ann Arbor could come up with a building like 413 E. Huron, which was 150 feet tall. He had asked for a sun and shade study to see what effect the building would have, and contended that the study showed at 12 noon his house would be in shade 12 months of the year. That’s a 150-foot tall building without any regard for neighbors, he said. He cited the city council deliberations on the 413 E. Huron project, when Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had said she’d heard 9 hours of testimony of people only talking about how they didn’t like the project, but councilmembers voted for it because they feared the city was going to be sued. He ticked through the councilmembers who voted against the 413 E. Huron project, who had just won re-election: Briere, Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Marcia Higgins had voted for it the project. [She was a Ward 4 incumbent but lost the Democratic primary in August to Jack Eaton.]

Christine Crockett introduced herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Association. She responded to Klein’s support for maintaining the denser zoning on the grounds that it allowed more creativity, by saying that she didn’t think developers had shown much creativity. Instead she called the result “big shoeboxes in the sky.” Reconsidering the zoning now is good process and good planning, Crockett said. Zoning isn’t a matter of maximizing property value, she said. She didn’t have any cash in the “development game,” but she’d made an investment in time and effort and thought. She encouraged the commission to consider the review with great thoughtfulness. Ann Arbor’s zoning should allow for development while respecting the special atmosphere of this community, she said.

Gwen Nystuen told commissioners she lived on the edge of the South University district. That area had been left out of consideration in the current zoning review, she complained. Downtown still has places where there are no D2 buffers. She was very much in support of the map that Norm Tyler had shown.

Ellen Ramsburgh, who serves on the city’s historic district commission, echoed Nystuen’s remarks. This is the beginning of the discussion about problems that are inherent in the zoning, Ramsburgh said. She described some of the impacts of recent development on historic resources – The Varsity and how it affects the adjacent First Baptist Church. And 413 E. Huron affects the historic district of Ann and Division, she said. She generally agreed with the consultant’s recommendations about Ann and Huron streets. But the recommendations for Main and William will cause the same problems for that neighborhood as the 413 E. Huron project caused, and would affect the sustainability of that historic neighborhood, she said. Ramsburgh supported having a member of the HDC on the design review board. She reminded planning commissioners that in the past year, the HDC had sent two resolutions to the planning commission and the city council about the importance of upholding the historic district ordinance as well as the city’s zoning ordinance.

Jeff Crockett supported the map that Norm Tyler had presented earlier. He thought that the current zoning review is a good step, but said there are some further considerations that need to be made. He contended that the 413 E. Huron project had illustrated how city regulations offered no protection from impact on landmark features, and how traffic safety did not have an impact on the approval process. He asked the commission to consider the loopholes in the planning process that work to the advantage of developers.

Eleanor Linn introduced herself as a resident of Forest Court, in the South University area, which is zoned R4C, and abuts properties zoned D2 and D1. She thought those adjacent properties they should all be rezoned to D2. An interface is needed wherever D-type zoning meets residential properties, she said. Requiring a stepback on higher floors, but only setbacks on ground level, can’t preserve the usability of first-floor residential, she said, because it deprives residents of air and light.

Cy Hufano told commissioners he’d been a resident of Ann Arbor for 67 years, and he now lives at 505 E. Huron (Sloan Plaza) as a new resident there. He hadn’t previously been as involved in issues of city government and community as he has since moving downtown. When he speaks at these settings, he said, he doesn’t come at it from the technical side. He told commissioners they have a real struggle with balance. He encouraged them to focus on the balance between what’s good for citizens as human beings and what’s good for the city as a government and an entity. There’d been an enormous amount of human response to the 413 E. Huron project, he said, and his sense of it is that it’s not going to go away. He was not advocating against profit. But he encouraged commissioners to think about the balance in their deliberations. He cautioned against taking positions that are compromised by threats of being sued.

Downtown Zoning Review: Planning Commission Discussion

Due to the absence of Sabra Briere and Wendy Woods, commissioners were inclined to postpone a vote. Their back-and-forth centered on whether to use their upcoming working session, on Nov. 12, to deliberate on their recommendation to the city council. That meant that the originally planned topic for the session – a review of legal issues by assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald – would be shifted to a future working session. That’s what the commission decided to do.

Outcome: Commissioners postponed consideration of the downtown zoning review until their Nov. 12 working session. 

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

Absent: Sabra Briere, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [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.